Donald Trump

"

Antnee wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

John Bolton is dogshit and shouldn't be anywhere near any cabinet. If that happens, I'd be upset. But it hasn't happened yet; you're basically trying to pass off rumor as news.

Why lower yourself to the role of propagandist, Antnee? Don't you realize the difference between us Trump supporters and Hillbots is that we don't put blind faith in media outlets, but actually use research and critical thinking? That shit doesn't work on us for any longer than about 90 seconds. We get concerned, we Google, we realize you're full of hot air. It should be embarrassing, but I guess that's up to you.

Today I learned that Breitbart and Infowars are "research and critical thinking".

EL OH FUCKING EL

InfoWars has a batshit tinfoil hysteria history, but the mainstream media lowered itself so far this election cycle that InfoWars could actually compete in truthiness. There's a reason InfoWars has had massive audience growth recently, and I can already see Jones & Co distancing themselves from the craziest elements of their old viewership. They're still not great, but they're about as truthy as CNN at the moment... and I think they're smarter about improving themselves. They're on the rise.

Breitbart is just plain old solid. Very high truthiness. Silly for you to attack them.

John Bolton is a war criminal, the same as GWB, Tony Blair, Obama and Hillary. In an ideally fair world, they would be all locked up. But alas...

If the Trump admin. wont start any new wars or continue sabre-rattling with Russia in Europe & ME, I'd call that already a huge victory for peace. In this case I hope he'll get a Nobel peace prize. If Obama got one just for sounding like a nice guy (while pouring more gasoline on ME), everyone should get a Nobel peace prize!

But consider that Trump will inherit 16 years of neocon fuckups and wars. It wont be easy to manage this mess.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

John Bolton is dogshit and shouldn't be anywhere near any cabinet. If that happens, I'd be upset. But it hasn't happened yet; you're basically trying to pass off rumor as news.

Why lower yourself to the role of propagandist, Antnee? Don't you realize the difference between us Trump supporters and Hillbots is that we don't put blind faith in media outlets, but actually use research and critical thinking? That shit doesn't work on us for any longer than about 90 seconds. We get concerned, we Google, we realize you're full of hot air. It should be embarrassing, but I guess that's up to you.

Today I learned that Breitbart and Infowars are "research and critical thinking".

EL OH FUCKING EL

InfoWars has a batshit tinfoil hysteria history, but the mainstream media lowered itself so far this election cycle that InfoWars could actually compete in truthiness. There's a reason InfoWars has had massive audience growth recently, and I can already see Jones & Co distancing themselves from the craziest elements of their old viewership. They're still not great, but they're about as truthy as CNN at the moment... and I think they're smarter about improving themselves. They're on the rise.

Breitbart is just plain old solid. Very high truthiness. Silly for you to attack them.

Brietbart is officially State Media. Keep twisting.

FWIW, if not John Bolton, Giuliani is *also* favored to get the spot. Remind me, what were his positions on all of GWB's adventurism? I think it rhymed with "Beerleader"

"

Antnee wrote:

Remind me, what were his positions on all of GWB's adventurism? I think it rhymed with "Beerleader"

yeah but you say that as if the clintons and obama were any better than bush, which they clearly were not. So Trump might turn out to be as bad as clinton, might, is that as good as it gets?

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

His letter failed to mention the 72% of his countrymen that want the firearms back.

I still dont understand lol. What do you now mean by good with firearms and what does 72% of British people want the firearms back mean?

ask dalaiLama :)

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

Remind me, what were his positions on all of GWB's adventurism? I think it rhymed with "Beerleader"

yeah but you say that as if the clintons and obama were any better than bush, which they clearly were not. So Trump might turn out to be as bad as clinton, might, is that as good as it gets?

I see you weren't around in the early-mid 2000's. Would you like a recap?

The point, if it's not stunningly clear, is that Trumpers voted for Trump (among other things) because he would *not* be a warmonger, and would pull us out of the middle east, etc.

How the hell can you say any of that with a straight face when he's filling the swamp with GWB neocons?! OH, I forgot who I'm dealing with. Post-fact, feels before reals, all that.

heh heh...

"

Antnee wrote:

Hmm, I seem to recall you people bitching up a storm about even the prospect of Chelsea running the Clinton Foundation.

SSSSSSLURRRRRRP

The Clinton Foundation is supposed to be a non-profit. Big difference since the foundation is not supposedly "owned" by the Clintons. Yet that didn't happen and Chelsea remained in power there. Not to mention her employees hate her. And hence we have pay-to-play politics with dubious donations dished out for political favors.

