Jump to content
chasfh

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump

Recommended Posts

FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly ( December 2020 or January 2021). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

8 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

No, they didn't. I just speculated that had the shoe been on the other foot and they were the ones being berated, they would have called in a heartbeat. Yet it's perfectly ok for them to do it because they are liberal and tolerance only matters to them when they are the ones looking for the tolerance. 

Ohhhh.   I haven't seen anyone claiming it was okay, though.   Not following the matter either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

First of all, these were two gay men who berated Ivanka Trump. Their community has been screaming for years about intolerance, yet some of the most intolerant among us come from their community (and the left in general). I find it ironic that these guys would be hiring the ACLU the second they stepped off that plane if someone called them fairies on an aircraft, but it is ok for them to berate the daughter of a president. And let's be clear, if this had happened to one of Obama's daughters, it would have been on every national news cast under the sun. We would have heard charges of racism and the outrage would have been palpable. Where are all the women's groups coming out to express outrage over this, by the way?

 

25 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

No, they didn't. I just speculated that had the shoe been on the other foot and they were the ones being berated, they would have called in a heartbeat. Yet it's perfectly ok for them to do it because they are liberal and tolerance only matters to them when they are the ones looking for the tolerance. 

More Classic Stanpapi... passing off hypotheticals as fact, then stereotyping liberals based off the worst actors in liberalism, all whole  ignoring that the incident he's complaining about has been covered by practically every major media outlet.

Never change, Stan... Never change. You're no less partisan than the guys in the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Making fun of a 10 year old kid is pretty low. and his name is barron. 

I think he meant Stephen Bannon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

More Classic Stanpapi... passing off hypotheticals as fact, then stereotyping liberals based off the worst actors in liberalism, all whole  ignoring that the incident he's complaining about has been covered by practically every major media outlet.

Never change, Stan... Never change. You're no less partisan than the guys in the plane.

The worst actors in liberalism?? You mean those thousands of people protesting a fair election? The thousands of people who can't accept the will of the people? The thousands of emails sent to electors with death threats? The countless snowflakes on college campuses demonizing and making threats to trump? You act like it's like half a dozen people....

I didn't say Ivanka hasn't been reported. But if it was some white straight guy berating one of the Obama children it would be 24/7 on every major network in the country. The guy would probably not only have been kicked off the plane but he'd be tarred and feathered by now....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

The worst actors in liberalism?? You mean those thousands of people protesting a fair election?

Wait, so were the elections results fair or not? You can't have it both ways.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

The worst actors in liberalism?? You mean those thousands of people protesting a fair election? The thousands of people who can't accept the will of the people? The thousands of emails sent to electors with death threats? The countless snowflakes on college campuses demonizing and making threats to trump? You act like it's like half a dozen people....

I didn't say Ivanka hasn't been reported. But if it was some white straight guy berating one of the Obama children it would be 24/7 on every major network in the country. The guy would probably not only have been kicked off the plane but he'd be tarred and feathered by now....

With each post, you keep proving the point. That you are as partisan as all the people you ***** about.

By all means, keep preachin' preacher man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Except the hot part.

A lot of people said she was attractive at the time though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

With each post, you keep proving the hypothesis.

All I keep proving is that liberals in general are not capable of accepting defeat. Actually, I don't prove it. They prove it for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

The thousands of people who can't accept the will of the people?

How many votes did Hillary Clinton win by in the popular count again? #WillOfThePeople #WillSmith #WillRogers #WillWheaton #WillYouEverFaceReality 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

All I keep proving is that liberals in general are not capable of accepting defeat. Actually, I don't prove it. They prove it for me. 

Keep preachin... I just you know you can't help yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

All I keep proving is that liberals in general are not capable of accepting defeat. Actually, I don't prove it. They prove it for me. 

Accepting defeat, kind of like all those whiny *** biz-niches who said our President was a Muslim from Kenya or the Congo or Mozambique or wherever because they couldn't admit he was a legit citizen and was the legit President of the United States?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

All I keep proving is that liberals in general are not capable of accepting defeat. Actually, I don't prove it. They prove it for me. 

Why are conservatives more interested in putting down liberals than talking about what Trump will do to help the country?  Is it because you are not confident that he's a good choice?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Accepting defeat, kind of like all those whiny *** biz-niches who said our President was a Muslim from Kenya or the Congo or Mozambique or wherever?

I remember the folks who complained about nonexistent voter fraud in Philly in 2012 and how Obama stole the election....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

How many votes did Hillary Clinton win by in the popular count again? #WillOfThePeople #WillSmith #WillRogers #WillWheaton #WillYouEverFaceReality 

Since 1787 the electoral college has chosen the president, not the popular vote. Almost 230 years....but I guess there are some people that take a while to catch on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Why are conservatives more interested in putting down liberals than talking about what Trump will do to help the country?  Is it because you are not confident that he's a good choice?  

To be fair, some are more interested in talking about what Trump will do. And thats good. BB and MickeyB come to mind.

Stanpapi does not appear one of them... he appears to like the tribal aspects of politics, complaining about whiny liberals and college snowflakes while ignoring his own blind partisanship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Since 1787 the electoral college has chosen the president, not the popular vote. Almost 230 years....but I guess there are some people that take a while to catch on. 

You said the will of the people could not be accepted. The will of almost 3 million more people was that Clinton should be the President. Will of the people doesn't mean will of the people in artificially drawn geographic areas. For the record, the EC needs to GO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

You said the will of the people could not be accepted. The will of almost 3 million more people was that Clinton should be the President. Will of the people doesn't mean will of the people in artificially drawn geographic areas. For the record, the EC needs to GO.

