I see the Taliban have broken the historical truce already
Printable View
I see the Taliban have broken the historical truce already
Apparently, Trump has been in a lot of TV commercials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgPxjDjAKyg
From the same playbook of 'bring up the caravans near elections, only', after Saturday, the dust covered Hunter Biden files needed to be opened, again.
He literally just pardoned the murderers row of American corruption, but OK, yeah, can't wait to hear how concerned he is w/Ukraine corruption.
These "hearings" will be the same as Benghazi, all about smearing Joe & getting headlines.
Hannity can use "IFthis happened" before every lie, to avoid libel, and then when the GOP can't get anything to stick,
they will drop the charges after the election, late on a Friday night, so no one notices, & it gets through news cycle fast.
Senate Republicans plan first subpoena in Burisma, Biden probe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b81_story.html
It's so historical it's a worse deal for us than Obama negotiated and leaves more troops in Afghanistan, but the Republicans hated it when he did it. Now the Trumptards think Trump is a genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
Don't worry. An appeals court just ruled that people don't have to obey Congressional subpoenas. So Trump can do whatever he wants and Congress can't investigate, but so can anybody else. The Supreme Court could overturn it, but only if they change course and decide to put the Constitution ahead of Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyG_415
I wonder what sort of cynical mental gymnastics the Republicans will invent to try to force a future Democratic president and his staff to comply with their subpoenas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakIt's so historical it's a worse deal for us than Obama negotiated and leaves more troops in Afghanistan, but the Republicans hated it when he did it. Now the Trumptards think Trump is a genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
Case in point.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaiQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Two things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakDon't worry. An appeals court just ruled that people don't have to obey Congressional subpoenas. So Trump can do whatever he wants and Congress can't investigate, but so can anybody else. The Supreme Court could overturn it, but only if they change course and decide to put the Constitution ahead of Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyG_415
I wonder what sort of cynical mental gymnastics the Republicans will invent to try to force a future Democratic president and his staff to comply with their subpoenas.
1. That’s not what the opinion said.
2. Administrations have ignored congressional subpoenas long before this one. But hey, blame Trump.
looks like william buckley.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaiQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
shitty likeness made into shitty hoodie
They have, but they shouldn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by TellafriendTwo things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
1. That’s not what the opinion said.
2. Administrations have ignored congressional subpoenas long before this one. But hey, blame Trump.
Dwai: I don't watch CNN, but I did catch that Tom Hanks-produced "The Eighties" and "The Seventies" which I thought were pretty good.
The guy they subpoened is a Ukranian National and Trump super fan straight out of r/the_donaldQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakDon't worry. An appeals court just ruled that people don't have to obey Congressional subpoenas. So Trump can do whatever he wants and Congress can't investigate, but so can anybody else. The Supreme Court could overturn it, but only if they change course and decide to put the Constitution ahead of Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyG_415
I wonder what sort of cynical mental gymnastics the Republicans will invent to try to force a future Democratic president and his staff to comply with their subpoenas.
He loves to pwn the libs and retweet Rudy, Ingham, James Woods, Devin Nunez, etc...
https://twitter.com/AndriyUkraineTe
Def looks like an American:
Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanThe guy they subpoened is a Ukranian National and Trump super fan straight out of r/the_donaldQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
He loves to pwn the libs and retweet Rudy, Ingham, James Woods, Devin Nunez, etc...
https://twitter.com/AndriyUkraineTe
Def looks like an American:
two fat fucking pigs
Can you name a country? Ted Cruz edition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umpalMtQE50
You guys Druff is laid up right now.
He needs time and space to conjure up ways to defend his genius, please be mindful.
This would have been funnier if it wasn't such a painfully obvious swipe at Republicans, in yet another lame attempt to paint them as stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
That's been the message out of the Hollywood elite for years: "We're smart and educated liberals, and all Republicans are either dumb rubes or super-evil corporate overlords."
In general I don't find these "stupid man on the street" segments to be funny, because they just keep filming until they run into the biggest idiots of the day, and then present those. They even admitted that they wouldn't ask this question of Bernie supporters. Why? Just to prove Cruz wrong or something?
