Off Topic

Everything Trump - Donald Trump General Discussion thread

  • Last Updated:
  • May 26th, 2017 1:21 pm
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 8, 2013
6367 posts
169 upvotes
konfusion666 wrote:
May 18th, 2017 10:43 am
Looking forward to seeing the Senate and House both flip in 2018... the awesome thing is that it'll basically cause the Alt-Right to implode and all of the frogs will start stabbing each other in the back. Will be hilarious to watch!
Just like the Nazi's. They got to power very quickly and got destroyed right away.

Alt Right copied the exact same format and its looking like the end will be coming soon for them. Look at what happened to their heroes. Pedophile Milo, Lauren, Alex Jones, Bill O Reilly, Roger Ailes. All fell down at the same time.

Brexit was the peak of alt right in Europe. They denied the alt right in netherlands and france.

They are great at fearmongering but they are terrible at everything else.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2008
3223 posts
959 upvotes
lol, "Believe me! But I'm not going to sign my name to it!"

Trump attorney didn’t want him to sign financial disclosure
https://www.apnews.com/417c7e00c0274a37 ... P_Politics
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s attorneys originally wanted him to submit an updated financial disclosure without certifying the information as true, according to correspondence with the Office of Government Ethics.

Attorney Sheri Dillon said she saw no need for Trump to sign his 2016 personal financial disclosure because he is filing voluntarily this year. But OGE director Walter Shaub said his office would only work with Dillon if she agreed to follow the typical process of having Trump make the certification. That is standard practice for the thousands of financial disclosure forms OGE processes each year.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
13586 posts
1314 upvotes
Toronto
arm2000 wrote:
May 19th, 2017 12:37 pm
Oops, MSM making a turn:
This latest Trump-Russia leak smells like a coup attempt
So CNBC's resident conservative extremist is throwing out conspiracy theories about why the most thoroughly conservative government in decades is failing? Huge shock there. This is a guy who regularly blogs about how Nixon and Reagan weren't conservative enough and blasts them for the extreme sin of raising taxes to pay for programs that have widely benefited the country.

This same guy has been running nothing but pro-Trump PR for months, and Trump himself has undercut a lot of his points. He's just another Kellyanne, and is just there to spin events in favor of Dear Leader.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 19, 2003
4538 posts
92 upvotes
London
Piro21 wrote:
May 19th, 2017 12:49 pm
So CNBC's resident conservative extremist is throwing out conspiracy theories about why the most thoroughly conservative government in decades is failing? Huge shock there. This is a guy who regularly blogs about how Nixon and Reagan weren't conservative enough and blasts them for the extreme sin of raising taxes to pay for programs that have widely benefited the country.

This same guy has been running nothing but pro-Trump PR for months, and Trump himself has undercut a lot of his points. He's just another Kellyanne, and is just there to spin events in favor of Dear Leader.
I never understood the right's arguments of, "stop investigating because there's no evidence of collusion of Russia." I thought the whole point of investigating is to look for evidence for, or against, a specific conclusion. I mean, the whole point of investigating is because there's no evidence. Because if there is evidence then we would be taking appropriate actions, while if there is no evidence of evidence to the contrary, then the whole thing could be put to bed without doubt.

Using the "no evidence" thing is like a murder suspect telling the cops, "you can't arrest me or take my testimony because you have no evidence I did it."
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5177 posts
212 upvotes
felixdd wrote:
May 19th, 2017 1:41 pm
I never understood the right's arguments of, "stop investigating because there's no evidence of collusion of Russia." I thought the whole point of investigating is to look for evidence for, or against, a specific conclusion. I mean, the whole point of investigating is because there's no evidence. Because if there is evidence then we would be taking appropriate actions, while if there is no evidence of evidence to the contrary, then the whole thing could be put to bed without doubt.

Using the "no evidence" thing is like a murder suspect telling the cops, "you can't arrest me or take my testimony because you have no evidence I did it."
The reason the "right" are against the investigation is because the mere existence of an investigation implies some level of guilt. People think "well they wouldn't investigate unless there was something there". There are no positives to being investigated for collusion with Russia whether you did anything or not.

That or they're afraid something else will be found (I think you made that point before).

