NYT Breaking News - Trump Administration Threatened NOAA Officials If they didnt support Trump on hurricane path

  
By:  john-russell  •  one week ago  •  168 comments

NYT Breaking News - Trump Administration Threatened NOAA Officials If they didnt support Trump on hurricane path

NBC News is reporting that the New York Times has learned that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross made a threat about firings to officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the parent agency of the National Hurricane Center, if they didnt defend President* Trump on his assertion on Sep 1.  that the hurricane Dorian could effect Alabama. 

Details later. 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one week ago
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs from Greece to threaten him and top officials ...
 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

I had heard this too and it doesn't shock me in the least. People are dying and all trump can think about is trying to prove himself right even after he was caught in a lie.. Trump is a worthless child. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.1  katrix  replied to  MrFrost @1.1    one week ago

He was too busy tweeting to try to pretend he's not an idiot to have even given a crap when the hurricane hit the Carolinas.

Some leader.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  katrix @1.1.1    one week ago

Some leader.

Trump couldn't lead a used piece of toilet paper to a toilet. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

This is awful. It should spell the end of his presidency.

Let the impeachment proceedings begin...

Oh, wait....

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one week ago
Let the impeachment proceedings begin...

Why would you want to impeach him for something as silly as a, (one of many), FELONY? 

Tell me something Greg, take this exact situation, no difference at all in any way at all, and replace trump with Obama. Would you be as sarcastic? Not in a million years, you would be building the gallows in the street. But trump does it? "So?" 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.1    one week ago
Tell me something Greg, take this exact situation, no difference at all in any way at all, and replace trump with Obama. Would you be as sarcastic? Not in a million years, you would be building the gallows in the street. But trump does it? "So?" 

I'd be interested in knowing exactly what Greg thinks that Trump would have to do, to be impeached, in his opinion.  Well Greg, anything short of killing someone in the street on 52nd Avenue?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one week ago

I get my sarcasm for my former loving caregivers...but that is another story.

I take none of this ongoing Trump this, Trump that, a bit seriously.

I have to think about and be reminded of the horror of a Hillary presidency and realize how blessed 

we are with someone who cares this country and its future..

Next up, for several days, we will have several articles on here about Sarah Palin's divorce. .

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one week ago
I'd be interested in knowing exactly what Greg thinks that Trump would have to do, to be impeached, in his opinion. 

Nothing, they know trump is a worthless scumbag and they are scared that trump won't be re-elected...and honestly? They should be. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one week ago
Well Greg, anything short of killing someone in the street on 52nd Avenue?

And even then, they would just blame someone else. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.6  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.1    one week ago
Tell me something Greg, take this exact situation, no difference at all in any way at all, and replace trump with Obama. Would you be as sarcastic? Not in a million years, you would be building the gallows in the street. But trump does it? "So?" 

I don't speak for Greg, but I can tell you what I wouldn't do...

Seed stupid ass story after stupid ass story about a sharpie and a map.

Nobody outside a narrow group of loons on the left give a crap about this.

As far as Obama doing it, no one would know because the loons on the left and the media (same thing) would not say a peep about it. Gotta protect the messiah, ya know.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.2    one week ago
Trump would have to do, to be impeached

Well, for starters, a sharpie on a map would not be most of American's concerns.

Let's turn this around...what would Trump have to do, besides resign, die, or be impeached, to get your approval?

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.8  loki12  replied to  bugsy @1.2.6    one week ago

Obama literally ordered the execution of an American citizen without due process, then droned his 15 year old son by “mistake”. But trumps got a sharpie! Fucking retatds.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.9  loki12  replied to  bugsy @1.2.6    one week ago

deleted

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.7    one week ago

Let's turn this around...what would Trump have to do, besides resign, die, or be impeached, to get your approval?

First answer my question.  Both you and Greg responded to my question, but refused to answer it.  Just give me a short list of crimes you feel Trump could do that would be worthy of impeachment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @1.2.8    one week ago

Was that American citizen a Taliban by any chance? Left this country to go fight with the Taliban or Al Queda or ISIS?

DID HE BETRAY HIS COUNTRY???????

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2.12  squiggy  replied to  bugsy @1.2.6    one week ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.13  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.11    one week ago

So you are cool with cops killing suspects? you do know what the term suspect means right? lets start there. and his 15 year old son.  Can you show me where his conviction and sentence was? 

It wasn't a fire fight! it wasn't self defense, it wasn't a country with active military operations like Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan, it was a drone strike execution. WITH OUT DUE PROCESS!!!

Now that another administration is getting ready to name antifa a terrorist organization........drone strikes will be cool right?  Because if you think it's okay for one President to execute Americans, and not another, there is a word for that.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @1.2.13    one week ago

If trmp had ordered that drone strike you'd be praising his actions.

Cops kill suspects all the time. I don't see you crying about their due process.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.15  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.14    one week ago

That's a lie, and your second statement is a lie.  of course there is a difference between facing a suspect who can hurt you and sitting in the oval office, thousands of mile away, giving a person the thumbs down in he most cowardly fashion like a petty dictator... 

So you will be cool when trump does it because you are here defending Obama.  Good to know, 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @1.2.15    one week ago

Yeah....I'll bet you won't condemn trmp if he orders a drone strike on a traitor.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.17  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.16    one week ago

And i will defend your right to be wrong.

Amazingly......you still haven't answered, you okay with trump droning Americans who have been convicted of 0 crimes?

One more question, a traitor? can you show me his conviction and sentence? thanks in advance!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @1.2.17    one week ago

Apparently you are ok with people who leave the US and go fight with the Taliban.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.19  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.18    one week ago

You keep pretending that you know what i believe, that's bad form.

So you're okay with trump deciding who is a traitor and just executing them. good to know you have so much faith in him! I on the other hand would like a Jury of their peers to hear the evidence and make that decision. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @1.2.19    one week ago

I just don't believe you.

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.21  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.20    one week ago

I don’t care. Glad to see you trust trump with your life and the life of your fellow Americans. I don’t!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.22  Trout Giggles  replied to  loki12 @1.2.21    one week ago

My ass, you don't. I've seen you defend all his of shit here.

If trmp decides to order a drone strike against some traitor who left the US to join the enemy, I'm not gonna much care about it. Traitors deserve the shit they get

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.23  loki12  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.22    one week ago

 I've seen you defend all his of shit here.

Sigh......

If trmp decides to order a drone strike against some traitor 

Who told you he was a traitor? Some low functioning idiot in the Obama administration? trump has called Brennan a traitor. you cool with a drone strike?

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.24  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.10    one week ago
First answer my question.

OK, no problem. I would be supportive of impeachment if there are PROVEN crimes committed by the President. As of now, there is no proof of any crime, as evidenced by inaction by the screaming "impeach him now" loons in Congress.

They are running on their feelings only, and not facts. If Trump changed his name to Hillary, I believe the libs would be AOK with it just so they can say they have a President Hillary.

Now, your turn to answer my question.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.24    one week ago

OK, no problem. I would be supportive of impeachment if there are PROVEN crimes committed by the President. As of now, there is no proof of any crime, as evidenced by inaction by the screaming "impeach him now" loons in Congress.

They are running on their feelings only, and not facts. If Trump changed his name to Hillary, I believe the libs would be AOK with it just so they can say they have a President Hillary.

Now, your turn to answer my question.

You have answered mine yet!  You keep skipping around the subject.  Give me a list, simple.

With POTUS you cannot have "proven" crimes, because DOJ policy does not allow indictments against him.  Nixon was never "proven" to have done anything during the run up to impeachment, before he resigned.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.26  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  loki12 @1.2.8    one week ago

Trump  advocated the death of FIVE young men for a crime they had been cleared of.  He took out a full page ad calling for the DP to be reinstated.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.26    one week ago

No he didnt.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.28  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.25    6 days ago
You have answered mine yet!

I have. You just don't want to accept my answer because you don't like it.

There is no "list" of crimes, but if you want "something", then how about murder, felony assault, treason, etc. The problem with liberals is they like to look at things like a sharpie and a map as a means to impeachment.

Now, answer mine....what can Trump do, short of be impeached, die or resign, to get your approval.

Something tells me your blind liberal hate won't even let you type something.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.29  bugsy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.26    6 days ago
Trump  advocated the death of FIVE young men for a crime they had been cleared of.

Well, he didn't, but liberals, many on here, and especially in the media, advocated for ruining the lives of high school kids when a crazy Native American barged into their crowd and banged a drum in their faces, all while the kids simply stood there with MAGA hats on.

They couldn't control their rage.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.30  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.27    6 days ago

YES HE DID

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.31  loki12  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.26    6 days ago

Did he execute them? FFS how can anybody defend the execution of an American citizens without due process?

 
 
 
loki12
1.2.32  loki12  replied to  loki12 @1.2.31    6 days ago

When trump drones antifa, the abject hypocrisy of many of the left will be exposed.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.33  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.26    6 days ago
Trump  advocated the death of FIVE young men for a crime they had been cleared of.

None of that is accurate.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.34  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.28    6 days ago
Now, answer mine....what can Trump do, short of be impeached, die or resign, to get your approval.

Easy,

He can do something, anything, to help the average American.  His entire administration has done nothing for anyone other than himself and other wealthy entities.

He can stop insulting our allies and praising our enemies.

He can stop lying, constantly.

He can release his tax returns to prove he has not been corrupted by Russian money.

He can stop ignoring legal subpoena's, and tell his underlings to cooperate fully with legal investigations.

He can start reading his daily briefings and act responsibly with the info therein.  Don't tweet out classified info.

He can start providing honest press briefings so we, the people who pay him, know what's going on.  How long since the last one?

He can stop acting like a child who can't get what he wants!

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.35  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    5 days ago

Why would you want to impeach him for something as silly as a, (one of many), FELONY? 

Tell me something Greg, take this exact situation, no difference at all in any way at all, and replace trump with Obama. Would you be as sarcastic? Not in a million years, you would be building the gallows in the street. But trump does it? "So?" 

...

Still waiting Greg.... 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.36  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.35    5 days ago
Tell me something Greg, take this exact situation, no difference at all in any way at all, and replace trump with Obama. Would you be as sarcastic? Not in a million years, you would be building the gallows in the street. But trump does it? "So?" 

Remember MrFrost, these are the people that wanted to impeach Obama for wearing a brown suit.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.37  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    5 days ago
I get my sarcasm for my former loving caregivers

I'm sure that they are proud of your mastery of English.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.38  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.33    5 days ago

It's all accurate.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.39  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.38    5 days ago

The fact that there were five of them is accurate. The rest is not. Read the ad. Trump never advocated for their death specifically. He wanted the death penalty for whoever committed the crime.

Also, the part about them being cleared is inaccurate. They hadn't been cleared of anything at the moment Trump took out his ads. Their convictions of raping that one particular victim were vacated, but that clearance did not come until 2002 (The attacks and Trump's ad happened in 1989). That vacating is a legal technicality based on concerns over their confessions. It's not an exoneration and it doesn't express some abiding conviction that the men were innocent.

Even then, such clearance was kind of sketchy. Another man's DNA (a serial rapist) was found on the victim and he confessed. His unsupported claim that he acted alone is the only evidence that tends to "clear" the Five. The word of a convicted serial rapist is not generally considered to be all that reliable. A police commission study conducted in 2003 concluded that the Five had "most likely" participated in the beating and rape of the victim. 

And, by the way, they were still guilty of committing assaults that night on other victims, so don't get the idea that a bunch of innocent angels were locked up. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.40  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.39    5 days ago

He had a 2 full page spread ad calling for their death.  

So it is accurate.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.41  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.40    5 days ago

I don't know why I bother. Hope, I suppose. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.42  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.34    4 days ago

Now, to stay on the civil tone, I will answer this in a nice way. I don't know how to cut and paste each individual point, so i will address them individually.

1. I guess the lowest unemployment rate for most, if not all groups of minorities is not doing something for the individual American. Those INDIVIDUALSS who now have jobs probably will disagree with you.

2. He does neither until they hit first. He has the right to defend himself, and especially his country.

3. How have these "lies" affected you personally?

4. He doesn't have to release anything. Just like you don't Being an American is being an American.

5. I don't remember you typing the same thing over the ignored subpoenas during the Obama year. Also, everyone knows these "investigations" are simply political in nature, all to put a shadow over the presidency until the 2020 elections. There will be no impeachment, or even an attempt.

6. This one maybe I can agree with.

7. Every time he steps foot out of the WH, he answers many questions from the press. No president before him gave more access. He also gives interviews to just about anyone that asks for one.

8. So you agree he is a politician.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.43  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.42    4 days ago
1. I guess the lowest unemployment rate for most, if not all groups of minorities is not doing something for the individual American. Those INDIVIDUALSS who now have jobs probably will disagree with you.

