Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: wesfau2 on February 16, 2017, 01:08:51 AM
-
I freely admit my bias. I don't think he's qualified to serve in this capacity and I think he's mucking the job horribly.
That said, I'd like someone to address...explain...defend, if you can...this garbage drivel.
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn16/wesf9977/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg) (http://s300.photobucket.com/user/wesf9977/media/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg.html)
I suspect I'll hear how the question is illegitimate and Trump was a hero for not playing into the hands of the enquirer. It will be suggested that he is a mastermind that knows exactly what he is doing when he falls back on his first and favorite "presidential" talking point.
I hope I'm surprised.
-
I freely admit my bias. I don't think he's qualified to serve in this capacity and I think he's mucking the job horribly.
That said, I'd like someone to address...explain...defend, if you can...this garbage drivel.
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn16/wesf9977/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg) (http://s300.photobucket.com/user/wesf9977/media/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg.html)
I suspect I'll hear how the question is illegitimate and Trump was a hero for not playing into the hands of the enquirer. It will be suggested that he is a mastermind that knows exactly what he is doing when he falls back on his first and favorite "presidential" talking point.
I hope I'm surprised.
I can explain it.
Someone didn't write him a response, so he just winged it. You know, he talks to himself regarding foreign policy matters, because he has big brain and he knows words, great words.
-
I freely admit my bias. I don't think he's qualified to serve in this capacity and I think he's mucking the job horribly.
That said, I'd like someone to address...explain...defend, if you can...this garbage drivel.
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn16/wesf9977/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg) (http://s300.photobucket.com/user/wesf9977/media/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg.html)
I suspect I'll hear how the question is illegitimate and Trump was a hero for not playing into the hands of the enquirer. It will be suggested that he is a mastermind that knows exactly what he is doing when he falls back on his first and favorite "presidential" talking point.
I hope I'm surprised.
Your post is garbage.
Lesson over.
-
What do you expect him to say? What is a "sharp rise"? What does that mean? Did it go from 5 to 10? 100 to 120? 500 to 750? How do you expect him to answer something so vague? And what constitutes an "incident"? And why does this "sharp rise", whatever that means, directly correlate to Trump?
Xenophobic and racist tones? Are you fucking kidding me? Asking a President that? It's bullshit. How the fuck do you even address that you aren't a racist?
The other question was for the prime minister and not sure how that was handled...but expecting Trump to answer some bullshit question that may or may not be true while accusing him of being a racist against a nation of people in which thier Prime Minister is sitting right there is complete bullshit.
Sorry, not only do I think the top questions are illegitimate, but I think it's bullshit too. You can't say presumptive shit like that. If there is a "sharp rise" in incidents, damn sure state the facts in your question.
-
I can explain it.
Someone didn't write him a response, so he just winged it. You know, he talks to himself regarding foreign policy matters, because he has big brain and he knows words, great words.
Since you joined the X, there has been a sharp rise in gay jokes. Mr. Prowler, I wonder what you say to those people in the gay community that you are part of a group on the x with anti-gay slurs and undertones being used. Why do you associate on this board when many people in the LGBT community don't appreciate the anti-gay rhetoric that this board portrays?
-
Since you joined the X, there has been a sharp rise in gay jokes. Mr. Prowler, I wonder what you say to those people in the gay community that you are part of a group on the x with anti-gay slurs and undertones being used. Why do you associate on this board when many people in the LGBT community don't appreciate the anti-gay rhetoric that this board portrays?
You're talking to someone who WANTS to view with a slant. The media has tremendous influence in shaping opinion or in this case, telling him what he already thinks is so (red meat). He must be back to being flame throwing prowler again. Monday he will be back to trying to sound pragmatic again. No conviction at all.
-
I freely admit my bias. I don't think he's qualified to serve in this capacity and I think he's mucking the job horribly.
That said, I'd like someone to address...explain...defend, if you can...this garbage drivel.
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn16/wesf9977/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg) (http://s300.photobucket.com/user/wesf9977/media/TrumpBabble_zpslhlejnla.jpg.html)
I suspect I'll hear how the question is illegitimate and Trump was a hero for not playing into the hands of the enquirer. It will be suggested that he is a mastermind that knows exactly what he is doing when he falls back on his first and favorite "presidential" talking point.
I hope I'm surprised.
Nice way to frame a legitimate response and write it off as asinine. You must have read rules for radicals. The "marginalize it rule" is a big one in their arsenal.
-
Nice way to frame a legitimate response and write it off as asinine. You must have read rules for radicals. The "marginalize it rule" is a big one in their arsenal.
It is asinine.
He can't even pretend to speak extemporaneously. It's increasingly bizarre (as we move temporally farther away every day from election night) to keep casting back to the baseline achievement of every president: win the election.
-
It is asinine.
He can't even pretend to speak extemporaneously. It's increasingly bizarre (as we move temporally farther away every day from election night) to keep casting back to the baseline achievement of every president: win the election.
Yet you don't think the questions are asinine.
You're seeing what you want to see. There isn't much sense debating it Wes. An agree to disagree scenario.
-
It is asinine.
He can't even pretend to speak extemporaneously. It's increasingly bizarre (as we move temporally farther away every day from election night) to keep casting back to the baseline achievement of every president: win the election.
Wrong.
It was a bullshit gotcha question along the lines of "when did you stop punching your wife in the face?"
Fuck the interviewer.
-
It is asinine.
He can't even pretend to speak extemporaneously. It's increasingly bizarre (as we move temporally farther away every day from election night) to keep casting back to the baseline achievement of every president: win the election.