Also, just because they investigate and clear you doesn't mean that anyone is going to believe the results. The Dems are already hedging so that they can claim the investigation was flawed if it doesn't lead to charges against Trump. As they should really, this is politics after all.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2008
3223 posts
959 upvotes
"The Investigation", lol...There are actually 6 ongoing investigations you know:

1 FBI
2 House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence
3 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
4 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
5 Senate Judiciary Committee
6 Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2013
3724 posts
893 upvotes
Kingston, ON
konfusion666 wrote:
May 18th, 2017 10:43 am
Looking forward to seeing the Senate and House both flip in 2018... the awesome thing is that it'll basically cause the Alt-Right to implode and all of the frogs will start stabbing each other in the back. Will be hilarious to watch!
It's pretty much impossible for the Senate to flip in 2018, for what it's worth,

Image

All the Blue (or Green) states would have to stay Blue, and 3 of the 8 Red states would have to go Blue. If you're familiar with the politics of the states on the map, it's not going to happen, barring an extreme scenario.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2008
3223 posts
959 upvotes
Mike15 wrote:
May 19th, 2017 2:11 pm
It's pretty much impossible for the Senate to flip in 2018, for what it's worth,

All the Blue (or Green) states would have to stay Blue, and 3 of the 8 Red states would have to go Blue. If you're familiar with the politics of the states on the map, it's not going to happen, barring an extreme scenario.
Aw, that's from Rasmussen, come on
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
13586 posts
1314 upvotes
Toronto
Mike15 wrote:
May 19th, 2017 2:11 pm
It's pretty much impossible for the Senate to flip in 2018, for what it's worth,

Image

All the Blue (or Green) states would have to stay Blue, and 3 of the 8 Red states would have to go Blue. If you're familiar with the politics of the states on the map, it's not going to happen, barring an extreme scenario.
Nevada is a swing state that's almost definitely going blue in the next election, and anything could happen with the other reds given how terrible the Trump administration has been so far. It's likely that several of the grey states will also go blue in the next election given the exodus of Californians seeking lower house prices. Cory Garnder (the Colorado Republican) will probably lose his seat, for one.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Addict
Nov 24, 2013
3724 posts
893 upvotes
Kingston, ON
Piro21 wrote:
May 19th, 2017 2:26 pm
Nevada is a swing state that's almost definitely going blue in the next election, and anything could happen with the other reds given how terrible the Trump administration has been so far. It's likely that several of the grey states will also go blue in the next election given the exodus of Californians seeking lower house prices. Cory Garnder (the Colorado Republican) will probably lose his seat, for one.
The states in gray aren't up in 2018. Only 33 seats are.

NV is trending blue, but the others aren't. WV, IN, MT, ND are vulnerable (right-leaning Dems in red states) though could hold on. MI, MO, OH are states that voted for Trump, with centre & left-leaning Democratic senators. They could be safe since midterms tend to go against the party in the White House, but they also can't be taken for granted.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 8, 2013
6367 posts
169 upvotes
Mike15 wrote:
May 19th, 2017 2:11 pm
It's pretty much impossible for the Senate to flip in 2018, for what it's worth,

All the Blue (or Green) states would have to stay Blue, and 3 of the 8 Red states would have to go Blue. If you're familiar with the politics of the states on the map, it's not going to happen, barring an extreme scenario.
Its been a time of extremes. Just the fact that the progressives have been mobilizing could start painting the country blue. But yes it looks tough in the senate but the house is wide open.

The house is what is important right now for the democrats. Thats where they can start to claw back some of the power.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2008
3223 posts
959 upvotes
^ That broke 1 hour after Trump started his 12-hr overnight flight to Saudi Arabia lol.

Well I think this is going to be a heckuva trip for Trump. 9 grueling days that would challenge any 70-year-old. Will he have the strength and stamina?

20 - steak & ketchup w/Saudi royal family
21 - speech on (Radical) Islam(ic Extremism), looking forward to this one
22 - Israelis; latest word is Kushner (who is on this trip) is linked to the Russians
23 - Palestinians
24 - Pope
25 - EU/NATO European press are calling Trump an amateur, a laughingstock. NATO downgrades from a summit to a dinner meeting.
26 - G7 Who is hawter, Trudeau or Macron?
27 - G7 Funny things Trump said
28 - G7 Will the old man make it?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 8, 2013
6367 posts
169 upvotes
Wow. You gotta wonder who is leaking this WH stuff.
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.
These are all his people. Face With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of JoyFace With Tears Of Joy.
Diversity Is Our Strength 😎
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top