Meaningless.  Trump keeps trying to take credit for Obama's recovery.  If Trump were responsible there would have been a sudden drop after the election, not the steady decrease in unemployment continuing at the same rate it was under Obama.  PLUS, the rate is flattening out.

2. He does neither until they hit first. He has the right to defend himself, and especially his country.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.44  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.43    4 days ago
Trump keeps trying to take credit for Obama's recovery.

Our conversation is finished. Trump has been president for 3 years now, and the numbers continue to rise far faster than anything Obama could produce.

you probably still blame Bush for all of Obama's screw ups.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.45  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.42    4 days ago
3. How have these "lies" affected you personally?

They have caused him to be elected.  Because of that climate change is not being addressed, women are losing their rights, I am losing my ability to drink water because of pollution, America is becoming the laughing stock of the world, and on, and on, and on.

4. He doesn't have to release anything. Just like you don't Being an American is being an American.

He does to the House Ways and Means committee.  And he is doing everything to hide his returns from them.  Speaks of fear and guilt on Trump's part.

5. I don't remember you typing the same thing over the ignored subpoenas during the Obama year.

I don't remember you ever asking me about it.  Your loss.  And stopped with the "But.....OBAMA!!"  Bullshit!

Also, everyone knows these "investigations" are simply political in nature, all to put a shadow over the presidency until the 2020 elections. There will be no impeachment, or even an attempt.

Name one that is "political" in nature.  That is just another talking point.  For example, the 1st Benghazi investigation was NOT political in nature, but the following 8 were, and even Republicans admitted that they were.

6. This one maybe I can agree with.

Of course you can, who wants an illiterate loose lipped POTUS?

7. Every time he steps foot out of the WH, he answers many questions from the press. No president before him gave more access. He also gives interviews to just about anyone that asks for one.

I ask about an apple, and you tell me about an orange???

Trump White House hasn't held a traditional press briefing in 6 months

The truth is probably that the press was starting to call Sarah out for her constant lies, and it hurt her feelings.

8. So you agree he is a politician.

A baby politician.

37179926_497941943957234_429580995999354

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.46  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.43    4 days ago
Meaningless.

It's not meaningless to the people who are now employed but weren't 3 years ago.  It's also not meaningless to the massively larger group of people who have better jobs than they did 3 years ago.  It's really only meaningless to the rabid blind hatred crowd.

Trump keeps trying to take credit for Obama's recovery.

It's not "Obama's" recovery any more than it is Trump's, any more than it was "Bush's" recession.  The United States economy is far, far bigger than the office of the president.  The United States is far, far, bigger than the powers of the president.  It was designed that way.   

PLUS, the rate is flattening out.

Yes.  We've very nearly run out of workers that can actually do anything more complicated than make fries. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.47  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.45    4 days ago
They have caused him to be elected.

Which hasn't actually impacted you personally.  Your life is not significantly different now than it was in 2016.

Because of that climate change is not being addressed,

Which is no different than it was before.

women are losing their rights,

What rights have you lost, personally?  What rights did you have in 2016 that you do not have today?

I am losing my ability to drink water because of pollution,

Well as long as we're not being hysterical or anything.  Do you happen to live in Flint, MI?  

America is becoming the laughing stock of the world, and on, and on, and on.

And this affects you personally....how, exactly?

Of course you can, who wants an illiterate loose lipped POTUS?

Not me.  But I'm not hysterical about it.  

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.48  MUVA  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.46    4 days ago

It isn't meaningless to small businesses either the marine industry has made a small come back. I'm still busy and have work lined up for the next two months at least. Glory Glory Man united !If Fred plays he makes a difference maybejrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.49  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.44    4 days ago
Our conversation is finished. Trump has been president for 3 years now, and the numbers continue to rise far faster than anything Obama could produce.

And that is a lie.  Numbers showing the economy slowing, numbers show job growth slowing.  If you cannot support your argument without lying you are not worth the time to debate.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.50  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.49    4 days ago

I see you have to have the last word, so I will leave it to you here. The FED stated just the other day that there is no recession on the horizon. Liberals have been hoping and praying recently for a recession, because they can't get the president on anything else.

The one thing you don't understand is that if there is a recession, common people, maybe like you, could lose your job, your pension, your home, etc. It is the rich, elite liberal that is calling for a recession because they know they could weather one with no problem, much like they probably did the last one.

All of my points above are on point, and any response given was simply based on feelings.

Your answers to 3, 5, 7 and 8 are proof of that.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.51  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @1.2.50    2 days ago
I see you have to have the last word, so I will leave it to you here.

When your last statement is a lie, do you really expect me not to call it out?

The FED stated just the other day that there is no recession on the horizon.

Do you not expect anyone to research your claims???

A critical recession indicator used by the Fed just hit its highest level since the financial crisis

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.52  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.47    2 days ago
Which hasn't actually impacted you personally.  Your life is not significantly different now than it was in 2016.

So you are saying that trump is a lame duck that has done nothing?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.53  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.52    2 days ago
So you are saying that trump is a lame duck that has done nothing?

I'm saying his...or any president's....impact on the average American is wildly overstated, and that the incessant liberal handwringing and panic over everything he tweets is both neurotic and idiotic.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.54  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.51    2 days ago
Do you not expect anyone to research your claims???

Had you researched the actual claim you would have found it to be accurate.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/09/06/fed-chair-jerome-powell-no-recession-expected-at-all-u-s/2232221001/

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.55  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.54    2 days ago
Had you researched the actual claim you would have found it to be accurate.

Because none of Trump's other appointees have ever lied to cover for Trump?  I will believe the verifiable indicators rather than one of Trump's yes men's opinion.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.55    2 days ago
Because none of Trump's other appointees have ever lied to cover for Trump?  I will believe the verifiable indicators rather than one of Trump's yes men's opinion.

Oh for fuck's sake.  Never mind that you have been proven wrong with your "research your claims" assertion...because bugsy was clearly correct, it was easily proven, and anybody who actually follows financial news of any kind already knew about Powell's statements.

Now....you are actually accusing the Chairman of the Federal Reserve...who was originally appointed Fed Governor by Barack Obama.... of lying in an attempt to support Donald Trump.

That's like 18 Calicos on the Crazy Cat Lady scale.  The Crazy Train has been ramped up to full mag-lev high speed rail.  This is a new weapons grade level of batshit.  This makes Alyssa Milano look sane by comparison.

