Former President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 10 May 2017, 03:35

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:A little back-pedaling, eh Jimbo?


Just a little. :oops:
Question authority.

User avatar
zoomboogity
Shakin' All Over
Posts: 5307
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 07:42
Location: Screwball Cultural Center

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby zoomboogity » 10 May 2017, 03:58

Jimbo wrote:If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does


Hold on a second... what? What is this? I mean, what the actual literal fuck is this? "My sources"? Who and what do you know that the rest of us don't? Well, I've got "sources" too. One is them really wants some ice cream right now, another one is recommending chips and salsa. And that's just two of them.

But seriously now, don't do that, please, it's borderline insulting. You have the same internet as the rest of us do, don't pull the special card. Otherwise, who are these "sources" and what information have they given you? I mean, specifically. Because whatever it may be, had I been entrusted with that information, I wouldn't think this is a good place to intimate about it. I mean, what, Injun Joe is ticklish?

"My sources." Just no, okay?

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 44829
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Charlie O. » 10 May 2017, 04:20

zoomboogity wrote:Well, I've got "sources" too. One is them really wants some ice cream right now

Will that be chocolate source or butterscotch?
Image

User avatar
zoomboogity
Shakin' All Over
Posts: 5307
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 07:42
Location: Screwball Cultural Center

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby zoomboogity » 10 May 2017, 04:46

I've been told to keep my lifelong hatred of butterscotch out of the public eye, but you guys are cool, I think I can volunteer that much. Youse guys are my bros, they'd understand!

Ummm... so... man-made liquefaction of everything south of The Newport-Inglewood Fault, use an earthquake or, better yet, a nuclear attack OH, what a giveaway!
Last edited by zoomboogity on 10 May 2017, 04:50, edited 1 time in total.

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 10 May 2017, 04:48

zoomboogity wrote:
Jimbo wrote:If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does


Hold on a second... what? What is this? I mean, what the actual literal fuck is this? "My sources"? Who and what do you know that the rest of us don't?


http://charlesortel.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bqoco4HkHM&t=2471s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoA7CsWrnHw&t=6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqdLWz-KZL0
Question authority.

User avatar
zoomboogity
Shakin' All Over
Posts: 5307
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 07:42
Location: Screwball Cultural Center

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby zoomboogity » 10 May 2017, 05:08

Okay, I just clicked right to all of it. It took about two seconds to connect to each one. This is "my source" as much as it yours. This isn't about whether we agree or not. The question is how is you "have sources" that none of us have (or had the capacity to achieve). It seems to me just a cheap device to win arguments: "I'm right because I have information you don't" - do you see the logical fallacy there?
Last edited by zoomboogity on 10 May 2017, 06:11, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
zoomboogity
Shakin' All Over
Posts: 5307
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 07:42
Location: Screwball Cultural Center

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby zoomboogity » 10 May 2017, 05:11

But hey - you can't spell "comedy" without C-O-M-E-Y!

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 10 May 2017, 06:56

zoomboogity wrote:Okay, I just clicked right to all of it. It took about two seconds to connect to each one. This is "my source" as much as it yours. This isn't about whether we agree or not. The question is how is you "have sources" that none of us have (or had the capacity to achieve). It seems to me just a cheap device to win arguments: "I'm right because I have information you don't" - do you see the logical fallacy there?


I'm not saying they're mine like I'm some investigative reporter but I stumbled upon them and find them credible. I don't see your problem. Is it egotistical to say "my source?" By that I meant my usual conspiracy-ish view of the news which most of you deride. I hope for acceptance or serious debate but have come to expect you to dismiss my views. I'll keep plugging, however.

Ortel is serious about tracking down the Clinton Foundation billions and I follow his doings.
Question authority.

User avatar
zoomboogity
Shakin' All Over
Posts: 5307
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 07:42
Location: Screwball Cultural Center

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby zoomboogity » 10 May 2017, 07:08

Jimbo wrote:Is it egotistical to say "my source?"


In the context of political discussions on this forum, and coming from you, it is, yeah. They're not "your sources" and they're not "your links," they're just webpages. Sorry I brought it up. Go ahead and say what you want.

...
Posts: 8751
Joined: 04 May 2011, 02:57

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby ... » 10 May 2017, 08:43

Jimbo wrote:
If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does



FFS.


How many times does the nice doctor who comes and administers your thrice-daily doses of Thorazine have to tell you, Jimbo, the voices you hear in your head are not sources...

sloopjohnc
Posts: 63924
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 10 May 2017, 13:50

When Trump was elected, I was naively hoping he'd rise to the occasion. Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.
Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk!

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 18254
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 14:21
Location: by your window

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Tactful Cactus » 10 May 2017, 14:07

sloopjohnc wrote:Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.



In a way its good he's being so blunt and reckless. A slow burning and calculated 4/8 year plan could be much more harmful but I don't think he has the patience. How much more do you have to go through before an impeachment attempt becomes reality? (because we're all waiting)

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 10 May 2017, 14:34

Tactful Cactus wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.



In a way its good he's being so blunt and reckless. A slow burning and calculated 4/8 year plan could be much more harmful but I don't think he has the patience. How much more do you have to go through before an impeachment attempt becomes reality? (because we're all waiting)


Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 18254
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 14:21
Location: by your window

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Tactful Cactus » 10 May 2017, 14:49

Still Baron wrote:Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.


What constitutes truly ghastly? He could launch a nuke on Pyongyang but the American people could believe he did it to protect them, although you could believe he's capable of authorising a nuke to deflect attention from that weeks bad press. The Comey firing is ghastly because he's removing a direct threat to his position, there's nothing there that serves the American people. What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 10 May 2017, 14:51

zoomboogity wrote:
Jimbo wrote:If the Clinton email scandal goes as deeply as my sources say it does


Hold on a second... what? What is this? I mean, what the actual literal fuck is this? "My sources"? Who and what do you know that the rest of us don't? Well, I've got "sources" too. One is them really wants some ice cream right now, another one is recommending chips and salsa. And that's just two of them.

But seriously now, don't do that, please, it's borderline insulting. You have the same internet as the rest of us do, don't pull the special card. Otherwise, who are these "sources" and what information have they given you? I mean, specifically. Because whatever it may be, had I been entrusted with that information, I wouldn't think this is a good place to intimate about it. I mean, what, Injun Joe is ticklish?

"My sources." Just no, okay?



HA! I came here to post a much less eloquent version of JUST THAT!
Zoom for BCB President!
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 10 May 2017, 14:54

Still Baron wrote:
Tactful Cactus wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:Now I wonder how much he can pull us down with each decision.



In a way its good he's being so blunt and reckless. A slow burning and calculated 4/8 year plan could be much more harmful but I don't think he has the patience. How much more do you have to go through before an impeachment attempt becomes reality? (because we're all waiting)


Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.


I know this, and I'm steeling myself for a two year wait, but damned if it doesn't feel like REAL TREASON is coming down the pike any second now.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Count Machuki » 10 May 2017, 14:56

Tactful Cactus wrote:What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?


I mean, selling the election to Russia for profit seems pretty actionable to me, but I don't know the legal ins and outs.
Like most all thinking people, I reckon there's another shoe to drop any moment.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53502
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Snarfyguy » 10 May 2017, 14:56

Tactful Cactus wrote:
Still Baron wrote:Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.


What constitutes truly ghastly? He could launch a nuke on Pyongyang but the American people could believe he did it to protect them, although you could believe he's capable of authorising a nuke to deflect attention from that weeks bad press. The Comey firing is ghastly because he's removing a direct threat to his position, there's nothing there that serves the American people. What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?

Impeachment isn't the only way he could (theoretically) leave office before his term is through. This New Yorker piece lays out various scenarios leading to his early departure -- none of them particularly likely, to my mind.

But, you know, if his popularity ratings get much lower, he's going to have real problems in terms of having sufficient political capital to lead, as his support in Congress will crumble. This is basically what forced Nixon out of office.
Last edited by Snarfyguy on 10 May 2017, 16:14, edited 1 time in total.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 10 May 2017, 14:57

Tactful Cactus wrote:
Still Baron wrote:Without direct evidence of treason or something truly ghastly (which we can't rule out) it will have to wait until (and if) Democrats control the House. Next election in 2018.


What constitutes truly ghastly? He could launch a nuke on Pyongyang but the American people could believe he did it to protect them, although you could believe he's capable of authorising a nuke to deflect attention from that weeks bad press. The Comey firing is ghastly because he's removing a direct threat to his position, there's nothing there that serves the American people. What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?


Firing Comey was not a criminal offense, and the President is free to fire the FBI Director. I'm talking about hard evidence of crime.

As Snarfy has suggested, it's a political matter. So long as the people running the House are beholden to Trump voters at home (which most of them are) then it will take something that no partisan can spin to force them to take action.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
BARON CORNY DOG
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 45153
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby BARON CORNY DOG » 10 May 2017, 15:00

Count Machuki wrote:
Tactful Cactus wrote:What line is there still to cross that would bring about bi-partisan consensus for impeachment?


I mean, selling the election to Russia for profit seems pretty actionable to me, but I don't know the legal ins and outs.
Like most all thinking people, I reckon there's another shoe to drop any moment.


The other shoe would be proof of selling the election to Russia. Who knows what the FBI knows? Comey won't be talking about it.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.


Return to “Nextdoorland”