RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

A new low for Trump
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8974



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/16/18 12:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sarah Sanders cites 'The Apprentice' to defend Trump against claims of racism

Quote:
"Frankly, if the critics of the president were who he said he was, why did NBC give him a show for a decade on TV?" Sanders said to reporters, a day after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested Trump could prove he is not racist by endorsing a clean bill that grants permanent legal status to some 800,000 undocumented youth.


Quote:
"Why did they want to be with him for years and years in various activities whether it was events, fundraisers and other things?" she said. "It's just an outrageous and ludicrous excuse."


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sarah-sanders-cites-the-apprentice-to-defend-trump-against-claims-of-racism/article/2646032




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 19622



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/16/18 3:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

On the other hand, but firmly in the category of wild bullshit, Chuck Schumer says Trump can 'prove he is not racist by endorsing a clean bill that grants permanent legal status to some 800,000 undocumented youth.'

Oh really, Senator. Trump can prove he's not a racist just by helping to pass your DACA bill but with no money for border security? Shocked Wait a minute, Rebkellians. How many of you think that Donald Trump can 'prove he is not a racist' by helping to pass a clean DACA bill? lol. First, Trump can not prove he is not a racist. That's impossible. He is a racist, plain and simple. But that you yourself are such a fucking liar that you can't admit that you NOW, in 2018, simply can not politically endure the reaction of your own base should you allow freaking border security to be included in a DACA bill, THAT is what is really disgusting to me. Your tactic then is to try this lying crazy assed manipulation of the dimwitted lying crazy assed president that says that this racist president can "PROVE" he's not a racist simply by passing a DACA bill with no border security attached. It's fucking madness. A mad, mad, mad, world.

So much for Martin Luther King's birthday. The media decided to use the occasion to, instead of remembering and honoring this civil rights icon for the progress he inspired in America, to just go ahead and continue their fixation on Trump, Trump, Trump. MLK day? Please. That's an opportunity too rich with opportunity to pass up. They will come up with some reason to ruin freaking VALENTINE'S DAY with something about Trump. Trump is a racist, an asshole, ill-suited and completely unqualified to be president. But he's not even the first to check all those boxes in even the last couple of decades and if you check, right now, we all are still nevertheless able to breath. Trump will be gone one day, probably soon. This news media, sanctimonious, dishonest, reflexively defensive, obsessed with a need for ratings and hooked to endless repetition and regurgitation like it's all a crack pipe, THIS we are stuck with. And that's the true horror of this era.

I don't even know how CNN does what it does. They have been talking about the 'shithole' comment now for five days straight with very little break from it now and then. I'm watching CNN right now and Jake Tapper is parsing and figuring and repeating the shithole/shithouse debate, and he's doing it with the sanctimonious skill of a revival meeting preacher. And that's AFTER a solid day of the shit on all cable networks (I'm assuming with the exception of FOX) all day yesterday. And the interview with Dick Durbin. My God. What happened to the Democratic Party in this country. How COULD these people have turned out to be such phony sanctimonious TOXIC prevaricators and dissemblers.

These are HARD times in America on the political front. Hopeless. And what has happened here is all SO fucking simple. The Dems, many who once advocated or voted for either a wall or for additional fencing along the border, want a DACA bill that includes none of that shit here in 2018. Trump wants funding for his wall or for additional border security measures. They have a meeting. Trump says something untoward that the Dems can use to blow up any leverage or political capital the president has on this issue. They take it public and the media and the world react exactly as they'd hoped and trolled for. Now a permanent DACA fix at this time is unlikely? lol. WHY? Because Trump is a racist asshole? Seriously? The Haitian immigrant (I think) congresswoman was BEGGING not to let this derail a permanent DACA fix. But is the Democratic leadership listening? Fuck no! They've got a barbed harpoon stuck in Trump's ass right now and they can't let go. And that's politics in America right now.

Makes you want to vomit.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 8617



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/16/18 4:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My question is why the US Taxpayer is supposed to fund the Wall Trump said all along Mexico is paying for?


sambista



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16468
Location: cidade maravilhosa


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/16/18 8:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
My question is why the US Taxpayer is supposed to fund the Wall Trump said all along Mexico is paying for?


silly wabbit! mexico will pay for the wall later, just like trump promised to pay all those workers who never got paid.



_________________
no justice, no peace.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/23/18 9:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Would anyone like to answer the President's question as to why they only want the poor and downtrodden from these countries to come to the USA?


Because charity to the needy is a Christian virtue and we are supposedly a Christian nation.

One who is gracious to a poor man lends to the Lord, And He will repay him for his good deed.


