Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

brandymac27

By brandymac27
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

JSSkinz

JSSkinz

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

 

Quote from M*A*S*H;

"This is a press conference.  The last thing I want to do is answer a bunch of questions."

 

Tie askew... caffeine eyes... He looked slightly unhinged.

 

You know its bad when Fox starts calling out the Rep POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, KLJ said:

it's too late.  the left already did

Sure thing. Your agenda is transparent. 

8 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

You know its bad when Fox starts calling out the Rep POTUS.

 

They could have done that to try to take attention away from the CIA speech. That's my new working theory. They did this all the time in the campaign. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Wait, he was getting hammered on Fox news over the CIA speech?? 

Yeah. On Bret Beir's show.

 

We're talking about the speech in front of the wall right? 

 

When I say hammered I mean in the context of foxnews saying something about him... I felt they could have, and should have, gone further but they were quite critical of him.

 

I don't think you have to be of an opposing party to be against a disrespectful display infront of that wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s0crates

s0crates

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I see the "Bernie would have crushed Trump" thing is poking up again.

 

Yeah, no.  The Oppo file on Bernie would have been very bad.  Very very bad.  Maybe he eeks out a win, maybe he doesn't, lots of ifs involved, but crush Trump?  Nope.  Not with stuff like this floating around (putting it in spoilers because it's a long quote):

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 


 

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) 

 

 

From :http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

 

 

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/sanders_favorableunfavorable-5263.html#!

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#!

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, tshile said:

We begin this new presidency talking about White tarps and their visual affect on the appearance of the crowd

 

So, Trump's crowd only looks smaller, because of all the people in white tarps?  

 

klu+klux+klan+old.jpg

 

(Just a bad joke, but couldn't resist.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah. On Bret Beir's show.

 

We're talking about the speech in front of the wall right? 

 

When I say hammered I mean in the context of foxnews saying something about him... I felt they could have, and should have, gone further but they were quite critical of him.

 

I don't think you have to be of an opposing party to be against a disrespectful display infront of that wall. 

Still, that's an important step for Fox News. What is so bizarre is that he ****s up the simplest of tasks. I guess it's not actually bizarre anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hersh

Hersh

Posted
Posted

For the love of all things, can we please let go of this "well Bernie would have won garbage." What makes the entire conversation maddening is that if Bernie would have been the nominee, Clinton supporters would have ultimately supported him. Certainly that is the only way he would have won. Yet the one person that constantly brings up Bernie didn't return the favor and vote for Clinton. So enough with the Bernie BS. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Still, that's an important step for Fox News. What is so bizarre is that he ****s up the simplest of tasks. I guess it's not actually bizarre anymore.

If you had asked me to bet on whether or not he'd screw up a speech in front of that wall (or the 9/11 areas, or Arlington, or the Pacific national cemetery, or I'm sure other places I'm leaving out) by making it all about him and in a petty way, I would have definitely bet on "yes" .

 

It's going to be fun watching the right move away from trump slowly as he continues to do stupid crap like this. I'm sure we'll get a lot of "I thought it was an act" and "I thought he would change once he got the gig" excuses.

 

Nope, it's who he is. You got what you voted for, and if you didn't realize that when you voted then shame on you.

 

 

I mean... dude... the wall represents people who died in service of the country and some of them won't even get their name recognized because of the sensitivity of the operation

 

The buffoonery and narcissism and outright lack of intelligence required to stand in front of that wall and give a speech that is anything other than one commending the agency and saying nice things is just amazing.

 

If you want to rip them or make a campaign speech do it somewhere else you ass clown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Still, that's an important step for Fox News. What is so bizarre is that he ****s up the simplest of tasks. I guess it's not actually bizarre anymore.

 

I've seen Fox criticize Republicans before.  

 

Granted, usually, it's for not being Republican enough. :) 

 

But some times it's also simply a case where the Republicans decide it's to their advantage to disown one of their own.  For example, after the economy collapsed, it was quite fashionable for Republicans to announce that every single bad thing that had happened during W's administration was because of W, and he was never a True Republican anyway, and he's not running again, and therefore we should all vote for the Republicans who are running (and who are advocating exactly the policies which W did, only more so.)  

 

Twa went along with it, too.  

 

I could easily see the GOP (and Fox) deciding that it's to the advantage of their cause to begin pushing the narrative that Trump isn't really one of them, and they have no responsibility for anything that happens, for the next four or eight years.  

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

If you had asked me to bet on whether or not he'd screw up a speech in front of that wall (or the 9/11 areas, or Arlington, or the Pacific national cemetery, or I'm sure other places I'm leaving out) by making it all about him and in a petty way, I would have definitely bet on "yes" .

 

It's going to be fun watching the right move away from trump slowly as he continues to do stupid crap like this. I'm sure we'll get a lot of "I thought it was an act" and "I thought he would change once he got the gig" excuses.

 

Nope, it's who he is. You got what you voted for, and I you didn't realize that when you voted then shame on you.

 

Pointing out how many people voted for W twice.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Still, that's an important step for Fox News. What is so bizarre is that he ****s up the simplest of tasks. I guess it's not actually bizarre anymore.

Yeah but could you imagine what they'd say if Obama did something like that?

 

They were very critical. It wasn't enough though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tshile said:

Larry, I don't think Bush and Trump are comparable in any way. Not even in the same league as people.

 

Oh, we're already seeing parallels.  

 

Appointing cabinet officials who's qualification consists of opposing the very agency they're being appointed to run comes to mind.  

 

I think it's pretty clear that Trump intends to have his subordinates run things, too.  

 

Doesn't make them equals.  I can certainly see Trump being W squared.  

 

Oh, and in terms of their qualities as people, (as opposed to as Presidents)?  I don't really see W as being vastly morally superior to Trump.  (Yeah, he's not a sexual predator.  But there's more to morality than just keeping your pants zipped.)  But then, I can't recall having that high an opinion of any politician, as a person.  I'd rate Obama as well above average, for a politician.  But he's the only one that comes to mind.  (And I wouldn;t be all that shocked if I were to find out that I'm wrong, about him.)  

 

I don't think Hillary is Satan or Hitler.  But Machiavellian isn't that much of a stretch.  

 

(And I don't think it's possible to be moral, in today's Republican Party.  They won't tolerate it, and their platform isn't compatible with it.  In the Dems, I suppose it's theoretically possible.  But I suspect that a moral person would be unlikely to rise far.  It's possible that Bernie is.)  

 

And I'll tell you that, when I vote, my opinion of the candidate as a person isn't really a high priority, for me.  I vote based on which one I think will result in things being best for the country.  The fact that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife doesn't bother me at all.  (Although the fact that he didn't hide it better makes me think less of him, as a President.)  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...