Trump

[McTavish]

It's pointless trying to converse with people being so obtuse.

Why is that obtuse? You say "combining a group of people with a high suicide rate with a career that has a high suicide rate is absolutely ridiculous and is not in the best interest of anybody." I point out that men as a group have a high suicide rate (much higher than the average) and so from your argument they should not be in the military. Why is that obtuse - I think the problem is with your argument, not with my pointing out the absurdity of it.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

So farewell Reince Priebus we barely knew you. Or remembered you weren't Prince Reebus or Rinse Penis, or what exactly you did

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

So farewell Reince Priebus we barely knew you. Or remembered you weren't Prince Reebus or Rinse Penis, or what exactly you did

You're FIRED!

There's a new Prince Of Darkness in town - step forward Anthony Scaramucci.

Expect many more bigger and and brighter fireworks from the new White House Communications Director as the Trump regime continues to implode in spectacular fashion.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

You're FIRED!



There's a new Prince Of Darkness in town - step forward Anthony Scaramucci.

Expect many more bigger and and brighter fireworks from the new White House Communications Director as the Trump regime continues to implode in spectacular fashion.

His only regret is that he has boneitus

 

[looney]

No, I asked you what evidence you had for it. You claimed that it was a "fact" that it had happened. So what evidence do you have for the "fact" that Hillary's server was acid-washed and then broken up?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...unized-clinton-aides-laptops-sources-say.html

 

[looney]

So farewell Reince Priebus we barely knew you. Or remembered you weren't Prince Reebus or Rinse Penis, or what exactly you did

He was appointed as a sop to house republicans but is widely considered one of the dodgy critters that will stall swamp drainage by grass roots supporters.
.

 

[Stat Brother]

 

[looney]

If I can help you all out with your fake news addiction, you are judging how Trumps WH or actions play out in the Media, of which 90% is owned by about 5 companies. You would be better of judging it how it plays out with his voter base and they cant get enough of it. The thing that has pissed of the base the most imo was bombing of Syria, Didn't register in the fake msm, in that it had upset his voters.

 

[Stat Brother]

But you're judging how Trumps WH or actions play out in 1 media outlet.

 

[Stat Brother]

Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I can't be bothered to direct reply to the piece of work that is looney, and I no longer read his illitrate and offensive replies to me, but my (5 minute) research on the Clinton laptop scandal shows the story was broken by..... Brietbart! On Oct 3 2016. There was then a flurry of copy paste articles in the usual places such as Daily Mail over the nex 3 days. No respectable outlet gave it credence. Then a few days later the story was shown to be the usual lies:

"The latest shocking news on this front is that despite a plea deal to destroy laptops (evidence) belonging to Clinton associates, those devices were not destroyed and are still in the possession of the FBI. As the Daily Caller reports:

Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova said on The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Friday night that despite the FBI agreeing to destroy the laptops of Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson as part of immunity deals made during the initial investigation of Clinton’s email server, agents involved in the case refused to destroy the laptops.

“According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given — the interviews were given — by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that,” DiGenova said. “However the laptops contrary to published reports were not destroyed and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts."

Clinton was bad enough (apparently, although if she had been a bloke nobody would have said a word) without the need to make up lies about her power and influence. Buying into this stuff is the sign of a weak mind. And nasty - the desire to believe anything about someone no matter how vile or mad, just because you don't like that person? Hmmmm.....weak. Bully. A weak bully. Who would have guessed?

I'm gtting very tired of the (tiny minirity of) fake news feckers who pollute NSC...... why they should think it worthwhile to try to dupe football supporters into becoming mindless right wing robots is beyond me . . . why post crap about Clinton when the real event is the stream of diarrhoea flying out of the arse of Washington as Trump stumbles from one self-inflicted shitstorm to the next?

 

[El Presidente]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...unized-clinton-aides-laptops-sources-say.html

You're asked for evidence and you give Fox News as the source?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

So what you're saying is that on HIS voter base - Fox News - he's 47% favourable to 51% unfavourable.

Why, that's a bigger margin than Brexit.

*hides*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stat Brother]

So what you're saying is that on HIS voter base - Fox News - he's 47% favourable to 51% unfavourable.

Why, that's a bigger margin than Brexit.

*hides*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's just a shame all of those polls are from fake news outlets.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're asked for evidence and you give Fox News as the source?

