Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


brandymac27

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Im just trying to help.  Backsliding into circa 2010 Obummer hot takes is no way to start your Sunday.

 

Aim higher, noble Buzz!!

 

22 hours ago, Switchgear said:

Obama definitely could and should have been stronger about several things. Syria, realizing that the R's were at war with him, stuff like that. But he didn't make a show of strength to mask weakness, which is what Trump does. It's all bravado "I'd run into the school without a gun" "Rough him up" "Guys that bodyslam people are my kinda guys".

He talks big and tough, but we all know he isn't. It's the obvious hypocrisy that bothers me. If you have an example of Obama being a hypocrite and feel compelled to share it, go ahead. But it doesn't in any way change what Trump is, and seems like you're looking to deflect from that by going this route.

 

20 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

Because truth. 

And the same "what about" that we all do. 

I'd blast Barack a thousand times over just for putting the surveillance program on steroids, but I'd also love to have the leader of my nation give a dignified speech, or even act dignified enough as to not have our allies joke about us.

 

Sorry I'm just now getting back to this.  Went hiking yesterday, then football, drunk, nap, etc.

 

I think everyone should remember the original post I was making my point in reference to:

Quote

Hey, but as long as he triggers libs...its all good in Republicans books......God let me hear anyone **** about Obama being weak ever again......I am liable to slapping someone with this fools twitter feeds

That bolded line is what got me.  It's a problem here on ES and out in the real world is people can't discuss a topic on it's merits.  For example, if I were to make a statement "Obama was too weak on Russia", everyone rushes to point out that Trump is basically in bed with Putin.  And they wouldn't be wrong (note I'm not trying to start a russia discussion here, just an example).   I should be able to talk about Obama being weak without having "slapping someone with this fools twitter feeds".  Not being able to discuss one topic without having to also defend against "whataboutisms" is a big part of having why good, honest discussions is like hunting for unicorns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

That bolded line is what got me.  It's a problem here on ES and out in the real world is people can't discuss a topic on it's merits.  For example, if I were to make a statement "Obama was too weak on Russia", everyone rushes to point out that Trump is basically in bed with Putin.  And they wouldn't be wrong (note I'm not trying to start a russia discussion here, just an example).   I should be able to talk about Obama being weak without having "slapping someone with this fools twitter feeds".  Not being able to discuss one topic without having to also defend against "whataboutisms" is a big part of having why good, honest discussions is like hunting for unicorns.

Yeah, I think the bolded line you cite is more out of frustration toward the big Trump fans than anything else.  Obama can certainly be slammed on a variety of things (his statement on the mic to the Russian official about how'd he more flexibility after the election is one) but people get pissed about folks who defend Trump to the hilt on everything and believe him when he proclaims that he's accomplished more than any president in history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 I should be able to talk about Obama being weak without having "slapping someone with this fools twitter feeds".  Not being able to discuss one topic without having to also defend against "whataboutisms" is a big part of having why good, honest discussions is like hunting for unicorns.


I understand why you think you should be able to do so, but you don't get that benefit of the doubt with people, because the benefit of the doubt has been torn away by the those who are choosing over and over again to not have discussions in good faith. Barring actual one-on-one relationships where people know and trust you (i.e. have developed heuristics of trust and benefit specific to you) you're going to trigger that distrust with certain topics and will have to qualify yourself. We all have too.

That is a real world consequence to the erosion of trust and connection in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I should be able to talk about Obama being weak without having "slapping someone with this fools twitter feeds".  Not being able to discuss one topic without having to also defend against "whataboutisms" is a big part of having why good, honest discussions is like hunting for unicorns.

Depends on what the conversation is about. When people are talking about X and someone goes, “yeah well what about Y?” then it should rightfully be called out as a deflection.

 

X could be Obama or Trump or Kirk Cousins and I’m not referencing you here GB. Just a general statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

That bolded line is what got me.  It's a problem here on ES and out in the real world is people can't discuss a topic on it's merits.  

 

Honestly the problem here is that you couldn't take one person's opinion and statement not even directed towards you and keep it moving. Instead you had to get on the weakest soapbox ever and then triggered all the liberals. 

 

All of you suck lol. Especially TWA

 

That's like walking into a country music concert and ****ing about how ****ty the music is and trying to put everyone on Kid Cuddy or some ****. 

 

Then complaining about how it's my right to talk about country music's flaws as an American whenever and wherever I want. 

 

Like wtf did you expect? Time, place and audiance broski.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

Headline is a bit misleading (unless they're just trying to troll the WH), as the WH didn't appear to actually say anything about rain as to why Trump wouldn't be there. Curious what the official explanation will be though, as "The President of the United States is a sulky, whiny, self-centered ****" probably isn't part of their excuse drop-down menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible Trump has some private hospital visits lined up instead since they are keeping his schedule quiet for today.  But could just as easily be that Trump wants to golf or sit around and watch tv.  

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Headline is a bit misleading (unless they're just trying to troll the WH), as the WH didn't appear to actually say anything about rain as to why Trump wouldn't be there. Curious what the official explanation will be though, as "The President of the United States is a sulky, whiny, self-centered ****" probably isn't part of their excuse drop-down menu.

The article does point out that it is supposed to rain at Arlington today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

The article does point out that it is supposed to rain at Arlington today.

 

True. I might have slightly misread or misinterpreted the as in "as rain is expected". I thought they were saying it to mean that the WH actually cited rain itself: "as rain is expected, the President won't be attending" as opposed to them using as in a way to mean the two simply coincide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where are all of those veterans who claimed that Trump supports them so much? A “Commander” who refuses to visit them on the field of battle where he orders them. 

A “Commander” who cuts funding funding for veterans health and PTSD. 

A “Commander” who loves big shiny guns and uniforms but wants nothing to do with actual veterans.

 

Isn’t it ironic that the very Christians who support Trump are the ones who seem to be ignoring the fact that it was held against King David that he would send his men to war and yet stay back in the comfort of his palace.

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

True. I might have slightly misread or misinterpreted the as in "as rain is expected". I thought they were saying it to mean that the WH actually cited rain itself: "as rain is expected, the President won't be attending" as opposed to them using as in a way to mean the two simply coincide.

I think Trump is so ****ing vain that he can’t allow himself to get wet and show the world what he looks like with his hair all drenched. 

 

I hate him and I truly hope that he dies in his sleep soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

I think Trump is so ****ing vain that he can’t allow himself to get wet and show the world what he looks like with his hair all drenched. 

 

I hate him and I truly hope that he dies in his sleep soon.

 

I think it just underscores how true it is that literally EVERYTHING in Trump's world comes after himself. He's in a pissed off, sulky, victim mood because he got clobbered in the midterms, the Mueller investigation is heating back up (including a possible indictment of his son...not that he cares personally about Don Jr, but it makes him look bad), and the new Dem House is going to be investigating all the dirty crevices of his conduct and his admin's conduct and not using any lube. 

 

"Veterans? **** them, I'm the one who's REALLY suffering. I'm upset and people are being unfair to me."

 

 

Add: He also got totally pwned by Macron, who stood there and basically called out his nationalist bull**** right to his face in front of the whole world and he had to just sit and watch. I'm sure that drove him absolutely nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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