GRcade

DML wrote:

KK wrote:I was willing to give Trump and the US administration the benefit of the doubt on what would have ultimately been something truly momentous, but obviously that was stupid.

Don't get taken in. Everything is for show. Absolutely everything.

Under the surface he's a wannabe Hitler. He's absolute pond scum.

At least he’s probably missed out on the Nobel Peace Prize now.

Such a comically badly written letter. So many grammatical errors and a load of bizarre phrasings... Trump obviously wrote it personally.

I'm still dying at the part about nuclear capabilities. The international dick waving competition continues.

The last paragraph is pure business gumpf "If you change your mind about this amazing offer, get it touch with me"

He's just made a statement saying the summit might still happen.

He's genuinely senile.

The best diplomacy

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Harry Ola wrote:

twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/999323798771044353

Absolutely horrific. Honestly the line that there is no suggestion Trump knew about it is laughable.

But.....her emails.

The worst thing is, I don't trust the Dems to field a decent candidate this time either, and Trump will be able to walk into a second term.

They could field a literal field of cow gooseberry fool and it’d be a better option than Trump.

At some point people will have to realise that people are voting for a wanker because they like the wanker, not because the other alternative is a poor choice.

Wanker or not, the economy is doing well under him, and for the working poor, which the republicans have helped expand with their cuts to healthcare and public school that's all that will matter.

Barring some major disaster, which is a huge possibility tbf, they may choose stability over someone new.

Rightey wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Harry Ola wrote:

twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/999323798771044353

Absolutely horrific. Honestly the line that there is no suggestion Trump knew about it is laughable.

But.....her emails.

The worst thing is, I don't trust the Dems to field a decent candidate this time either, and Trump will be able to walk into a second term.

They could field a literal field of cow gooseberry fool and it’d be a better option than Trump.

At some point people will have to realise that people are voting for a wanker because they like the wanker, not because the other alternative is a poor choice.

Wanker or not, the economy is doing well under him, and for the working poor, which the republicans have helped expand with their cuts to healthcare and public school that's all that will matter.

Barring some major disaster, which is a huge possibility tbf, they may choose stability over someone new.

The economy did well under Clinton but they went for a wanker afterwards.

The economy did well under Obama but the Trump voters hated him.

Do you really think the red hatted MAGA bunch would turn against Trump if the economy took a dip? Or would they blame Mexican immigrants, China and liberals?

A big proportion of Trump voters just like voting for dickheads, it doesn’t matter who he is against or what the economy/country is doing.

Yeah, and both Clinton and Obama got a second term, so what's your point?

Clinton and Obama, along with every other president out there has some die hard supporters who will support them basically no matter what. Trump didn't get elected because of the MAGA bunch, even if they were the most vocal group.

American's don't like change, the majority of presidents get a second term, you need some serious disaster to not get re-elected, Trump has a new scandal every week and yet his ratings are now going up, along with the economy. Honestly unless he gets charged with something criminal and then looses even the Russia thing might just fizzle out as they'll just spin it into some "yes we worked with the Russians but we just did it because Obama and the government are so evil" nonsense.

Rightey wrote:Yeah, and both Clinton and Obama got a second term, so what's your point?

My point was there in my post. The economy under Clinton and Obama did well, but that didn’t stop wankers being voted in after them.

A big percentage of America doesn’t vote based on the economy, they deliberately vote for wankers.

Sandy Hook Families Sue Alex Jones: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/us/p ... -hook.html

Moggy wrote:

Rightey wrote:Yeah, and both Clinton and Obama got a second term, so what's your point?

My point was there in my post. The economy under Clinton and Obama did well, but that didn’t stop wankers being voted in after them.

A big percentage of America doesn’t vote based on the economy, they deliberately vote for wankers.

tbf, a wanker stole the election after Clinton, who you could make a pretty good case for being a massive wanker himself, you know with the sexual harassment and all that.

Also, in those cases they had a choice between two new people, and I can't remember a time when a party was in power for three terms in a row, it's almost always once someone serves their two turns the other party gets in.

You can't really say they love voting in wankers when they're a two party system. Although that's a problem all in its own right.

Rightey wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Rightey wrote:Yeah, and both Clinton and Obama got a second term, so what's your point?

My point was there in my post. The economy under Clinton and Obama did well, but that didn’t stop wankers being voted in after them.

A big percentage of America doesn’t vote based on the economy, they deliberately vote for wankers.

tbf, a wanker stole the election after Clinton, who you could make a pretty good case for being a massive wanker himself, you know with the sexual harassment and all that.

Also, in those cases they had a choice between two new people, and I can't remember a time when a party was in power for three terms in a row, it's almost always once someone serves their two turns the other party gets in.

You can't really say they love voting in wankers when they're a two party system. Although that's a problem all in its own right.

Most of that goes against your own argument, not mine.

Your argument is that the economy is strong and that's all that matters.

My argument is that American politics are so partisan now that the economy will not make a big difference to Trump and the Republican's core support.

It was Bill Clinton's campaign that proclaimed "it's the economy, stupid", which may have been true in the early 90s, but it certainly isn't any more. Now the phrase is "it's the colour of the hat he's wearing, stupid".

Saint of Killers wrote:Sandy Hook Families Sue Alex Jones: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/us/p ... -hook.html

I hope they personally extract every single cent of his to the point where he's having to blow winos just to scrape together enough money to eat.

Rex Kramer wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:Sandy Hook Families Sue Alex Jones: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/us/p ... -hook.html

I hope they personally extract every single cent of his to the point where he's having to blow winos just to scrape together enough money to eat.

That will teach him not to be a total banana split. He deserves this.

The state of that letter

The fact that you have even the idea of "crisis actors" being not instantly thrown out by everyone just proves how low US politics has sunk and just how much parts of the US public genuinely hate the people in power.
It amazes me you can have people who will state that all politicians are scum and all civil servants (this includes teachers and fireman but not the military) are parasites with a straight face.

It's impossible to reason with these people and they have entire news organisations who will back them in the madness.

New thread: t:us-politics-2---trump-cancels-summit-having-to-do-with-north-korea?f=7