This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Inside Trump's White House

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Inside Trump's White House on 1/3/2018, 6:22 pm

Trump didn't want to be president.

That's pretty clear if you watched the campaign. Trump said all kinds of crazy things that nobody would say unless they were trying to sabotage their own efforts. The GOP edged away from him, not wanting to get any of his stink on 'em. But, the GOP underestimated the stupidity, nastiness, and lack of seriousness among their voters. Their worst nightmare came true... the dog chasing the car caught it. And now what?

They're stuck with this idiot headcase and they know it's killing their party. They were hoping for a repeat of Obama -- let Hillary do a good job running the country while they bitched about it every minute and convinced their dullard voters that something "bad" was happening, and turn that into down-ticket success. The GOP can't govern worth a damn -- that's clear to see pretty much anyplace that elects 'em -- but they're great at brainwashing stupid people based on their nastiest instincts: racism, misogyny, homophobia, "secularism," any kind of social justice. (Yeah, maybe I'm mean to conservative voters... but, I'm not wrong about 'em!) Trump wanted to lose so he could claim he was "cheated" and make a ton of money being a thorn in Hillary's side. Hell, he's trying to do that still, even though she's defeated and out of the game.


Even though the numbers in a few key states had appeared to be changing to Trump’s advantage, neither Conway nor Trump himself nor his son-in-law, Jared Kushner — the effective head of the campaign — ­wavered in their certainty: Their unexpected adventure would soon be over. Not only would Trump not be president, almost everyone in the campaign agreed, he should probably not be. Conveniently, the former conviction meant nobody had to deal with the latter issue.

As the campaign came to an end, Trump himself was sanguine. His ultimate goal, after all, had never been to win. “I can be the most famous man in the world,” he had told his aide Sam Nunberg at the outset of the race. His longtime friend Roger Ailes, the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities.

“This is bigger than I ever dreamed of,” he told Ailes a week before the election. “I don’t think about losing, because it isn’t losing. We’ve totally won.”


Most presidential candidates spend their entire careers, if not their lives from adolescence, preparing for the role. They rise up the ladder of elected offices, perfect a public face, and prepare themselves to win and to govern. The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their worldview one whit. Almost everybody on the Trump team, in fact, came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president once he was in office. Michael Flynn, the retired general who served as Trump’s opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. “Well, it would only be a problem if we won,” ­Flynn assured them.

Not only did Trump disregard the potential conflicts of his own business deals and real-estate holdings, he audaciously refused to release his tax returns. Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary. His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the tea-party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable-news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn’t become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning.

Shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Night, when the unexpected trend — Trump might actually win — seemed confirmed, Don Jr. told a friend that his father, or DJT, as he calls him, looked as if he had seen a ghost. Melania was in tears—and not of joy.

There was, in the space of little more than an hour, in Steve Bannon’s not unamused observation, a befuddled Trump morphing into a disbelieving Trump and then into a horrified Trump. But still to come was the final transformation: Suddenly, Donald Trump became a man who believed that he deserved to be, and was wholly capable of being, the president of the United States.



Few people who knew Trump had illusions about him. That was his appeal: He was what he was. Twinkle in his eye, larceny in his soul. Everybody in his rich-guy social circle knew about his wide-ranging ignorance. Early in the campaign, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate. “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment,” Nunberg recalled, “before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Trump was so unprepared for the job that apparently he didn't even know who John Boehner was.

Ailes, a veteran of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations, tried to impress on Trump the need to create a White House structure that could serve and protect him. “You need a son of a bitch as your chief of staff,” he told Trump. “And you need a son of a bitch who knows Washington. You’ll want to be your own son of a bitch, but you don’t know Washington.” Ailes had a suggestion: John Boehner, who had stepped down as Speaker of the House only a year earlier.

“Who’s that?” asked Trump.

The GOP figured out they had a real mess on their hands now that a complete idiot was going to have to govern.

