President Donald Trump

Wyote said:
856787_1.jpg

flat,800x800,070,f.u1.jpg

no-trump-no-kkk-no-facist-usa_c524313b365a6e1c6e0cd7bcec740e02.jpg
Click to expand...
You are an admin. You'll see I reported this post. One of the few here I ever have.
 
Eventhorizon said:
You are an admin. You'll see I reported this post. One of the few here I ever have.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
the said:
Seems pretty relevant to me. Donald Trump needs to deal with being perceived as a racist. Othewise he won't be able to make America great again.
Click to expand...
Sure. But that's not the not the context. This is a play from CNNs fake news book. "We didn't create the lie" we just reported the information. Here, I didnt make the picture, I just posted it.
BULLSHIT.
 
88chaz88 said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

*breathes*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...
:m038:
Wake me when you are relevant.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
What's the rationale for reporting that post?

It's just slogans and implies something defamatory about the president.
Click to expand...
See post to @the below. Defamation with no proof. Relating someone to the kkk with nothing to back it up should be a criminal offense. A lot of things like it should. Like calling someone a racist when there's no proof of it.
 
He openly accepted endorsement from the KKK and put a white nationalist in charge of national security.

Why do you continue to defend this man?

Edit: Also "Wake me when you're relevant."

Relevant to what?
 
88chaz88 said:
He openly accepted endorsement from the KKK and put a white nationalist in charge of national security.

Why do you continue to defend this man?

Edit: Also "Wake me when you're relevant."

Relevant to what?
Click to expand...
Accepting endorsement is different from giving endorsement. Democrats might consider it below them to take endorsements from certain voters, but that mindset isn't shared by everyone.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Accepting endorsement is different from giving endorsement. Democrats might consider it below them to take endorsements from certain voters, but that mindset isn't shared by everyone.
Click to expand...

So?

Are you defending (very weakly) Trump accepting the KKK's endorsement, or just stating the obvious? Having the KKK endorse Trump is bad enough, but the fact that Trump hasn't spoken out against their support makes him look bad (well worse than bad, this is the actual KKK we're talking about.

Are Republicans so desperate that they feel they have to accept any support they can, even from the most deplorable of sources? The only alternative to that is Trump actually vets where he receives support and decided that the KKK are pretty alright.

And let's not forget the point I made about him putting a white nationalist in charge of national security.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Accepting endorsement is different from giving endorsement. Democrats might consider it below them to take endorsements from certain voters, but that mindset isn't shared by everyone.
Click to expand...
You did not comment on chaz's mention of Trump adding white nationalist Steve Bannon to the National Security Council. You've mentioned before that you don't believe Trump is an ideologue. How would you defend that, now? Maybe he isn't. Maybe he is stupid and doesn't know any better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
88chaz88 said:
So?

Are you defending (very weakly) Trump accepting the KKK's endorsement, or just stating the obvious? Having the KKK endorse Trump is bad enough, but the fact that Trump hasn't spoken out against their support makes him look bad (well worse than bad, this is the actual KKK we're talking about.

Are Republicans so desperate that they feel they have to accept any support they can, even from the most deplorable of sources? The only alternative to that is Trump actually vets where he receives support and decided that the KKK are pretty alright.

And let's not forget the point I made about him putting a white nationalist in charge of national security.
Click to expand...
Is there anything illegal about accepting those endorsements, or appointing Bannon?
 
But really, the slogan doesn't even say anything about Drumpf directly. They are three separate statements :)

It's not my fault you got all Gestalt about it.
 
acd said:
You did not comment on chaz's mention of Trump adding white nationalist Steve Bannon to the National Security Council. You've mentioned before that you don't believe Trump is an ideologue. How would you defend that, now? Maybe he isn't. Maybe he is stupid and doesn't know any better?
Click to expand...
Bannon is a genius... Even if he's some sort of white nationalist, he can't change the constitution and enshrine a different bill of rights. What he is appointed to do, he'll probably do well.

Even if Trump appoints a Muslim (Islam is my least favourite ideology), what would be wrong with that? A: Nothing, so long as he discharges his office competently.

Clinton was funded by the Saudis and Qatar, who are both alleged to have funded isis against the Syrians. She accepted the money. So what? Same principle.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-isis...-says-saudi-arabia-qatar-giving-money-2441644
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Clinton was funded by the Saudis and Qatar, who are both alleged to have funded isis against the Syrians.
Click to expand...

Two countries that, coincidentally I'm sure, are exempt from Trump's Muslim ban.
 
88chaz88 said:
Two countries that, coincidentally I'm sure, are exempt from Trump's Muslim ban.
Click to expand...
Trump's ban is to prevent people forcing their way in by claiming refugee status. There's no Saudi, or Qatari refugees, save persecuted Christians. There's no need to ban those countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top