President Donald J. Trump

[gnooryblows]

She is an illuminati high priestess. the purple is likely worn for its occult significance.

[Jackstar]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-11/clintons-and-soros-launch-americas-purple-revolution


Satan isn't big on reading news from URLs it would seem.

[gnooryblows]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-11/clintons-and-soros-launch-americas-purple-revolution


Satan isn't big on reading news from URLs it would seem.

No. This is a woman who has stated in her emails that you need to have a "public position and a private one". I'm telling you the real reason behind her decision. Purple is considered a color of magical power and wisdom in occult practices. Beyond that, I don't know the details and specifics of illuminati religion but IMO it's much more likely that it has something to do with that than "Unity Between Dems and Repubs" as she tries to delegitimize and overthrow our duly conducted democratic process.

[Jackstar]

I'm telling you the real reason behind her decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrs4yqwL-Wg

[gnooryblows]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrs4yqwL-Wg

it's fine if you choose to respond in videos but words can be read quickly, I can't devote my time to watching boring videos that require a full 2 minutes in order to get. I mean respond how you want I'm just saying I don't care much for Samuel L Jackson and don't want to waste my time.

[Jackstar]

don't want to waste my time.

It's early yet.

[gnooryblows]

Ok I don't know what you mean tho

[Dr. MD MD]

Ok I don't know what you mean tho

Get used to that. 

[Jackstar]

The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message body was left empty.

[paladin1991]

Not to worry- they have 'girl power'. Apparently this great gynaecological wall is their latest innovation in military defence.

I'm guessing that the Euro ministers fuck for peace.  But looking at those bitches, I'd rather use Jackstars hand.

[paladin1991]

Think of the Hollyweird tears that are now falling.  Martin Sheen's probably stomping on his glasses, Mike Farrell's grinding his teeth to nubs, and Hot Lips implants have exploded.

http://youtu.be/lEwnfhuPJGs

Fuck 'em.  Let 'em drown in their tears.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Purple is considered a color of magical power and wisdom...

They might have to rethink that one

[gnooryblows]

Fuck 'em.  Let 'em drown in their tears.

They're all pedophiles, ask Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood

[gnooryblows]

They might have to rethink that one

I don't think they have the self-awareness or personal responsibility to rethink anything they do

[paladin1991]

Think Hegel. 

I broke out in a cold sweat when I read it as Kegel.

[Up All Night]

https://twitter.com/Stevenwhirsch99/status/810957848586895360

[Lt.Uhura]

While a large portion of the U.S was recovering from a deep freeze, I sat on my porch yesterday in the glorious West Coast sunshine, sipping my latte and listening to Obama's interview on NPR. 🌞

I thought this was one of his most salient points, highlighting the opportunistic hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

..."The irony of all this, of course, is that for most of my presidency there's been a pretty sizable wing of the Republican Party that has consistently criticized me for not being tough enough on Russia. Some of those folks during the campaign endorsed Donald Trump despite the fact that a central tenant of his foreign policy was we shouldn't be so tough on Russia. And that kind of inconsistency, I think, makes it appear at least, that their particular position on Russia on any given day depends on what's politically expedient"...

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/504998487/transcript-and-video-nprs-exit-interview-with-president-obama


Obama is right. And the Republican Party has a short memory. As this article from June 2015 clearly illustrates, the GOP couldn't stand Putin until his BFF Trump became their heir apparent golden boy.

Mon Jun 8, 2015 | 7:35 AM EDT
With eye on U.S. election, Republicans assail Russia's Putin

Something about Vladimir Putin makes Republicans in the U.S. presidential race see red.

The Russian president has emerged as a symbol for what they view as President Barack Obama's weak foreign policy, and an easy route for criticizing his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' likely choice for the November 2016 election....
No leader abroad draws more Republican criticism than Putin does. The candidates' message is clear: If any of them are elected president, U.S. relations with Russia will turn even more negative.
"I think it will resonate with Republican voters," said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. "There's real concern about what Putin is really up to."
It helps them that the 62-year-old former KGB officer is deeply unpopular in the United States. A survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center in February said Putin was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of Americans...Republicans link their criticism of Putin to the foreign policy record of Clinton, who as the chief U.S. diplomat carried out Obama's "reset" in relations with Moscow in 2009, soon after Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president. They say Obama and Clinton eased up on Putin when they should have applied more pressure...

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OO0B520150608

[Dr. MD MD]

While a large portion of the U.S was recovering from a deep freeze, I sat on my porch yesterday in the glorious West Coast sunshine, sipping my latte and listening to Obama's interview on NPR. 🌞

I thought this was one of his most salient points, highlighting the opportunistic hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

..."The irony of all this, of course, is that for most of my presidency there's been a pretty sizable wing of the Republican Party that has consistently criticized me for not being tough enough on Russia. Some of those folks during the campaign endorsed Donald Trump despite the fact that a central tenant of his foreign policy was we shouldn't be so tough on Russia. And that kind of inconsistency, I think, makes it appear at least, that their particular position on Russia on any given day depends on what's politically expedient"...