Jim Baker, chief of staff for both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and almost everybody’s model for managing the West Wing, advised Priebus not to take the job. Priebus had his own reservations: He had come out of his first long meeting with Trump thinking it had been a disconcertingly weird experience. Trump talked nonstop and constantly repeated himself.

“Here’s the deal,” a close Trump associate told Priebus. “In an hour meeting with him, you’re going to hear 54 minutes of stories, and they’re going to be the same stories over and over again. So you have to have one point to make, and you pepper it in whenever you can.”

Priebus demonstrated no ability to keep Trump from talking to anyone who wanted his ear. The president-elect enjoyed being courted. On December 14, a high-level delegation from Silicon Valley came to Trump Tower to meet him. Later that afternoon, according to a source privy to details of the conversation, Trump called Rupert Murdoch, who asked him how the meeting had gone.

“Oh, great, just great,” said Trump. “These guys really need my help. Obama was not very favorable to them, too much regulation. This is really an opportunity for me to help them.”

“Donald,” said Murdoch, “for eight years these guys had Obama in their pocket. They practically ran the administration. They don’t need your help.”

“Take this H-1B visa issue. They really need these H-1B visas.”

Murdoch suggested that taking a liberal approach to H-1B visas, which open America’s doors to select immigrants, might be hard to square with his promises to build a wall and close the borders. But Trump seemed unconcerned, assuring Murdoch, “We’ll figure it out.”

“What a fucking idiot,” said Murdoch, shrugging, as he got off the phone.



Bannon said he’d tried to push John Bolton, the famously hawkish diplomat, for the job as national-security adviser. Bolton was an Ailes favorite, too.

“He’s a bomb thrower,” said Ailes. “And a strange little fucker. But you need him. Who else is good on Israel? Flynn is a little nutty on Iran. Tillerson just knows oil.”

“Bolton’s mustache is a problem,” snorted Bannon. “Trump doesn’t think he looks the part. You know Bolton is an acquired taste.”

“Well, he got in trouble because he got in a fight in a hotel one night and chased some woman.”

“If I told Trump that,” Bannon said slyly, “he might have the job.”


“What has he gotten himself into with the Russians?” pressed Ailes.

“Mostly,” said Bannon, “he went to Russia and he thought he was going to meet Putin. But Putin couldn’t give a shit about him. So he’s kept trying.”


He then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Since his ouster from Fox over allegations of sexual harassment, Ailes had become only more bitter toward Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward Establishment moderation. Bannon wanted Ailes to suggest to Trump, a man whose many neuroses included a horror of senility, that Murdoch might be losing it.

“I’ll call him,” said Ailes. “But Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and shits down. I just worry about who’s jerking whose chain.”

...and the horror goes on from there, with Ivanka planning to become the first female president, Trump wanting to marry Morning Joe and his fiance (and then telling him he should have invited Hannity when they didn't flatter him enough), Trump sulking because "big stars" didn't come to his inauguration, Trump being too scatterbrained and distracted by himself to even have conversations, Ivanka making fun of her dad's hair behind his back, Trump's weird phobias, his essentially being semi-literate, his childishness...


...and that's just from an excerpt. Trump's not gonna be happy when this book comes out.

View user profile

3 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/3/2018, 9:14 pm


What a joke! A plagiarist and liar complaining about "alternate facts"!

View user profile

4 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/3/2018, 11:37 pm

Trump attacking Bannon. Bannon could make Trump look even more idiotic. Never in American history has someone so unqualified put this nation at risk. His daughter and husband were trashed by Bannon. His daughter in my opinion is the biggest joke because she acts like she actually understands things.....idiocy.

View user profile

5 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:19 am

2seaoat wrote:Trump attacking Bannon.  Bannon could make Trump look even more idiotic.  Never in American history has someone so unqualified put this nation at risk.  His daughter and husband were trashed by Bannon.  His daughter in my opinion is the biggest joke because she acts like she actually understands things.....idiocy.

Steve Bannon is Donald trumping Donald Trump.
trump has now issued a cease-and-desist order but the last person you'll see in a courtroom is Donny trump.

View user profile

6 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:32 am

The Rude Pundit

We could have had taco trucks. Instead of this chaos, taco trucks. Damnit.

View user profile

7 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:37 am

I have listened to radio on the way home tonight which said Trump is explosive off camera and with staff. Bannon calling his son out on Treason is a truthful statement and one which should be bantered about the next few weeks. He never expected to win. He could have had Trump TV, and a hook in his followers all the way to the Bank.....now he will leave office as the biggest clown in American history.

View user profile

8 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 8:47 am

The radio told you that huh? Well... it must be true. So what is the treason don Jr committed?

View user profile

9 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 9:46 am


Two denials of minor details, by people who might be lying to save their ass... and you're ready to dismiss the whole book.

God, you're an idiot. Kill yourself.

View user profile

10 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 10:16 am

Deus X wrote:

What a joke! A plagiarist and liar complaining about "alternate facts"!




"A plagiarist" really?

View user profile

11 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 11:26 am

zsomething wrote:

Two denials of minor details, by people who might be lying to save their ass... and you're ready to dismiss the whole book.

God, you're an idiot.  Kill yourself.


He has a history of self-serving lies and distortions. Again... not that you care because it feeds your confirmation bias.

"His reliability has been challenged before — over quotes, descriptions and general accounts he’s provided in his many newspaper and magazine columns and in several books. Wolff has even acknowledged that he can be unreliable: As he recounted in “Burn Rate” — his best-selling book about his time as an early Internet entrepreneur — Wolff kept his bankers at bay by fabricating a story about his father-in-law having open-heart surgery."

View user profile

12 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 11:47 am

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/steve-bannon-trump-cease-and-desist/index.html

(CNN)Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is reiterating his support for President Donald Trump after his former boss blasted him over explosive comments he made in a new book.

Speaking on Breitbart radio Thursday morning, Bannon assured a caller that "nothing will ever come between us and President Trump and his agenda" adding that "we're tight on this agenda as we've ever been.

On Wednesday night, Bannon praised Trump personally while hosting the Breitbart News Tonight radio show on SiriusXM.

"The President of the United States is a great man," he said. "You know, I support him day in and day out."

View user profile

13 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:10 pm

"The President of the United States is a great man," he said. "You know, I support him day in and day out."




So that is why the President needed a restraining order........loyalty and lies......I think not. No No No

View user profile

14 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:16 pm

PkrBum wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/steve-bannon-trump-cease-and-desist/index.html

(CNN)Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is reiterating his support for President Donald Trump after his former boss blasted him over explosive comments he made in a new book.

Speaking on Breitbart radio Thursday morning, Bannon assured a caller that "nothing will ever come between us and President Trump and his agenda" adding that "we're tight on this agenda as we've ever been.

On Wednesday night, Bannon praised Trump personally while hosting the Breitbart News Tonight radio show on SiriusXM.

"The President of the United States is a great man," he said. "You know, I support him day in and day out."

Note that Bannon doesn't deny anything he's quoted as saying in the book, though. He's trying to keep his "agenda" going and knows Trump's his only way to do it - especially with the Trump-cult crowd turning on him in Brietbart's comments section -- but it's all damage control so he can try to extend his fifteen minutes.

Y'know, for someone who likes to claim he doesn't actually like Trump, you sure do get desperate to defend him. Every time something bad comes out about him, you get frantic and run around like a plate-spinner, trying to debunk it. Then if you get called on it, you do this "I don't care, run him in, I didn't vote for him," yadda-yadda-yadda. That wishy-washy, can't-take-a-stand cowardice is one of the main reasons I find you so repellent... I can't stand that trying-to-play-both-sides shit. Altleft is a frothing idiot who sounds like he belongs in a straight jacket, but at least he doesn't pretend to be above his own behavior; he is what he is, even to the point of unwitting self-parody, while you're just this squealing, writhing larvae who can't own what you do. You'd be very confusing if you were worth contemplating at all.

View user profile

15 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:22 pm

Trump's staff reportedly believed him to be semi-literate

Pitching policy ideas to Trump was "deeply complicated," Wolff writes in his book, citing the belief among some close to the president that he "was no more than semi-literate."

Trump "didn't read" or "didn't really even skim," Wolff writes, creating issues when aides attempted to pitch policy to him.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh reportedly said working with Trump in those instances was "like trying to figure out what a child wants."

View user profile

16 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:38 pm

2seaoat wrote:Trump's staff reportedly believed him to be semi-literate

Pitching policy ideas to Trump was "deeply complicated," Wolff writes in his book, citing the belief among some close to the president that he "was no more than semi-literate."

Trump "didn't read" or "didn't really even skim," Wolff writes, creating issues when aides attempted to pitch policy to him.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh reportedly said working with Trump in those instances was "like trying to figure out what a child wants."

Yep, that was troubling. I think Trump can read... I just think he has a defective attention span and can't focus on anything. He doesn't process information because he can't make himself be interested in it, unless it's something about him being famous or admired. His mental illness doesn't leave him room for anything else. I imagine Trump trying to read a briefing with his self-obsession going on would be like you or I trying to read Henry James in a room where a brass band is playing full-blast... just too much distraction to concentrate. Trump's problem is a mania more than illiteracy.

Michael Wolff may have just written the first book Trump will actually read. Or at least skim...

View user profile

17 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 12:47 pm

And now for some play by play let's send it over to our correspondent on the White House lawn...


View user profile

18 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 3:30 pm

zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/steve-bannon-trump-cease-and-desist/index.html

(CNN)Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is reiterating his support for President Donald Trump after his former boss blasted him over explosive comments he made in a new book.

Speaking on Breitbart radio Thursday morning, Bannon assured a caller that "nothing will ever come between us and President Trump and his agenda" adding that "we're tight on this agenda as we've ever been.

On Wednesday night, Bannon praised Trump personally while hosting the Breitbart News Tonight radio show on SiriusXM.

"The President of the United States is a great man," he said. "You know, I support him day in and day out."

Note that Bannon doesn't deny anything he's quoted as saying in the book, though.  He's trying to keep his "agenda" going and knows Trump's his only way to do it - especially with the Trump-cult crowd turning on him in Brietbart's comments section -- but it's all damage control so he can try to extend his fifteen minutes.

Y'know, for someone who likes to claim he doesn't actually like Trump, you sure do get desperate to defend him.  Every time something bad comes out about him, you get frantic and run around like a plate-spinner, trying to debunk it.  Then if you get called on it, you do this "I don't care, run him in, I didn't vote for him," yadda-yadda-yadda.  That wishy-washy, can't-take-a-stand cowardice is one of the main reasons I find you so repellent... I can't stand that trying-to-play-both-sides shit.  Altleft is a frothing idiot who sounds like he belongs in a straight jacket, but at least he doesn't pretend to be above his own behavior; he is what he is, even to the point of unwitting self-parody, while you're just this squealing, writhing larvae who can't own what you do.  You'd be very confusing if you were worth contemplating at all.

What's confusing to me is lefts fear of knowing the complete and objective facts... even if they undermine what you'd like to believe. It's gone so far as to needing safe places and silencing opposition speech.

It's a strange phenomenon.

View user profile

19 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 3:48 pm

PkrBum wrote:
zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/steve-bannon-trump-cease-and-desist/index.html

(CNN)Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is reiterating his support for President Donald Trump after his former boss blasted him over explosive comments he made in a new book.

Speaking on Breitbart radio Thursday morning, Bannon assured a caller that "nothing will ever come between us and President Trump and his agenda" adding that "we're tight on this agenda as we've ever been.

On Wednesday night, Bannon praised Trump personally while hosting the Breitbart News Tonight radio show on SiriusXM.

"The President of the United States is a great man," he said. "You know, I support him day in and day out."

Note that Bannon doesn't deny anything he's quoted as saying in the book, though.  He's trying to keep his "agenda" going and knows Trump's his only way to do it - especially with the Trump-cult crowd turning on him in Brietbart's comments section -- but it's all damage control so he can try to extend his fifteen minutes.

Y'know, for someone who likes to claim he doesn't actually like Trump, you sure do get desperate to defend him.  Every time something bad comes out about him, you get frantic and run around like a plate-spinner, trying to debunk it.  Then if you get called on it, you do this "I don't care, run him in, I didn't vote for him," yadda-yadda-yadda.  That wishy-washy, can't-take-a-stand cowardice is one of the main reasons I find you so repellent... I can't stand that trying-to-play-both-sides shit.  Altleft is a frothing idiot who sounds like he belongs in a straight jacket, but at least he doesn't pretend to be above his own behavior; he is what he is, even to the point of unwitting self-parody, while you're just this squealing, writhing larvae who can't own what you do.  You'd be very confusing if you were worth contemplating at all.

What's confusing to me is lefts fear of knowing the complete and objective facts... even if they undermine what you'd like to believe. It's gone so far as to needing safe places and silencing opposition speech.

It's a strange phenomenon.

It's a NONEXISTENT phenomenon, but it's your go-to theme...and it's lame.

View user profile

20 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 6:03 pm

PkrBum wrote:

What's confusing to me is lefts fear of knowing the complete and objective facts... even if they undermine what you'd like to believe. It's gone so far as to needing safe places and silencing opposition speech.

It's a strange phenomenon.

First, I don't need a "safe space." I reply to you all the time, even though it's pointless because you just babble loonietoon horseshit. I don't know how much more confrontational I can get with you. Other people here refute you, too. We're all dumb for doing it, but what "safe space" is that putting anyone in, jerkoff? Just because nobody likes you, personally, that means we want a "safe space"?

And not wanting to waste time on you isn't "silencing opposition speech," it's not wanting to waste time on idiocy. If you said anything sensible, I'd listen to it, but you're the same ridiculous crap over and over again. People debunk you and then two days later you're back with the same shit over and over, and I have to assume you're just trolling, because that's all it is. You claim you don't like Trump, but you're contrary for the sake of contrariness, so... what else is it? You expect anyone to welcome what you're doing? You don't even listen to anyone, anyway -- hell, a month ago you still thought I was a former poster's daughter, when I made it clear, multiple times, that I'm a guy, and I'm no relation. That kind of obliviousness makes me think there's something wrong with you, and I don't owe it to you to work around it.

I don't mind opposition speech, I'm on other boards debating Republicans all the time... it's just you, personally. You're stupid, and you're a bore, and, frankly, I think you're just trolling. There is absolutely no return on investment for talking to you. It is a waste of time. Maybe you get something out of it, because you're obviously lonely enough to insist in hanging out on a board where you no one seems to want you, doing little but trying to provoke people, anyway. I mean, are you enjoying this? Because I don't see anybody else particularly wanting you around. Anybody? Am I going out on a limb here?

Not wanting to listen to infantile trolling attempts is not "silencing opposition," it's wanting to have discussions at the grown-up table without some infantile howler monkey constantly trying to derail everything, hollering "but what about Obama and Hannity's proof that he used alien technology to put radio control beacons in our teeth?!?" or whatever other hysterical nonsense you want us to (a) treat as legitimate when it's ridiculous to anyone with firing synapses, and (b) discuss instead of the actual topic, which you can't deal with. I'm sorry, but the shit you bring to the table is a joke. You interrupt people, insisting that we listen to your Alex Jones horseshit, and it's annoying. Which is likely your entire purpose.

As far as interest in complete and objective facts goes, look at your goddamned avi. You've had that picture declaring the Russia thing to be false for about a year already... and you are wanting to claim you're interested in complete and objective facts? Motherfucker, you made your mind up what you wanted to believe a long time ago, and you aren't listening to a thing, so you know where you can stick that crap about you wanting complete facts. You didn't wait for Mueller or anything, you decided that right from day one and you don't care how much stuff to the contrary turns up, your mind's made up. You don't have the integrity to talk to anybody about objective facts, boy.

And as far as strange phenomenons go... there's nothing strange about not wanting to waste one's time talking to an asshole. And I've made it pretty clear I don't, yet you keep replying to me.


