WWTBAM Bored

BackInTex wrote: Quit being a prick about things that Trump is right on so when you are a prick it has some credibility.

Senator Chuck Grassley R-Iowa wrote:Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday that [Trump's] comments “were first of all idiotic and it doesn’t show much respect for Chuck Grassley as the grandfather of the wind energy tax credit.”

But at least BiT and I agree on one thing, that Chuck Grassley is a prick.

https://apnews.com/2de8cf279ce642dd92567aa6d21b288b

Tweets:

There is nothing we can ever give to the Democrats that will make them happy. This is the highest level of Presidential Harassment in the history of our Country!

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE PARTY OF THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Tweet:

On National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, we honor the Americans captured and imprisoned by foreign powers while carrying out their duties to defend this great Nation...

Vandal wrote:Tweet:

On National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day, we honor the Americans captured and imprisoned by foreign powers while carrying out their duties to defend this great Nation...

Offhand, I know of at least one former POW that Trump failed to honor very much while he was alive.

From Twitter:

As reporters are being ushered out of Oval Office, Trump abruptly says, "Obama separated the children, by the way. Just so you understand -- President Obama separated the children... I'm the one who stopped it... I was the one who changed it."

Tweeted:

President Obama’s top White House lawyer, Gregory B. Craig, was indicted yesterday on very serious charges. This is a really big story, but the Fake News New York Times didn’t even put it on page one, rather page 16. @washingtonpost not much better, “tiny” page one. Corrupt News!

Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

President Obama’s top White House lawyer, Gregory B. Craig, was indicted yesterday on very serious charges. This is a really big story, but the Fake News New York Times didn’t even put it on page one, rather page 16. @washingtonpost not much better, “tiny” page one. Corrupt News!

When the sentence begins, “Donny said,” there’s no reason to keep reading. So what’s the value in amplifying his tweets? —Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

President Obama’s top White House lawyer, Gregory B. Craig, was indicted yesterday on very serious charges. This is a really big story, but the Fake News New York Times didn’t even put it on page one, rather page 16. @washingtonpost not much better, “tiny” page one. Corrupt News!

When the sentence begins, “Donny said,” there’s no reason to keep reading. So what’s the value in amplifying his tweets? —Bob

I suspect a secret crush.

tlynn78 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

When the sentence begins, “Donny said,” there’s no reason to keep reading. So what’s the value in amplifying his tweets? —Bob

I suspect a secret crush.

Secret?

Bob78164 wrote:

Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

President Obama’s top White House lawyer, Gregory B. Craig, was indicted yesterday on very serious charges. This is a really big story, but the Fake News New York Times didn’t even put it on page one, rather page 16. @washingtonpost not much better, “tiny” page one. Corrupt News!

When the sentence begins, “Donny said,” there’s no reason to keep reading. So what’s the value in amplifying his tweets? —Bob

President Obama’s top White House lawyer, Gregory B. Craig, TRUE
was indicted yesterday TRUE
on very serious charges. TRUE
This is a really big story, TRUE
but the Fake News New York Times didn’t even put it on page one, TRUE
rather page 16. DUNNO
@washingtonpost not much better, “tiny” page one. DUNNO
Corrupt News! ASK YOURSELF IF THE COVERAGE WOULD BE THE SAME IF THIS HAD BEEN Pat Cipollone

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Vandal wrote:Tweeted:

When the sentence begins, “Donny said,” there’s no reason to keep reading. So what’s the value in amplifying his tweets? —Bob

President Obama’s top White House lawyer, Gregory B. Craig, TRUE
was indicted yesterday TRUE
on very serious charges. TRUE
This is a really big story, TRUE
but the Fake News New York Times didn’t even put it on page one, TRUE
rather page 16. DUNNO
@washingtonpost not much better, “tiny” page one. DUNNO
Corrupt News! ASK YOURSELF IF THE COVERAGE WOULD BE THE SAME IF THIS HAD BEEN Pat Cipollone

It would be a really big story if he'd been indicted for conduct occurring while he was in the Administration. It wasn't. It's still newsworthy, I suppose, if only because (as far as I know) he's the only member of the Obama Administration to be charged with anything at all, but no, it's not a big story.

If Pat Cipollone were indicted while in office, or for conduct occurring while he held his position, it would be a big story (though not a surprising one, since Donny somehow manages to corrupt pretty much anything he touches. But if he were to be indicted in four years for conduct occurring after the American people finally fire Donny, page 16 would be just about right. --Bob

Tweets:

What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name.
No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?

