Get me a Coke Please

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Crockett, Jul 25, 2018.

  1. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Oh man. What is CNN thinking? I guess you can get a lot of attention with that leaked audio, but it doesn't prove much.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Though this is enlightening to Trump's character amidst his consistent denials of any knowledge about these women, this is ultimately much ado about nothing. From what I've read, there is very little chance of any legal jeopardy for DJT. It's more of a PR problem.
     
  3. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    PR problem that he boinks playboy playmates? I would like that problem.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    PR problem that he lies and appears to be accustomed to using $$ to keep a problem quiet.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    I can deal with a guy that tells lies about Mickey Mouse stuff that amounts to nothing than the serious stuff Obama lied about.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    It's been my experience that if someone easily lies about "mickey mouse stuff" they'll also lie about more consequential items. The two are rarely mutually exclusive.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Well, he hasn't yet. Maybe he will. However, lies Obama told like Obamacare (which affected me directly) and the Iran deal were extremely serious. If Trump does something like that then I'll ***** about it.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    The only honest presidents that we've had in my lifetime were Carter and the Bushes. Neither of these guys were worth a damn. I'm done looking for angels to put into the White House. However, don't let your dishonesty affect my life or damage the country and we're good.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts


    We'll have to agree to disagree. Over the course of a week Trump took following position on Russian election interference.

    1. Russia didn't interfere.
    2. Russia did interfere.
    3. It's all a hoax.
    4. They will interfere on behalf of the Democrats in the midterms.

    Keep in mind, he was shown evidence of the interference 2 weeks before his inauguration.

    Obama was absolutely wrong for saying "if you like your insurance you'll get to keep it." The fact that we have to compare that specific example to yet another Trump example each day/week is telling. Kellyanne Conway had to define "alternative facts" to justify the Trump's admin straying from truthfulness.

    As an aside, did ya'll notice the the WH Communications team edited the transcript/video for Trump's Press Conference with Putin? It was reported that they removed the question about who Putin supported in the last election where he stated Trump. Just that question was removed...nothing else. By itself that's nothing to be upset about but rather a consistent pattern of behavior to alter reality.
     
  10. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Trump has talked about Russia interfering many times before this summitt. Much of your position here is what the media is spinning. If Hillary had won we wouldn't even be talking about Russia. Even Rosenstein admits the Russian interference had minimal effect. It's something that occurs during every election. I'm sorry but you're being manipulated into making a molehill into a mountain. When they start affecting voting integrity then call me. Conway's 'alternative" facts came from a different source that looks to be wrong. Big deal. About that edit: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-putin-out-of-a-video/?utm_term=.ee1a1cd93af7
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  11. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    SH
    "It was reported that they removed the question about who Putin supported in the last election where he stated Trump"

    Interesting that the Wapo AND NYTimes both said the WH did not remove anything
    "The Washington Post – not a likely co-conspirator for the president – also omitted the first part of Mason's question from its transcript and video. "We did not edit the question out," reporter Phillip Bump wrote in response to the Maddow segment. "This is the feed we were provided."

    "This is not a conspiracy from the White House," Bump continued. "While the White House certainly has a track record of misrepresenting facts, this would have been a remarkably futile revision of reality to attempt. As it turns out, they didn’t."
    The NYTimes is also missing the full question
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/world/europe/russia-trump-putin-news-conference-transcript.html

    The haters SO want to see boogie men they forget to or don't want to fact check. Have to admit neither Wapo nor NYtimes will be carrying water for Potus Trump
     
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    During the Clinton era, we used to say that lying about screwing around wasn't Mickey Mouse stuff. (And of course, Democrats said it was.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    I voted for Clinton in '92. I didn't care about his past. However, committing adultery while in the White House was probably a bridge too far.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    Agreed and well said.
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Respectfully, I don't believe you. If Trump commits adultery in the White House, you will not throw him under the bus.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Don't care.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. horninchicago

    horninchicago 10,000+ Posts

    tenor.gif

    :D
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It's ok that you don't care. I didn't expect you to. I'm just preemptively calling BS on you and going on the record. If Trump cheats on Melania in the White House, it will not impact your support.
     
  19. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Yeah, you know me so well. :rolleyes1: I heard Mrs. Clinton will run in 2020. Here's another chance for you to get her in the White House.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    And that's precisely why you won't bail on him. You'll look at the political impact of him paying a price (HRC or some other freak show Leftist benefitting), and you'll stand by your man. In other words, you'll follow the Left's mentality on Clinton.
     
  21. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    If he porks an intern I wouldn't vote for him at all. I'm not sure he'd make it past the republican primary because the Christian Right would turn on him.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  22. VYFan

    VYFan 2,500+ Posts

    Donald Trump was basically a young rich playboy, while also a focused businessman. That was his background. Now, older and extremely successful, and on his third wife, he and Melania present almost as Monarch and consort. Knowing that when he was elected, the public isn’t really surprised or upset that he ran around with a playboy bunny type.

    If George Bush had cheated on Laura, even his base would have been devastated, because he was elected on character, not on specific programs he promised or a lot of political experience. Obama’s base would have been very upset if he cheated on Michelle, but I doubt he would lose even a percentage point of support, because he was delivering the programs his base wanted.

    Trump was elected for his high IQ (I know that is hard to hear), his unparalleled real world experience and success, and his distance from the two political parties. Also that he was not Hillary and willing to call out our despicable media. Not on his personal character—despite it. The grab-her-by-the-crotch tape came out before the election.

    Now, he has actually added a constituency: the Republican Party, who are surprised to find that they actually like his policies. None of this support hinges on any misconceptions about his niceness or interpersonal character.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. VYFan

    VYFan 2,500+ Posts

    No, I don’t think they (we) will for the reasons I just posted. We don’t want an inside dog for a pet; we want an outside dog that will bite robbers.
     
  24. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Who's going to pay for the wall?
     
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Yes, he says it then he says the exact opposite. That's the point. At some point you have to admit the man literally talks out of both ends, even when he's supposed to be reading a script.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  26. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    The Martians
     
  27. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    No, what he's doing is what he does on Twitter. Keep trolling and watch the media and the left keep overreacting. The left's constant overreaction is damaging the democrat brand.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  28. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Sorry, I had to give you a hard time. :) U.S. tax on Mexican imports is what will be done.
     
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Most Democrats would have said they'd bail on Clinton if asked about it in a vacuum. But here's what would happen. The people calling for Trump's head would be people you hate. It would be liberal politicians and shrill media figures and political pundits. They would be extremely obnoxious and sanctimonious about it. To deny them the orgasmic delight they'd get out of seeing Trump ousted, you'd rationalize. You'd say that Trump did something bad but that it's between him and Melania and isn't bad enough to warrant impeachment, especially since a previous President had done the same thing and got away with it, even though he committed a felony to cover it up.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Dude, that's awesome.
     

Share This Page