Jumbo

Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

Recommended Posts

The Democratic Party is full of pansies. They completely flubbed the release of the Mueller report and have done absolutely nothing towards making a case to the public over impeachment for obstruction.

 

Trump and Barr meanwhile are spreading their InfoWars deep state conspiracies. 

 

On one end we have corrupt raging lunatics, and on the other is a bunch of ******* who don’t deserve to be in power because they refuse to do anything with it. Schiff, Swalwel et al will go on MSNBC, complain and then do **** all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Jog my memory...is Michael Flynn the “guy who brought us coffee”?

Think that was Papadopoulos. Flynn was the good guy who Comey should lay off of.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

Barr less trustworthy than Trump. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any odds on what the IG report will say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Fox's propaganda isn't even fooling the majority of their own viewers? Nice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

So Fox's propaganda isn't even fooling the majority of their own viewers? Nice. 

Tick tock, only a matter of time. The GOP hooked their anchor to Trump, now they have to go down with him. Sure, they can change their mind, but not before voters change it for them or an impeachment hearing happens. Whatever happens, I think they're on the ropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Until he declares himself President For Life, and Fox becomes an official arm of his cabinet.

I don't care what they say..  there is no depth to which they will not stoop, no matter how many times they trot Shep out to show a shred of humanity. All of this is in large part their fault. so **** Fox's newfound conscience. Too little, way way way too late.

Burn it down with all of them in it.

All of them.

 

~Bang

 

Edited by Bang
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

So Fox's propaganda isn't even fooling the majority of their own viewers? Nice. 

Sadly, it will just take time to move the needle to 50%. The majority of the public is too distracted and ill-informed to really notice, and the idea that there's some dark sinister force keeping them from enjoying life makes the "Deep State" thing appealing.  Trump/Fox knows this and how to exploit it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the party of personal responsibility, the main message is always "It is someone else's fault".

 

As usual, if a person still falls for this bull**** ...

 

~Bang

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

So Fox's propaganda isn't even fooling the majority of their own viewers? Nice. 

 

Give it time.  

 

They're really experienced at this.  

 

(Just out of curiosity, I'd love to see how many Republicns believe that Mueller proved that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Larry said:

.  

 

(Just out of curiosity, I'd love to see how many Republicns believe that Mueller proved that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia.)  

 

Did Mueller prove the Clinton campaign did not?

 

:pint:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Did Mueller prove the Clinton campaign did not?

 

:pint:

 

 

 

Sir, please put your hands up and slowly step away from the Breitbart. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Did Mueller prove the Clinton campaign did not?

 

:pint:

 

 

 

You answered a question with a question.  Also, the question was about something that hasn’t been inspected and wasn’t under the scope of the investigation.

 

Seems average for you twa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Springfield said:

 

You answered a question with a question.  Also, the question was about something that hasn’t been inspected and wasn’t under the scope of the investigation.

 

Seems average for you twa.

 

I gave another example of a trick question.

 

btw the scope was russian influence

 

people see what they want to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, twa said:

I see lot of name dropping and innuendos, but the concrete facts seem to center around legal foreign lobbying activity (whether it should be legal is another debate).  

 

There's a huge leap between Democratic name dropping and collusion in a presidential election.  Do we have any evidence that Russia or those connected with Russia did anything to assist the Clinton campaign?  That Clinton campaign shared internal proprietary campaign information with Russia?  That there was any coordination at all between the two? It's a nice attempt at trying to muddy the waters by the Forbes article, but the comparison doesn't stand up to any modicum of scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, twa said:

people see what they want to

 

1fbji9.jpg

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.