.@presssec Sarah Sanders tells Fox News’ Chris Wallace “frankly, Chris, I don’t think Congress — particularly not this group of congressmen and women — are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume that President Trump’s taxes will be.”

Bill Weld jumps into presidential race, giving Trump a GOP primary challenger

President Donald Trump just got a primary opponent for his 2020 re-election.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld announced Monday he is officially running for the Republican nomination for president.

In his announcement video, Weld's campaign plays up his record as a Republican governor in a deep blue state, before saying “America deserves better." The video then highlights some of President Trump's most controversial comments.

Weld was governor of Massachusetts from 1991 to 1997 and the vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party in 2016.

Even with the primary challenge, Trump is still the favorite to win his party's nomination.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 478106002/

Vandal wrote:

.@presssec Sarah Sanders tells Fox News’ Chris Wallace “frankly, Chris, I don’t think Congress — particularly not this group of congressmen and women — are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume that President Trump’s taxes will be.”

Cal. Representative Katie Porter, a law professor, has volunteered to review Trump's taxes.

“I’ll take that bet anytime. I do my own taxes. I’m a law professor. I serve with a number of really bright people, folks who’ve owned small businesses, folks who have been venture capitalists, and what’s more important, we have the legal duty to do so. There may or may not be anything to see in Donald Trump’s tax returns, but that’s the job of Congress to take a look and let the American public know. I very much hope he complies with the legal requirement to provide his taxes, and I have every confidence that my colleagues and I are capable and smart enough. I’m trained in tax law. I’m a legal professor. I’m ready to take a look.

Three Democratic House members are also CPA's who would presumably be capable of reviewing Trump's taxes.

https://www.apnews.com/24e070b06150523d34d595a270e814f5

silverscreenselect wrote:

Vandal wrote:

.@presssec Sarah Sanders tells Fox News’ Chris Wallace “frankly, Chris, I don’t think Congress — particularly not this group of congressmen and women — are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume that President Trump’s taxes will be.”

Cal. Representative Katie Porter, a law professor, has volunteered to review Trump's taxes.

“I’ll take that bet anytime. I do my own taxes. I’m a law professor. I serve with a number of really bright people, folks who’ve owned small businesses, folks who have been venture capitalists, and what’s more important, we have the legal duty to do so. There may or may not be anything to see in Donald Trump’s tax returns, but that’s the job of Congress to take a look and let the American public know. I very much hope he complies with the legal requirement to provide his taxes, and I have every confidence that my colleagues and I are capable and smart enough. I’m trained in tax law. I’m a legal professor. I’m ready to take a look.

Three Democratic House members are also CPA's who would presumably be capable of reviewing Trump's taxes.

https://www.apnews.com/24e070b06150523d34d595a270e814f5

We all KNOW what the motive behind wanting trump's tax returns are. And so does trump. It is to find more dirt to turn into mud. Trump DID NOT prepare his taxes personally. He paid high priced accounting firms to do that, and they decided how to do it. If there are any illegalities, THEY are liable. The IRS has had his taxes to review every year. If they find any issues, it is their job to deal with it. Not Congress's, not the media's and not the general public's.
CASE CLOSED. (but of course, not).

flockofseagulls104 wrote:We all KNOW what the motive behind wanting trump's tax returns are. And so does trump. It is to find more dirt to turn into mud. Trump DID NOT prepare his taxes personally. He paid high priced accounting firms to do that, and they decided how to do it. If there are any illegalities, THEY are liable. The IRS has had his taxes to review every year. If they find any issues, it is their job to deal with it. Not Congress's, not the media's and not the general public's.
CASE CLOSED. (but of course, not).

The purpose of requesting Trump’s tax returns isn’t to find irregularities (like the ones Cohen alleged). The IRS, SDNY and NYAG can do that without Congress’s help. Nor is it political mudslinging. The information is provided under strict security rules. But there are some duties that the Constitution assigns to Congress alone, like approving emoluments (so they have to find out if there are any) and voting on Trump’s budget (so they want to know how it affects his companies.)

flockofseagulls104 wrote: If they find any issues, it is their job to deal with it. Not Congress's, not the media's and not the general public's.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Flock, but oversight of the Executive Branch is part of Congress' job. And it's a principle that has been around, with the approval of the Supreme Court for a lot longer than Donald Trump. Maybe you heard of Watergate. That was Congress investigating the President. Maybe even further back you heard of Teapot Dome. It's part of the checks and balances in the Constitution that you claim to respect. But apparently, you respect it only when it works in your favor.