 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.57  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.56    2 days ago
Oh for fuck's sake.  Never mind that you have been proven wrong with your "research your claims" assertion...because bugsy was clearly correct, it was easily proven, and anybody who actually follows financial news of any kind already knew about Powell's statements.

1 - How can I be proven wrong by 1 person's "OPINION".  An opinion that goes against verifiable indicators.

2 - I never claimed recession in the 1st place, I stated that the economy was slowing down, which the article confirmed!

3 - Why the fuck are you butting into someone else's conversation with misinformation??

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.58  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.57    2 days ago
1 - How can I be proven wrong by 1 person's "OPINION".  An opinion that goes against verifiable indicators.

When you claim that your "research" somehow contradicts the fact that the opinion has been stated. 

As far as verifiable indicators go, are you now going to attempt to tell us you have better information that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve?  Or are you telling us you are more expert than a Princeton graduate with 35 years experience in banking and finance?

2 - I never claimed recession in the 1st place, I stated that the economy was slowing down, which the article confirmed!

Never said you had made such a claim.  But your actual claims are much more preposterous.   

3 - Why the fuck are you butting into someone else's conversation with misinformation??

What part of this being a public forum is confusing you?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.59  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.58    2 days ago
When you claim that your "research" somehow contradicts the fact that the opinion has been stated. 

You do understand that "fact" and "opinion" are two different things, right?  He can state the facts, or he can state his opinion, they do not necessarily need to support each other.  And if there is one thing the Trump administration is known for, it is opinions that do not match the facts.  (i.e. "alternate facts")

Never said you had made such a claim.  But your actual claims are much more preposterous.

My claim was that the economy was slowing down, the article YOU REFERENCED agreed with that, no matter his final "opinion".  So what was "preposterous" about it?

What part of this being a public forum is confusing you?

So being public allows you to put out false and misleading information?  If you can't argue truthfully, why do you bother?  All the lies and deflections just give people bad opinions about you.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.60  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.59    yesterday
You do understand that "fact" and "opinion" are two different things, right?

Yes.  It is a fact that he stated his opinion.  A rather easily "researched" fact, at that.

  He can state the facts, or he can state his opinion, they do not necessarily need to support each other.

He is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  As such, he is the most powerful person on the planet when it comes to recessions and their prevention.  When he speaks, it changes everybody else's opinion.  The minutes from every Fed meeting swing the stock market.

  And if there is one thing the Trump administration is known for, it is opinions that do not match the facts.  (i.e. "alternate facts")

I'm surprised that you're attempting to double down on this lunacy that he's somehow either so inept he doesn't understand the economy or he's somehow a liar.  Either of those scenarios would reflect incredibly poor judgment on the part of President Obama, who appointed him originally.  In reality, they simply demonstrate the lengths some people will go to advance their unhinged political agendum.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.61  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.59    yesterday
My claim was that the economy was slowing down,

Your claim was that the statement "The FED stated just the other day that there is no recession on the horizon"  was incorrect and easily disproven by "research".   It clearly wasn't.

the article YOU REFERENCED agreed with that, no matter his final "opinion".  So what was "preposterous" about it?

It is beyond preposterous to accuse a Fed Chairman of misrepresenting information for political purposes...which you have done...twice...especially when the person in question was appointed by the opposing party.

So being public allows you to put out false and misleading information?  If you can't argue truthfully, why do you bother?  All the lies and deflections just give people bad opinions about you.  

This being a public forum allows me to correct your misrepresentation, without regard to your frustration at now having to argue points with someone much more experienced and knowledgeable on the topic at hand. 

Your repeated accusations that various people are untruthful anytime they say things you wish were not true undermine your credibility.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.62  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.60    yesterday
Yes.  It is a fact that he stated his opinion.  A rather easily "researched" fact, at that.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   Yes but the question is whether his "opinion" contained any "facts".

He is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  As such, he is the most powerful person on the planet when it comes to recessions and their prevention.  When he speaks, it changes everybody else's opinion.  The minutes from every Fed meeting swing the stock market.

And yet that does not speak in any way as to whether his "opinion" reflects Trump's wishes, or the facts.  The NOAA is another large, important organization, who lied to cover for their boss, Trump.

I'm surprised that you're attempting to double down on this lunacy that he's somehow either so inept he doesn't understand the economy or he's somehow a liar.

And the answer is.....C: ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Either of those scenarios would reflect incredibly poor judgment on the part of President Obama, who appointed him originally.

Or, like the NOAA, was order by Trump to lie about current economic conditions.

In reality, they simply demonstrate the lengths some people will go to advance their unhinged political agendum.

Exactly, Like Barr, the NOAA, the EPA and others where people are being hired to run agencies where their primary responsibility is to protect the guy that hires them, Trump.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.63  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.62    yesterday
And the answer is.....C: ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Tripling down on batshit delusions.  Well done.  You are at least committed to your cause, no matter how insane it is.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.64  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.61    yesterday
Your claim was that the statement " The FED stated just the other day that there is no recession on the horizon"  was incorrect and easily disproven by "research".

Nope, try again.  That was in response to a another claim.  I said the economy was slowing, he responded with the claim of no recession in sight.  I never brought up the recession claim, I merely pointed out the economy was slowing which was supported by the article you keep referencing.

It is beyond preposterous to accuse a Fed Chairman of misrepresenting information for political purposes.

Not in this administration it isn't.  Has already happened more than once, no reason to believe it won't happen again.

This being a public forum allows me to correct your misrepresentation, without regard to your frustration at now having to argue points with someone much more experienced and knowledgeable on the topic at hand. 

Too bad you're the one misrepresenting stuff.  First you claimed that I said a recession was in sight, which I never did.  Next you are supporting your claims by saying...he's important, he wouldn't lie.  Despite the FACT that other Trump appointees have done just that.

Face it, you are trying to defend an imbecile who drew a loop on an official hurricane map and was surprised people noticed the hand drawn loop!!!  He committed a crime doing that, and you think he wouldn't stoop AGAIN to ordering someone to make a false statement???

The economy is Trump's main campaign point, if shows as bad in any way, he has nothing to run on, and he knows it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.65  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.64    yesterday
Nope, try again.  That was in response to a another claim.

Really.  Well let's review:

The FED stated just the other day that there is no recession on the horizon.
Do you not expect anyone to research your claims???

So when you cited the statement...that was.... what, exactly?  Are you confused about how this whole "citation/response" arrangement works?  Did you think you were citing something else?  Do tell.

I said the economy was slowing, he responded with the claim of no recession in sight.

Did he?  Did he now?   Let's read it again.....

The FED stated just the other day that there is no recession on the horizon.

Hmmmm...  No, it looks like he responded with the fact that the Fed made a statement.  See, your clue here is the key words at the beginning of the sentence where it says "The FED stated". 

Not in this administration it isn't.

No...it really is.

  Has already happened more than once, no reason to believe it won't happen again.

The Fed chair has lied??   More than once???  Do tell us about those.

Too bad you're the one misrepresenting stuff.

By which you mean "holding you to what you have actually said and pointing out how insane it is."

First you claimed that I said a recession was in sight, which I never did.

Do cite me on that.  I fear you're losing what little grasp you had on the conversation.

Next you are supporting your claims by saying...he's important, he wouldn't lie.

*sigh*  His importance is related to the fact that he can actually influence whether or not we go into recession.  Slow down, and read more carefully.  Really.

Face it, you are trying to defend an imbecile who drew a loop on an official hurricane map

Do cite me defending the president.  Or has Jerome Powell doctored a weather map and I missed it?  Are you actually reading my comments at all?  Is English your first language?  Or do you always misrepresent what people say in hopes of making your own statements sound less ridiculous? 

The economy is Trump's main campaign point, if shows as bad in any way, he has nothing to run on, and he knows it.

You're putting FAR too much confidence in the importance of actual issues in presidential campaigns, which have not been issue-driven since 1956.  If Trump is re-elected, it will be because the Democrats have nominated a candidate even worse than he is...again.  Personally, I hope very much that doesn't happen, and it's looking good so far, but Sanders, Warren and Harris are all still lurking out there on the left wing.  We'll see.

Regardless, this idea you continue to advance that anybody working in govt today is fundamentally dishonest simply because Trump has a problem connecting Twitter with reality is ridiculous, juvenile, and should be beneath you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.66  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.22    yesterday

If trmp decides to order a drone strike against some traitor who left the US to join the enemy, I'm not gonna much care about it. Traitors deserve the shit they get

Exactly, some are so partisan that as you have pointed out, trump does the exact same thing Obama has done, and they praise it where before they complained.. Idiot partisan hacks. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.67  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.53    yesterday
over everything he tweets is both neurotic and idiotic.

Couldn't speak to that, he blocked me on twitter over a year ago, so did Pence and trumps asshole, Don Jr. Yes, I do wear it as a badge of honor. Did I mention that it's illegal for trump to block people on twitter? Anyway, I must have hurt his widdle feewings. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.68  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.65    14 hours ago
So when you cited the statement...that was.... what, exactly?

I didn't cite it, I responded to someone else citing that statement.  Jesus, you still haven't read the thread!  I STATED THE ECONOMY WAS SLOWING DOWN ...    1.2.50     bugsy Made the statement about recession, not me!!!   How many times do I have to tell you the same fact over and over and over?!?!?!?!???

Did he?  Did he now?   Let's read it again.....

Yes he did, and if you read it you will see I never claimed the recession was coming.  The closest I came was citing an article that talked about critical indicators about the economy.

No, it looks like he responded with the fact that the Fed made a statement.

Jesus Christ!  He responded with the Fed's statement about something I NEVER CLAIMED!!!  I don't understand why you seem unable to read the words in front of you.  I don't understand why you seem so intent on arguing about something I never said.

The Fed chair has lied??   More than once???  Do tell us about those.

Trump appointees have lied, you know this but since you cannot deal with that fact you decide to argue semantics.  A sure sign of a losing argument.

By which you mean "holding you to what you have actually said and pointing out how insane it is."

Show me where I said we were heading to an recession.  Go ahead show me.  Or admit your claim is a lie.

*sigh*  His importance is related to the fact that he can actually influence whether or not we go into recession.  Slow down, and read more carefully.  Really.

Once again misrepresenting what I said.  Never said he wasn't an "important" person, just stated that his "importance" does not preclude him from lying.

You're putting FAR too much confidence in the importance of actual issues in presidential campaigns, which have not been issue-driven since 1956.

Trump became POTUS because his followers believed the bullshit he spewed.  If he had run on his actual intentions, he would never have even gotten nominated.  All he has left are his hard core followers who refuse to look at everything he has done, and every promise that he has failed to do ( all of them ).

If Trump is re-elected, it will be because the Democrats have nominated a candidate even worse than he is...again.  

And because Trump has solicited and accepted Russian help....again.

Regardless, this idea you continue to advance that anybody working in govt today is fundamentally dishonest simply because Trump has a problem connecting Twitter with reality is ridiculous, juvenile, and should be beneath you.

Wow, you just can't stop misrepresenting anything I say, can you?  I never said " anybody working in govt today is fundamentally dishonest ", and would ask you to retract the lie claiming I said that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.69  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.68    12 hours ago
I didn't cite it,

There is clear evidence to the contrary.  Do you not expect anyone to research your claims? @ 1.2.50

  bugsy  Made the statement about recession, not me!!!

Or.... in the real world..... bugsy made a statement about the Fed stating their position.  Which they did.  After which you attempted to deny they did.  Apparently because you didn't read any of it properly.  Which is now your well established pattern.

He responded with the Fed's statement 

Excellent.  We're making progress.

I don't understand why you seem unable to read the words in front of you.

The irony of this statement is enough to knock the earth out of its orbit.

you decide to argue semantics.

"Semantics" being your code word for "taking you at your poorly communicated word" and not "reading your mind to know what you must have meant".

Show me where I said we were heading to an recession.

Right after you show me where I claim you said it.  

Again....and please read this slowly and carefully... the utter insanity I accuse you of is claiming that the Fed chairman has lied to the American public.  Did you understand that this time?  Do you need to read it again?

Once again misrepresenting what I said.

More irony. 

Trump became POTUS because his followers believed the bullshit he spewed.

And you have polled how many Trump voters before you came to this conclusion?  Have you even met any?

That statement is ridiculous on several levels.  His "followers" were going to vote for absolutely anybody over Hillary Clinton.    But there were never enough of them to get him elected.  He became POTUS because enough people believed he was the lesser of two evils.

  If he had run on his actual intentions, he would never have even gotten nominated.

His actual intentions were and apparently still are to send a great big middle finger to establishment elitists who have looked down their noses at the "deplorables" for decades.

In any case....nobody gave a shit about "issues".