Just because it is different, doesn't mean it is wrong or ineffective.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-lectured-trump-declares-the-big-difference-between-a-trump-and-obama-news-conference/2017/02/15/8a4c6138-f3a9-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_trumpdebrief-10pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.03c1c09284a7 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-lectured-trump-declares-the-big-difference-between-a-trump-and-obama-news-conference/2017/02/15/8a4c6138-f3a9-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_trumpdebrief-10pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.03c1c09284a7)
For the past eight years, a presidential news conference was a chance to hear from Professor Obama, the long-winded lecturer in chief who expounded on domestic politics and international relations with nuance, depth, range and, most of all, a lot of words.
Under the new administration, brevity is in.
President Trump, who has carved out a niche online as the tweeter in chief, is willing to go beyond 140 characters while fielding questions from reporters at the White House. But sometimes, it seems, not by much.
Trump’s joint news conferences with foreign leaders are brisker affairs. He is not interested in filibustering answers to run out the clock, the way Obama did, but prefers racing through them in a mix of simplistic declarative sentences, ad-libs and non sequiturs.
When he does fall back on talking points, as all politicians inevitably do, they are not the kind that come from a briefing book prepared by an aide. Rather, Trump’s talking points often appear to spring from his own id and have little or nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Wednesday offered another example.
Appearing in the East Room with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump answered a question about whether the United States was giving up on a two-state solution to Middle East peace, a major change in policy, with 74 words that amounted to his being okay with two states, one state or “the one that both parties like.â€
To a question about his proposal to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move that could inflame tensions with the Palestinians — Trump was even briefer, offering a 38-word response that he’d “love to see that happen†and that his administration was “looking at it very, very strongly . . . with great care, believe me.â€
He did not explain why, what factors he was considering or when it might happen.
Most perplexing was Trump’s response to a pointed challenge from an Israeli journalist who suggested that many in the Jewish community say that his brand of politics is propagating racism, xenophobia and a rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.
Trump spent slightly more time answering this thorny question: 230 words. But the first 56 of them centered on one of his most reliable talking points: boasting about his electoral college victory over Hillary Clinton.
“We were not supposed to crack 220,†he said. Turning to Netanyahu on his right, Trump sought some affirmation: “You know that, right?â€
Taking on the question more generally, Trump then offered a number of sweeping promises — “We are going to have peace,†“We are going to stop crime†— before pointing out that he has “so many friends†who are Jewish, including his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both sitting in the front row.
Trump wrapped up by predicting that “a lot of good things†would happen to the country under his watch: “You’re going to see a lot of love. You’re going to see a lot of love. Okay? Thanks.â€
Trump didn’t even bother denying the accusations laid out in the reporter’s question.
In all, Trump spoke fewer than 1,000 words in response to questions from four reporters. By comparison, when Obama joined Netanyahu for a joint news conference in Jerusalem in 2013, he employed more than 2,350 words in fielding queries from four reporters.
Trump’s economy of words at his White House news conferences matches other aspects of his governing style. He is said not to read books and prefers aides to deliver policy reviews in one-page documents replete with bullet points.
Obama, in his final year, carved out hours of his time to discuss his legacy with historians and magazine writers in long-form interviews, even penning his own treatises of 5,000 words for academic journals. Trump prefers to engage in the sound-bite pithiness of cable news and quick-cut optics of reality TV.
During a hastily arranged joint appearance with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last weekend in the wake of North Korea’s ballistic missile test, Trump stepped to the lectern after Abe and appeared to disregard a written statement prepared by staffers.
Instead, he spoke 23 words off the cuff: “I just want everybody to understand and fully know that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent.â€
Trump neglected to mention another U.S. ally in equal, if not greater, potential jeopardy: South Korea.
If Obama, a former constitutional law professor, came across as overly cerebral and, on occasion, haughty, Trump’s style makes him appear unprepared or, at times, disinterested.
But both presidents have used their unique styles to obfuscate on knotty issues.
Obama’s answers often drowned his audience — in this case, reporters — in an ocean of words, making modest shifts in the administration’s position nearly indecipherable and requiring attentive listening even as it became difficult to remember the question.
Trump’s quick changes of topic can make it challenging for reporters to pin him down. Trump and his press secretary, Sean Spicer, often move on to another questioner so quickly that reporters are unable to ask a follow-up. And the White House has been accused of favoring conservative-leaning news outlets in hopes of getting friendly questions and coverage.
Trump is also adept at employing verbal assaults on his political rivals, including reporters, to divert attention and gain the upper hand.
He opened his answers Wednesday by reiterating his attack, first leveled on Twitter, against the “fake media†for its treatment of his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who resigned earlier in the week amid reports that he had misled the administration about his contact with Russian government officials.
Later in the day, however, Trump had less to say about the circumstances of Andrew Puzder, who withdrew as Trump’s labor secretary nominee amid widespread bipartisan opposition.
In an impromptu session outside his office, Spicer told reporters that a presidential statement on Puzder was forthcoming. A few moments later, an aide handed Spicer a note, and the spokesman amended his guidance: The president would have nothing to say after all.
-
It is asinine.
He can't even pretend to speak extemporaneously. It's increasingly bizarre (as we move temporally farther away every day from election night) to keep casting back to the baseline achievement of every president: win the election.
I see both sides here, but I admit that my thoughts are purely assumptions and conjecture. The answer on its' face is a total deflection and fails to address any part of the question(s). Depending on your perspective, it can indeed be both asinine and bordering on retarded, assuming that's his honest response.
My assumption is also that he fully understood every aspect of the question and it wasn't:
Mr. President, what is 2+2?
Trump: ORANGE!!!
I think in his mind, he took it as another shot by a reporter and he had two choices, either attack the guy and the media outlet he works for, (Which he has done numerous times in the past) or go 100% "Coach Speak".
