Oh, so not only are you a piece of shit, you're a racist one as well... good to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Printable View
Oh, so not only are you a piece of shit, you're a racist one as well... good to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I think it needs some workshopping. Pocahontas was a pretty rad chick.
I'll never forgive her for writing that "around the riverbend" song my job played on a 24 hour loop.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1503608903Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
That has been Trump's nickname for her for over a year. Read a news article every once in a while if you want to hang with the grownups.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
And it's a racist nickname mocking her partial Native ancestry, and you repeated it without a hint of irony. Now maybe that doesn't make you a racist, but it definitely doesn't make you not a racist...
Also: hilarious that you talk about "hanging with the grownups" immediately after defending the use of schoolyard bully insults in politics.
I used it in the same breath as all the other Trumpy nicknames. As for whether it's an actual part of her ancestry or a cynical manipulation of a system to designed to help the truly marginalized, that's an entirely different discussion. One that I'm sure will happen many times as we get closer to 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pirate Roberts
I didn't defend his use of the nicknames, I defended their effectiveness. Which they were.
You quoting a racist piece of shit as if it's ok doesn't make it ok. You fucked up on this one. Please stop fucking up on this one, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Also, Elizabeth Warren isn't an "empty pantsuit". She says she'll do something and fights hard to get it done. That's the opposite of what you called her.
There's nothing funny about that Pocahontas nickname. It's so fucking disgusting.
No, Hillary is the empty pantsuit. Warren comes off as more of an angry schoolmarm, a scold. "Nasty women with nasty feet," etc. If you think that's going to play any better in 2020 than it did last year, then please, be my guest.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I want to roll up the last few posts and mail them to TNL 2005.
I don't think "hey the name you called her is mean you meanie" argument to someone who's obviously trolling is very effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I'll grant that description of Hillary. Your view on Warren is absolutely different from mine, though. Every interview I've seen her in has her as as sharp, intelligent person who's passionate about what she's trying to do with occasional trips to frustration as the world gets stupider and Trump-ier.
I held the same opinion for the first few years she came into prominence. I even liked some of her ideas, like her plan to make the Postal Service relevant and profitable while at the same time gutting predatory check-cashers.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
But something happened during the last election. The calm, collected, rational Warren gave way to a more emotional, shrill Warren. It's clear that Trump gets under her skin on a very personal level, and that's not a good look. I'm not saying she isn't suited for a national campaign, but I am saying that she's not suited for a national campaign against Trump. I know you respect her greatly, but he will eat her lunch.
Gabbard and Duckworth are proven, unflappable, and young. And electable.
She told everyone she was of native heritage very publicly then failed to actually provide any kind of documentation about it when asked by actual natives. She also stubbornly continues to state her family knows the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
So everyone in this whole chain of events is a piece of shit, but she handed Trump the ammo.
So by your logic, if she claimed to be black it would be okay for Trump to call her a jigaboo. Got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
More like Harriet Tubman.
*shrug* jigaboo is a fun word though.
"Round-eye" is my favorite.
I love how the left has become Jerry Falwell.Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstBlood
Anyhow mark my words, Hillary loses by a wider margin in 2020, then Gabbard sweeps up in 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBUxNeXgC70
Nope. Everyone involved in this is an asshole. I just wanted to make sure both sides of the aisle were repped as being assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Do you have any idea how many people have a family oral history claiming Native ancestry, but no documentation because the ancestors in question had every reason to think registering with the government was for absolute morons? I live in what used to be officially known as Indian Territory. Pick a random white person here, it's probably more likely that describes them than not. I was at first genuinely dumbfounded that anyone would take issue with it, until I realized it probably is quite a bit less common on the coasts. Still, considering my own dad is just such a person*, it still pisses me off to see Warren mocked - to say nothing of called an asshole - over it.
*I on the other hand am lucky enough to have an absolute moron on my mom's side of the family tree. ;)
I'm related to a redheaded Indian princess.
And it is my god given right as an American to be too lazy to look up the particulars.
Anyone that has a problem with that can get fucked.
Warren is checkmated.
Ladies and gentlemen, whataboutism at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
It’s a euphemism for any non-white relative. Everyone in the South has an Indian princess in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pirate Roberts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Double yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
So what do you think the key difference between you and Warren is here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pirate Roberts
I think Warren is a pretty awesome candidate all things considered. But you can't say she can make unfounded claims without any kind of proof while simultaneously holding on to the high ground against Trump. It's going to play out like some cracker using fake claims of ancestry to drum up ethnic votes and Trump will hammer her on it because it exploits her progressive status to her detriment if/when actual natives get pissed off about it. It's a pretty bad misstep to make. You really don't want to go toe to toe with Trump on an idiotic level like that. He'll beat you with experience.
Lol.
Why is everyone doing it wrong except the second dude from the left?
At some point, her fights against the financial industry malfeasance became fights to get Elizabeth Warren more prominence. That's when she lost me. Obama spent 8 years running interference for the big banks and Warren played along because it got her the CFPB job and a Senate seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I don't think Warren would be an especially good candidate. Warren, like all Democrats, will be subject to the same identity politics driven miasma that destroyed Clinton's campaign. I really don't know a way out for them. Nowadays on the blue team, anything to the right of open borders is considered racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
what happened to just being a bunch of cool fonzies?
Why do I have to choose between a group that is ok with gayaway camps and another that respects female circumcision as long as brown people do it?
I'm writing in IP next election.
Warren would be a disaster. SNL actually nailed the problems of the Democrats with their "We're back!" sketch on Saturday, and Warren is part of the mess it implies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I got upgraded to a premium cable tv package for free. Flipping through the channels in the guide, I'd guess that probably 80-85% of the programming is reality TV. I watched a little bit of White People Renovating Houses for kicks. Whether it's manufactured drama about not being able to transform a living room on budget because of surprise asbestos removal or manufactured drama about some idiots in a party house fighting over some unimportant issue, the majority of Americans only know how to resolve things through unnecessarily escalated conflict. A good chunk of the remaining percentage is shit like Rachel Maddow (how the hell is she still on TV after the tax return thing, btw?) and Fox & Friends, which employ strategic cadence, language, and debate methods to effectively brainwash viewers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
"Outrage" on Facebook/Twitter/whatever over [insert topic here that isn't sexual harassment] is a prime example of unnecessarily escalating things. I don't care if it's some idiot calling an entire of group of people they've never met racists because they're holding tiki torches, or a different moron implying that sexual predators are going to dress up like the opposite gender to molest kids in restrooms en masse. When any of us are forced to confront the thing that's "shocking and horrifying" us in person, we generally can't live up to the hype that our lousy television programming has generated. Topical example: The Orange Wonder talks all kinds of shit about China from the safety of a gold-plated room, then goes there and is like, "Oh we are great friends and I love everyone here and thank you for your hospitality!"
But that's just my thoughts.
I'd fucking vote for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
Come on, this "both sides" stuff is crap. I think Maddow goes a bit overboard at times, but to even attempt to equate the two is bananas to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
I don't watch her on my own, but my parents and grandmother do, and when I am there I don't see how people can compare them on a full continuum. One side is completely dedicated to *usually* trivial matters, and the other not so much. One side is saying things like 'PEOPLE ARE POOR? HOW COME MOST HAVE REFRIGERATORS!?!?!', and the other is pointing out bullshit that wouldn't be acceptable in any administration, ever.
Right now, Jeff Sessions is lying and perjuring himself at every turn, but all F&F can talk about is someone that isn't even holding political office (or they are defending a pedophile, take your pick).
Yep. One side is biased media and the other is flat out propaganda, there's a big ass difference between the two.
Also, maddow ' s smugness is hot.
I'll say this: I sent an email to the Circus Peanut last year and have been getting emails all year since. Some days I get like five or six. Each one purports to be from him, Pence, or other prominent Republicans. The language is very clearly manipulative. It's very obvious to me. I seem to be very sensitive to stuff like that. Maddow sets off the alarms in the same way. Her choice of topics doesn't change that for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I forgot that you want to dink her in the doink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Yeah but don't you think the one that is comprised of mostly facts (with a bias) strikes a different chord than one that is total nonsense and based on actual lies?
Both being manipulative, OK fine, but one is using a lot of factual information to be that way and the other is crap. It's almost like 'biased science'. Science experiments are inherently biased, but I can be more onboard with that than bullcrap like 'this guy who I hired said X, and he's the head of the <insert fancy thing here>, let me tell you, he's tremendous'.
You don't have to take sides to realize both are full of shit. The depth of the shit doesn't matter, you'll still need a new pair of shoes.
You're right, this administration seems just like the previous one, all the way down to the temperament of the leader.
Ok, lets run with this analogy. Trump = drowning in shit, all clothes ruined, and a direct anus-to-lungs pathway as he shits down everyone's collective throat. MSNBC- Eh, just a pair of work boots will take care of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
So yeah, you're right. Completely equivalent and no sane individual could possibly choose between them.
While it's true that the childishness of Trump's attacks can be disarming for someone used to speaking with adults, it's pretty generous to say he's winning an argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Trump literally cannot speak. If he isn't suffering from dementia, he is hopelessly stupid. He just blurts out fragments of sentences he never finishes.
John Oliver did a good bit where he read a Trump transcript without the Trump delivery. It makes it very clear there is something not working in his brain (from around 3:05 to about 5:00):
Trump already won, I don't see what the argument is. Satire is useless.
Almost everything he says is devoid of content, it's infuriating to listen to once you've picked up on the patterns he uses to approximate meaningful messages. It does go to show that so many can't be bothered to read, listen, or even think clearly that he got past preliminary steps at all.
Who are you arguing with? I'm not a Republican. :fail:Quote:
Originally Posted by James
hey, just read this list of facts about her http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/0...maddow-photos/Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Oddly enough, she considers herself Eisenhower-era Republican. Its sad that so many nonwhites see themselves as religious conservatives and lbgt's as fiscal conservatives, but neither will probably ever be welcomed into the modern republican party.
OMG this so glorious! I had to pause it a couple times from crying. I wish I could vote for Trump again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Not trying to be a dick but that sounds like a total non-sequitur. I have no idea how you got from what I said to your reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
I find it hard to believe anyone would think this after the Obama administration coverage. They are literally the same, you just happen to agree with one side.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I don’t remember Obama’s picks for scientific positions were climate deniers with no science background, for one
I dunno
Wait
I can’t recall, that seems to be the phrase du jour
Because your response to me saying both parties are shit was the sad "but the other guy is way worse" line.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Your perspective?Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
As an outsider looking in both sides of the American news media are head spinning. The only difference is the underlying ideology imo. It’s actual real funny how both sides are similar with their finger wagging about it.
It’s like completely insane to me how indoctrinated people get with bias with absolutely no self awareness. It’s pretty scary considering people on TNL are generally pretty smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Scarier more is the holier than thou shit like this is precisely what laid the path for the Trump presidency in the first place. These people have learned nothing.
Convo is specifically about bias in the news media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Whatever term you want to use: Manipulation, cloying, pandering... It bothers me equally from any angle. In that most recent John Oliver he went over the whole "whataboutism" stuff. Fox & Friends uses that crap all of the time. It sets off my alarms and is like the first thing on the list of any person claiming to be conservative and trying to debate something these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I'm finally catching up on Homeland's sixth season and there's a part where Quinn is laying in bed, despondent, listening to some Alex Jones-style demagogue on the radio. Maddow uses the same vocal pacing, emphasis, and phrasing. Just because she's covering a topic I'm sympathetic toward doesn't change that, for example, my mother in-law just gobbles it up and repeats it like the gospel and gets worked up and gets her hopes up for no real reason. It's still reality TV-esque.
I'm not trying to be rude here: You can't possibly believe that. The man knows 100% what he's doing. I can't tell you the road he's on, nor the destination, but his oratory style is deliberate. That has to be apparent, right? You and I listen to him speak, and John Oliver gets his rocks off having someone read it without inflection, and we cringe. But that shit is catnip to the intended audience. We are not that audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
No, the convo was about "both sides". When "both sides" aren't really equal, then they aren't really "the same".Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Yes, saying "Trump is an idiot because he picked non scientists for science positions, here are the people he picked and here are their lack of qualifications" is biased...but I think that's not as bad of an offense as saying "Hilary sucks because <insert bullshit lie here>". Especially since Hilary isn't even in office and shouldn't be in the news at all! The equivalent would be if Rachel Maddow spent her time talking about Mitt Romney all the time or something.
Maybe you disagree with that, but we're probably going to have to agree to disagree at this point.
Holy shit! You've discovered the secret of politics- making the better of two imperfect choices!Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
Look, I honestly don't understand how this is an issue. There were multiple candidates in 2016, one of which is an unending diarrhea-fountain and the rest of whom were politicians, with all that implies. So yeah, "the other guy is way worse". Like seriously, bat-shit crazy, "I haven't thought seriously about the possibility of nuclear war since the late 80s"-worse.
No it literally began by comparing what sounded like a “reasonably biased” Rachel Maddow on MSNBC against the tyranny of Fox News and a bunch of back patting out how enlightened one side was. They’re all hot biased garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I don’t know why you all of a sudden switched topics to the broader parties. Yes I find the things Trump says often absurdly ballfaced lies. More than your ordinary politician.
These are basically synonyms. I can’t reallt fault Trump for being long of shit mountain if he’s willing to go all in like he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
He’s actually a very charismatic speaker btw. Far more so than Hilary was. I watched a few of their town halls last summer. The John Oliver piece about his speech patterns misses a lot of the point.
But her bias is backed up with a lot of factual information. Her bias is backed up with relevant information about relevant people (Hilary is not relevant). Which is how things should work on a show like that?
The smugness, etc, whatever. I get it. But here's the thing, they're both smug and think they're enlightened and the other side is wrong. But guess what? One is far more wrong than the other, so tough shit for them. They look totally stupid. It's like two athletes that think they're the best thing ever. When one of them isn't even good at their sport, they look totally stupid, much worse than someone that is actually good. One side is defending pedophiles now, by deflecting BUT WHAT ABOUT URANIUM ONE!!! Yeah, I won't equate that to Maddow. Sorry.
Again, you can disagree with that. But I don't see how you can disagree with one side having a lot more "facts on their side".
No. Lies are “bold” or “bald” faced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Sometimes sure. But you’re acting like all of these key issues are neatly summed up by facts or data points. When that’s simply not the case. Most of the grey issues (like gun control for example) come down to the philosophy people use to orient their lives. Do you sacrifice freedom for safety, or equality for individual excellence, etc etc.
The left has been caught with their pants down too.
Just a bad typo or autocorrect. Was going for bald.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
About gun control though, people have different viewpoints on that. My view is that I don't give a damn about guns as a freedom. That's me. Other people (most) don't go that far. They want sensible regulation.
That's different than Fox News, who obfuscates the conversation so much with complete nonsense that the end result is basically 'gotta vote against obummer because mah guns will be taken away'.
Who gives a shit how he works a crowd? This is painfully amateur-hour. "Trump may destroy the US' standing in the world, kill hundreds or thousands of people by removing affordable health care, and start a race war, but by god he's fun to watch!" What the hell is wrong with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
And no, "politician" isn't a synonym for "shit fountain". I'm not saying they're great but this is a false equivalency. I'm saying this as someone living in the state that elected Paul LePage as governor, too.