  All he has left are his hard core followers who refuse to look at everything he has done, and every promise that he has failed to do (   all of them  ).

You would think that. But very stupid leftists give him new ammunition every day.

And because Trump has solicited and accepted Russian help....again.

Let me guess... Bob Mueller lied to the American people, also?  

Wow, you just can't stop misrepresenting anything I say, can you?

So "taking you at your word" is "misrepresenting what you say".  Riiiiight.

If you actually said what you meant more than half the time, you might not find conversation so frustrating.  You cannot realistically expect people to "know what you mean" when you don't read or respond carefully.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.70  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.69    9 hours ago
There is clear evidence to the contrary.  Do you not expect anyone to research your claims? @   1.2.50

[ Removed ]

Or.... in the real world..... bugsy made a statement about the Fed stating their position.  Which they did.  After which you attempted to deny they did.

Bullshit!  ANOTHER LIE !

Right after you show me where I claim you said it.

The 1st sentence of the comment I am responding to, is you trying to justify the claim!

Again....and please read this slowly and carefully... the utter insanity I accuse you of is claiming that the Fed chairman has lied to the American public

Why is that insane (preposterous)?  You never answered that question.

  • Trump's AG lied to the public.
  • Trump ordered the NOAA to lie to the public.
  • Trump's press secretaries lied to the public.

Why is it crazy to think that Trump's FED chairman wouldn't lie to the public?

And you have polled how many Trump voters before you came to this conclusion?  Have you even met any?

You understand that Trump currently has a 38% approval rate, right?  I know several of his deplorables, you ask them anything about Trump's antics and they deny them despite any videos or evidence you provide.

He became POTUS because enough people believed he was the lesser of two evils.

Bullshit!  Your opinion and not worth anything.

His actual intentions were and apparently still are to send a great big middle finger to establishment elitists who have looked down their noses at the "deplorables" for decades.

Elitists like people with golden toilets?  Elitists like people who have never grocery shopped for themselves?  Elitists who have made their way in life because of their daddy's millions of dollars???

You would think that. But very stupid leftists give him new ammunition every day.

Yup, he uses lies about them to stoke the racism and hatred of his followers.

Let me guess... Bob Mueller lied to the American people, also?

Nope, but AG Barr did, and apparently you didn't bother reading Mueller's report for yourself.  Not to mention...

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.71  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.70    9 hours ago

That's all Jack ever has.  

Left bad

Cons good

Repeat

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.72  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.70    8 hours ago
Wow, you are absolutely lost, aren't you?  1.2.50  

You read carefully!!   Well done.  I'm so proud.

Bullshit!  ANOTHER LIE !

Oh dear.  The evidence is there for all to see.  Out of curiosity, are you applying for the post of Iraqi Minister of Information in case there is another conflict coming?

The 1st sentence of the comment I am responding to, is you trying to justify the claim!

So that whole 'reading carefully' thing was just a one time deal?  How disappointing.  

Why is that insane (preposterous)?  You never answered that question.
  • Trump's AG lied to the public.
  • Trump ordered the NOAA to lie to the public.
  • Trump's press secretaries lied to the public.
Why is it crazy to think that Trump's FED chairman wouldn't lie to the public?

Assuming ... for a moment....that your wildly imaginative claims are true...  Which of those people were appointed by Barack Obama? 

Let's also look at the obvious fact that you are determined to avoid like a vampire dodging sunlight....  Jerome Powell has influence over whether or not we go into recession.  Did you catch that?  Do you understand what his job is and how he has that influence?  Do NOAA administrators influence storms?  Do press secretaries control events?  No?  

Bullshit!  Your opinion and not worth anything.

Your hysteria got the better of you several comments ago.  But please do consider that the alternative to that opinion is that 60+ million people were just all gooey with excitement about voting for a shady NY real estate developer who has been one of America's worst and most famous assholes since loooooong before you were born.  Or...in the real world....Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate that people really didn't like.

Elitists like people with golden toilets?  Elitists like people who have never grocery shopped for themselves?  Elitists who have made their way in life because of their daddy's millions of dollars???

Yes.  Ironic, isn't it?  But more than that.  It's about many kinds of elitists.  You know, like the ones who claim that anyone who disagrees with Rachel Maddow is "voting against their own interests" but too ignorant to realize it.  Or the ones who think attending college entitles them to make everyone else pay off their loans.  Or the ones who rail against Fox News while reading DailyKos, and think the rest of us just don't understand how offended we should be by Dave Chappelle or Bill Burr.

Yup, he uses lies about them to stoke the racism and hatred of his followers.

The truth helps him more than fiction.  All he needs to do for campaign ads is run video of letists doing what they do.

Nope, but AG Barr did, and apparently you didn't bother reading Mueller's report for yourself.

Do cite the part for us where he details collusion with Russa.  What page is that on, exactly?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.73  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.71    8 hours ago
That's all Jack ever has.  

Left bad

Cons good

Repeat

That would be "leftISTS bad".  Please do endeavor to spell the words correctly.  

Yes.  I oppose extremists.  Extremism is usually a sign of low intelligence, where the person in question lacks the wherewithal to process issues in their full complexity.  

I do not apologize for wanting public policy to be set by intelligent people rather than the brainless and/or hyper-emotional who cannot manage to think for themselves.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.74  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @1.2.6    7 hours ago
Nobody outside a narrow group of loons on the left give a crap about this.

Butt I see you give enough of a crap to post comments here.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.75  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.27    7 hours ago
No he didnt.

Yes Trump did advocate the death penalty for the Central Park 5 and he took out a full page ad saying so.

Here's an article about it:

Ava DuVernay lets Trump 'speak for himself' in Central Park Five series 'When They See Us'

At the time of the brutal assault, Trump was a high-powered New York real-estate mogul adamant about cracking down on crime. Although no DNA evidence connected the boys, aged 14 to 16, to the attack, that didn't stop Trump from spending $85,000 on full-page ads in four city newspapers, calling for their executions.  

"BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE,” read the alarming ads, which Trump accompanied with a first-person article. "I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them." 

_______________

The boys – Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise – were cleared as adults in 2002 after convicted murder Matias Reyes confessed to raping Meili, which was confirmed by DNA evidence. The city awarded the men $41 million in 2014 but Trump continued to insist they were guilty, and called the settlement "a disgrace" in an op-ed for the New York Daily News

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2019/06/03/looking-back-trumps-involvement-1989-central-park-five-case/1212335001/
Here's the fucking ad:

800

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    one week ago
C ommerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called acting NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs from Greece to threaten him and top officials with termination if they didn’t contradict a  statement  from the Birmingham, Alabama office undermining President Donald Trump’s bogus Hurricane Dorian meteorology.