I guess it's hilarious to make fun of ignorant white Republicans. What if they did this in the inner city and asked the same question of black people on the street? Do you think some would have shown the same ignorance? Would those segments have ever made air? I think you know the answer.
"attempt"
Being politically incorrect is all fun and games till you look like a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis would have been funnier if it wasn't such a painfully obvious swipe at Republicans, in yet another lame attempt to paint them as stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
That's been the message out of the Hollywood elite for years: "We're smart and educated liberals, and all Republicans are either dumb rubes or super-evil corporate overlords."
In general I don't find these "stupid man on the street" segments to be funny, because they just keep filming until they run into the biggest idiots of the day, and then present those. They even admitted that they wouldn't ask this question of Bernie supporters. Why? Just to prove Cruz wrong or something?
I guess it's hilarious to make fun of ignorant white Republicans. What if they did this in the inner city and asked the same question of black people on the street? Do you think some would have shown the same ignorance? Would those segments have ever made air? I think you know the answer.
please understand im not trying to rub it in but this is why we were insisting we shouldnt elect an actual retard as president:
What point are you trying to make here?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanBeing politically incorrect is all fun and games till you look like a retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Is this some swipe at me?
They're cherry-picking the dumbest of the dumb Republicans they interviewed, and are presenting it as, "Look at this! All us leftists are smart, and here's what Republicans are like!"
They picked a really, really lame premise to do so -- some obscure Ted Cruz tweet talking about Bernie Bros being stupid. So they went out of their way to ONLY interview Republicans, and not even give the Bernie Bros the chance to prove Cruz right? And then they only showed the dumbest of the dumb Republicans, out of likely hundreds they interviewed?
Yeah, real groundbreaking, witty stuff.
As I said, I always hate "dumb man on the street" interviews, even when not political. Only a moron wouldn't realize that they're cherry picking the dumbest of the dumb. And what's so funny about it? That certain people in America are ignorant and uneducated? Okkkkkkkkay.... that's true in every country. I really don't see any comedy in that. It's more sad than anything else. Why not just go to an assisted care facility and interview actual retards if that's the goal?
Since they are on the corruption case, (after praising Trump for pardoning Milken)
I wonder if Fox is going to cover these 2 corruption stories that broke JUST TODAY
Jared had a property worth 5m, w/that tax break deal he pushed for, he sold it for 25m to 50m
per Eric 'the Trump's don't charge the Secret service, just like 50 a day for housekeeping', but they can't find one who was charged less than $396, usually $650.
ALA Eric's charity saying a charity golf tourney he was hosting was free, but the Trumps gouged the f out of them.
but please, keep telling us how corrupt Hunter Biden is,
Jared Kushner sells stake in firm that benefited from Trump tax breaks
https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/202...ax-breaks.html
President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner has sold his stake in a company investing in Opportunity Zone projects offering tax breaks he had pushed for in Washington, sparking criticism that he was benefiting from his White House role.
Newly obtained documents show $157,000 in additional payments by the Secret Service to Trump properties
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b81_story.html
“If my father travels, they stay at our properties for free — meaning, like, cost for housekeeping,” said Eric Trump, the company’s executive vice president. Later in the interview, he said, “We charge them, like, 50 bucks.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyG_415
That's what they renamed the White House?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWhat point are you trying to make here?Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
Is this some swipe at me?
They're cherry-picking the dumbest of the dumb Republicans they interviewed, and are presenting it as, "Look at this! All us leftists are smart, and here's what Republicans are like!"
They picked a really, really lame premise to do so -- some obscure Ted Cruz tweet talking about Bernie Bros being stupid. So they went out of their way to ONLY interview Republicans, and not even give the Bernie Bros the chance to prove Cruz right? And then they only showed the dumbest of the dumb Republicans, out of likely hundreds they interviewed?
Yeah, real groundbreaking, witty stuff.
As I said, I always hate "dumb man on the street" interviews, even when not political. Only a moron wouldn't realize that they're cherry picking the dumbest of the dumb. And what's so funny about it? That certain people in America are ignorant and uneducated? Okkkkkkkkay.... that's true in every country. I really don't see any comedy in that. It's more sad than anything else. Why not just go to an assisted care facility and interview actual retards if that's the goal?