So now you want the next president to NOT act like the Clintons and do what's traditional for presidents to ensure there are no conflicts of interest? That bird already flew the coupe with the Clintons. The biggest problem is Trump OWNS those businesses. You expect a billionaire to turn ALL of his assets liquid and turn them over to a complete stranger? Never in history have we had such an asset-rich president before. These are new grounds for this transition and there's going to have to be some leverage. But only liberal nut jobs and the liberal media are complaining about it to the public, because even former Deputy White House Counsel Leslie Kiernan (under Obama) mentioned it's not that easy of a situation. Setting up a blind trust would be highway robbery. Letting him hand over business to his children and prevent any future pay-to-play politics or political favoritism would be ideal for all. I'd be in favor of an executive order by Obama (he loves those orders to push his will any ways!) to prevent political favoritism in this arrangement.

Also, do you have an eating disorder? You seem to be slurping a lot after all of your posts. Seek medical help if so.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

Hmm, I seem to recall you people bitching up a storm about even the prospect of Chelsea running the Clinton Foundation.

SSSSSSLURRRRRRP

The Clinton Foundation is supposed to be a non-profit. Big difference since the foundation is not supposedly "owned" by the Clintons. Yet that didn't happen and Chelsea remained in power there. Not to mention her employees hate her. And hence we have pay-to-play politics with dubious donations dished out for political favors.

So now you want the next president to NOT act like the Clintons and do what's traditional for presidents to ensure there are no conflicts of interest? That bird already flew the coupe with the Clintons. The biggest problem is Trump OWNS those businesses. You expect a billionaire to turn ALL of his assets liquid and turn them over to a complete stranger? Never in history have we had such an asset-rich president before. These are new grounds for this transition and there's going to have to be some leverage. But only liberal nut jobs and the liberal media are complaining about it to the public, because even former Deputy White House Counsel Leslie Kiernan (under Obama) mentioned it's not that easy of a situation. Setting up a blind trust would be highway robbery. Letting him hand over business to his children and prevent any future pay-to-play politics or political favoritism would be ideal for all. I'd be in favor of an executive order by Obama (he loves those orders to push his will any ways!) to prevent political favoritism in this arrangement.

Also, do you have an eating disorder? You seem to be slurping a lot after all of your posts. Seek medical help if so.

Trumpets: "CLINTON FOUNDATION!! CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!"

Trumpets: "Well see the thing with Trump is..."

I see what you are. Keep slurpin up that swamp water! It's got electrolytes!

"

Antnee wrote:

I see you weren't around in the early-mid 2000's. Would you like a recap?

I think youll find I was, I also think youll find Obama spent more on war than any other president in history. He ended the Iraq thing, on the same timescale bush was set to end it on, he just kept to the Bush plan, and then he spread the wars to Lybia and covertly to Syria, the Libyan war being basically spearheaded by Hillary. Hes been involved in military action in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Obama is escalating tensions with China by piling up Us military forces on their boarders, hes doing exactly the same thing with Russia

H Clintons campaign was the only campaign backed by 9 out of the 10 largest arms manufacturers on the planet, you think they dont know whos going to make them the most money? The sanctions on Iraq during Bills time in office killed half a million iraqi children, a hidden siege war against a civilian population. He dropped bombs in Sudan, Kosovo, Afghanistan, hes no angel and for sure his wife would have every bit the horror Bush was if not worse. Shes partly funded by the Saudi government, who also donate to her foundation. Tony Podesta brother of her camp manager is on the payroll of the Saudi government, and in return Hillary has brokered the largest arms deals in history with Saudi Arabia. While she is selling them these truly massive amounts of arms she is saying in her own private emails that she knows the Saudi government are the ones funding Isis. She is making the biggest arms deals in history with the people who fund Isis and are also funding her. Shes making threats against Iran in her campaign. This woman is an outrageously corrupt warmonger, she is one of if not the most dangerous politician on the entire planet, this woman who you voted for.

No, i dont need a recap, I think you need to get "Trump might have this guy in his government" in perspective. Trump has said hes going after Isis, so of course he is going to have American military blowing shit up in the middle east, that was always on the cards. Thats actually a good thing because theyre abhorrent terrorists. Arming the people who are arming Isis while provoking Russia, China and Iran while sticking covert fingers into middle eastern countries like Lybia and Syria to topple their governments through warfare is not a good thing, thats absolutely obscene and irresponsible. I hope Trump does go into the middle east and unlike Bush senior, Bill Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama and Hillary he actually attacks the right people for the right reasons. By all accounts hes already spoken with Russia and it looks like tensions between 2 massive nuclear powers are set to calm down.

He may turn out to be every bit as bad as those other people, but at least theres hope for Trump. The woman you backed was a guaranteed establishment butcher set to make every bad international military situation worse. Internally you guys might have a more fucked up country under Trump, I dunno the details, its not my concern. Internationally the world is looking like a safer place now with Trump in the seat. On that scale the most worrying person who could end up in his government is Hillary Clinton, there is no republican in existence who would scare me as much as Clinton.

You keep being upset over Trump talking about grabbing pussy while your candidate is in bed with governments and terrorist organisations who stone women to death and chop of peoples heads, telling yourself you are on the side of justice and reason.