Mr. President, what about the rise in anti-Semetic attacks etc.?
Trump: We're just focused on the game this weekend. Trying to get better. One game at a time. Next question.
-
I see both sides here, but I admit that my thoughts are purely assumptions and conjecture. The answer on its' face is a total deflection and fails to address any part of the question(s). Depending on your perspective, it can indeed be both asinine and bordering on retarded, assuming that's his honest response.
My assumption is also that he fully understood every aspect of the question and it wasn't:
Mr. President, what is 2+2?
Trump: ORANGE!!!
I think in his mind, he took it as another shot by a reporter and he had two choices, either attack the guy and the media outlet he works for, (Which he has done numerous times in the past) or go 100% "Coach Speak".
Mr. President, what about the rise in anti-Semetic attacks etc.?
Trump: We're just focused on the game this weekend. Trying to get better. One game at a time. Next question.
If that is his strategy, then he's fucking awful at it and it makes him look like a simpleton. Deflect to something topical if you must, but to keep pounding that "achievement" makes him look increasingly loony.
-
Skip to 1:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_FJzKv509w
-
If that is his strategy, then he's fucking awful at it and it makes him look like a simpleton. Deflect to something topical if you must, but to keep pounding that "achievement" makes him look increasingly loony.
Don't come back at me. I'm well respected and I've won a lot of major awards around here.
-
If that is his strategy, then he's fucking awful at it and it makes him look like a simpleton. Deflect to something topical if you must, but to keep pounding that "achievement" makes him look increasingly loony.
In response...loony? Don't see it that way. Fucking awful at it? :thumsup:
-
Obama, in his final year, carved out hours of his time to discuss his legacy with historians and magazine writers in long-form interviews, even penning his own treatises of 5,000 words for academic journals.
This is a much bigger problem than Trump sluffing off a stupid question from a gotcha reporter.
-
Don't come back at me. I'm well respected and I've won a lot of major awards around here.
Herpes isn't an award.
-
Herpes isn't an award.
But, Ramone said it was.
-
IMO, the second paragraph was as good an answer as you can give that question. Basically "Bitch, my daughter's Jewish, my son in law's Jewish, and my three grandkids are Jewish, and you're implying I'm anti-Semitic? Fuck outta here with that bullshit."
The first paragraph though... :facepalm:
-
IMO, the second paragraph was as good an answer as you can give that question. Basically "Bitch, my daughter's Jewish, my son in law's Jewish, and my three grandkids are Jewish, and you're implying I'm anti-Semitic? Fuck outta here with that bullshit."
The first paragraph though... :facepalm:
Fair enough.
His first was vintage braggadocious trump. If you like trump it probably doesn't bother you. If you don't it probably will bother you.
The second was good. Agree.
-
Obama, in his final year,
-
Fair enough.
His first was vintage braggadocious trump. If you like trump it probably doesn't bother you. If you don't it probably will bother you.
The second was good. Agree.
Just...why fucking say this over and over and over again? He didn't even win the popular vote, and yes, I know that it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of his presidency because of the Electoral College, but it's just even MORE REASON not to wildly swing to "Yah but I won tho. People like me. I'm the greatest most popular person ever" as a non-sequitur. Yes, we know you won, that's why you're president now. Like Wes said, congratulations on the absolute baseline achievement of every president ever. Can we move the fuck on from that, please? It's indicative of his biggest character flaw which is that he is an insane narcissist who cares way more about his own popularity or "ratings" than literally anything else.
-
Just...why fucking say this over and over and over again? He didn't even win the popular vote, and yes, I know that it is irrelevant to the legitimacy of his presidency because of the Electoral College, but it's just even MORE REASON not to wildly swing to "Yah but I won tho. People like me. I'm the greatest most popular person ever" as a non-sequitur. Yes, we know you won, that's why you're president now. Like Wes said, congratulations on the absolute baseline achievement of every president ever. Can we move the fuck on from that, please? It's indicative of his biggest character flaw which is that he is an insane narcissist who cares way more about his own popularity or "ratings" than literally anything else.
This.
-
I can explain it.
Someone didn't write him a response, so he just winged it. You know, he talks to himself regarding foreign policy matters, because he has big brain and he knows words, great words.
Cause Obama took all the teleprompters.
-
IMO, the second paragraph was as good an answer as you can give that question. Basically "Bitch, my daughter's Jewish, my son in law's Jewish, and my three grandkids are Jewish, and you're implying I'm anti-Semitic? Fuck outta here with that bullshit."
The first paragraph though... :facepalm:
What's wrong with the first? He's acknowledging that the country is divided. He's saying that the division is part of the reason he was elected. He's stating clearly that his policies are intended to help heal that divide even though some low-life twats don't understand that.
As for "he didn't even win the popular vote" that's been undeniably and unquestionably classified and clarified as a California problem.
You remove California -- and it's shady voter laws where a turnip can vote in six different counties -- and President Trump DID win the popular vote. The difference between his deficit in California and his nationwide deficit tips in his favor -- by nearly 1.5 million votes.
So. Fuck California. Take your "lost the popular vote" argument and stick it up Hillary's dusty jizz canal. It's worthless and fraudulent. I don't want to see you attempt it again. It's beneath you (and wes). Do better.
-
Obama in his final year...
Was more concerned with his sham legacy than governing.
You're down two sets to none, down 5-1 in the third set and down 0-40 in this game, Wessie. Do you see that towel over there? Might be time to throw it.
-
What's wrong with the first? He's acknowledging that the country is divided. He's saying that the division is part of the reason he was elected. He's stating clearly that his policies are intended to help heal that divide even though some low-life twats don't understand that.
As for "he didn't even win the popular vote" that's been undeniably and unquestionably classified and clarified as a California problem.
You remove California -- and it's shady voter laws where a turnip can vote in six different counties -- and President Trump DID win the popular vote. The difference between his deficit in California and his nationwide deficit tips in his favor -- by nearly 1.5 million votes.
So. Fuck California. Take your "lost the popular vote" argument and stick it up Hillary's dusty jizz canal. It's worthless and fraudulent. I don't want to see you attempt it again. It's beneath you (and wes). Do better.
My bad I thought California was in the United States.
-
My bad I thought California was in the United ed States.
It is, but you know exactly what I mean. Trump won the majority of electoral votes and excluding one extremely liberal state replete with voter fraud, the majority of the popular vote.
It's fraudulent to keep saying she "won the popular vote" when she lost the popular vote in 98% of the country.
She won California by a large margin. Whoop-de-doo-de-doo.
-
My bad I thought California was in the United ed States.
The folks in Cali are working on that, and I 100% support them leaving.
-
Obama in his final year...
Was more concerned with his sham legacy than governing.
This is a hell of a contortion to defend Trump's first month.
-
It is, but you know exactly what I mean. Trump won the majority of electoral votes and excluding one extremely liberal state replete with voter fraud, the majority of the popular vote.
It's fraudulent to keep saying she "won the popular vote" when she lost the popular vote in 98% of the country.
She won California by a large margin. Whoop-de-doo-de-doo.
This is a valid argument for why it's irrelevant to the legitimacy of his presidency as I already explicitly stated.
It is relevant to him never shutting up about how popular he is and that he has some extraordinary mandate. Every president in history won the Electoral College. That doesn't make him special. Almost every president in history won the popular vote. A relatively low bar that he failed to clear. And yet he never shuts up about how popular he is and how uniquely popular he is. It's laughable.
-
Two more points of contention
It is, but you know exactly what I mean. Trump won the majority of electoral votes and excluding one extremely liberal state replete with voter fraud, the majority of the popular vote.
It's fraudulent to keep saying she "won the popular vote" when she lost the popular vote in 98% of the country.
She won California by a large margin. Whoop-de-doo-de-doo.
First bolded part:
Even if your (Trump's) unfounded, unproven claim that California is "replete with voter fraud", you think that that explains how she had 4,269,978 more votes than him, very close to doubling his votes in that state? If not for those false votes you and no one else can prove exist, over two million votes would have gone to him instead?
:taunt:
Second bolded part:
Do you think that California is the only state Clinton won and that the other 49 went to Trump?
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/583c8ee3ba6eb620008b6738-1200)
-
Relevant:
https://twitter.com/cahnemily/status/832290317823049731
.@realDonaldTrump lies about facts that are easily checked. He says he got the most EC votes since Reagan. False. Obama got 365
-
Relevant:
https://twitter.com/cahnemily/status/832290317823049731
he was talking about as a Republican candidate. geez.
-
This is a valid argument for why it's irrelevant to the legitimacy of his presidency as I already explicitly stated.
It is relevant to him never shutting up about how popular he is and that he has some extraordinary mandate. Every president in history won the Electoral College. That doesn't make him special. Almost every president in history won the popular vote. A relatively low bar that he failed to clear. And yet he never shuts up about how popular he is and how uniquely popular he is. It's laughable.
Yeah. You heard only what the left wanted you to hear. What he said has no relation to your reaction. That's what's laughable.
-
This is a hell of a contortion to defend Trump's first month.
President Trump's first month needs no defense. It has been spectacularly good. Good for the country. Not so good for the nancypants crybabies.
-
he was talking about as a Republican candidate. geez.
Oh yeah? Trump's a big fat orange LIAR!! :facepalm:
-
Two more points of contentionFirst bolded part:
Even if your (Trump's) unfounded, unproven claim that California is "replete with voter fraud", you think that that explains how she had 4,269,978 more votes than him, very close to doubling his votes in that state? If not for those false votes you and no one else can prove exist, over two million votes would have gone to him instead?
:taunt:
Second bolded part:
Do you think that California is the only state Clinton won and that the other 49 went to Trump?
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/583c8ee3ba6eb620008b6738-1200)
First bolded part:
She was going to win California no matter what. That's why it doesn't matter. He didn't even try. It only proves that his campaign strategy was far superior to hers.
How many millions of illegal votes were there in California? I dare you to define it. Could it be two million? Four million? You betcha. Nearly a million illegals got drivers licenses after the lunatics out there implemented a law allowing them to do so. Yeah, rather than deporting them, we give them ID cards. Brilliant! We know there are two million out there based on the freaking census. But seriously. How many motherfucking illegals are answering fucking CENSUS questions? Well, we know there are two million stupid enough to do so. How many more are there that didn't?
So could there be enough illegal voters just in California to change "won the popular vote" to "lost it all?" You're insane if you rule it out. Are you insane?
Second Bolded Point:
No shit, she won other states. That wasn't the point. The point is that if you take all 49 states other than California combined, President Trump won the popular vote. That's the only point. 49/50 = 98%. A third grader could do that. Or in your math 11teenquatrile/negative sine of pi.
But if you want to throw maps, let's talk geography. You could get in your car on the east coast, drive all the way to the Pacific Ocean and drive all the way back to the Atlantic never crossing the same state twice and never entering a single county that Clinton won. Or you could drive along the US/Mexican Border and only find those that she did.
-
he was talking about as a Republican candidate. geez.
You beat me to it.