Yeah, it is a swipe at you.
Politicians make fun of Democrats => no problem. Late night comedian makes fun of Republicans and you throw a tantrum.
You complain all the time about people that are too 'politically correct' but when a comedian makes Republicans look like a bunch of idiots you get upset.
If Kimmel did a 'idiot on the street' bit with Liberal Lesbians you would've posted it with an 'LOL', not criticize him for cherry picking the dumbest ones inaccurately representing Liberal Lesbians. It's not his method or the fact that he's making a generalization about a group of people that pissed you off, it's the fact that you're part of the group he's making fun of. No different than Vanessa Selbst really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yeah, it is a swipe at you.
Politicians make fun of Democrats => no problem. Late night comedian makes fun of Republicans and you throw a tantrum.
You complain all the time about people that are too 'politically correct' but when a comedian makes Republicans look like a bunch of idiots you get upset.
If Kimmel did a 'idiot on the street' bit with Liberal Lesbians you would've posted it with an 'LOL', not criticize him for cherry picking the dumbest ones inaccurately representing Liberal Lesbians. It's not his method or the fact that he's making a generalization about a group of people that pissed you off, it's the fact that you're part of the group he's making fun of. No different than Vanessa Selbst really.
dude dwai all you’re doing lately is trying to “own libs” vis a vis constantly shitposting. Please engage in discourse and show respect.
Druff,
Do you agree with your Genius downplaying Coronavirus severity based on his hunches?
"But if you don’t cut something in entitlements, you will never really deal with the debt,” town hall co-moderator Martha MacCallum interjected.
"Oh, we’ll be cutting,” Trump rushed to confirm. “But we’re also going to have growth like you’ve never had before."
i'm not sure trump knows what entitlements are.
do you think he realizes he said he plans on making cuts to social security and medicare in advance of an election?
No. But I even said early on that he wasn't handling this very well, so what is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
When did I make the case that Trump was perfect and that I always agree with him?
'NOt HanDLinG tHiS vErY WelL'Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo. But I even said early on that he wasn't handling this very well, so what is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
When did I make the case that Trump was perfect and that I always agree with him?
I enjoy seeing you minimize the behavior of this pathlogical lunatic, even when it will likely lead to more Americans dying.
Because SJWs.
Oh you see that guyz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe'NOt HanDLinG tHiS vErY WelL'Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I enjoy seeing you minimize the behavior of this pathlogical lunatic, even when it will likely lead to more Americans dying.
Because SJWs.
He's doing that alternating caps thing to mock my response! Clever!
What are you, 12?
I love how I agree with this histrionic douche that Trump isn't handling it well, and he's still not satisfied. That's the problem with the Trump Derangement crew. They moan about how you always defend Trump, and then when you agree with one of their criticisms, they moan that you're an awful person for not completely condemning him. You can't win unless you tell them you're voting Democrat in 2020.
Oh, and I'm quite familiar with recent Presidents being responsible for thousands of US deaths. Google VA Wait List Scandal. Obama wouldn't even fire the appointee who was responsible. Even CNN thought this was shameful.
But yeah, Orange Man so bad and so scary!
Cue ad hominem and deflections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffOh you see that guyz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
He's doing that alternating caps thing to mock my response! Clever!
What are you, 12?
I love how I agree with this histrionic douche that Trump isn't handling it well, and he's still not satisfied. That's the problem with the Trump Derangement crew. They moan about how you always defend Trump, and then when you agree with one of their criticisms, they moan that you're an awful person for not completely condemning him. You can't win unless you tell them you're voting Democrat in 2020.
Oh, and I'm quite familiar with recent Presidents being responsible for thousands of US deaths. Google VA Wait List Scandal. Obama wouldn't even fire the appointee who was responsible. Even CNN thought this was shameful.
But yeah, Orange Man so bad and so scary!
Sad what you've been reduced to.
'LPR' side effects.
