Terrible President. He vowed to fundamentally change America and we’re seeing the results of his policies as Obiden continues them.Change of pace
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
And he’s a garbage basketball player too. Why does he look so faggy in everything he does?
He needs to go back to ****ing hookers and doing blow. His game was much better when he was doing that.
Just found this! Funny shit and true too.
'he's got more LLC's than John Gotti's wife', lol..
Great find....and hard to believe but that's really Afroman.
Hell of a flex by trump to wish his wife happy birthday from the steps of the courthouse where two of his mistresses will be testifying
it's her birthday, and he rightfully acknowledges it. Hell of an intentional oversight by you to ignore that he is in this bullshit circumstance only because of demlbs weaponizing justice for political purposes. JMO, but to me the right-minded would be harping on this instead of on someone saying happy birthday. If he could have, I'm sure he would have wished her a public happy birthday in a different setting.
The current insanity we endure includes derision directed toward someone's happy birthday wishes to his wife.
The only good thing is that TIL that 'mistress' doesn't mean what I thought it meant.
Yeah... he didn't actually have affairs with these women and pay them. It's all a big fantasy created by "the dims." I mean, the two women have confessed-- in great detail, by the way-- to it. Michael Cohen already served time for his culpability, and being found guilty, in the crime. But, it's all just hearsay and BS... and, of course, the "weaponizing of the DOJ."
Totally not a cult.
Even if you think she was right about killing the dog, why would she put this in the book? Is there not a better example for her to use?
thehill.com
Kristi Noem describes killing dog after bad hunting trip in new book
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) in a forthcoming book describes shooting a family dog after a hunting trip, according to a report in The Guardian, which obtained a copy of the book, “No Going Bac…
thehill.com
LOL! I look forward to the cross examinations. That's where the fireworks are going to really gonna happen.
A cult that will be happy to see Trump walk away unscathed.
Do dims understand the rule of holes? When you're in one, stop digging.
Last edited:
I hear she’s on trumps short list for VP. Wonder if this hurts her chancesEven if you think she was right about killing the dog, why would she put this in the book? Is there not a better example for her to use?
Kristi Noem describes killing dog after bad hunting trip in new book
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) in a forthcoming book describes shooting a family dog after a hunting trip, according to a report in The Guardian, which obtained a copy of the book, “No Going Bac…
I’ll give credit where it’s due. Trump has fukked some hot babes. Most of them consensually even
but not as 'special' as your relationship with Joe Biden.You have a "special" relationship with Donald Trump. Or at least you wish you did.
I know... Michael Cohen didn't go to jail because Trumped screwed them, either.
really? You know? Then what was your point in expressing this?
Just to emphasize that it happened. It's no witch hunt. Truth be told, you and the rest of the cult don't care that he used campaign funds to shut them up. You don't care how many laws he has broken, or will break. Just like he said, he could shoot someone and not lose any voters.
so why did you need to emphasize that it happened when no one was contesting that it did, and it was irrelevant to the matter at hand? I think you just took a flying fvck at a rolling donut and don't want to admit it.
It's a witch hunt, but not because he did something that could not be twisted into an illegality. It's a witch hunt because no one else would be in court for what he did, a technicality that no one gives a shit about, including any D.A....unless the target happens to be Donald Trump. Of course you deny that in spite of the fact that people actually campaigned on a vow to target him, including Letitia James.
And you talk about what I don't care about? I don't think you even know or care what he has been charged with; he's just one of the things that you're in permanent hissy fit over.,
I'm sure shooting animals makes her more popular with Trump supporters.
Shooting animals is very popular among many Dim voters too, they just prefer the inner city two-legged type. To each his/her/its/their own I guess.
Maybe so, in an indirect way. I'm sure the yellow headline will be what many libs form an opinion on without reading the article. What I got from it was the point being made, buried some paragraphs down, below several others reiterating the misleading suggestion that the dog was shot due to a 'bad hunting trip'...
"The Guardian wrote that the story was told as an anecdote to show that Noem believes sometimes difficult tasks must be carried out, and that she is not afraid to do so. Noem uses the story to illustrate that she is willing to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done, according to The Guardian."
The willingness to deal with unpleasantness head-on is what would make her more popular with Trump supporters.
You mean it's sort of on par with the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Both trivial offenses, imo, but because of the stature of the offenders, they got a lot of attention.
Which side do you think was more witch-hunty? To me, the Clinton foes win that, hands down. They were in full faux-rage long before he effed up and perjured himself - which, let's face it, is the only thing he did wrong from a legal perspective.
As a lefty, I don't care if Trump screwed porno stars. And I don't care if he paid them hush money. The real issue, to me, is whether that money is correctly considered a concealed campaign expense in violation of the law. My answer to that is "of course it is." BUT, I think that's nearly impossible to prove, and Trump will probably skate.
Meanwhile, cons on the Supreme Court are twisting themselves in knots to delay the serious cases against Trump to minimize harm to him before the election. Shameful. And stupid, imo, since it's highly unlikely that the juries on those cases won't have at least one Trump supporter willing to exonerate him regardless of proof. But I guess they don't want to run even that slight risk.
I believe that I read the words printed and that nothing in them counters anything I've said. If one believes anything beyond that, it's because they are reading into it what they want to believe.
no, it isn't on par with the impeachment of Clinton because here we're talking about criminal charges that are tying Trump up and keeping him from campaigning. Additionally, and as I said, if he wasn't the object of dem persecution, he wouldn't have even sniffed a courtroom. It isn't equal justice if you don't put EVERYBODY on trial for aberrant bookkeeping, and there would be thousands of cases in NY alone if the DA actually cared about that as a crime.
So whether technically it was a crime is irrelevant. It isn't JUSTICE, it's a political misuse of the legal system..
That being said, in that respect it does compare to Clinton's situation and I've said so here before. The republicans were absolutely sure that they could nail the Clintons for shady dealings before he became president, and when they couldn't, IMO they took their investigation too far, determined to find ANYthing anywhere not related to the original suspicions At that time I was no fan of Clinton but when they drug out the investigation like that it angered me. And I don't try to justify it just because I'm glad they nailed the pig for being a pig, even though that validated my opinion of him.
What I really compare is that (the drug-out investigation, not the impeachment) to the impeachments and investigation of Trump. All political, all persecutorial.
I am not willing to say that it's shameful IF the SCOTUS is actually trying to keep this nonsense from interfering with the election. The Supremes are free to consider whatever they feel is pertinent when deciding to review decisions, and if that means allowing the American people to have an unfettered election process, I'm sure as hell not going to complain. Of course, if one is not for Trump, one might see things differently. I'd like to think that I would feel the same regardless of who was being screwed.
now THAT is how hush money is supposed to work. She hushes against you, we pay to make that happen. And the beauty of it is, is that it allows the questionable behavior being hushed up to continue unabated.
I didn't read the entire article, but I'm sure it explains that the dems are behind it, it being so hypocritical and all.
I imagine both parties are "behind it", there being no end of indecent behavior on the part of both parties. Doesn't excuse the use of public funds to cover up that behavior. Since that money was taxpayers' money, I believe we have the right to know the exact details of these hush money payments, who to, what for, and on the part of whom.
Similar threads
