TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#2,251
#2,251
luthervol said:
The deplorables already loved any "trump type" candidate. That's what made them deplorables. The ones who came on later or just voted against the establishment out of a sense of being overlooked are not among the deplorables.
The deplorables would have been less than 5% of the Trump voters. Hillary never characterized all trump supporters as deplorables and everyone who reported it like that was her intent knew they were misleading and propagandizing. Hey, it worked.
Click to expand...

Viva Deplorables!
 
#2,253
#2,253
GAVol said:
How about 50%?
That's not the point though. It wasn't about appealing to the worst in people. It's about just paying attention to them.

When a Democrat loses Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, it's time for a little self reflection. Stop focusing on delegitmizing the vote and start offering a common sense alternative. It's what Be at Gingrich figured out in 1994 and Trump's approval numbers say that would be a winning strategy.
Click to expand...

50%. My apologies. It was obviously an unwise statement on her part. She doesn't have the ability to get away with outrages and insulting comments like Trump.

There has been plenty of reflection and I'm sure that will continue. In my opinion, it was less about the message and more about the delivery (or lack thereof). There will always be a precarious line that has to be walked in order to adequately address the needs of urban and rural voters. Again, that's less about the message and more about the delivery. Clinton was a poor salesperson. Obama could sell the same product and win by a landslide. That will be considered more than anything in the 20 election. In today's political world - you have to be able to sell.
 
#2,254
#2,254
lawgator1 said:
No.

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

Wray and one other viewed it over the weekend and asked to take it back so the people who know what happened could review it. Nunes said no.

It is very misleading to say those two found no inaccuracies because they don't know what is and is not accurate. They asked to have it seen by people who would and that was denied.

Your reiteration of the misleading Fox talking point is noted.
Click to expand...

This article clearly states 2 more in addition to Wray

FBI officials review surveillance memo, could not cite 'any factual inaccuracies': source | Fox News
 
#2,255
#2,255
luthervol said:
50%. My apologies. It was obviously an unwise statement on her part. She doesn't have the ability to get away with outrages and insulting comments like Trump.

There has been plenty of reflection and I'm sure that will continue. In my opinion, it was less about the message and more about the delivery (or lack thereof). There will always be a precarious line that has to be walked in order to adequately address the needs of urban and rural voters. Again, that's less about the message and more about the delivery. Clinton was a poor salesperson. Obama could sell the same product and win by a landslide. That will be considered more than anything in the 20 election. In today's political world - you have to be able to sell.
Click to expand...
Some of us also haven't forgotten the arrogant statement she made about small business people when she was 1st Lady. When someone brought up the fact that small business people would be adversely affected by her proposed health care takeover she said...................."I can't be concerned about every undercapitalized small business person in the country." For that statement, she can kiss my a$$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#2,259
#2,259
:popcorn:
DU1VR8-UMAAodih.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,262
#2,262
golfballs said:
:popcorn:
DU1VR8-UMAAodih.jpg
Click to expand...

Federal Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (C) is escorted by U.S. Capitol Police before a meeting with members of the Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees in the Rayburn House Office Building December 21, 2017 in Washington, DC. McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee for ten hours on Tuesday.

YGHN.
 
#2,264
#2,264
1972 Grad said:
Some of us also haven't forgotten the arrogant statement she made about small business people when she was 1st Lady. When someone brought up the fact that small business people would be adversely affected by her proposed health care takeover she said...................."I can't be concerned about every undercapitalized small business person in the country." For that statement, she can kiss my a$$.
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly. When you insult segments of society with insensitive and sometimes utterly ridiculous statements, that segment has a hard time getting over it, no matter what that president may say and do after the fact. They may spend the rest of their lives telling that individual "you can kiss my a$$."

You know where this is headed.....Trump offended far more segments and much more often. Collectively they say..."he can kiss my a$$."
 
#2,268
#2,268
luthervol said:
Oh look, Trump's favorite graph. Look at all the pretty red. Doesn't in any way change the fact that the majority of the people who bothered to vote, didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't change the fact that Hillary lost
.......of course this loss came after she rigged the democratic primary..... and hosed your boy Bern...., which you have no problem with.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,269
#2,269
CNN:

President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has not met the high threshold they believe is needed to interview a president in person, according to sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

...But even if the President's lawyers object and seek to fight efforts to talk to him, Mueller could ultimately seek to force the issue through a grand jury subpoena. That would prolong the issue and could lead to court battles.

Unless Trump fires Mueller, this would end up before Supreme Court... where Trump would lose. Go for it Dotard!!! D.C. Jury waiting for you...

Trump lawyers argue Mueller hasn't met bar for sit-down - CNNPolitics

tenor (1).gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,270
#2,270
OuterBanksVol said:
CNN:

President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has not met the high threshold they believe is needed to interview a president in person, according to sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

...But even if the President's lawyers object and seek to fight efforts to talk to him, Mueller could ultimately seek to force the issue through a grand jury subpoena. That would prolong the issue and could lead to court battles.

Unless Trump fires Mueller, this would end up before Supreme Court... where Trump would lose. Go for it Dotard!!! D.C. Jury waiting for you...

Trump lawyers argue Mueller hasn't met bar for sit-down - CNNPolitics

View attachment 153180
Click to expand...

Meh.... this whole collusion conspiracy has gotten stale. It's time to for the Dems to pull some other scandal out of their ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,273
#2,273
OuterBanksVol said:
CNN:

President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has not met the high threshold they believe is needed to interview a president in person, according to sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

...But even if the President's lawyers object and seek to fight efforts to talk to him, Mueller could ultimately seek to force the issue through a grand jury subpoena. That would prolong the issue and could lead to court battles.

Unless Trump fires Mueller, this would end up before Supreme Court... where Trump would lose. Go for it Dotard!!! D.C. Jury waiting for you...

Trump lawyers argue Mueller hasn't met bar for sit-down - CNNPolitics

View attachment 153180
Click to expand...

If 'true', someone's leaking...question is; why? Hummm, maybe to discredit or stir a conspiracy?


giphy.gif
 
#2,275
#2,275
OuterBanksVol said:
CNN:

President Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing that special counsel Robert Mueller's team has not met the high threshold they believe is needed to interview a president in person, according to sources familiar with the ongoing deliberations.

...But even if the President's lawyers object and seek to fight efforts to talk to him, Mueller could ultimately seek to force the issue through a grand jury subpoena. That would prolong the issue and could lead to court battles.

Unless Trump fires Mueller, this would end up before Supreme Court... where Trump would lose. Go for it Dotard!!! D.C. Jury waiting for you...

Trump lawyers argue Mueller hasn't met bar for sit-down - CNNPolitics

View attachment 153180
Click to expand...

Trump wouldn't lose, the burden of need would fall on Muller. He can't force the POTUS to tesify in front of a GJ or be interviewed just because he wants him to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top