No matter what anyone says all he does is post a silly picture and call people the n-word. Really adds to the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypt
There's no talking to you deranged idiots, if it's not what you want to hear you don't listen. This site is full of sjw faggots and n-words, there's really no reason for logical discussion. You're a n-word, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakNo matter what anyone says all he does is post a silly picture and call people the n-word. Really adds to the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypt
I'm aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaiThere's no talking to you deranged idiots, if it's not what you want to hear you don't listen. This site is full of sjw faggots and n-words, there's really no reason for logical discussion. You're a n-word, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
I'm only kidding around, jeeezQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter SobchakI'm aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwai
I don't care if they make fun of Republicans. They do it on late night TV every night, and I rarely post about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yeah, it is a swipe at you.
Politicians make fun of Democrats => no problem. Late night comedian makes fun of Republicans and you throw a tantrum.
You complain all the time about people that are too 'politically correct' but when a comedian makes Republicans look like a bunch of idiots you get upset.
If Kimmel did a 'idiot on the street' bit with Liberal Lesbians you would've posted it with an 'LOL', not criticize him for cherry picking the dumbest ones inaccurately representing Liberal Lesbians. It's not his method or the fact that he's making a generalization about a group of people that pissed you off, it's the fact that you're part of the group he's making fun of. No different than Vanessa Selbst really.
This particular segment was especially obnoxious because it was done from the point of coastal leftist arrogance. The "we're smart and enlightened, you're dumb and ignorant" variety, where it's couched as comedy.
The fact that they specifically excluded non-Republicans from the segment was especially lame.
You talk about what my supposed reaction would have been if the victims of this bit were "liberal lesbians", but that's exactly my point. Liberal lesbians would never be the target of such a bit -- or any derogatory bit -- nor would anyone on the left.
It's Kimmel's show, and he can do what he wants, but I can also comment that the segment is lame, unfunny, and politically arrogant/misleading.
In general, coastal liberals are always trying to posture about how much smarter and more sophisticated they think they are. Then they wonder why the rest of the country can't relate to them.
It's sad that you've become such an annoying political troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeCue ad hominem and deflections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Sad what you've been reduced to.
'LPR' side effects.
You asked for my opinion, I gave the opinion which was actually critical of Trump, and still I got attacked in a condescending fashion. Then you cry about my supposed response being filled with "ad hominem and deflections".
Perhaps take a look in the mirror at the tone you're taking with me, if you want to be addressed in a respectful manner.
I wonder what Todd thinks of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI don't care if they make fun of Republicans. They do it on late night TV every night, and I rarely post about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritan
This particular segment was especially obnoxious because it was done from the point of coastal leftist arrogance. The "we're smart and enlightened, you're dumb and ignorant" variety, where it's couched as comedy.
The fact that they specifically excluded non-Republicans from the segment was especially lame.
You talk about what my supposed reaction would have been if the victims of this bit were "liberal lesbians", but that's exactly my point. Liberal lesbians would never be the target of such a bit -- or any derogatory bit -- nor would anyone on the left.
It's Kimmel's show, and he can do what he wants, but I can also comment that the segment is lame, unfunny, and politically arrogant/misleading.
In general, coastal liberals are always trying to posture about how much smarter and more sophisticated they think they are. Then they wonder why the rest of the country can't relate to them.
Maybe they are more intelligent.
https://phys.org/news/2010-02-intell...lues-human.amp
"Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence."
I think I'd have to see where they are drawing these "very liberal" and "very conservative" subjects from, and whether the group doing this study has any kind of bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusI wonder what Todd thinks of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Maybe they are more intelligent.
https://phys.org/news/2010-02-intell...lues-human.amp
"Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence."
There's also a problem with the study, in that politics can change based upon various societal and life influences. So if there's a heavy liberal influence at college, and if kids in college have a higher average IQ than those not in college, then young liberals would indeed have a higher IQ than young conservatives, on average. But that would be corrupted data, because the liberal politics might have actually developed at college, rather than being preexisting.
It would be like a cult recruiting only people with IQs over 130, and then bragging that this high average IQ is proof that only smart people are intelligent enough to realize that their cult is the way to go.
Also the "very" tag bothers me here, because it's like it's being cherrypicked. Might mean that those who are just "conservative" and not "very conservative" could have scored a lot higher, but they don't want that seen.