-
Kaos mentioned Hillary's dusty jizz canal. I think I just threw up a bit
Chiz - short answer to your question? Because it's Donald trump. It's who he is. It's who he will always be. It's his personality. Not sure why you guys are surprised. Not saying it's right or even not to the point where it cant be annoying but it's him. You've gotta get past at it at some point. Some felt the same about Obama in other ways. But in the end they are personality conflicts. And it's a complete waste of time to get bogged down in it.
-
Kaos mentioned Hillary's dusty jizz canal. I think I just threw up a bit
Chiz - short answer to your question? Because it's Donald trump. It's who he is. It's who he will always be. It's his personality. Not sure why you guys are surprised. Not saying it's right or even not to the point where it cant be annoying but it's him. You've gotta get past at it at some point. Some felt the same about Obama in other ways. But in the end they are personality conflicts. And it's a complete waste of time to get bogged down in it.
After a while, in the beginning, I think like most folks I had hoped he would be a difference maker, all that shit went out the window when he accused the cops of "acting foolishly" before he had all the facts. I wish that cop had told him to go fuck himself and would not be at the beer summit till he apologized for being wrong. (The first of many wrongs)
-
How many millions of illegal votes were there in California? I dare you to define it. Could it be two million? Four million? You betcha.
Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.
There is no such terrifying problem.
There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election. Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.
-
Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.
There is no such terrifying problem.
There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election. Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.
(http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/MjAxNC1iZTFlMmM5ZGJkNGRhZTZi.png)
-
Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.
There is no such terrifying problem.
There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election. Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.
You really need to open your mind to something besides CNN, and MSNBC. Highly doubt all those extra votes were for trump.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/
Detailed reports from the office of Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett show optical scanners at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, or 37 percent, tabulated more ballots than the number of voters tallied by workers in the poll books. Voting irregularities in Detroit have spurred plans for an audit by Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office, Elections Director Chris Thomas said Monday.
-
he was talking about as a Republican candidate. geez.
You beat me to it.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif)
George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.
Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.
:facepalm:
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif)
George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.
Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.
:facepalm:
What difference, at this point, does it make?
-
What difference, at this point, does it make?
You need to be wearing green and screaming to make that point. Also lying about a video would help.
-
Every. Single. Valid. Study. On. Voter. Fraud. Has. Produced. Bupkus.
There is no such terrifying problem.
There have been two instances of voter fraud uncovered in the 2016 election. Both were women who voted for Trump multiple times.
I don't see what a Hall of Fame Chicago Bears Linebacker has to do with any of this.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif)
George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.
Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.
:facepalm:
oh...who's being naive, Chizad?
-
What difference, at this point, does it make?
It makes a difference when President Cheeto continues to bring it up...even when no one asks him about it.
Also, he got 304 EC votes, not 306 (7 faithless voters total costed Trump 2 votes and Clinton 5).
-
What difference, at this point, does it make?
oh...who's being naive, Chizad?
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jck.gif)
-
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jck.gif)
You shit your pants over the silliest things.
I agree with every decision he's made to date. I don't care if he flops his electoral penis out on the table occasionally to see if it's grown.
-
You shit your pants over the silliest things.
I agree with every decision he's made to date. I don't care if he flops his electoral penis out on the table occasionally to see if it's grown.
So, you're saying that you're like the majority of inbred bama fans regarding their Lord Saban.
Gulp it down Kaos, gulp it down.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif)
George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.
Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.
:facepalm:
You mean republican winner, right?
Otherwise we would have had a two term Bush, a President Dole and McCain and Romney.
-
So, you're saying that you're like the majority of inbred bama fans regarding their Lord Saban.
Gulp it down Kaos, gulp it down.
One thing is for sure, with either one, you cannot argue with the results.
-
You mean republican winner, right?
Otherwise we would have had a two term Bush, a President Dole and McCain and Romney.
Obviously. That is what we're talking about.
-
Obviously. That is what we're talking about.
So I'm supposed to infer for you, but not you for Trump.
Got it.
-
So I'm supposed to infer for you, but not you for Trump.
Got it.
I didn't think it was an "inference" since we were talking about comparing the electoral votes of PRESIDENTS, not people who LOST THE PRESIDENCY.
Also, duh shit no one who lost is going to have more electoral votes than someone who won...
-
So I'm supposed to infer for you, but not you for Trump.
Got it.
Yeah buddy. Why don't you take your INFERENCE and sit on it.
Duh. Obviously, you don't know how to properly infer. Moran.
-
It's pretty bad when Fox News is starting to call out Trump on his lies...you know, Fox News, the only media that he says is "real news". I'm guessing they've gotten tired of hearing lies being spread every time Trump or one of his mouth pieces speak.
-
It's pretty bad when Fox News is starting to call out Trump on his lies...you know, Fox News, the only media that he says is "real news". I'm guessing they've gotten tired of hearing lies being spread every time Trump or one of his mouth pieces speak.
Shep is a puss.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif)
George HW Bush had 426 in 1988.
Only ONE Republican since Reagan had less electoral college votes than Trump. Out of 2.
:facepalm:
No. Right. That's what he meant.
We didn't say he was right.
-
No. Right. That's what he meant.
We didn't say he was right.
Jesus Christ...
I posted a link saying Trump is spouting lies that are very easily debunked with 5 seconds of google.
I get a chorus of "NUH UH! HE WAS RIGHT CAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS!"
I show that EVEN THAT isn't true.
"WELL NO ONE SAID HE WAS RIGHT!"
Really? Really?
-
Jesus Christ...
I posted a link saying Trump is spouting lies that are very easily debunked with 5 seconds of google.
I get a chorus of "NUH UH! HE WAS RIGHT CAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS!"
I show that EVEN THAT isn't true.
