Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,400
tre45on's rally in El Passo... No, wait. That's Beto's rally in El Passo...



Trump said there were 300 people at Beto's rally.

He also said 69 000 people RSVP’d to be at his rally... Then he said the arena holds 8000, but the fire department got 10 000 folk in... Then he said "tens of thousands of people" were watching on screens outside... Then he said he had 30 000 people there...

Then the fire department said the arena holds 6 500 folk and that's how many they let in, oh, and there were roughly 7 000 watching on the screens outside... Then they said they estimated between 10 000 and 15 000 folk at Beto's rally.

Then a 239lbs man took a bow, and Stewart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers was in the front row to take pics on his phone.



Then tre34on's "Finish The Wall' rally finished with the Rolling Stones' 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' playing over the PA.

Good times...
1549951420185.png
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,171
Source? You really like making statements without backing them up, and you call people out for doing the same. So typical.

And, wasteful expenditure is ok, as long as it is less than previously? Not unsurprising that you would play so fast and loose with your morals.
Source for what? This post of mine that you responded to and neatly removed the link showing Mueller's probe has already made a $23m profit...?

Can a person really be this dense?
You're trying very hard to show that, yes.

Gingerbeardman said:
What does your whataboutism have to do with Emjay's initial point? She asked for a source after Claymore replied with an absolute non-sequitur
How is it a non-sequitur to show that Mueller's probe has already turned a profit? It's a direct response to the claim, and refutes it.

You:

Gingerbeardman said:
you double down and make as if the conversation was about wasteful spending, which it never was. :ROFL:
Emjay:

Yeah, I know that the Democrats like to waste the public's money.
Take it up with her.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
12,791
I knew in my little conservative heart that it would trigger you, darling. Maybe you and Beto should ride off into the sunset on your respective skateboards together?
Adorable.

To be fair, I'd kill for a Bacon & Cheese Whataburger right now.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,254
What's her stance on nuclear power?
That depends on whether you think that anything she posts on her website is actually what she is advocating. And not just fake news by GOP.

But assuming what the website says is legit, they want to phase out nuclear. Now to be fair, this idiocy also affected ze Germans.
 
Last edited:

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,469
How is it a non-sequitur to show that Mueller's probe has already turned a profit? It's a direct response to the claim, and refutes it.
Because Emjay's original point was that the $30 $23 million dollar investigation used to "hold Trump to account" has spectacularly failed to achieve its objectives. In that sense it will remain a waste of money no matter how much of a profit it turned because it accidentally managed to expose Manafort. And the House investigations that Schiffy pants is now threatening because he's apparently unsatisfied with Mueller is good money thrown after bad. Trying to twist it into a fiscal responsibility issue is missing the point spectacularly.
 
Last edited:

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,685
Because Emjay's original point was that the $30 $23 million dollar investigation used to "hold Trump to account" has spectacularly failed to achieve its objectives. In that sense it will remain a waste of money no matter how much of a profit it turned because it accidentally managed to expose Manafort. And the House investigations that Schiffy pants is now threatening because he's apparently unsatisfied with Mueller is good money thrown after bad. Trying to twist it into a fiscal responsibility issue is missing the point spectacularly.
Says the guy that supports a guy that deploys military to a border (seeing twenty year low illegal crossings) at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars where it would be illegal for them to actually do anything to "help".

Nice consistency in your concerns for wasting government funds.

Another example would be the Benghazi investigation. That also cost millions of dollars and Killary still went free. Thus waste of money right?


Ok final point... The success criteria of an investigation is thoroughness and accuracy, not one outcome or another. I know that you know this.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,469
Says the guy that supports a guy that deploys military to a border (seeing twenty year low illegal crossings) at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars where it would be illegal for them to actually do anything to "help".
Lol.

Nice consistency in your concerns for wasting government funds.
Where did I personally display any such concern?

Another example would be the Benghazi investigation. That also cost millions of dollars and Killary still went free. Thus waste of money right?

Yup, it was a waste of money to investigate Benghazi while Clinton's allies in the DOJ and elsewhere were able to frustrate the investigation. But don't worry, the truth of why Ambassador Stevens was in Libya in the first place has long since been exposed, and I expect better results from Huber.

I don't think you can really claim that the Mueller investigation has been stymied by Trump allies, conversely.

Ok final point... The success criteria of an investigation is thoroughness and accuracy, not one outcome or another. I know that you know this.
That's naive. There can be many different motives to launch an investigation. The fact of the matter is that the SC investigation wasn't started out of any sincere concern that Trump was colluding with Russians, rather it was a means to an end in order to frustrate his political agenda as much as possible.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
18,462
Source? You really like making statements without backing them up, and you call people out for doing the same. So typical.

And, wasteful expenditure is ok, as long as it is less than previous administrations? Not unsurprising that you would play so fast and loose with your morals.
You still haven't provided a source for your claim that most democrats are anti capitalists, although i have kinda chalked that one up to nonsense tbh.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,469
You consistently do this type of thing, the whole I don't take a position narrative.
So what are your actual concerns here? If you don't actually have any then you are just trolling.
My actual concern is that Trump is being targeted for political reasons in the absence of any genuine basis for being investigated, which is what I take to be the gist of Emjay's concern. In addition, my strong suspicion is that the people attempting to push for this investigation are themselves trying to hide their complicity in the abuse of state intelligence resources for the purposes of changing the outcome of the 2016 election.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,066
Says the guy that supports a guy that deploys military to a border (seeing twenty year low illegal crossings) at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars where it would be illegal for them to actually do anything to "help".

Nice consistency in your concerns for wasting government funds.

Another example would be the Benghazi investigation. That also cost millions of dollars and Killary still went free. Thus waste of money right?


Ok final point... The success criteria of an investigation is thoroughness and accuracy, not one outcome or another. I know that you know this.
Most of these cost are pure BS. Deploying the military to the border had no additional cost associated to it. They already had the personnel and equipment, maybe a few $1000 in diesel cost. The same goes for all investigations. There's fixed cost already payable that can't be counted again as a special expense.
 
Top