It gets worse - see my post above yours

 

[drew]

I can't be bothered to direct reply to the piece of work that is looney, and I no longer read his illitrate and offensive replies to me, but my (5 minute) research on the Clinton laptop scandal shows the story was broken by..... Brietbart! On Oct 3 2016. There was then a flurry of copy paste articles in the usual places such as Daily Mail over the nex 3 days. No respectable outlet gave it credence. Then a few days later the story was shown to be the usual lies:

"The latest shocking news on this front is that despite a plea deal to destroy laptops (evidence) belonging to Clinton associates, those devices were not destroyed and are still in the possession of the FBI. As the Daily Caller reports:

Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova said on The David Webb Show on SiriusXM Friday night that despite the FBI agreeing to destroy the laptops of Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson as part of immunity deals made during the initial investigation of Clinton’s email server, agents involved in the case refused to destroy the laptops.

“According to the agreement reached with the attorneys who handed over their laptops, the laptops were to be destroyed per the agreement after the testimony was given — the interviews were given — by the attorneys. The bureau and the department agreed to that,” DiGenova said. “However the laptops contrary to published reports were not destroyed and the reason is the agents who are tasked with destroying them refused to do so. And by the way the laptops are at the FBI for inspection by Congress or federal courts."

Clinton was bad enough (apparently, although if she had been a bloke nobody would have said a word) without the need to make up lies about her power and influence. Buying into this stuff is the sign of a weak mind. And nasty - the desire to believe anything about someone no matter how vile or mad, just because you don't like that person? Hmmmm.....weak. Bully. A weak bully. Who would have guessed?

I'm gtting very tired of the (tiny minirity of) fake news feckers who pollute NSC...... why they should think it worthwhile to try to dupe football supporters into becoming mindless right wing robots is beyond me . . . why post crap about Clinton when the real event is the stream of diarrhoea flying out of the arse of Washington as Trump stumbles from one self-inflicted shitstorm to the next?

The reason that Trump is where he is though is due to to Clinton's email shenanigans clouding the issues. Had she not used a personal server in the first place then I'm sure she would have won by a landslide and we'd have been in a far less volatile situation. Without the email server there would have been no investigation and certainly no re opening of the investigation once postal voting had started! She needs to take responsibility for the fact there is now an egotistical buffon in the oval office.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The reason that Trump is where he is though is due to to Clinton's email shenanigans clouding the issues. Had she not used a personal server in the first place then I'm sure she would have won by a landslide and we'd have been in a far less volatile situation. Without the email server there would have been no investigation and certainly no re opening of the investigation once postal voting had started! She needs to take responsibility for the fact there is now an egotistical buffon in the oval office.

Well said.

And the anti-Clinton-because-of-emails voters have now deserted Trumpski in droves. The 'base' that is left is not enough.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The reason that Trump is where he is though is due to to Clinton's email shenanigans clouding the issues. Had she not used a personal server in the first place then I'm sure she would have won by a landslide and we'd have been in a far less volatile situation. Without the email server there would have been no investigation and certainly no re opening of the investigation once postal voting had started! She needs to take responsibility for the fact there is now an egotistical buffon in the oval office.

Mmmm... actually my reading is she was deeply hated by many Americans for more reasons than that. I can't pretend to have my finger properly on the US pulse but I visit occasionally and have many friends and acquaintances there, Americans and immigrants. When I was there a few years ago, Clinton was in the rustbelt, a democrat area, and I was very surprised by the tone of her speach. It was pure Arther Scargill; workers rights, class war in flavour if not actual language. The voice was harsh and agrssive. I was shocked. Then on other occasions elsewhere the tone and content was quit different - liberal, knowing..... she gave me the impression of being someone prepared to say anything to win. I was delighted when Obama beat her. In the following years she dug in.... meanwhile, there is Bill.... nobody can deny he took advantage of his office. I agree he was subjected to inappropriate harassment (Starr was it?) and was humiliated over issues that previous presidents had far exceeded in terms of corruption and yet been let off by a knowing media (Kennedy, for example). Bill was crucified by a new republican conspiracy (th decade the republicans became feral animals....). But.... he was guilty. Hilary, by backing him, and benfiting from his financial murkiness, was guilty by association. Unfair, certainly. Whipped up by the new right, certainly. But for many Americans, Hilary is as toxic as Dianne Abbott is toxic here. Yes, the emails didn't help, but that was just the polish on the turd. Personally if I were eligible I would have voted for Clinton, but mostly because Trump is transparently far far worse, more venal, corrupt and despotic than Clinton (who is also all of these) and has no political experience and no ability to carry even his manifesto committments past the houses due to lack of network, even though they may have a republican majority. In that I seem to be right. I predicted (on here) Trump would win, not because Clinton was bad, certainly not because of the emails, but because enough stupid uninformed people driven by belief would be charmed by the hubristic patriotism and chutzpah of a guy prepared to say anything, apologize for nothing and (apparently) turn everything he touches to gold. Like Bob Maxwell.....perhaps. We shall see . . .sorry for the ramblings