I just don't think Stan wants to admit that, even though the EC currently decides elections, more actual real people didn't choose his mancrush for President

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

To be fair, some are more interested in talking about what Trump will do. And thats good. BB and MickeyB come to mind.

Stanpapi does not appear one of them... he appears to like the tribal aspects of politics, complaining about whiny liberals and college snowflakes while ignoring his own blind partisanship

I was purposely using a blanket statement about conservatives in response to Stan's blanket statement about liberals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I was purposely using a blanket statement about conservatives in response to Stan's blanket statement about liberals.  

Lol, my bad, got a little to far over my skis there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Since 1787 the electoral college has chosen the president, not the popular vote. Almost 230 years....but I guess there are some people that take a while to catch on. 

Since 1619 there had been slaves in America.  After 230 years of that, some people thought that was destined to last forever, too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I didn't say Ivanka hasn't been reported. But if it was some white straight guy berating one of the Obama children it would be 24/7 on every major network in the country. The guy would probably not only have been kicked off the plane but he'd be tarred and feathered by now....

The offending couple being pretty widely mocked as nearly as I can tell, and not only by conservatives.   Im not personally into internet mobs harassing people, demanding that they lose their jobs and so forth.  Dudes showed their butts in public, got kicked off the flight and called out publically.  I think that is sufficient.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all rights (so to speak), you'd think the National Review would totally be on Trump's dick, especially since he's building the most firmly pro-establishment government in a long, long time.  I especially love that last paragraph.

Trump Is Already Ditching His Movement

The president-elect’s supporters are quickly discovering that he fights only in his own self-interest.

We are one month from inauguration day, and it looks like the Donald Trump revolution is already almost over. In its place is a globalist establishment led by a rogue tweeter. Doubt me? Let’s review the great causes that motivated his base.

Since winning the White House, Trump has not “burned it down.” Instead, he’s “built it up.” Trump’s anti-establishment candidacy has put the establishment in charge. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell remain at the helms of the House and Senate. McConnell — the ultimate insider — may now be the most powerful Senate majority leader in decades, thanks to Harry Reid’s weakening of the filibuster. Trump’s core wanted to destroy both men. Instead, they rule their chambers and look primed to pass their own agendas through Congress.

Beyond Capitol Hill, Trump has stocked his staff and his cabinet with establishment fixtures and billionaires. His chief of staff is Reince Priebus, the former head of the RNC. His cabinet nominees include long-serving generals, the longest-serving governor in the history of Texas, the CEO of ExxonMobil, and a former Goldman Sachs partner.

Sure, he has a sprinkling of insurgents in the ranks, but his early supporters — insiders in outsiders’ clothing, such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie — are notable mainly for their absence. Not one has yet earned a significant place by his side. They hitched a ride on the Trump Train and were ushered off before the last stop.

If Trump didn’t “burn it down,” he sure didn’t “drain the swamp.” In fact, just today Gingrich, interviewed by NPR, said, “I’m told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore.” Well, how could he? Government by Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil is government by the swamp, of the swamp, and for the swamp. This isn’t a revolution, it’s a thoroughly conventional changing of the guard.

The list goes on. “Lock her up?” Nope. Trump already announced that he wouldn’t pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, and two weeks ago at one of his “thank you” rallies in Michigan, he interrupted the crowd’s chant with, “That plays great before the election — now we don’t care, right?” I guarantee the people who put “Hillary for prison” signs in their yard cared. But Trump never did.

It’s almost as if Trump said what he needed to say to win election, without regard for the truth or the consequences. Imagine that! Indeed, he even seemed to impute his own motives to his crowd. At a rally last week he said, “You people were vicious, violent, screaming, ‘Where’s the wall? We want the wall!’ Screaming, ‘Prison! Prison! Lock her up!’ I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right?” But now, in Trump’s words, “You’re mellow and you’re cool and you’re not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?”

For Trump, it was all tactics. And he appears to think it was just tactics for his supporters as well. 

Perhaps nothing sums up Trump’s insincerity more than his secretary-of-state pick. To the extent that there was any cornerstone to Trump’s thoughts on foreign policy, it was his visceral disgust at George W. Bush and Bush-era interventionism. That was “globalist.” That was “nation-building.” He even went so far as to echo far-left talking points and claim that Bush lied his way into the Iraq War. 

But in nominating the CEO of one of the world’s largest multinational corporations, Trump has nominated the very definition of a globalist. And just as Rex Tillerson has come under fire for his close ties to Vladimir Putin, the people who’ve rallied most strongly to his side are members of the Bush foreign-policy team — foremost among them Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld — and Bush himself, who in a private phone call last week lobbied Bob Corker on Tillerson’s behalf. Where are the sneering anti-globalists now? 

For those not on the Trump Train, these moves are mostly reassuring. Some of his cabinet picks, such as General James Mattis at the Pentagon, are inspired. Others are simply solid. Most seem poised to implement the better parts of the GOP agenda and to dismantle the worst of Obama’s excesses. Trump’s foreign policy, however, is still the wild card, and he has done nothing at all to show Americans that he has a proper understanding of the metastasizing Russian threat to America’s vital strategic interests.

Trump’s movement was always about Trump. And those who marched to the polls believing that he’d “fight” for them should now know that the only fights he picks are those it’s in his self-interest to pick. Yes, he still might try to build the wall, because it would be too embarrassing to renege on that campaign promise. Yes, this first Supreme Court nominee will likely be solid for the same reason. But you can also count on him to blur the lines between his business and his administration, because money is in his self-interest. And he’ll likely keep tweeting like a Breitbart blogger, because that has served his political interests beautifully, at least so far. 

It’s as if the people stormed the Bastille and set up the guillotines, only to find their leader feasting with King Louis. It turns out he was a member of the ancien régime all along.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (December 2020 or January 2021). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...