You and Donald Trump screaming witch hunt and unfair doesn't change the Constitution or Congress' duty to oversee the President. And in case you missed it one of the reasons that Democrats are now in charge of the House is that voters indicated they wanted more oversight of the President by bringing in 42 new Democrats to replace Republicans in the House. But I guess with you, elections don't matter unless you like the results.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: If they find any issues, it is their job to deal with it. Not Congress's, not the media's and not the general public's.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Flock, but oversight of the Executive Branch is part of Congress' job. And it's a principle that has been around, with the approval of the Supreme Court for a lot longer than Donald Trump. Maybe you heard of Watergate. That was Congress investigating the President. Maybe even further back you heard of Teapot Dome. It's part of the checks and balances in the Constitution that you claim to respect. But apparently, you respect it only when it works in your favor.

You and Donald Trump screaming witch hunt and unfair doesn't change the Constitution or Congress' duty to oversee the President. And in case you missed it one of the reasons that Democrats are now in charge of the House is that voters indicated they wanted more oversight of the President by bringing in 42 new Democrats to replace Republicans in the House. But I guess with you, elections don't matter unless you like the results.

They spend almost 2 years and millions of our dollars and found NOTHING. Can they please spend some time fixing the southern border?

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
They spend almost 2 years and millions of our dollars and found NOTHING.

Since we haven't seen the report, we don't know just what he found.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: If they find any issues, it is their job to deal with it. Not Congress's, not the media's and not the general public's.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Flock, but oversight of the Executive Branch is part of Congress' job. And it's a principle that has been around, with the approval of the Supreme Court for a lot longer than Donald Trump. Maybe you heard of Watergate. That was Congress investigating the President. Maybe even further back you heard of Teapot Dome. It's part of the checks and balances in the Constitution that you claim to respect. But apparently, you respect it only when it works in your favor.

You and Donald Trump screaming witch hunt and unfair doesn't change the Constitution or Congress' duty to oversee the President. And in case you missed it one of the reasons that Democrats are now in charge of the House is that voters indicated they wanted more oversight of the President by bringing in 42 new Democrats to replace Republicans in the House. But I guess with you, elections don't matter unless you like the results.

They spend almost 2 years and millions of our dollars and found NOTHING. Can they please spend some time fixing the southern border?

Actually, Mueller's investigation turned a profit, thanks to the forfeitures exacted from Paul Manafort.

And if you claim the investigation turned up nothing (aside from dozens of indictments, some convictions, and some guilty pleas), please quote from the portions of Mueller's report proving your point. Provide a link. I'll wait.

While you're at it, perhaps you can reconcile your position with Barr's admission that the investigation DID NOT exonerate Donny of obstruction of justice. That, of course, is the charge that ultimately brought down Richard Nixon. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
They spend almost 2 years and millions of our dollars and found NOTHING.

Since we haven't seen the report, we don't know just what he found.

He found no evidence of collusion. NONE. after 2 years. You have been telling us for that long "Just wait until Mueller's done! No leaks. He's really keeping it under wraps. There will be more people going to jail."
Everybody knows Nadler and your partisan resistance dems are just looking for things they can harp on. You (collective) show everyday you don't care who you hurt or how as long as you can advance your agenda and power.

Shut the fuck up already.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: He found no evidence of collusion. NONE. after 2 years.

Again, since you apparently have difficulty understanding English: you don't know what he found. The only thing you know is a four-page summary by Barr that includes less than 100 words from Mueller's 400 page report. The amount of evidence they found is unknown.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: He found no evidence of collusion. NONE. after 2 years.

Again, since you apparently have difficulty understanding English: you don't know what he found. The only thing you know is a four-page summary by Barr that includes less than 100 words from Mueller's 400 page report. The amount of evidence they found is unknown.

He and his team full of anti-trumpers found no evidence that anyone connected with trump 'colluded' with russia. Like Soros did with Clinton, why can't you Move-On? The answer is you're hypocrites and always have been.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:He found no evidence of collusion. NONE. after 2 years. . . .

Shut the fuck up already.

Cite, please. I know I haven't seen Mueller's report yet. Have you? I certainly won't rely on the "summary" of someone who has lied in the past when purporting to provide a "summary."

No attempt to defend Donny from Mueller's refusal to clear him of obstruction of justice?

And go fuck yourself. We won't be bullied. --Bob