 

[rogersix]

Mmmm... actually my reading is she was deeply hated by many Americans for more reasons than that. I can't pretend to have my finger properly on the US pulse but I visit occasionally and have many friends and acquaintances there, Americans and immigrants. When I was there a few years ago, Clinton was in the rustbelt, a democrat area, and I was very surprised by the tone of her speach. It was pure Arther Scargill; workers rights, class war in flavour if not actual language. The voice was harsh and agrssive. I was shocked. Then on other occasions elsewhere the tone and content was quit different - liberal, knowing..... she gave me the impression of being someone prepared to say anything to win. I was delighted when Obama beat her. In the following years she dug in.... meanwhile, there is Bill.... nobody can deny he took advantage of his office. I agree he was subjected to inappropriate harassment (Starr was it?) and was humiliated over issues that previous presidents had far exceeded in terms of corruption and yet been let off by a knowing media (Kennedy, for example). Bill was crucified by a new republican conspiracy (th decade the republicans became feral animals....). But.... he was guilty. Hilary, by backing him, and benfiting from his financial murkiness, was guilty by association. Unfair, certainly. Whipped up by the new right, certainly. But for many Americans, Hilary is as toxic as Dianne Abbott is toxic here. Yes, the emails didn't help, but that was just the polish on the turd. Personally if I were eligible I would have voted for Clinton, but mostly because Trump is transparently far far worse, more venal, corrupt and despotic than Clinton (who is also all of these) and has no political experience and no ability to carry even his manifesto committments past the houses due to lack of network, even though they may have a republican majority. In that I seem to be right. I predicted (on here) Trump would win, not because Clinton was bad, certainly not because of the emails, but because enough stupid uninformed people driven by belief would be charmed by the hubristic patriotism and chutzpah of a guy prepared to say anything, apologize for nothing and (apparently) turn everything he touches to gold. Like Bob Maxwell.....perhaps. We shall see . . .sorry for the ramblings

[MENTION=277]looney[/MENTION]

 

[drew]

Mmmm... actually my reading is she was deeply hated by many Americans for more reasons than that. I can't pretend to have my finger properly on the US pulse but I visit occasionally and have many friends and acquaintances there, Americans and immigrants. When I was there a few years ago, Clinton was in the rustbelt, a democrat area, and I was very surprised by the tone of her speach. It was pure Arther Scargill; workers rights, class war in flavour if not actual language. The voice was harsh and agrssive. I was shocked. Then on other occasions elsewhere the tone and content was quit different - liberal, knowing..... she gave me the impression of being someone prepared to say anything to win. I was delighted when Obama beat her. In the following years she dug in.... meanwhile, there is Bill.... nobody can deny he took advantage of his office. I agree he was subjected to inappropriate harassment (Starr was it?) and was humiliated over issues that previous presidents had far exceeded in terms of corruption and yet been let off by a knowing media (Kennedy, for example). Bill was crucified by a new republican conspiracy (th decade the republicans became feral animals....). But.... he was guilty. Hilary, by backing him, and benfiting from his financial murkiness, was guilty by association. Unfair, certainly. Whipped up by the new right, certainly. But for many Americans, Hilary is as toxic as Dianne Abbott is toxic here. Yes, the emails didn't help, but that was just the polish on the turd. Personally if I were eligible I would have voted for Clinton, but mostly because Trump is transparently far far worse, more venal, corrupt and despotic than Clinton (who is also all of these) and has no political experience and no ability to carry even his manifesto committments past the houses due to lack of network, even though they may have a republican majority. In that I seem to be right. I predicted (on here) Trump would win, not because Clinton was bad, certainly not because of the emails, but because enough stupid uninformed people driven by belief would be charmed by the hubristic patriotism and chutzpah of a guy prepared to say anything, apologize for nothing and (apparently) turn everything he touches to gold. Like Bob Maxwell.....perhaps. We shall see . . .sorry for the ramblings

Don't disagree but I do think the emails were a scandal that tipped the balance but, of course, we'll never know....