**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[RockRaines]

Did I say all? People who get free stuff from the government tend to vote for the people that give them free stuff. People who pay half of their earnings to government tend to vote for the people who believe in less taxation. It's human nature.

You said his base. I asked if you really thought that was his base. Apparently you do.

[Steve9347]

I will say it is surprising that Trump's alleged affair isn't getting more air time. Maybe it's just a product of the constant scandal, red alert, corporate news media blasting the sirens too often. Personally, I am not concerned with who a person is or isn't having sex with or rather who he/she should or shouldn't be having sex with. Especially when it pertains to something that happened years ago.

 

I also don't buy the idea that a leader has to be representative of their voters. At least that never seems to happen. Trump's base is religious. Should he also be religious? Obama's base was people receiving aid from the government. Should he have also received aid?

These people are politicians. It's their job to lie. Trump ran on running the government like a business, stopping the BS in the middle east and ending the pay for play capitalism. Trump has increased spending, emboldened the military and gave Saudi Arabia billions of weapons so they can bomb a cholera-ridden Saudi Arabia. Obama ran on protecting whistleblowers, closing Gitmo and ending the two wars. He attacked whistleblowers unlike any president before, Gitmo is still operating and he not only expanded the two wars but started another five.

 

These people are liars and scumbags by trade. It's not partisan, it's not right and it definitely shouldn't be surprising.

You have me eating out of the palm of your hand for the post save the bolded here. Too far!

[Soxbadger]

But I didn't try to enforce religious morality through legislature nor did I support doing so. I didn't make comments about gay marriage which I have always been in favor of. These would be great points if I actually did the things you're projecting to me. I am not religious. I don't believe religion has a place in politics. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

EH?

 

I dont remember addressing my post to you, I was just saying that its an issue because the party he represents has made this an issue. And that its hypocritical for those in his party who have tried to enforce religion through legislature and the courts, not to enforce the same against him.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Dick Allen]

It's pretty common to talk about someone's employment when they're introduced to the public. Ben Carson - brain surgeon. Obama - senator, community organizer. Trump - reality show host, real estate mogul. Just like when it was the ANTIFA man beating peaceful protesters with a bike lock he was noted as a professor. People's jobs are an identifier. Who they have sex with isn't - or shouldn't be at least.

 

Like when you meet someone, they'll say, "Oh what do you do for a living?" Rarely do they say, "Oh who have you had sex with in your past?"

 

I didn't see you attack anyone for acknowledging Stormy Weather's career as a porn actress. Why am I getting attacked for acknowledging a violent leftist's same career several months back. Why are you carrying your rehashed argument from, what, a year ago? to a different thread?

That wasn't her occupation. It's obvious why you mentioned it. But that made it OK for her to be beaten because someone who may have made a porn movie isn't worthy. Yet, Trump f***s porn stars while married and you're not interested. All of it has to do with the letter after the name. And why it was brought up was to show you are being a hypocrite. Again.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Dick Allen

[StrangeSox]

IN LEAKED CHATS, WIKILEAKS DISCUSSES PREFERENCE FOR GOP OVER CLINTON, RUSSIA, TROLLING, AND FEMINISTS THEY DON’T LIKE

 

Still, Twitter messages obtained by The Intercept provide an unfiltered window into WikiLeaks’ political goals before it dove into the white-hot center of the presidential election. The messages also reveal a running theme of sexism and misogyny, contain hints of anti-Semitism, and underline Assange’s well-documented obsession with his public image.

 

The chats are from a direct message group between WikiLeaks and about 10 of its online boosters, described as a “low security channel for some very long term and reliable supporters who are on twitter.” Perhaps because of the “low security” designation, the chats do not shed much light on the most sensitive questions surrounding WikiLeaks and the 2016 election. They don’t reveal anything new about WikiLeaks’ relationship with the Trump campaign, although they are consistent with the group’s public statements casting doubt on claims by former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone that he had advanced knowledge of the group’s anti-Clinton leaks. The chats don’t illuminate any connections with the Russian government or tell us anything about the identity of the source who provided WikiLeaks with emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

 

The archive spans from May 2015 through November 2017 and includes over 11,000 messages, more than 10 percent of them written from the WikiLeaks account. With this article, The Intercept is publishing newsworthy excerpts from the leaked messages.

 

A former supporter of and volunteer for WikiLeaks, who goes by the name “Hazelpress” (The Intercept does not know the person’s real name), set up the direct message group in mid-2015 and later decided to leak its contents to the media after news broke that WikiLeaks had secretly corresponded with Donald Trump Jr. during the election, urging candidate Trump to reject the results as rigged if he lost and requesting that the president-elect use his connections to get Assange an Australian ambassadorship. “At this point, considering the power exercised by WikiLeaks, [disclosing] literally anything Assange says is in the public interest,” Hazelpress told The Intercept, including Assange’s political position during the 2016 selection, since “WikiLeaks purports to be a neutral transparency organization.”

[RockRaines]

EH?

 

I dont remember addressing my post to you, I was just saying that its an issue because the party he represents has made this an issue. And that its hypocritical for those in his party who have tried to enforce religion through legislature and the courts, not to enforce the same against him.

Exactly. Blind allegiance to someone who fundamentally represents something that is against your core beliefs is f***ing weird and super hypocritical.

[Dick Allen]

Stormy is going to talk. Her manager says Cohen violated the NDA. LMAO.

[Soxbadger]

Id have to see the agreement, but the more I think about it, I think he may have screwed up. The disclosure to the FEC likely wasnt a problem, but once he started giving interviews it was no longer part of a subpoena so he may have really made a huge mistake.

[RockRaines]

Stormy is going to talk. Her manager says Cohen violated the NDA. LMAO.

She knows how to make it rain $$$$$

[Dick Allen]

I'm sure it would violate her contract, but Melania should cut the charade and tell Trump to go scratch.

[RockRaines]

I'm sure it would violate her contract, but Melania should cut the charade and tell Trump to go scratch.

They'd deport her.

[pettie4sox]

They'd deport her.

 

Faster than Trump can scarf down 5 double quarter pound cheeseburgers with extra mayo... hold the vegetables.

[Soxbadger]

 

A couple of liberals in Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore talking about Seth Rich. Bring in the character deconstruction!

 

Not sure what this has to do with Trump or what you mean by "liberal." But both identify as independents, and many people think Rogan is a closet conservative.

 

Fun 10 minutes of conspiracy theories presented as facts though.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Dick Allen]

 

A couple of liberals in Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore talking about Seth Rich. Bring in the character deconstruction!

What makes you say they are liberal?

[The Beast]

“Prayers and condolences.”

- Trump

 

No action whatsoever. This is the America we live in and we have to just accept it.

[Soxbadger]

There is no argument that Jimmy Dore isn't a liberal. He's a huge Bernie guy and advocating "we" get together to keep HRC from ruining the Democratic party. He identifies publicly as a liberal.

 

Rogan is arguable I guess but he believes in universal basic income, is progressive on most social issues and says he is liberal on most issues.

 

Not shocked the post is made about them instead of what they said.

 

They talked about conspiracy theories that have no relation to the current administration. Not sure what anyone could say to it? Unless I missed something, there was no new evidence in the podcast. It was just old evidence being rehashed by two guys who have no direct access to any part of the investigation.

 

Its fun, just like watching "Ancient Aliens" is fun. But since I am not a part of the investigation, nor do I have any access to any of the actual evidence, my response would be nothing more than conjecture and hearsay. Which again, if people want my theory based on conjecture/hearsay (much like the podcast), id say that while the timing is odd, there is 0 credible evidence to suggest that there was some massive cover up.

 

Maybe someday in the future someone will come out and prove that wrong. But if someone had that information, youd think they would have wanted to monetize it.

 

But again, isnt there a "Seth Rich" thread or perhaps a general "Govt Conspiracy" catch all thread where this would be better suited? We could put the podcats with Dore on "building 7" there.

[Soxbadger]

What specifically did they present as fact that was untrue.

 

How is it a conspiracy theory if they're just stating the facts? This is an unsolved murder. There is no confirmed story.

 

They said that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders. This is opinion.

 

Conspiracy theories are based on facts. The definition of conspiracy theory has nothing to do with facts, evidence, truth or fiction. It is:

 

Conspiracy theory: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

 

or from dictionary.com:

 

a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

 

By definition the implication that the DNC/Clinton were responsible for Rich's death and the rigging of the primary are "conspiracy theories."

Edited February 14, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Dick Allen]

There is no argument that Jimmy Dore isn't a liberal. He's a huge Bernie guy and advocating "we" get together to keep HRC from ruining the Democratic party. He identifies publicly as a liberal.

 

Rogan is arguable I guess but he believes in universal basic income, is progressive on most social issues and says he is liberal on most issues.

 

Not shocked the post is made about them instead of what they said.

So 2 card carrying Hillary haters talking some unbiased Seth Rich. OK.

[Soxbadger]

The head of the DNC believed it was rigger against Sanders. You didn't provide any examples of falsities they presented as fact.

 

If youre going to say something, be kind enough to quote or cite who said it. I dont know who the "head of the DNC is" but Donna Brazille said:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/politics/don...gged/index.html

 

the former interim chair of the DNC says she found "no evidence" the Democratic primary was rigged.

 

"I found no evidence, none whatsoever," she told ABC's "This Week."

Brazile's comments follow backlash over an excerpt from her new book published in Politico last week.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/36030...were-overturned

 

“And I concluded that it was not rigged because the votes for Hillary Clinton came from you the voters, you the voters. I found no evidence of one vote being overturned by what was happening internally,”

 

Im not going to relisten to the podcast, if you can get me a transcript Ill go through it and point out the specific statements.

You still havent explained how this is relevant to this thread.

[Dick Allen]

You can't chalk up everything to bias. These two are both popular for not being biased. What did they say was untrue? or biased?

It seems they have something against her.

 

 

How much would you take out of a 10 minute conversation about Donald Trump between Bill Maher and Joe Scarborough, the conservative?

Edited February 14, 2018 by Dick Allen

[Soxbadger]

Why are we destroying this thread with Seth Rich conspiracy talk?

 

That will be the topic of my podcast later, in which I conclude it is a conspiracy by people to bury bad news about Trump.

[Dick Allen]

Why are we destroying this thread with Seth Rich conspiracy talk?

 

That will be the topic of my podcast later, in which I conclude it is a conspiracy by people to bury bad news about Trump.

I am looking forward to hearing Stormy speak, and then see how the WH will try to discredit her. Their small problem is the payout. If the NDA is broken, can she actually show the document I assumed was signed to the world? That would be interesting.

[caulfield12]

Post some evidence to the contrary, then. That whole story seems to have died pretty quickly, swamped out by the next absurd bulls*** coming from the Trump WH. "Trump is a sleazeball" isn't really going to convince anyone to dislike Trump more than they already do, or for those who like Trump to like him less.

 

Politico had a big story about how the Dems don’t even want to discuss Bill Clinton, pretty much the best campaign surrogate ever, going out on the trail this year.

[Soxbadger]

She was the head of DNC. There are posts on this forum with me responding to her being replaced by Perez. Stick to the issue instead of trying to turn it on me. There's a record of me knowing this. She was the head when it happened. She said it was rigged.

 

It's interesting that you think you need to change votes to constitute something being rigged. I guess you'd agree that Russia stuff is garbage.

 

You say that they're misrepresenting facts and you provide nothing. Two posts no explanation. Just distractors.

 

 

Jimmy Dore runs a left-wing youtube show. Your parallel makes no sense. If he were Mark Dice it would make sense. He's a liberal attacking another liberal because that's what the facts lead him to do.

 

You are yet to post something they misrepresented.

 

It wasnt whether you knew it, it was for me the reader. How do I know who you are referring to, if you dont name them. How do I know what they said, if you dont quote them or link them. You keep saying " she said it was rigged". I have posted 2 quotes that directly contradict what you just said. You still havent provided any evidence to support what your contention is.

 

In comparison, I provided 2 direct quotes from Brazille that are contradictory to what the podcasts said. How is that "providing nothing".

 

As for the Russia comment, that is seriously a garbage comparison. I cant recall anyone saying "Russia rigged" the election. I believe that people have said Russia "interfered" with the election.

 

Ive actually started to wonder if you believe what you are writing, or if you just think that playing these type of games is fun.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Soxbadger

[caulfield12]

Brazile is one one who helped rig it for Clinton by giving debate questions to Hillary...and got her in hot water with CNN.

 

She has always been aligned with Clinton/Gore. When she tried to get out of it by explaining herself, and attacking the party, she only made herself look more ridiculous.

 

 

Let’s go back to Romney's 47% number and Obama’s base.

 

At least half of that is retired people. It’s idiotic to say they vote as a block for either party. There’s also no evidence a disproportionate amount of the elderly voted for Dems the last three elections.

 

The huge majority of those receiving government benefits are WHITE PEOPLE. There’s little evidence they vote in their best interest politically, because the majorupity of the voted for Trump last election. They are...or were...Trump’s base.

 

The handicapped and unemployed? Sure, there’s a conspiracy for them to support Obama.

 

What Rabbit was really trying to say is more blacks and Hispanics/illegals (who don’t or can’t vote, except in Kobach conspiracy theory land) are or were supportive of Obama.

 

Well, blacks yes...the one truth of the whole generalization, but they didn’t have enough energy or motivation to get out and vote for Hillary. One of the Top 10 reasons that she lost.

 

Look at the states Hillary did the best in for 2008 vs. Obama.

 

Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana...all Trump states eight years later. The poor white people in those states were never going to support Obama in a million years, especially against a white Democratic primary opponent.

 

Florida, Texas, AZ, NM, California and Nevada went Clinton’s way as well, predominantly Hispanic states for the Dems. Hispanics supported Obama at similar numbers as generic Dems, and he was no particular friend to them in terms of immigration policies.

 

So the idea that those receiving government benefits made up Obama’s base is all predicated on the revelation that blacks/African Americans supported ... gasp ... one of their own, at a rate 4-6% higher than a generic Dem.

 

Unless he is really arguing white Millennials were receiving government handouts and voted Obama?

Edited February 15, 2018 by caulfield12