View user profile

21 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 6:27 pm

zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

What's confusing to me is lefts fear of knowing the complete and objective facts... even if they undermine what you'd like to believe. It's gone so far as to needing safe places and silencing opposition speech.

It's a strange phenomenon.

First, I don't need a "safe space."  I reply to you all the time, even though it's pointless because you just babble loonietoon horseshit.  I don't know how much more confrontational I can get with you.  Other people here refute you, too.  We're all dumb for doing it, but what "safe space" is that putting anyone in, jerkoff?  Just because nobody likes you, personally, that means we want a "safe space"?      

And not wanting to waste time on you isn't "silencing opposition speech," it's not wanting to waste time on idiocy.  If you said anything sensible, I'd listen to it, but you're the same ridiculous crap over and over again.  People debunk you and then two days later you're back with the same shit over and over, and I have to assume you're just trolling, because that's all it is.  You claim you don't like Trump, but you're contrary for the sake of contrariness, so... what else is it?  You expect anyone to welcome what you're doing?  You don't even listen to anyone, anyway -- hell, a month ago you still thought I was a former poster's daughter, when I made it clear, multiple times, that I'm a guy, and I'm no relation.   That kind of obliviousness makes me think there's something wrong with you, and I don't owe it to you to work around it.

I don't mind opposition speech, I'm on other boards debating Republicans all the time... it's just you, personally.  You're stupid, and you're a bore, and, frankly, I think you're just trolling.  There is absolutely no return on investment for talking to you.  It is a waste of time.  Maybe you get something out of it, because you're obviously lonely enough to insist in hanging out on a board where you no one seems to want you, doing little but trying to provoke people, anyway.  I mean, are you enjoying this?   Because I don't see anybody else particularly wanting you around.  Anybody?  Am I going out on a limb here?  

Not wanting to listen to infantile trolling attempts is not "silencing opposition," it's wanting to have discussions at the grown-up table without some infantile howler monkey constantly trying to derail everything, hollering "but what about Obama and Hannity's proof that he used alien technology to put radio control beacons in our teeth?!?" or whatever other hysterical nonsense you want us to (a) treat as legitimate when it's ridiculous to anyone with firing synapses, and (b) discuss instead of the actual topic, which you can't deal with.  I'm sorry, but the shit you bring to the table is a joke.  You interrupt people, insisting that we listen to your Alex Jones horseshit, and it's annoying.  Which is likely your entire purpose.

As far as interest in complete and objective facts goes, look at your goddamned avi.  You've had that picture declaring the Russia thing to be false for about a year already... and you are wanting to claim you're interested in complete and objective facts?  Motherfucker, you made your mind up what you wanted to believe a long time ago, and you aren't listening to a thing, so you know where you can stick that crap about you wanting complete facts.  You didn't wait for Mueller or anything, you decided that right from day one and you don't care how much stuff to the contrary turns up, your mind's made up. You don't have the integrity to talk to anybody about objective facts, boy.

And as far as strange phenomenons go... there's nothing strange about not wanting to waste one's time talking to an asshole.  And I've made it pretty clear I don't, yet you keep replying to me.  






cheers cheers cheers

View user profile

22 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/4/2018, 8:54 pm

zsomething wrote:
PkrBum wrote:

What's confusing to me is lefts fear of knowing the complete and objective facts... even if they undermine what you'd like to believe. It's gone so far as to needing safe places and silencing opposition speech.

It's a strange phenomenon.

First, I don't need a "safe space."  I reply to you all the time, even though it's pointless because you just babble loonietoon horseshit.  I don't know how much more confrontational I can get with you.  Other people here refute you, too.  We're all dumb for doing it, but what "safe space" is that putting anyone in, jerkoff?  Just because nobody likes you, personally, that means we want a "safe space"?      