"WELL NO ONE SAID HE WAS RIGHT!"
Really? Really?
Nobody reads your links on trivial shit.
TRUMP! KEEPING PROMISES!
-
FTFY
Nobody reads your links on trivial shit posts.
TRUMP! KEEPING PROMISES!
-
Nobody reads your links on trivial shit.
TRUMP! KEEPING PROMISES!
Learn the format:
#keepingpromises
-
Learn the format:
#keepingpromises
Apologies. I have trouble with the younger generation's communication procedures.
#keepingpromises
-
Apologies. I have trouble with the younger generation's communication procedures.
#keepingpromises
No wait... those were banned.
Do better.
-
No wait... those were banned.
Do better.
:(
-
:(
I am the Trump of this board. MTXGA!
-
I am the Trump of this board. MTXGA!
In actuality it is not a ban. I signed an EO for funny, and they were no longer funny.
-
In actuality it is not a ban. I signed an EO for funny, and they were no longer funny.
Oy Vey. Vadda you know from funny?
-
Jesus Christ...
I posted a link saying Trump is spouting lies that are very easily debunked with 5 seconds of google.
I get a chorus of "NUH UH! HE WAS RIGHT CAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS!"
I show that EVEN THAT isn't true.
"WELL NO ONE SAID HE WAS RIGHT!"
Really? Really?
are you sure?
electoral college results historical (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ)
-
In actuality it is not a ban. I signed an EO for funny, and they were no longer funny.
The Ninth Circuitous Judicious Jucylicous Court of Peels stayed your executive order until an esteemed panel of humorless fucks could review all your past statements, including anything you may have said to Liza Mae Crustybush in the privacy of your sixth grade classroom, to determine your intent.
Now that those who wish to inflict hashtagorism on the populace have been duly warned that an eventual halt on their issuance could be in the offing depending on the ruling of Diana Ross and/or the rest of the Supremes? They're going to flood this board trying to get in before a ban takes place.
#stopinthenameoflove
-
The Ninth Circuitous Judicious Jucylicous Court of Peels stayed your executive order until an esteemed panel of humorless fucks could review all your past statements, including anything you may have said to Liza Mae Crustybush in the privacy of your sixth grade classroom, to determine your intent.
Now that those who wish to inflict hashtagorism on the populace have been duly warned that an eventual halt on their issuance could be in the offing depending on the ruling of Diana Ross and/or the rest of the Supremes? They're going to flood this board trying to get in before a ban takes place.
#stopinthenameoflove
Quality offering.^^^
-
Jesus Christ...
I posted a link saying Trump is spouting lies that are very easily debunked with 5 seconds of google.
I get a chorus of "NUH UH! HE WAS RIGHT CAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS!"
I show that EVEN THAT isn't true.
"WELL NO ONE SAID HE WAS RIGHT!"
Really? Really?
Yes really. Keep up. We weren't saying he was correct. We were telling you what he meant which was different than what you inferred. Your inference was wrong. Trumps statement was also wrong.
This isn't hard. Or math.
-
Yes really. Keep up. We weren't saying he was correct. We were telling you what he meant which was different than what you inferred. Your inference was wrong. Trumps statement was also wrong.
This isn't hard. Or math.
I contend that it doesn't fucking matter, he was wrong in EITHER case and yet multiple people here, yourself included, chastised my "inference" without mentioning once that it was still wrong no matter which cherry picked stat you contend that he "meant".
My original point was that he spouts lies about easily verifiably false things. Or says stupidly false things. Either way. Stupid or liar, remember that?
That point was met with "NUH UH IDJUT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS, GAH, DUMASS!"
My original point still stands ENTIRELY and your (his? whoevers) moving of the goalpost was an epic fail in that it was STILL a miss.
If what I'm saying here isn't obvious, I honestly don't know what else is left to say...
-
You have no point. He is kicking ass and getting things done. I don't care if he erroneously states that you are a guy. Just as long as he continues to keep his promises, I and many like me, ARE HAPPY.
The smarmy fight over every insignificant word is causing you, and many, to look a bit whiny.
-
If what I'm saying here isn't obvious, I honestly don't know what else is left to say...
Its never stopped you from saying stuff before.
-
I contend that it doesn't fucking matter, he was wrong in EITHER case and yet multiple people here, yourself included, chastised my "inference" without mentioning once that it was still wrong no matter which cherry picked stat you contend that he "meant".
My original point was that he spouts lies about easily verifiably false things. Or says stupidly false things. Either way. Stupid or liar, remember that?
That point was met with "NUH UH IDJUT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS, GAH, DUMASS!"
My original point still stands ENTIRELY and your (his? whoevers) moving of the goalpost was an epic fail in that it was STILL a miss.
If what I'm saying here isn't obvious, I honestly don't know what else is left to say...
This says much more about your mental state than it does anyone else's.
It's a clear indication of just how little respect you have for the opinions of others.
-
This says much more about your mental state than it does anyone else's.
It's a clear indication of just how little respect you have for the opinions of others.
But he's well respected among the transgenders.
-
This says much more about your mental state than it does anyone else's.
It's a clear indication of just how little respect you have for the opinions of others.
There you go demonstrating your complete inability to differentiate between opinions and facts again.
-
I contend that it doesn't fucking matter, he was wrong in EITHER case and yet multiple people here, yourself included, chastised my "inference" without mentioning once that it was still wrong no matter which cherry picked stat you contend that he "meant".
My original point was that he spouts lies about easily verifiably false things. Or says stupidly false things. Either way. Stupid or liar, remember that?
That point was met with "NUH UH IDJUT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT REPUBLICANS, GAH, DUMASS!"
My original point still stands ENTIRELY and your (his? whoevers) moving of the goalpost was an epic fail in that it was STILL a miss.
If what I'm saying here isn't obvious, I honestly don't know what else is left to say...
I think you are reading way too much into it all.
And the bolded above.....thats the kind of shit where you are going to lose people like me. When you trivialize and demean anyone else's response when no one said anything close to what you said. Its like you think everyone but you (when it comes to these debates) is some kind of idiot single minded redneck. Also not true.
-
Its like you think everyone but you (when it comes to these debates) is some kind of idiot single minded redneck. Also not true.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/dc/12/04/dc12049c419ad387a6d1a0a680c87455.jpg)
Waaaaggghhhh...fuckin snowflake.
-
Waaaaggghhhh...fuckin snowflake
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what YOU think it means!
-
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what YOU think it means!
Oh, I know exactly what it means...
Those that are too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own...Snowflake
We have special snowflakes up in dis bitch.
-
Oh, I know exactly what it means...
Those that are too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own...Snowflake
We have special snowflakes up in dis bitch.
I think as you look in the mirror everyday and see that, you try to project it onto others. That's not how this works at all...
-
I think...
I bet that gave you a headache. You should probably just stick to the facts, like the fact that Trump likes to embellish the truth and spread little lies here and there at every chance he gets, which is perfectly fine when he was a "reality show" host or running his businesses...but not as a President, because those little things can cause major problems.
-
I think you are reading way too much into it all.
And the bolded above.....thats the kind of shit where you are going to lose people like me. When you trivialize and demean anyone else's response when no one said anything close to what you said. Its like you think everyone but you (when it comes to these debates) is some kind of idiot single minded redneck. Also not true.
You don't know the difference between facts and opinions.
That's what I was told for pointing out the same thing
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/dc/12/04/dc12049c419ad387a6d1a0a680c87455.jpg)
Waaaaggghhhh...fuckin snowflake.
It has nothing to do with being offended. It has to do with chad wanting a civil conversation and rational discussion. Yet saying condescending things in responses. Can't have it both ways. You can't complain about civility and then head straight to patronizing - and not expect to get called out.
So which is it gonna be?
-
It has nothing to do with being offended. It has to do with chad wanting a civil conversation and rational discussion. Yet saying condescending things in responses. Can't have it both ways. You can't complain about civility and then head straight to patronizing - and not expect to get called out.
So which is it gonna be?
What transpired there was intellectually dishonest as shit.
-
What transpired there was intellectually dishonest as shoot.
And you get get that point across without being a condescending prick.
-
And you get get that point across without being a condescending prick.
So...the problem you guys have is the tone he uses when he calls out bullshit?
Fuck that. Bullshit deserves no kid gloves.
-
So...the problem you guys have is the tone he uses when he calls out bullshit?
Fuck that. Bullshit deserves no kid gloves.
We have to respect alternative facts, Wes...
-
We have to respect alternative facts, Wes...
You can both be extremely condescending assholes with the illusion that your perspective is more astute than that of anyone else here. You both labor under the misguided idea that you are more intelligent, more urbane and more sophisticated than the rest of us dumb old country ass rubes. That much is obvious.
C is the Rachel Madcow of this site, barely containing hysteria and continued fraudulent assaults. W is the Bill Maher, snidely mocking in a holier than thou tone.
Both are wrong but don't have the capacity to see it. Both are only different from their Prowler in presentation.
-
You can both be extremely condescending assholes with the illusion that your perspective is more astute than that of anyone else here. You both labor under the misguided idea that you are more intelligent, more urbane and more sophisticated than the rest of us dumb old country ass rubes. That much is obvious.
C is the Rachel Madcow of this site, barely containing hysteria and continued fraudulent assaults. W is the Bill Maher, snidely mocking in a holier than thou tone.
Both are wrong but don't have the capacity to see it. Both are only different from their Prowler in presentation.
Cool, bro.
As much as you try to obscure what specifically we were talking about here, the following are facts.
They are not opinions.
1) Trump said he got the most Electoral votes since Reagan. That is false.
2) I pointed out that he said a thing that is verifiably false and every president since Reagan except ONE had more (Trump 304, Obama 365, Clinton 370, GHW Bush 426)
3) That was met with:
he was talking about as a Republican candidate. geez.
and
Oh yeah? Trump's a big fat orange LIAR!! :facepalm:
and
You beat me to it.
as a defense of Trump and as evidence that what I said is untrue. That I was "tilting at windmils".
4) Trump never specified that in the original quote, but you "interpreted" it that way for him.
5) Even if you shift the goal posts to only REPUBLICANS, it is still completely false. There have only been two Republicans between Reagan and Trump. One of the two creamed him in an EC votes pissing contest. So it's still wrong. The three smug remarks about how somehow *I* was wrong for calling him out is laughably doubling down on being wrong. It's still wrong. Now there's two things you are wrong about instead of just one. I am still right about both. This is not hard. There's no math involved.
I will not concede that any of those five facts are not facts. Sorry if that makes me smug. Up is not down. The sky is blue. The earth is not flat. I won't concede complete bullshit so as to not hurt your feelz. Sorry.
-
Cool, bro.
As much as you try to obscure what specifically we were talking about here, the following are facts.
They are not opinions.
1) Trump said he got the most Electoral votes since Reagan. That is false.
2) I pointed out that he said a thing that is verifiably false and every president since Reagan except ONE had more (Trump 304, Obama 365, Clinton 370, GHW Bush 426)
3) That was met with:andandas a defense of Trump and as evidence that what I said is untrue. That I was "tilting at windmils".
4) Trump never specified that in the original quote, but you "interpreted" it that way for him.