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/504998487/transcript-and-video-nprs-exit-interview-with-president-obama


Obama is right. And the Republican Party has a short memory. As this article from June 2015 clearly illustrates, the GOP couldn't stand Putin until his BFF Trump became their heir apparent golden boy.

Mon Jun 8, 2015 | 7:35 AM EDT
With eye on U.S. election, Republicans assail Russia's Putin

Something about Vladimir Putin makes Republicans in the U.S. presidential race see red.

The Russian president has emerged as a symbol for what they view as President Barack Obama's weak foreign policy, and an easy route for criticizing his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' likely choice for the November 2016 election....
No leader abroad draws more Republican criticism than Putin does. The candidates' message is clear: If any of them are elected president, U.S. relations with Russia will turn even more negative.
"I think it will resonate with Republican voters," said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. "There's real concern about what Putin is really up to."
It helps them that the 62-year-old former KGB officer is deeply unpopular in the United States. A survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center in February said Putin was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of Americans...Republicans link their criticism of Putin to the foreign policy record of Clinton, who as the chief U.S. diplomat carried out Obama's "reset" in relations with Moscow in 2009, soon after Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president. They say Obama and Clinton eased up on Putin when they should have applied more pressure...

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OO0B520150608

Heehee...so bitter. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... I thought this was one of his most salient points, highlighting the opportunistic hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

..."The irony of all this, of course, is that for most of my presidency there's been a pretty sizable wing of the Republican Party that has consistently criticized me for not being tough enough on Russia. Some of those folks during the campaign endorsed Donald Trump despite the fact that a central tenant of his foreign policy was we shouldn't be so tough on Russia. And that kind of inconsistency, I think, makes it appear at least, that their particular position on Russia on any given day depends on what's politically expedient"...

Obama is right. And the Republican Party has a short memory....

Aw, I miss him already.  Did he then suggest to the interviewer how proud he was of fulfilling his promise to ''bring us all together'', or did he go straight into a discussion of his own foreign policy successes?

[chefist]

lolz

[PB the Deplorable]

... I thought this was one of his most salient points, highlighting the opportunistic hypocrisy of the Republican Party.

..."The irony of all this, of course, is that for most of my presidency there's been a pretty sizable wing of the Republican Party that has consistently criticized me for not being tough enough on Russia. Some of those folks during the campaign endorsed Donald Trump despite the fact that a central tenant of his foreign policy was we shouldn't be so tough on Russia. And that kind of inconsistency, I think, makes it appear at least, that their particular position on Russia on any given day depends on what's politically expedient"...

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/504998487/transcript-and-video-nprs-exit-interview-with-president-obama


Obama is right. And the Republican Party has a short memory. As this article from June 2015 clearly illustrates, the GOP couldn't stand Putin until his BFF Trump became their heir apparent golden boy.

Mon Jun 8, 2015 | 7:35 AM EDT
With eye on U.S. election, Republicans assail Russia's Putin

Something about Vladimir Putin makes Republicans in the U.S. presidential race see red.

The Russian president has emerged as a symbol for what they view as President Barack Obama's weak foreign policy, and an easy route for criticizing his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' likely choice for the November 2016 election....
No leader abroad draws more Republican criticism than Putin does. The candidates' message is clear: If any of them are elected president, U.S. relations with Russia will turn even more negative.
"I think it will resonate with Republican voters," said David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. "There's real concern about what Putin is really up to."
It helps them that the 62-year-old former KGB officer is deeply unpopular in the United States. A survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center in February said Putin was viewed unfavorably by 70 percent of Americans...Republicans link their criticism of Putin to the foreign policy record of Clinton, who as the chief U.S. diplomat carried out Obama's "reset" in relations with Moscow in 2009, soon after Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president. They say Obama and Clinton eased up on Putin when they should have applied more pressure...

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OO0B520150608

Obama is very smooth, perhaps the greatest speech reader of our generation.  He sounds heartfelt, thoughtful, solemn, and convincing.  His performances are done with a very even temperament.  It's clear he has spent a great deal of time practicing and perfecting this art.  It's why people like him personally (while appalled with his policies).

This makes it difficult, but once a person understands everything Obama says is not quite the truth, and is calculated to build his own party and to be as divisive as possible - while seeming cerebral - it becomes much easier to sift through his comments.   

''The pretty sizable wing of the Republican Party'' he refers to are the inside the beltway establishment Rs.  They are not Trump, and they are not the base of the party out in the country.  And yes, some beltway insiders endorsed Trump - not because of political expediency towards Putin (as if that were the top consideration in choosing a president), but because he was a better choice than Hilary Clinton and a continuation of Obama's policies.  Next, he blithely then lumps them all together as a former united front of Putin haters and flip-floppers - and somehow this NPR pretend journalist lets it go, as he knew they would.

Never mind that for months we heard Trump was 'too close' to Putin.  Never mind that for years the base of the party has been criticized for ''admiring'' Putin - when in fact the truth is the base of the party has 1) been dismayed at Obama's foreign policy weakness, including with Putin and Russia, 2) strongly criticized Putin's aggression, and Obama's failure to stand up to it, and 3) commented that at least the Russians had a president that operated in his country's best interests.

Nothing has changed.  The base of the party still want a strong leader - including standing up to Putin's aggression, the establishment Rs in DC still hate Putin - although they may be muted about that in giving Trump room to operate, and Trump is still going to try to work with Putin in areas of mutual interest - and try a different approach than the passive weakness we've seen from Obama.

So what were these comments really about, other than the usual divisiveness we've gotten from this individual, and the post-election full-press attempt to delegitimize the incoming president from the other party?

I would suggest instead of swooning for this failed president, someone gracefully escort him off the national and world stage and request he do as past ex-presidents have all done - resist the urge to interfere with the new president and give him room to operate without the shadow of a former president looming over him.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

While a large portion of the U.S was recovering from a deep freeze, I sat on my porch yesterday in the glorious West Coast sunshine, sipping my latte and listening to Obama's interview on NPR. 🌞

I don't know why but this first sentence absolutely cracked me up. Do you really need to read anything after this? You know exactly where it's going. 

[Yorkshire pud]

I would suggest instead of swooning for this failed president, someone gracefully escort him off the national and world stage and request he do as past ex-presidents have all done - resist the urge to interfere with the new president and give him room to operate without the shadow of a former president looming over him.

I honestly don't think Obama will try to interefere in what Trump does or doesn't do. He won't need to even if he was so tempted. Trump will manage to unravel all by himself.

You implied in a previous post in your usual patronising way, that political expediency makes opponents forget their differences and work together for the common good.   
  Ordinarily in certain circumstances (my enemy's enemy, etc) you're right. But this isn't one of those times in a couple of ways.
Firstly Trump (like all politicians) had a lot of supporters who are not sophisticated enough to know he's a hypocrite; they took what he said at face value. The wall crap, the deporting in one hour crap, the draining the swamp crap.

Just those three (and there are many more) 'promises' now ring hollow.
Now you know he didn't mean it, that it was just window dressing to sell himself, but the very people who he promised would be helped at the expense of the 'swamp', will be forgiven for feeling they were sold a pup.

I don't think he'll do a second term, he'll either want to 'spend more time with his family' or be so unpopular his ego will be dented and he'll chuck his toys out of the pram. Because he's known for his petulance. That'll go well when he comes up against grown ups in the Pentagon who read him his horoscope.

[Lt.Uhura]

I don't know why but this first sentence absolutely cracked me up. Do you really need to read anything after this? You know exactly where it's going. 

[Lt.Uhura]

Buying of the President 2016
Donald Trump's sons behind nonprofit selling access to president-elect
New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect

Any BellGabbers ready to part with a cool million (Bald Eagle status!) to meet the man himself?  Of course your "donation" will be tax-deductible since All net proceeds from the Opening Day event will go to conservation charities.

[Yorkshire pud]

Buying of the President 2016
Donald Trump's sons behind nonprofit selling access to president-elect
New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/12/19/20564/donald-trumps-sons-behind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect

Any BellGabbers ready to part with a cool million (Bald Eagle status!) to meet the man himself?  Of course your "donation" will be tax-deductible since All net proceeds from the Opening Day event will go to conservation charities.

What? No room for unemployed steel workers? Damn. He missed an opportunity there.

Will the conservation projects be near Trump owned golf courses perchance? Lol.

[Lt.Uhura]

What? No room for unemployed steel workers? Damn. He missed an opportunity there.

Will the conservation projects be near Trump owned golf courses perchance? Lol.

That disclaimer at the end of the flyer is the caveat, with the words "All net proceeds".  Every so called non-profit charity scammer knows there is a fortune to be made in "administrative costs". 

[albrecht]

That disclaimer at the end of the flyer is the caveat, with the words "All net proceeds".  Every so called non-profit charity scammer knows there is a fortune to be made in "administrative costs".

Yep, but people like the Clintons, etc will say "something is better than nothing." This time of year I get so many calls for charities for "Sheriff Associations" "Firefighter Supporters" etc, if you look them up it is such a small percentage that actually get given to "police" or "firefighters." Having said that the argument from people who run Foundations and "charities," like the Clintons etc, will counter that they employ people (even down to the boiler room, script-reading pay by the hour operations of those companies who are calling "on behalf" of those "police" charities) and the small percentage paid out is better than nothing.

[Up All Night]

That disclaimer at the end of the flyer is the caveat, with the words "All net proceeds".  Every so called non-profit charity scammer knows there is a fortune to be made in "administrative costs".

Come on now, you can accept those administrative costs as a fact of life.

Are you in favor of no Universal Health Care. If you are, then you support the "Insurance Model" of healthcare in America, and, oooops, there's those lucrative "administrative costs" again.

Can't have it both ways, allright.

[Lt.Uhura]

Come on now, you can accept those administrative costs as a fact of life.

Are you in favor of no Universal Health Care. If you are, then you support the "Insurance Model" of healthcare in America, and, oooops, there's those lucrative "administrative costs" again.

Can't have it both ways, allright.

Actually I'm a proponent of the single-payer system.  Cut out the pimps with their "administrative costs."