And not wanting to waste time on you isn't "silencing opposition speech," it's not wanting to waste time on idiocy.  If you said anything sensible, I'd listen to it, but you're the same ridiculous crap over and over again.  People debunk you and then two days later you're back with the same shit over and over, and I have to assume you're just trolling, because that's all it is.  You claim you don't like Trump, but you're contrary for the sake of contrariness, so... what else is it?  You expect anyone to welcome what you're doing?  You don't even listen to anyone, anyway -- hell, a month ago you still thought I was a former poster's daughter, when I made it clear, multiple times, that I'm a guy, and I'm no relation.   That kind of obliviousness makes me think there's something wrong with you, and I don't owe it to you to work around it.

I don't mind opposition speech, I'm on other boards debating Republicans all the time... it's just you, personally.  You're stupid, and you're a bore, and, frankly, I think you're just trolling.  There is absolutely no return on investment for talking to you.  It is a waste of time.  Maybe you get something out of it, because you're obviously lonely enough to insist in hanging out on a board where you no one seems to want you, doing little but trying to provoke people, anyway.  I mean, are you enjoying this?   Because I don't see anybody else particularly wanting you around.  Anybody?  Am I going out on a limb here?  

Not wanting to listen to infantile trolling attempts is not "silencing opposition," it's wanting to have discussions at the grown-up table without some infantile howler monkey constantly trying to derail everything, hollering "but what about Obama and Hannity's proof that he used alien technology to put radio control beacons in our teeth?!?" or whatever other hysterical nonsense you want us to (a) treat as legitimate when it's ridiculous to anyone with firing synapses, and (b) discuss instead of the actual topic, which you can't deal with.  I'm sorry, but the shit you bring to the table is a joke.  You interrupt people, insisting that we listen to your Alex Jones horseshit, and it's annoying.  Which is likely your entire purpose.

As far as interest in complete and objective facts goes, look at your goddamned avi.  You've had that picture declaring the Russia thing to be false for about a year already... and you are wanting to claim you're interested in complete and objective facts?  Motherfucker, you made your mind up what you wanted to believe a long time ago, and you aren't listening to a thing, so you know where you can stick that crap about you wanting complete facts.  You didn't wait for Mueller or anything, you decided that right from day one and you don't care how much stuff to the contrary turns up, your mind's made up. You don't have the integrity to talk to anybody about objective facts, boy.

And as far as strange phenomenons go... there's nothing strange about not wanting to waste one's time talking to an asshole.  And I've made it pretty clear I don't, yet you keep replying to me.  



Sooo... you're hanging your hat on this latest pseudo journalism. Like the "dossier" before. When there're legitimate issues to debate.... this is what has you spun up. Leftists are so fucking easy.

View user profile

23 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/5/2018, 12:24 am

When there're legitimate issues to debate
Which lie do you want to debate?

View user profile

24 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/8/2018, 6:43 pm

In surprise move, Jake Tapper calls out CNN colleague Brian Stelter for questionable ‘journalistic standard’

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/01/07/surprise-move-jake-tapper-calls-cnn-colleague-brian-stelter-questionable-journalistic-standard-585122

Michael Wolff book “Fire and Fury” because Trump haters say the book “rings true overall” despite its numerous factual errors.

Tapper chided Stelter on Twitter for his loose journalistic standards, writing: “Having many errors but ‘ringing true’ is not a journalistic standard.”

In one anecdote designed to spotlight Trump’s purported ignorance, Wolff claimed Trump did not know who former Speaker of the House John Boehner was in 2016.

The book alleges Trump asked, “Who’s that?” when former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes suggested Trump hire Boehner as his chief of staff.

White House social media director Dan Scavino quickly debunked that claim by showing a 2013 photo of Trump playing golf with Boehner.

In another instance, Fox News host Laura Ingraham disputed Wolff’s claims that she “struggled to parse support for Trump” and tried to distance herself from him.

Wolff’s mainstream media colleagues also called him out for his “sloppy” writing.

The New York Times scoffed: “He gets basic details wrong.” The New York Post blasted “Fire and Fury” as “blithe ignorance.”

View user profile

25 Re: Inside Trump's White House on 1/8/2018, 7:31 pm

“blithe ignorance.” is a good way to describe fake 45 and useful idiots that voted his ignorant orange ass into office. Twisted Evil

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum