Tiberius Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 Tom is drunk already? So, the GOP won't offer a primary challenge to Trump? Tom, go for a walk or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Instead of the daughter asking to borrow the Navy, the father is sending a subtle threat to a private enterprise to give preferential treatment to his daughter's business dealings. It's fine if this was in Bolivia. Perhaps I fail to see the "subtle threat" in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) It's going to be Booker in 2020 for the Dems. No chance it will be Trump for the reps. Edited February 8, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 It's going to be Booker in 2020 for the Dems. No chance it will be Trump for the reps. I'll take that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share Posted February 8, 2017 I'll take that bet. Me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I'll take that bet. Haven't these people seen House of Cards? The incumbent isn't gonna run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Perhaps I fail to see the "subtle threat" in this case. You're kidding right? A major retailer isn't going to second guess its actions after POTUS went directly after them, especially considering that one of the proposed tax reforms is going to dramatically increase retail costs of goods sold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 It's going to be Booker in 2020 for the Dems. No chance it will be Trump for the reps. Fauxcahontas/Booker. Can't see Booker making the top of the ticket when Fauxcahontas gets the bigger megaphone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 You're kidding right? A major retailer isn't going to second guess its actions after POTUS went directly after them, especially considering that one of the proposed tax reforms is going to dramatically increase retail costs of goods sold? Let it go man. Partisanship rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) You're kidding right? A major retailer isn't going to second guess its actions after POTUS went directly after them, especially considering that one of the proposed tax reforms is going to dramatically increase retail costs of goods sold? Oh, now he's the POTUS and all official and not the "thin-skinned lunatic in Chief." They'll put as much credence in his words as they feel necessary. I fail to understand why "everyone is an idiot for believing the things he says" stops when it suits you. Let it go man. Partisanship rules. Blow me dude. I have a hundred posts on here trashing Trump. Stick to your nancy school teacher executive. Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Oh, now he's the POTUS and all official and not the "thin-skinned lunatic in Chief." He can be both. Hell, he IS both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) Oh, now he's the POTUS and all official and not the "thin-skinned lunatic in Chief." They'll put as much credence in his words as they feel necessary. I fail to understand why "everyone is an idiot for believing the things he says" stops when it suits you. Blow me dude. I have a hundred posts on here trashing Trump. Stick to your nancy school teacher executive. My what? Edit: Ah I just got it. I didn't realize that me being Canadian removed my right about commenting on the Cheetoh in Chief. You certainly didn't have an issue when I was railing on Obama did you you stupid c*nt. The most powerful man in the world is attacking a private enterprise for their business decision to remove a poorly performing item and this doesn't bother you? Edited February 8, 2017 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Fauxcahontas/Booker. Can't see Booker making the top of the ticket when Fauxcahontas gets the bigger megaphone. Her megaphone got bigger today. There is a chance Democrats wise up, keep her as VP to use a by-then subdued and more moderately spoken Booker as HNIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 My what? The most powerful man in the world is attacking a private enterprise for their business decision to remove a poorly performing item and this doesn't bother you? Again, might be a bit of an overstatement, "attacking" vs. "expressing disappointment." But more importantly: the ENTIRE point of how the US government is supposed to work is that the people aren't supposed to be able to fear the leadership. If President Trump can intimidate a private enterprise, the problem isn't Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Again, might be a bit of an overstatement, "attacking" vs. "expressing disappointment." But more importantly: the ENTIRE point of how the US government is supposed to work is that the people aren't supposed to be able to fear the leadership. If President Trump can intimidate a private enterprise, the problem isn't Trump. I agree. Of course I just enjoy calling out the hypocrites who all of a sudden forgot about limiting the power of the executive and him getting involved in trivial matters when it's a guy they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) My what? Edit: Ah I just got it. I didn't realize that me being Canadian removed my right about commenting on the Cheetoh in Chief. You certainly didn't have an issue when I was railing on Obama did you you stupid c*nt. The most powerful man in the world is attacking a private enterprise for their business decision to remove a poorly performing item and this doesn't bother you? I had no issue with anything you said until you came at me for "partisanship" which is a lazy assumption that puts you firmly into the gator/PastaDolt category. He didn't "attack" them. That's a perfect example of the kind of hyperbolic language in the media that put Trump in the Oval. Not to mention DC's point above. If you're afraid of unilateral action by the President, that's perfect snapshot of the real problem. I agree. Of course I just enjoy calling out the hypocrites who all of a sudden forgot about limiting the power of the executive and him getting involved in trivial matters when it's a guy they like. Limiting the power of the executive has nothing to do with taking away his Twitter account, you doofus. He can be both. Hell, he IS both. Fair enough. Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I had no issue with anything you said until you came at me for "partisanship" which is a lazy assumption that puts you firmly into the gator/PastaDolt category. He didn't "attack" them. That's a perfect example of the kind of hyperbolic language in the media that put Trump in the Oval. Not to mention DC's point above. If you're afraid of unilateral action by the President, that's perfect snapshot of the real problem. Limiting the power of the executive has nothing to do with taking away his Twitter account, you doofus. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that the executive should also show some discretion when getting involved in issues that do not concern him and in which he could have an influence. Everyone here blew their **** when Obama commented on Trayvon Martin and similar issues. Now go suck a bag of dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) Let it go man. Partisanship rules. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that the executive should also show some discretion when getting involved in issues that do not concern him and in which he could have an influence. Everyone here blew their **** when Obama commented on Trayvon Martin and similar issues. Now go suck a bag of dicks. Yeah, is that what you said in response to my questioning the subtle threat? Are you trying to steal the PPP retard crown today? Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Yeah, is that what you said in response to my questioning the subtle threat? Are you trying to steal the PPP retard crown today? Maybe you missed this? I agree. Of course I just enjoy calling out the hypocrites who all of a sudden forgot about limiting the power of the executive and him getting involved in trivial matters when it's a guy they like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) Maybe you missed this? That was after I called you out on your hackery. What time machine do you own? Further more, what was my stance on Obama and Trayvon? Tell me. Edited February 8, 2017 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts