Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackPipes and Kakfights
someday we will have a quiet conversation about the old times square. no witnesses etc. some good.. fucking.. times then.
And that was the day I learned the meaning of the word Shemale. The Deuce some times the lady dealing three card Monty has a three piece set (and I don’t mean a knife a spoon and a fork)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackPipes and KakfightsQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
And that was the day I learned the meaning of the word Shemale. The Deuce some times the lady dealing three card Monty has a three piece set (and I don’t mean a knife a spoon and a fork)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Trump wants Sessions to investigate NY Times OP-ED.
This just got dropped and the Dow plunged. This story more than all the other overwhelming noise has gripped people.
There has been so much but this story is like a Taser shot.
The Deep Throat similarity has a theatrical quality that people seem to enjoy. This one appears to be special.
Speaking of Deep Throat, I listened to the phone call between Bob Woodward & Trump. Woodward attempted 6 times to interview Trump through people like KellyAnne
Trump actually put KellyAnne (spelling?) on the phone to Woodward. Trump hung her out to twist in the wind fully unprepared to spin this.
Fascinating call. Completely fucking disfunctional. I can fully understand his staff turning on Trump at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Trump wants Sessions to investigate NY Times OP-ED.
This just got dropped and the Dow plunged. This story more than all the other overwhelming noise has gripped people.
There has been so much but this story is like a Taser shot.
The Deep Throat similarity has a theatrical quality that people seem to enjoy. This one appears to be special.
Speaking of Deep Throat, I listened to the phone call between Bob Woodward & Trump. Woodward attempted 6 times to interview Trump through people like KellyAnne
Trump actually put KellyAnne (spelling?) on the phone to Woodward. Trump hung her out to twist in the wind fully unprepared to spin this.
Fascinating call. Completely fucking dysfunctional. I can fully understand his staff turning on Trump at this point.
If Pence is revealed I will be locked in to this thread 24/7
it was pointed out to me how ludicrous it would be for pence to somehow risk being exposed by talking out of school to woodward, and i had no rebuttal, but its far less ludicrous to imagine the establishment republicans would tell pence to shut up and suit up because hes going to be the president once they depose King Dottard, and this leak is simply a rung on that ladder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
i dont think its a coincidence that articles like this are sprouting up like fucking dandelions this last week:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/reade...825-story.html
If Pence is revealed or better yet admits would he necessarily have to resign?
Cause him defiantly staying would be priceless if you like drama.
That LATimes piece was a fun take.
Sorry atheists, but pence thinks everything happens for a reason, he obv(well to me, im not an atheist) thinks its his destiny to be trumps wingman. NEXT. Stop being talentless trash
Well, think of it this way. If it is Pence and he did the anon opinion piece as a trial balloon for whether he should come forward with a majority of Trump’s cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment, he could look like a sort of hero who helped save the republic from a mentally unstable not-so-genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
And it would potentially save the GOP from being thoroughly dragged into the gutter when Mueller comes out with a report that drives Trump completely bonkers. Because invoking the 25th would be much less politically damaging to the GOP if they get trounced in the midterms and the Dems controlling the House start opening up all of Trumps money laundering deals with the Russians via using Congressional subpoena power to examine all of Trump’s income tax returns.
Pence is also the only person that Trump can't fire, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
If it is him, and he invokes the 25th, I'd expect Trump to flip a shit so hard and call President Pences wife a fat whore or something that he will eventually laugh at the idea of giving Trump or any family member a pardon.
Just your cunt President literally threatening to bring one of your closest allies to its knees.
He's also pretty much saying Canada would deserve it too.
I'd be thoroughly ashamed to call myself an American ever again after all the damage which this horrendous bastard is causing.
And the slate won't be wiped clean when he is finally gone either. The smell this leaves behind will linger for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud
Canada has the second largest oil reserves and the world supply of natural gas not to mention the main reserves for potash on the planet, vast swaths of agriculture land.... I have a feeling Canada will be just fine with it’s true commonwealth alliance and new future trading partners. No shortage of countries wanting what we have to offer.
I see this as a net big loss for the USA.
Who in this thread is predicting pence? Check their prediction history
JFC STFU
Seriously why are u not Men? Why dont u care if ur Word means anything?
definitely not pence. above all else, trust that every politician looks out for his or her own best interests.
pence wants to be president some day and trump is insanely popular with GOP voters. if he betrayed trump, he would never have a shot of getting the republican nomination.
maybe kellyanne? her husband is pretty outspoken about hating trump
thesidedish: Youve had the same talent for years
"Consistent" is the word you're looking for here. Not gimmick.
I've said for years that America is pure trash and I believe my observations have been fully justified given recent history.
Also, the vast majority of the world now knows what I've always known - that you are backwards people living in a backwards country. Not all of you, but a LOT of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of the Fraud
Jealously is a powerful emotion
Finally something I think we can all agree on!
http://time.com/5389848/donald-trump...rce=reddit.com
Comments: Baron Von Strucker: they will come back begging for a deal guaranteed
HEY U FKN WORTHLESS LOSERS THAT SHOULD BE GETTING ME COFFEE: TELL SOMEBODY UR PISSED OFF FOR PUSHING "MUH RUSSIA"
until then, u are irrelevant and should be getting me coffee, its that simple
GET ME COFFEE. I dont even drink coffee, get me coffee 300x a day so u dont make anybodys day worse
"Sir heres ur coffee"
"Ok thanks go get me coffee and stop bothering me"
This is ur role in life until further notice JFC
keep your cool foolQuote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
many ppl ITT who believe everything the democrats say about the emails that show them being scamming pos have called me a retard
HEY LIBTARDS WHATS 1 MINUS 0 OR IS THAT TOO TOUGH FOR U
I tell u what, I was bombed tonight and asked a cpl Democrats who said they hate trump what they thought of "Russia" and they said "ugh, its a democrat story"
AND U? FKN PATHETIC I NEVER WANT TO SEE THAT WORD AGAIN
ALSO LOL @ LORD OF THE FRAUD, U GUYS ARE SO FAR BEHIND UR BASICALLY A MONKEY
What do you think they said after you walked away?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanWhat do you think they said after you walked away?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
"KEEP AMERICA GREAT 2020" MORON
ROFL SECONDARY HEADLINE AT CNN.COM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/polit...ach/index.html
"The onetime mistress of former deputy Republican National Committee Finance Chairman Elliott Broidy alleged in newly revealed court documents that she was physically abused by Broidy, and she charges that he was emboldened by President Donald Trump's alleged mistreatment of women and belief that he could get away with it."
CONGRATULATIONS BARACK OBAMA ON UR "ETHICS IN GOVERMENT" AWARD GREAT JOB GREAT SPEECH
:noose
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
This Broidy guy sounds like a scumbag, but LOL at this passage in the court documents:
Quote:
Mr. Broidy admired Mr. Trump's uncanny ability to sexually abuse woman and get away with it. Mr. Broidy began to hurt Ms. Bechard physically during their sexual activities -- touching her in ways to which she did not consent.
:nope
Sounds like typical lawyer-speak, sensationalizing court documents for maximum emotional effect.
I obviously don't know this Broidy guy, but I highly doubt that he "admired Trump's uncanny ability to sexually abuse women and get away with it".
More likely Broidy was just a perv who enjoyed rough sex and S&M stuff, and probably his wife wasn't on board for it. So he got this mistress and acted out those fantasies on her.
Not defending the guy, but I doubt any of this has to do with Trump.
Do people even still watch/read CNN?
If I want liberal spin on a story I go to MSNBC. They obviously have an agenda, but they seem to be interested in actually reporting news with some level of integrity.
At this point I consider CNN and the NYT just straight Breitbart level propaganda, with no integrity or intellectual honesty at all.
Propoganda? If you believe that then you have ingested too much cool-aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
That's paranoia talking.
Verm, I want to think you are worth reading, but saying NYT is equivalent to CNN/Breitbart then following up with "no integrity or intellectual honesty at all" doesn't put you in a good spot. To me, it is epic nonsense, but PLEASE redeem yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Please post how NYT just pumps out non-factual shit.
Please entertain me, as I would most appreciate being informed.
Supposedly the White House has the author down to "a few possible individuals".
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/polit...rch/index.html
:popcorn
Here is a very quick example. It is one of many I could come up with, as it is pretty indicative of how the NYT works.Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonediedVerm, I want to think you are worth reading, but saying NYT is equivalent to CNN/Breitbart then following up with "no integrity or intellectual honesty at all" doesn't put you in a good spot. To me, it is epic nonsense, but PLEASE redeem yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Please post how NYT just pumps out non-factual shit.
Please entertain me, as I would most appreciate being informed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html
This is a hit piece written about Jordan Peterson. It isn't an op-ed. It is "journalism" (at least for the NYT). Peterson said the woman who interviewed him followed him around and interviewed him for 2 days. He says they spent about 5 minutes talking about "enforced monogamy," and it was a very minor part of the interview. He also said she understood exactly what he was communicating, and she intentionally took him out of context and basically flat out lied with the truth. He also said she wrote about nothing they spent most of the time discussing. It was obvious she came in with a narrative, and she twisted some minor stuff he said completely out of context to shape that narrative.
This is what the NYT does. They may not be as liberal as Breitbart with publishing work that is completely false, but they have no problem being intellectually dishonest with the truth. Is this better? You could actually argue it is worse, because when push comes to shove in a court of law Breitbart will admit they are not real journalism, but the NYT will keep up the facade and pretend they aren't intellectually dishonest propaganda.
This is what you must not do when critiquing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardHere is a very quick example. It is one of many I could come up with, as it is pretty indicative of how the NYT works.Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/s...-for-life.html
This is a hit piece written about Jordan Peterson. It isn't an op-ed. It is "journalism" (at least for the NYT). Peterson said the woman who interviewed him followed him around and interviewed him for 2 days. He says they spent about 5 minutes talking about "enforced monogamy," and it was a very minor part of the interview. He also said she understood exactly what he was communicating, and she intentionally took him out of context and basically flat out lied with the truth. He also said she wrote about nothing they spent most of the time discussing. It was obvious she came in with a narrative, and she twisted some minor stuff he said completely out of context to shape that narrative.
This is what the NYT does. They may not be as liberal as Breitbart with publishing work that is completely false, but they have no problem being intellectually dishonest with the truth. Is this better? You could actually argue it is worse, because when push comes to shove in a court of law Breitbart will admit they are not real journalism, but the NYT will keep up the facade and pretend they aren't intellectually dishonest propaganda.
Jordan Peterson says this. Ok, what does the reporter say?
There are two sides to every story. Peterson does not have some pass whereby anything he says is accurate or true.
Unless you have the other side to the story you can't be confident in your judgement
The New York Times has admitted to changing its editorial policy and standards simply because they oppose Trump.
New York Times is to the left what Breitbart is to the right.
Good chance this is a bluff. Best move WH could do is leak that they have it narrowed down to a few people, whether it's true or not. There's a good chance the writer won't be able to continue functioning normally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I feel like it's around even money we learn who wrote it by the end of the month. Surely they will have to go into hiding.
link?Quote:
Originally Posted by BiffCo99
Well, in this case it is pretty cut and dry. Jordan Peterson made a written reply to the article. He basically said the reporter knew exactly what he meant and purposefully twisted his words to fit her narrative. I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot, and he kinda just repeats the same stuff over and over, and his version (which doesn't match what the reporter wrote) is consistent with what he always says, so I am inclined to believe him.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesThis is what you must not do when critiquing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaard
Jordan Peterson says this. Ok, what does the reporter say?
There are two sides to every story. Peterson does not have some pass whereby anything he says is accurate or true.
Unless you have the other side to the story you can't be confident in your judgement
Also, one thing you will not find is the NYT acknowledging that Peterson wrote a concise, articulate reply saying the reporter was being dishonest. Because they aren't in the business of reporting the truth. They are in the business of pushing their own narrative.
He also said the entire 2 days they were together the reporter was very cordial with him and they talked about a lot of stuff in a respectful fashion. He said when she wrote the article she completely changed and got very confrontational and judgmental, and on top of that she ignored 95% of what he said and just focused on pushing her own narrative, which covered about 5 minutes of their 2 day conversation. Basically a straight ambush.