Donald Trump
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
- Status
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Who said you did
Your blather is confusing.
Their irrational hatred for Trump will always blind them to facts, common sense etc.....
They can only abide by the top quote.
If they did, then the house would have got their **** together and done a proper case for prosecution, as it is they didn't, so Trump gets a free pass from the house.
Here we go, CNN/MSNBC script in, Happy Conspiracy Theory day.
Trump jokes and trolls. That is the articles take on what he meant. Equally you could claim that he is joking about building the wall and having mexico pay for it. I suspect the number of times he has now mentioned about standing for a third term and then his daughter being POTUS for another three adds up to as many times as he has mentioned the wall now.
So how do we know which bits he is joking on as you take everything else he says as gospel? Whereas we know 84% of what he says is a lie.
You forget they have a explanation for that as well. You dont take the President literally, you have to interpret his meaning somehow...... and when that doesnt work you dont believe your eyes and ears.
PS what happened to all the talk about underground sensors under the wall he was bragging about? Guess it went the same direction of Mexico going to pay for it because we dont hear about it anymore.
EDIT - my bad, i forgot that idea got superseded by the moat with snakes and alligators.
Last edited:
I see CNN are helping Trump again....but they don't even know it shakes head
https://twitter.com/SteveKrak/status/1221988232528826369
https://twitter.com/SteveKrak/status/1221988232528826369
They can only abide by the top quote.
Q=What do you call a CNN reader with 2 brain cells?
A=pregnant
It's quite funny at Trump supporters in that tweet @deuse getting all uppity about the arrogance and dismissiveness from CNN (can't watch the video now but I am not questioning it), as if Trump hasn't been arrogant or dismissive his whole life.
It's like with Johnson and Trump as well - it's fine if their guy does the lying, it's just an issue when others do it.
It's like with Johnson and Trump as well - it's fine if their guy does the lying, it's just an issue when others do it.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Isn't CNN rated mostly factual but left leaning? What is with the CCN chip on shoulder?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 1,304
Yes its more factually accurate than Fox but it's still a pretty awful network to be fair. American's got it rough when it comes to decent news networks, the BBC is some kind of unbiased nirvana relative to US networks.
Yes
The chip on the shoulder comes from a wholesale rejection of objective reality.
Pretty much this. The opinion show hosts on both CNN and Fox are pretty difficult to watch.
Well there is a double standard, because Obama did the same thing, what you are failing to understand is the President is an enforcer, i've said it several times now, but i don't think you quite understand what that means. Obama used executive privilege with the gun running scandal, do i think Obama was secretly working with gangs to get them guns, no, its very unlikely, isn't it. There isn't 5x the evidence, a couple of examples would be the recent audio by Parnas, everyone was using that as evidence that the president should be removed, but he's allowed to fire an ambassador. How that helps the case, ive no idea.
Another would be the GAO statement, apparently Trump broke the law, but was Obama removed from office for breaking it 7 times? No.
See above. That behaviour did happen, i certainly wasn't up in arms and thinking Obama should be removed, it's the whole enforcer thing again, they are allowed to step outside the law slightly if they think its for the greater good.
You'll need to be more specific, why don't you call out Schiff's lying regarding impeachment?
Surveys from voters say otherwise, consumer confidence in the economy was 40% when Obama left office, its now 60%. The US debt is 20 trillion, Trump isn't responsible for that, that's decades of losing ground to China.
Barrons, WSJ, Institutional Investor would all disagree with your assertion that the economy is in the dregs, its literally the best economy in the world at the moment, and that's backed up by stock market confidence, consumer and business confidence. The Chinese Coronavirus could unravel all that though, will you blaming Trump if the virus does spook the markets?
I've posted about this book several times in the Trump thread.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stealth-Wa..._1?keywords=stealth+war&qid=1580239715&sr=8-1
Read it then come back to me about China. What's happening now should have happened a long time ago, Obama was told over and over to start doing something about it but didn't, why? Because it would have hurt him politically. Trump doesn't care about being hurt politically it seems, he's willing to do it so China doesn't take over. The commodities in the deal are a show really, although important to certain individuals, the bigger picture is the control of high security infrastructure. Why do you think Huawei has been in the news so much? You shouldn't want Trump to fail on this China thing, if you do, then you are extremely naive to what the CCP are like.
Last edited:
What was Obama accused of in relation to this gun running thing and how is it relevant? Was Obama being accused of impeachable conduct in relation to it?
While that's how the MSM have framed it and Trump has been vocal about it, the house always had the right to force witnesses to testify and then get officially blocked by the executive branch.
This is the precedent set in other impeachments and is how it works regardless whether youdisagree and I agree...
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Origins_WatergateIssuingSubpoena.htm
Yes, a possible longish battle in court but as above, that's the process. The house did the court process in Nixon's impeachment, won and got the evidence they needed. They took the time to get all the evidence they needed for a good/strong case. In the end, they did a good enough job and force Nixon to resign before impeachment proceeded.
This is not a pointless waste of time as they had a good/strong case that had a good chance of conviction but Nixon bailed.
OK, we'll see how that goes. I still think they should have taken the time to get stronger evidence. Still seems to be a half arsed attempt at impeachment.
Much easier if you read about it yourself, just search for articles from the time period.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Quick stats update for y'all
Plasmahal has posted 205 times in this thread. That is 16% of all of the posts in this thread.
Plasmahal has posted 2006 times since joining the forum. That makes his contribution to this thread 10% of his total post count.
e: Holy Moley. I clicked on 'find all content by plasmahal' and it is page after page of his posts on this thread with virtually no break. I think there was one Airfix post, and 2 moaning about Greta, but the rest are just a ... screed ... of posts about Donald Trump.
WTF dude?
Plasmahal has posted 205 times in this thread. That is 16% of all of the posts in this thread.
Plasmahal has posted 2006 times since joining the forum. That makes his contribution to this thread 10% of his total post count.
e: Holy Moley. I clicked on 'find all content by plasmahal' and it is page after page of his posts on this thread with virtually no break. I think there was one Airfix post, and 2 moaning about Greta, but the rest are just a ... screed ... of posts about Donald Trump.
WTF dude?
- Status