What about those who are here breaking their backs every day who are already struggling to put food on the table? We're just supposed to take on every other countries' problems at the expense of the working poor? Don't we already have enough poor people who need to be lifted out of poverty? Shouldn't the American poor be a priority?


We should do more for our own poor as well. The USA is the wealthiest nation on Earth. We can afford to help.

"We" can afford to help is a matter of personal opinion. By "we" I assume you mean "everyone else" or are you implying that you personally would like to contribute more of own your money to the poor?

Not everyone can afford to help. And we cannot afford to be the dumping ground for the rest of the world.

I don't have a problem with poor immigrants coming here as long as they are coming to make a better life for themselves by working to achieve their dreams. If they're coming here to bleed the system, they can go back to their proverbial huts. That is, of course, unless you (not "we") are willing to bankroll that kind of lifestyle.


Expected a selfish answer, was not disappointed.


I've been too busy to read this until now, but think about what you're saying for a minute... You're OK with taking more money from the working poor in order to fund your vanity project where we bankroll the rest of the world's poor too, right? I'm going to go on a limb here and correctly assume that you personally would not be willing to fund such a project. That's being quite benevolent with other people's money. You're position is the selfish one and you don't even realize it.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/23/18 10:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
I'm going to go on a limb here and correctly assume that you personally would not be willing to fund such a project.


Willing, but not able. Or, as Jesus said, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 392
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/23/18 1:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
I'm going to go on a limb here and correctly assume that you personally would not be willing to fund such a project.


Willing, but not able. Or, as Jesus said, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Wouldn't it be best to encourage those who are willing but not force the hand of those who are not able? Willing, but not able is what most people fit into. I certainly don't want government dictating how much we're required to give. They're the last people who should be in charge of that department. We're also around $20 trillion in debt, so there's that too.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 11196
Location: Oklahoma (in my heart), whilst on my way to Oregon!


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/24/18 12:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
I'm going to go on a limb here and correctly assume that you personally would not be willing to fund such a project.


Willing, but not able. Or, as Jesus said, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

I do believe Rose Kennedy might have been the only wealthy celebrity that I ever heard invoke that philosophy (though others have certainly lived it....)

I re-inject my earlier comment:
Howee wrote:
From the perspective of those who purport to avow "Christian Values" in our "Christian Democracy", I'd suggest taking the billions the 1% elite will garner in our new Tax Proposal, and give it freely to the citizenry of all Shitholes United. It's what Jesus would do.

Our "Country" may be trillions in debt. Gates/Buffet/Bezos/Trump (?) are not. Neither are IBM, Apple, GE, Amazon, Exxon, etc., etc., etc. But....isn't our country one of The Wealthiest in the world? Who is responsible for repayment of the National Debt?
Loathing immigrants (from ANY "poor" country) for fear of 'our' tax burden is misplacing one's otherwise-deserving loathing, which should be directed at those whose corporatocracies and New Tax Plans funnel plentiful resources to fewer and fewer people.



_________________
Oklahoma: Go Sooners! Oregon: Go Ducks!
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 8974



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/26/18 10:11 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote




_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 6814



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/26/18 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Genero36 wrote:


Is she in any legal jeopardy if she talks about Trump? That is, if they paid her off to not talk about Trump, wouldn't she have to sign something (carefully worded to not admit to anything) that says she won't do so? Or is the idea of paying her not to talk about an affair with Trump illegal or hard to enforce in the first place?


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57524
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/26/18 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Genero36 wrote:


Is she in any legal jeopardy if she talks about Trump? That is, if they paid her off to not talk about Trump, wouldn't she have to sign something (carefully worded to not admit to anything) that says she won't do so? Or is the idea of paying her not to talk about an affair with Trump illegal or hard to enforce in the first place?


In order for them to stop her, they would A: have to admit they paid her off, and B: admit that what she's talking about is what they paid her not to. Neither of those seems likely.



_________________
Don't take no rhythm,
Don't take no style
Gotta thirst for killin',
Grab your vial
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 3085
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/26/18 9:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
tfan wrote:
Genero36 wrote:


Is she in any legal jeopardy if she talks about Trump? That is, if they paid her off to not talk about Trump, wouldn't she have to sign something (carefully worded to not admit to anything) that says she won't do so? Or is the idea of paying her not to talk about an affair with Trump illegal or hard to enforce in the first place?


In order for them to stop her, they would A: have to admit they paid her off, and B: admit that what she's talking about is what they paid her not to. Neither of those seems likely.


Actually I think the strategy will be for Kimmel to ask some questions regarding Trump and her non disclosure agreement and have her sit silent. That way she won't be violating her agreement but Kimmel can show the letter, get the story out, and perhaps even refer to her interview back in 2006 without her explicitly violating the NDA. After all there isn't much she could say that she hasn't already said before the NDA was signed.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin