Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wiffleball

Watcing the Trump Presser Now

Recommended Posts

"Most important of all, the legitimate and effective tactics for opposing Trump are being utterly drowned by these irrational, desperate, ad hoc crusades that have no cogent strategy and make his opponents appear increasingly devoid of reason and gravity. Right now, Trumps opponents are behaving as media critic Adam Johnson described: as ideological jelly fish, floating around aimlessly and lost, desperately latching on to whatever barge randomly passes by."

Do jelly fish tend to latch on to barges? Or is he thinking of a barnacle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rest assured they'll remain ignorant of their ignorance. Of that, you can be sure.

 

The only thing assured is your ignorance that you support a Congressman David Dilbeck-esque pee pee drinker.

 

:music_guitarred:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only thing assured is your ignorance that you support a Congressman David Dilbeck-esque pee pee drinker.

 

:music_guitarred:

 

And your candidate munches carpets, sells her country for millions and got people killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And your candidate munches carpets, sells her country for millions and got people killed.

Yeah but she isn't a pee pee drinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure she's gotten a lemon glaze before.

 

Trump gets one for free, with every 10th visit to the tanning salon. Membership has its rewards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only thing assured is your ignorance that you support a Congressman David Dilbeck-esque pee pee drinker.

 

:music_guitarred:

So, attempted or may have? Mind clearing that up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Government ethics chief blasts Trump over plans for business

 

 

Speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington, Walter M. Shaub said Trump's plan to separate himself from his business interests doesn't follow the tradition of presidents from the past four decades.
"This is not a blind trust," he said. "It's not even close."

Shaub's office is not an enforcement agency, but it advises executive branch officials about how to avoid conflicts. It's the office combing through the financial holdings of Trump's Cabinet nominees to look for problems.

 

While federal conflict of interest rules prohibit executive branch officials from holding assets that could clash with their official duties, the president and vice president are exempt. Trump has seized on this point while discussing his business, saying the president "can't have a conflict of interest."

 

 

 

The emoluments clause of the constitution could cause him problems and nothing he announced today would help him avoid future issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's particularly troubling is HOW the Intelligence Community got

it's information about Trump's proclivities for WaterSports and such.

 

Turns out John McCain (you know a Republican Senator) got the

information from our greatest European Ally - British Intelligence.

- Who got that information from one of their assets in Italy.

 

Did McCain use it to shiitcan Trump? Nope, he gave it to the Intel

community to vet.

 

Not that any of the mouthbreathers herein (nor Trump himself or his staff)

would bother to educate themselves on the matter.

 

So, to hear them talk, and believe them, we have to believe that Trump's

deviancy and exposure to being compromised by a hostile government was

'made up' by:

1) European Intelligence Agencies

2) British Intelligence Angencies and

3) A long-sitting honest to God, War Hero

REPUBLICAN Senator.

4)...Not to mention of course, the majority of global media.

 

AND, in fact, the only ones telling the truth around here are: THE RUSSIANS! :doublethumbsup:

- Who denied that they had ANYthing to do with hacking or influencing the election.

- And whom Trump agreed with and defended - until, or course, he could do so no longer.

 

 

Sure, THAT seems like the much more reasonable line of thought.

 

It's pretty much the same as when Trump and his tards cried about the election being rigged -

unless, of course, Trump won, in which case, it wasn't.

 

Just like he repeatedly cited "fake/hacked news" (Remember "I love Wikileaks!"?)

when it worked for him - but as soon as a story DOESN'T work for him, it's fake news

and a crime to even talk about it.

 

Think we've seen this one before...

 

I mean, you would have to be deliberately obtuse and patently stupid to believe that the entire world essentially (EXCEPT RUSSIA!) has lines up against poor Donny Trump.

 

...And where again is that secret cyber/hacking stuff that only Donald knows that he promised to share with us a week ago?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, attempted or may have? Mind clearing that up?

 

I'm unsure of what you speak, but I'll just choose the option that states this is all verified fact. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm unsure of what you speak, but I'll just choose the option that states this is all verified fact. :thumbsup:

Did the russinas attempt to compromise trump, or they may have compromised him. There is a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone verify this?

 

I read in NYTimes that Trump refused to answer repeated questions about whether he or anyone in his team had contact with Russia during his campaign.

 

Seems like kind of a big deal, no? If you didn't then just say "no!" :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone verify this?

 

I read in NYTimes that Trump refused to answer repeated questions about whether he or anyone in his team had contact with Russia during his campaign.

 

Seems like kind of a big deal, no? If you didn't then just say "no!" :dunno:

Yes...he rambled about other things and didn't answer when pressed on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...he rambled about other things and didn't answer when pressed on it.

Well isn't that pretty damning? Just answer the focking question if there's absolutely nothing to this and you've got nothing to hide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't that pretty damning? Just answer the focking question if there's absolutely nothing to this and you've got nothing to hide

Of course it is. Doesn't want to get caught on the record.

The BBC has more out this evening too This one isn't going to die quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't that pretty damning? Just answer the focking question if there's absolutely nothing to this and you've got nothing to hide

He had business there. He's an international businessman. What's the problem? You think they went THERE to hash out their plot? Get a grip tin foil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's particularly troubling is HOW the Intelligence Community got

it's information about Trump's proclivities for WaterSports and such.

 

Turns out John McCain (you know a Republican Senator) got the

information from our greatest European Ally - British Intelligence. Wrong. Guy is a political operative

 

BACK IN OCTOBER, a political operative and former employee of the British intelligence agency MI6 was being paid by Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump (before that, he was paid by anti-Trump Republicans).

 

 

This info has been making the rounds and in December McCain demanded someone take it seriously. The Intel Chiefs decided to give Trump a briefing on it. Curious since this sh!t has been floating around and even more curious since they may be replaced soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't that pretty damning? Just answer the focking question if there's absolutely nothing to this and you've got nothing to hide

 

Q: Did you wipe the server?

 

A: What, with a cloth?

 

Yet you voted for her despite this clearly damning evidence.

 

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Q: Did you wipe the server?

 

A: What, with a cloth?

 

Yet you voted for her despite this clearly damning evidence.

 

:rolleyes:

POW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC has more out this evening too This one isn't going to die quickly.

 

You're obsessed with BBC and the wording on that makes me think the guy took Viagra. If it lasts more than 4 hours, tell your boyfriend to seek medical attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well isn't that pretty damning? Just answer the focking question if there's absolutely nothing to this and you've got nothing to hide

he should plead the 5th :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BACK IN OCTOBER, a political operative and former employee of the British intelligence agency MI6 was being paid by Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump (before that, he was paid by anti-Trump Republicans).

 

 

This info has been making the rounds and in December McCain demanded someone take it seriously. The Intel Chiefs decided to give Trump a briefing on it. Curious since this sh!t has been floating around and even more curious since they may be replaced soon.

You really should read more...not from Drudge and Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're obsessed with BBC and the wording on that makes me think the guy took Viagra. If it lasts more than 4 hours, tell your boyfriend to seek medical attention.

I said the BBC. You are the one obsessed with ruining what was a funny joke by another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of that isn't true? Go read this............no pictures though. Let me know if you need help......

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

As I said...you should read more. Check out the BBC more details there that it's not just one source.

But carry on with taking opinion pieces as fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he does increase focus on hacking defense. I would like to see what we currently do about hacking defense and what the new administration considers more or better defense. Is it just spend more on it? Are there better specialists out there that need to be brought in?

We'll see, we're going to build this big ass electronic wall, but don't worry, Russia is paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretry evident that Obama did nothing about cyber security during his tenure despite numerous warnings and actual hacks. Another fail. Too busy worrying about what bathroom misfits will use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said...you should read more. Check out the BBC more details there that it's not just one source.

But carry on with taking opinion pieces as fact

 

Go read the guy's other pieces; he's not a right winger. Seems objective to me.

 

Also, that stuff has been out there for awhile and no one, not one news agency wanted to run with it. You guys want to believe it so much but maybe it's a bunch of unsubstantiated horsesh!t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Go read the guy's other pieces; he's not a right winger. Seems objective to me.

 

Also, that stuff has been out there for awhile and no one, not one news agency wanted to run with it. You guys want to believe it so much but maybe it's a bunch of unsubstantiated horsesh!t?

Again...despite your denial...the guy running with the pizza gate nonsense lecturing on this is quite laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CNN thinks their off the hook because they didn't actually report what was in the leak? They certainly pointed people towards it. Just as bad. They gave it legitimacy. No other major media did. Why? Because it was obvious BS that couldn't be substantiated. CNN is either incompetent or an accomplice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again...despite your denial...the guy running with the pizza gate nonsense lecturing on this is quite laughable.

The guy that ran with Trump peeing in a bed because Obama slept in it lecturing is even funnier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CNN thinks their off the hook because they didn't actually report what was in the leak? They certainly pointed people towards it. Just as bad. They gave it legitimacy. No other major media did. Why? Because it was obvious BS that couldn't be substantiated. CNN is either incompetent or an accomplice.

Yes. When CNN reported that Obama and Trump had received a dossier, it gave legitimacy to the fact that Obama and Trump had received a dossier.

 

By the way, Fox News is just as guilty of behaving similarly. For example, I saw where they reported that Clemson beat Alabama on Monday, which gave legitimacy to the fact that Clemson beat Alabama on Monday. They should be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again...despite your denial...the guy running with the pizza gate nonsense lecturing on this is quite laughable.

 

Ah..........the closed off mind of the Left. Enjoy your BBC :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. When CNN reported that Obama and Trump had received a dossier, it gave legitimacy to the fact that Obama and Trump had received a dossier.

 

By the way, Fox News is just as guilty of behaving similarly. For example, I saw where they reported that Clemson beat Alabama on Monday, which gave legitimacy to the fact that Clemson beat Alabama on Monday. They should be ashamed.

Nice try. Once again, overlooking the fact that CNN was the only one. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CNN thinks their off the hook because they didn't actually report what was in the leak? They certainly pointed people towards it. Just as bad. They gave it legitimacy. No other major media did. Why? Because it was obvious BS that couldn't be substantiated. CNN is either incompetent or an accomplice.

 

Both.

 

No media would publish this horsesh!t but CNN. You know them.......the ones that helped Hillary rig the Democratic Nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Both.

 

No media would publish this horsesh!t but CNN. You know them.......the ones that helped Hillary rig the Democratic Nomination.

That's the crew. I wonder why our geeks on the left defend them? They helped them lose the election. Could have had Bernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×