5) Even if you shift the goal posts to only REPUBLICANS, it is still completely false. There have only been two Republicans between Reagan and Trump. One of the two creamed him in an EC votes pissing contest. So it's still wrong. The three smug remarks about how somehow *I* was wrong for calling him out is laughably doubling down on being wrong. It's still wrong. Now there's two things you are wrong about instead of just one. I am still right about both. This is not hard. There's no math involved.
I will not concede that any of those five facts are not facts. Sorry if that makes me smug. Up is not down. The sky is blue. The earth is not flat. I won't concede complete bullshit so as to not hurt your feelz. Sorry.
omg...i cannot believe you can not let it go ...your actions go well beyond electoral "debate" challenge. you got trolled so deal with it. no one gave a shit what he said. he probably didn't either. he won #45.
-
omg...i cannot believe you can not let it go ...your actions go well beyond electoral "debate" challenge. you got trolled so deal with it. no one gave a shit what he said. he probably didn't either. he won #45.
Bingo.
-
Cool, bro.
As much as you try to obscure what specifically we were talking about here, the following are facts.
They are not opinions.
1) Trump said he got the most Electoral votes since Reagan. That is false.
2) I pointed out that he said a thing that is verifiably false and every president since Reagan except ONE had more (Trump 304, Obama 365, Clinton 370, GHW Bush 426)
3) That was met with:andandas a defense of Trump and as evidence that what I said is untrue. That I was "tilting at windmils".
4) Trump never specified that in the original quote, but you "interpreted" it that way for him.
5) Even if you shift the goal posts to only REPUBLICANS, it is still completely false. There have only been two Republicans between Reagan and Trump. One of the two creamed him in an EC votes pissing contest. So it's still wrong. The three smug remarks about how somehow *I* was wrong for calling him out is laughably doubling down on being wrong. It's still wrong. Now there's two things you are wrong about instead of just one. I am still right about both. This is not hard. There's no math involved.
I will not concede that any of those five facts are not facts. Sorry if that makes me smug. Up is not down. The sky is blue. The earth is not flat. I won't concede complete bullshit so as to not hurt your feelz. Sorry.
Guess who doesn't know the difference.
(https://anappleaday.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/mountain-molehill.gif)
-
omg...i cannot believe you can not let it go ...your actions go well beyond electoral "debate" challenge. you got trolled so deal with it. no one gave a shit what he said. he probably didn't either. he won #45.
So the playbook is to obscure whatever the fuck it is you're categorically wrong about into abstract attacks about how I don't respect the "opinions" of others when I say there is no room for interpretation about those facts you incorrectly corrected me on. And when I try to stay on topic and the facts pertaining to it, OMG I'M OBSESSED AND WON'T LET IT GO!!!
I'm happy to move on. But I won't pretend those facts aren't facts and if you continue to pretend that I said or did something I didn't say or do, or that I have said anything incorrect on this topic.
You could admit you're wrong and this would have been dropped several pages ago. Bullshit is bullshit and I will call you on it until you acknowledge your bullshit. Or at least for as long as you keep piling it up.
-
So the playbook is to obscure whatever the fuck it is you're categorically wrong about into abstract attacks about how I don't respect the "opinions" of others when I say there is no room for interpretation about those facts you incorrectly corrected me on. And when I try to stay on topic and the facts pertaining to it, OMG I'M OBSESSED AND WON'T LET IT GO!!!
I'm happy to move on. But I won't pretend those facts aren't facts and if you continue to pretend that I said or did something I didn't say or do, or that I have said anything incorrect on this topic.
You could admit you're wrong and this would have been dropped several pages ago. Bullshit is bullshit and I will call you on it until you acknowledge your bullshit. Or at least for as long as you keep piling it up.
what part of you got trolled did you not get?
-
what part of you got trolled did you not get?
GH2001: Were you just trolling bro?
-
GH2001: Were you just trolling bro?
I take it back. C is not Rachel Madcow.
C is Rosie O'Donnell. Or maybe Chelsea Handler. Or Phyllis from Mulga.
-
GH2001: Were you just trolling bro?
i can not speak on his behalf but i'm fairly sure he knew no one gave a hunky dory but you. i splashed the pot. no offense but you do what you do...and you do it well, bro.
-
I know GH2001 was being sincere.
I know that chinook just splatters shit across his keyboard.
And I know that this is Kaos's repeated MO.
(http://lol.i.trollyou.com/LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png)
-
I want to know who's playing Whoopi Goldberg.
-
I know GH2001 was being sincere.
I know that chinook just splatters shit across his keyboard.
And I know that this is Kaos's repeated MO.
(http://lol.i.trollyou.com/LOL-I-TROLL-YOU.png)
i can smell the smoke coming from your head. i can feel the pounding from your keyboard.
love ya.
-
I know GH2001 was being sincere.
I know that chinook just splatters shit across his keyboard.
And I know that this is Kaos's repeated MO.
^
Idiotic.
This is what you look like when you post:
(https://betanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Angry-PC-user-e1442570909438.jpg)
-
This thread needs more hashtags and memes.
-
This thread needs more hashtags and memes.
(http://m.memegen.com/4xm5g4.jpg)
#dobetter
-
I want to know who's playing Whoopi Goldberg.
Isn't she in that new movie about and island and a skull?
-
You can both be extremely condescending assholes with the illusion that your perspective is more astute than that of anyone else here.
Coming from you? Rich.
-
Coming from you? Rich.
I know what I am.
Some of you are unaware.
-
I know what I am.
Some of you are unaware.
Not because we're the only members who think KISS should perform at the SuperBowl halftime, but I completely agree. your assessment earlier couldn't be more accurate.