You should care if you hope to understand and overcome your opposition. It’s like the prime wisdom of competition. Trump understands his base and either he or his campaign advisors play the left like a fiddle continuously.
As for Maddow/MSNBC We’d have to get more in to specific cases I guess. But I’ve heard a lot of weird mischaracterizations on the left as recently as the Google memo.
A lot of left outlets including MSNBC said the guy who published the thing was stating biology as to why women are bad at math and that it only cited Wikipedia. Both of those statements were actually untrue.
I think everyone understands his base, though. At least now. His base is supporting a pedophile in Alabama in a near dead heat. The hope is that the country can continue without them being on board.
The memo author did two hours on the Joe Rogan Podcast a few weeks back, he's a level headed guy who had some good points backed by serious sources. His mistake was not recognizing the nonsense SJW 'hang you by your misquotes' social media culture he was putting that memo out to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Good thing Trump actively supported Moore's challenger in the primaries. A testament to the man's wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You ever see Peter Sellers in the movie Being There? Just because the public relates to something simple-minded does not make it part of some brilliant master plan. Trump is a genuine idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Of course this is also an indicator that his base is supporting him for lack of alternatives, rather than genuine loyalty. They'd probably primary his ass too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Primary him? Who do you have in mind? I'm genuinely curious, because to be honest I haven't even considered the possibity. God knows I've already spouted off enough on the Dems' best prospects for 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
When the "party of science" talked about muh wage gap I knew the goose was cooked. That shit is totally phony but they toss it around because it gets them votes. The media talks about it because it riles up the base. It is no different from the "war on Christmas" or whatever O'Reilly talked up all the time. It's exactly the same. But if you are predisposed to side with the blue team you'll accept the legitimacy of the premise naturally.
"Sensible regulation" is a political phrase man. That's the point. None of the regulations that Dems toss around would have stopped any of these mass shootings, that is a fact. It wouldn't keep any "guns off the street" as most of those guns are obtained through means that are already illegal today. So what is sensible? Keeping people on the "terrorist watch list" from buying guns is a total violation of 2nd amendment rights as that watch list is compiled without due process. So if there is "sensible regulation" that doesn't already exist I haven't heard of it, outside of the "gun show loophole" but that is hardly a driver in illegal gun-related crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
The fact is that, unlike many of the rights the left talks about today (right to affordable housing, health care, etc.), gun ownership is literally a Constitutional right and that has to be respected. If they don't like it they should just man up and say they want an amendment to get rid of it.
If you spent 5 minutes from 2008-2016 reading a right wing website, you would have seen that people said the exact same thing about Obama. So, ultimately, this sort of rhetoric just becomes a useless wash.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
See, that's the thing. I'm hardly a "gun nut." I own a few weapons back in the States, but that's more a legacy of my father than anything emotional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The recent mass shooting in Texas could have been prevented under the current laws had the federal government followed through. It's awfully hard to believe in government as the solution to society's ills when government continues to fail so spectacularly.
I live in a city that violates my constitutional right, so I don't own one either.
I read this article about LA - another "may issue" city - about how the sheriff used the gun license procedure as a way to extract favors and gain relationships with the rich and famous in the city, while denying regular citizens for no reason. I don't see how giving the government this power helps anyone but the government.
Corruption would be a poor excuse not to pass regulations.
That first sentence, while true, is something I'm already tired of hearing. It isn't invalidated by that or anything but it's really amazing to watch the talking points on any side of an issue get regurgitated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
With regard to the second sentence: No! We (sadly) need them on board! It would be a lot better if they were smarter and less susceptible to being manipulated but we still need them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
I'm using Andrew's post as the reply. It may seem a little tinfoil but these are easily connected dots: Trump visibly supported Strange. If he orders Alabama GOP to disqualify Moore and run Sessions as a write-in, he gets to pick a new AG. I know he seems dumb but this is, at least, B-level game. Even if there isn't a subplot, he didn't support Moore and can take action against the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Exactly! Jesus, it was near intolerable to read conservative sites bitch and moan about [insert something Black President did]. And while I had my issues with some things that occurred while he was in office, it would be untruthful to say that he didn't check a lot of boxes for me, so who knows how much of that annoyance was just my own bias. Yet, it feels like the same level of intolerable to read liberal sites bitch and moan about [insert something Executive Cheeto did] even though there's a good chance I'm in agreement with whatever the criticism is that they are leveling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I really hate when the gun stuff comes up; especially if my wife has to get involved since it's the only thing we've really yelled at one another about - I can't fault her for it, either, as I have not lost someone to gun violence. I get the emotional response to mass shootings even when the victims aren't children. But it's tough, since I know that whenever the reaction by any group is to ban something that there's a bigger root cause that won't be addressed (guns, abortions, Muslim immigration, you name it) ... yet gun rights people have the absolute worst arguments and present them in such asinine ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
This isn't guaranteed but it seems like Texas could have been prevented by maybe a smidge more diligent office workers or whoever handles the reporting that would have prevented the kid from getting firearms.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/856797001/
^ This, too.
I think corruption is one of the best reasons not to pass regulations, actually. If I can’t trust public officials with the power I am going to give them, why should I give it?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
How many governments around the world use the hypocrisy of regulation to subjugate their constituents?
The fact that it’s not nearly as widespread in the west is a testament to the system if nothing else. (And there’s still a lot of buffoonery going on.)
Shenanigans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...0&d=1510755634
Attachment 80940
To be honest, I think there's almost zero chance of the party actually allowing this to happen, barring a truly unprecedented scandal in which Trump refuses to step aside. But if it were allowed to happen, I could see him losing. The thirty-odd percent of people who approve of him are people who would approve of basically any Republican over any Democrat (case in point: Alabama, who will still choose a pedophile over a Democrat).Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I agree with this. And I'm a guy who honestly would support an amendment to limit gun rights, but you can't just ignore the parts of the constitution you disagree with. And campaigning on something like that that is in the hands of the courts is a lot like all the Republican legislators campaigning on abortion despite having no ability to do anything meaningful about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
You are being extremely charitable. This isn't about someone doing their job a smidge better. This is about an entire institution failing the people who pay them, rely on them, and expect better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
My dad is Air Force. He's got spider sense if I say anything that could be perceived as a slight against them anywhere. You're never too old for an ass whipping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Who is his audience? Sloth from the goonies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
I wonder if people said that in Russia in regards to Lennon and Stalin.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
Basically. I mean, I only have the small sample size of some family members and people from high school, but the behavior is uniform so I'm comfortable with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
HEY YOU GUYS
Trump Best Boi
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...chmentid=80941
I would vote for Jeb's guac bowl before Marco. That dude is a lightweight affirmative action hire getting propped up his entire career. His wife is pretty hot at least.
The way he walked directly in to the talking robot thing Trump laid down ahead of him was remarkable. “Look there he goes again!”
So Trump tweets that Time Magazine called and told him they wanted him to be Person of the Year again, and that he turned it down. Then Time said that never happened, and that they don't even announce their pick until early December.
The man is so childishly retarded.
Is this a look into the ultra wealthy? Do they lie to each other all the time? Constant big fish stories?
Childishly retarded like a fox, though, amirite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Childishly retarded like a president I’m afraid.
Narcissistic to the point of not thinking like a president should.
We have the representation we deserve.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!
This is a real tweet. Lol.
This is like a pile of manure asking its flies to vote on how shitty scat is.
That has to be a hack though? This is a tweet you would get from someone who’s really bad at creating fake DT tweets...which actually makes it more believable now that I think about it
Maybe. I would like to see a compilation of 4 years of articles tallying logical fallacies in the cable and paper news. An opinion poll is bullshit and that post is hilarious. But I think he’s pushing his bullshit to new levels.
I love it. Let’s fuckin do this!!! Reality TV news showdown!