Donald John Trump is no longer president: what does it mean for you?

vladjet2000 said:
qui s'excuse s'accuse.
This would be one of those times where it would help Trump to STFU for once. Nothing to gain from yapping. he just takes shots at everyone for the sake of not keeping silent, and it's causing more harm than good.
Click to expand...

That's what people have been telling Trump to do since 2015, yet he won the Presidency. I see everyday on fb someone say "Trump should've kept quiet". Trump is Trump, I know everyone wants him to be nicer, but we don't live in his shoes. He got fricking accused of something he didn't do for the past 3 years, and God knows all the stuff he's living day to day.
 
250Rocket said:
Lol, inb4 Trump is evil for defending Biden.
Click to expand...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

I wonder if he'll testify. He commands attention at will, so it's not like he needs a tribune. It would probably be challenging for him to do so under oath.
 
Me semble que même depuis avant son élection «*shit is about to hit the fan*» mais y’a jamais rien qui se passe. Comme les prédictions de Q y’a toujours de quoi de gros qui s’en vient, mais ça se réalise jamais. Ça doit être les masterminds qui s’occupent de gérer le twitter de Trump qui s’organisent pour garder leur électorat sous alerte, un peu comme un âne qui marche pour attraper une carotte attachée devant lui.
 
KerplunK said:
Me semble que même depuis avant son élection «*shit is about to hit the fan*» mais y’a jamais rien qui se passe. Comme les prédictions de Q y’a toujours de quoi de gros qui s’en vient, mais ça se réalise jamais. Ça doit être les masterminds qui s’occupent de gérer le twitter de Trump qui s’organisent pour garder leur électorat sous alerte, un peu comme un âne qui marche pour attraper une carotte attachée devant lui.
Click to expand...

c'est exactement ça, d'un bord comme de l'autre.
 
KerplunK said:
Me semble que même depuis avant son élection «*shit is about to hit the fan*» mais y’a jamais rien qui se passe. Comme les prédictions de Q y’a toujours de quoi de gros qui s’en vient, mais ça se réalise jamais. Ça doit être les masterminds qui s’occupent de gérer le twitter de Trump qui s’organisent pour garder leur électorat sous alerte, un peu comme un âne qui marche pour attraper une carotte attachée devant lui.
Click to expand...

BREAKING

**Insérez une recette de muffin ici**

OMFG shit balls little black jesus, shit's getting REAL this is never seen before government will implode deep state is FUCKED

#2019TheEndIsNear #Murica #PrisonForObama #HilaryTheDeepStateTransBoy
 
250Rocket said:
Just a quick question for anybody who actually believes the things coming out the mouths of Schiff or Vindman; How is it that they both clearly state they do not know who the whistleblower is but then refuse to allow/answer a question about who Vindman talked to about the call saying that they'll out the whistle blower by doing so.
Click to expand...

Because once you start floating names and people start digging it won't take years to go through the maybe dozen people it could possibly be. The White-House probably already has a list of 4-5 people it suspects and then if you start naming people and one overlaps, won't take 5 minutes before President Cheetoh is on twitter ranting about it.
 
Spiter_01 said:
Because once you start floating names and people start digging it won't take years to go through the maybe dozen people it could possibly be. The White-House probably already has a list of 4-5 people it suspects and then if you start naming people and one overlaps, won't take 5 minutes before President Cheetoh is on twitter ranting about it.
Click to expand...

Welcome to two months ago: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/26/new-york-times-whistleblower-trump-ukraine-228529

Anybody with half a functioning brain knows that the whistleblower is 99.9999% likely to be Eric Ciaramella and has known it for a while. Saying his name would have added what, maybe another 0.00009% certainty to that assertion. So yeah they can hide behind "protection" of the whistleblower, decoded it really means if people knew Vindman talked to Ciaramella and then Ciaramella went to Schitt their whole sham would fall apart instantaneously.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...iend-of-alleged-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella
 
250Rocket said:
Just a quick question for anybody who actually believes the things coming out the mouths of Schiff or Vindman; How is it that they both clearly state they do not know who the whistleblower is but then refuse to allow/answer a question about who Vindman talked to about the call saying that they'll out the whistle blower by doing so.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on an answer for the bank question from the last page.
 
PsychoBandito said:
I'm still waiting on an answer for the bank question from the last page.
Click to expand...

PsychoBandito said:
Ok, lets take your bank example.

I am the ring leader of a group. I send a few of my best men to rob the bank. I am home while the video is recording, so I'm obviously not on it. My men come home and I take a large sum of that money for my role as organizer. Am I innocent of all crime?
Click to expand...

I didn't bother answering because your example is completely off base. See the premise that kicked this all off was that Present Trump himself on the call forced Ukraine to investigate specifically Biden. There is no "off site ring leader" in this scenario. Now that they've been called out on their BS story it's magically evolving into another claim (still no ring leader) because the tapes are empty. When you ask them for those new details, can't, because "whistleblower".

Basically any time Schitt interjects, pay extra special attention to what was being asked/said because they don't want you thinking about it.
 

Ukrain business seems like the hot issue but why no media talks about this?

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
250Rocket said:
I didn't bother answering because your example is completely off base. See the premise that kicked this all off was that Present Trump himself on the call forced Ukraine to investigate specifically Biden. There is no "off site ring leader" in this scenario. Now that they've been called out on their BS story it's magically evolving into another claim (still no ring leader) because the tapes are empty. When you ask them for those new details, can't, because "whistleblower".

Basically any time Schitt interjects, pay extra special attention to what was being asked/said because they don't want you thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you don't see that the phone call was what got people looking into it. The accusation is not "did he one time on this one very specific phone call ask him to do this and never once again." It's "did the president order the withholding the funds unless an investigation is ordered."
 
PsychoBandito said:
I don't understand how you don't see that the phone call was what got people looking into it. The accusation is not "did he one time on this one very specific phone call ask him to do this and never once again." It's "did the president order the withholding the funds unless an investigation is ordered."
Click to expand...

Yes it was. The whistle blower was pretty specific about the call being the smoking gun. None of the other claims weren't present on day one. They basically had a collaborator falsely report a wrong doing in order to open the platform to their usual tactic, fling shit and see what sticks. And make no mistake that's what these hearings are. They're not to get to the bottom of things in the interest of the people.

The narrative shifts again with Sondlund. Now it's actually closer to your example but the key takeaway from what I've heard so far is that they swapped out withholding the funds for "president Trump will only meet with you if you investigate Biden". Let's see what happens today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top