According to the New York Times,  Ross called Jacobs two days after Trump wielded his infamous  Sharpie map  to undergird his baseless conviction that Alabama was originally projected to be hit by Hurricane Dorian.

Ross demanded that Jacobs fix the Birmingham office’s contradiction of the President’s statements. When Jacobs refused, Ross said that the political staff would be fired otherwise. Those members of NOAA are not scientists but administration appointees.

Later that same day, an  unsigned statement  popped up on the NOAA website criticizing the Birmingham office for “speaking in absolute terms.”
 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one week ago

Alabama was included in the 'original' prediction.

Trump was simply looking at the wrong map, not the updated ones

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    one week ago
Trump was simply looking at the wrong map, not the updated ones

We know that, which is why he should have been more careful, and then, after the mistake was made, he should have just let it go

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago

Absolutely VERY SOUND advice - "just let it go" - and from your mouth too John :-)

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    one week ago

He was looking at old maps?  So that is the excuse you are making for him.  These maps are usually time stamped so why didn't he even bother to check for the most current one.  I already know the answer so don't bother to justify his total lack of common sense with some half assed lame excuse.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    one week ago

Trump was simply looking at the wrong map, not the updated ones

Then why didn't he explain that instead of insisting he was right?  If a simple mistake, why the whole sharpie fiasco?

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.5  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    one week ago

Bullshit.

Trump specifically said it was NEW information. Stop lying for him; he's not worth it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    one week ago

So you admit he was looking at the wrong map.  Thanks!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  author  JohnRussell    one week ago
Ross demanded that Jacobs fix the Birmingham office’s contradiction of the President’s statements. When Jacobs refused, Ross said that the political staff would be fired otherwise.

The Trump administration committed a form of blackmail or extortion against a government agency.  Add this to the long list of impeachable offenses. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago

The Trump administration committed a form of blackmail or extortion against a government agency.  Add this to the long list of impeachable offenses. 

Don't you worry John, the nutters will come along shortly and spin spin spin it into nothing. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago
The Trump administration committed a form of blackmail or extortion against a government agency.  Add this to the long list of impeachable offenses.

This is why you cannot trust any statement, from any Trump administration official.

 
 
 
katrix
4  katrix    one week ago

There is a reason why it's illegal to alter weather maps. This shit DOES matter.

Just as it matters that Trump tweeted a photo that possibly let our enemies know more about our surveillance capabilities ... and we find that a spy was brought back from Russia because our security agencies couldn't trust Trump not to expose the person after he gave Putin classified information ...

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  katrix @4    one week ago
There is a reason why it's illegal to alter weather maps. This shit DOES matter.

True, but I was told it's not, by right wing nutters, of course. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    one week ago

All he had to do was admit he was wrong....it was that fucking simple. But trump has to threaten to fire people to defend the fact that he was caught in a lie. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    one week ago

Trump has the most corrupt administration ever. He makes Nixon look like an Eagle Scout. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    one week ago

Another article on this? Another one? And people said Trump couldn't let it go.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross made a threat about firings to officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Yeah well, that's really not surprising to anyone who has ever had a job. Most of the time if you think the boss has said or done something wrong, the correct procedure is to talk to your immediate supervisor, or someone else in authority within your organization. Maybe you even talk directly to the boss, where that is feasible. Generally, you don't just jump on Twitter and correct him publicly.

For one thing, it's obnoxious and disrespectful, but for another, you may not have all the information that people above you have. It's a great way to get fired.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @7    one week ago
Another article on this? Another one? And people said Trump couldn't let it go.

Since when is pointing out corruption something the right doesn't like? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @7.1    one week ago

What not impeach him? The evidence is all there.

I think.....

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @7.1.1    one week ago
What not impeach him? The evidence is all there.

Because republicans love the fact that he is lawless.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.3  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.2    one week ago
Because republicans love the fact that he is lawless.

Of course that's not true, nobody is lawless, but why did you not answer Greg's question?

What's stopping the democrats from impeaching?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @7.1.3    one week ago

What's stopping the democrats from impeaching?

Nothing, they are working on it, but they want to make sure it's ironclad before they proceed.. 

What's stopping republicans from supporting it, if it's valid? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @7.1    one week ago
Since when is pointing out corruption something the right doesn't like? 

You think being worried about one extra state during a hurricane is a sign of corruption?

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.4    one week ago
'What's stopping republicans from supporting it, if it's valid?'

Because just about the entire gop and this scumbag's administration are complicit in everything the 'president' is guilty of and their pockets are nicely lined.  

Not regarding #sharpiegate, that's just one more instance where this shitstain cannot be told he is wrong, about ANYTHING.  

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.7  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.4    one week ago
if it's valid? 

This is an interesting point. For over 3 years, the far left has been screaming that the President is GUILTY of something. They keep coming up with things they THINK he is guilty of, and should be prosecuted for, but here we are today and President Trump is still your President.

By stating "if it's valid", it shows a crack in the liberal thought that maybe, just maybe, they have been duped from day one.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.8  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.6    one week ago
#sharpiegate,

Pretty sad when the far left loons are triggered by a magic marker.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.9  katrix  replied to  bugsy @7.1.8    one week ago
Pretty sad when the far left loons are triggered by a magic marker.

Pretty sad when the far right loons decide that facts no longer matter, and that having our buffoon of a president not only lie, but then triple down on his lie, is no big deal. Integrity, honesty, ethics, and morality are things the far right loons don't give a shit about.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @7.1.9    one week ago

The 'president' quintupled down on his lie, he is the one who couldn't let it go.  

Then threatening to fire people who dared to not support the lyingist liar of all liars.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @7.1.8    one week ago

Pretty sad when the far left loons are triggered by a magic marker.

Pretty sad when the far right loons ignore felonies committed by Trump.

U.S. Code Title 18, “Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.”

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.11    6 days ago
issues or publishes

Not parsing words, but I don't believe Trump either "issued or published" a weather forecast map. He simply held it up with added information NOAA themselves had predicted a short time before.

But even if he did issue or publish, if this is all libs have to impeach the President, you guys are going to be looking forward to a very long 2021 through 2025 with Trump still as your President.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.13  bugsy  replied to  katrix @7.1.9    6 days ago
Pretty sad when the far right loons decide that facts no longer matter, and that having our buffoon of a president not only lie, but then triple down on his lie, is no big deal.

I guess hearing "I did not have sex with that woman", or "you can keep your doctor", :you can keep your plan", and the biggest doozie of all "families will save up to 2500.00" is OK with you. According to your "logic", neither of these Presidents had Integrity, honesty, ethics, and morality.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  bugsy @7.1.12    6 days ago
I don't believe Trump either "issued or published" a weather forecast map

Correct. Nothing he did constitutes publishing anything. He was using something someone else published and was using it in a legal way.

The only reason his sharpied map was disseminated at all was because privately owned news media companies pointed their cameras at him and broadcast the recording for their own profit.

There is no way that the law against publishing counterfeit weather forecasts applies to Trump in this situation. It's just a desperate attempt by some to get people to care about something that isn't actually a big deal.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @7.1.12    6 days ago
Not parsing words, but I don't believe Trump either "issued or published" a weather forecast map

you are parsing words.  He published it by presenting it to the people, on the air, as an official NWA hurricane map.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.16  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.15    5 days ago
He published it by presenting it to the people,

Wrong...again..NOAA published the chart, Trump just held it up on camera.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @7.1.16    5 days ago
Wrong...again..NOAA published the chart, Trump just held it up on camera.

After altering it, and presenting it as official. 

And yes I know it was NOAA, trying to type on my phone and catch all the fat fingers is sometimes too daunting for me.  I didn't spot it until I reread quite a while later. 

I swear both my daughters could write War and Peace, on their phones, in less time than it takes me to thumb out 2 words.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.18  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.14    5 days ago
The only reason his sharpied map was disseminated at all was because privately owned news media companies pointed their cameras at him and broadcast the recording for their own profit.

He wanted his falsified map disseminated, because he thinks his voters are too stupid to have noticed that he altered it with a sharpie. The man will go to any lengths to avoid ever admitting he made a mistake, but this one was a real doozy. But then, even Fox News called out his misstatement about Alabama (which means his base found out about it), so of course he did what he always does, just like one of our beloved Newstalkers - when proven wrong, he doubles down and then triples down.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.19  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.17    4 days ago
After altering it, and presenting it as official. 

Still did not publish it, because it had already been published. I guess we are going to differ with this. As far as the NOAA/NWA thing, I did not even pay attention to it, so no biggie.

As far as texting, I get where you are coming from. I remember back when taxtingfirst became popular, there were contests by tweens to see how fast they can type out certain things. They would do whole paragraphs in a matter of seconds. This was all before I sent my first, and still today, two thumb texts.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @7.1.19    4 days ago
Still did not publish it, because it had already been published. I guess we are going to differ with this. As far as the NOAA/NWA thing, I did not even pay attention to it, so no biggie.

Now you are just playing semantics.  He did publish it, on television, as the "official" map.

As far as texting, I get where you are coming from. I remember back when taxtingfirst became popular, there were contests by tweens to see how fast they can type out certain things. They would do whole paragraphs in a matter of seconds. This was all before I sent my first, and still today, two thumb texts.

And god help you if you press the microphone button and dictate the text.  My girls still harass me about that 1 time.  I never knew that eye rolls could go ALL THE WAY around..

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.21  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @7.1.3    4 days ago
Of course that's not true, nobody is lawless

Trump   Pardon Promise over Wall   Is 'Lawless ': Experts | Law ...

Aug 28, 2019  · The report comes as the lengthy 2020 election season ramps up. The Post report focused on   Trump 's insistence of more border fence being built before then--even if it was a less effective anti-immigration maneuver than enhanced deportation-powers and the like--because his failure to do so would be a disappointment to his supporters.

Opinion | The   Lawless   Presidency - The New York Times

https:// www.nytimes.com /2017/06/06/opinion/the- lawless -presidency.html

Jun 06, 2017  · The   Lawless   Presidency. By David Leonhardt. ...   Trump   frequently nods toward that idea in other ways, too. He still largely ignores the victims of terrorism committed by white nationalists.

Trump   Is America’s First   Lawless   President | History News ...

Donald   Trump   is a   lawless   president. It’s obvious to anyone who’s watching and isn’t in a state of contemptible denial that he feels constrained by no law. He cares nothing about the ...

Is   Trump   a   lawless   despot-wannabe or an ignorant blowhard?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is- trump -an-evil- lawless -despot-wannabe-or-is-he...

Trump   has said he would reinstate waterboarding (which many consider torture, but about which there is a debate). But he says he would go further and use techniques that are "so much worse."

Trump's Lawless Reliance on Acting Secretaries - The Bulwark

https://thebulwark.com/ trump s- lawless -reliance-on-acting-secretaries

Aug 07, 2019  ·   Trump ’s   Lawless   Reliance on Acting Secretaries It's not in the law or the Constitution, but it's what he wants. by Patrick C. Windmoeller. August 7, 2019 5:45 am. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats is resigning Aug. 15 and leaves yet another Cabinet-level vacancy in the   Trump   administration. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @7.1.3    yesterday
nobody is lawless,

Are you shitting me? How many LEGAL subpoenas have been refused by the WH? Hell, there were two TODAY! 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @7    one week ago
It's a great way to get fired.

So is not backing up trumps lies, apparently. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
7.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tacos! @7    one week ago
Another article on this? Another one? And people said Trump couldn't let it go.

They are desperate and scared, nothing seems to be working in their ongoing efforts to get rid of Trump.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Tacos! @7    one week ago
Another article on this? Another one? And people said Trump couldn't let it go.

Well in the lefts defense would you rather run 5 seeds on sharpiegate or discuss the democrats running for President?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.4.1  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4    one week ago

Well in the lefts defense would you rather run 5 seeds on sharpiegate or discuss the democrats running for President?

I would vote for Sponge Bob, (with Patrick as VP), over trump any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not much to discuss. 

 
 
 
loki12
7.4.2  loki12  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.4.3  KDMichigan  replied to  loki12 @7.4.2    one week ago
Someone should ask them to show them on a doll were trump hurt them.

I have but they can't point to their feeling. Quite a few snowflakes that cry all day, everyday and can't talk about the weather without saying, But...but...Trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.4.4  MrFrost  replied to  loki12 @7.4.2    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.4.5  MrFrost  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4.3    one week ago
But...but...Trump.

512

 
 
 
loki12
7.4.6  loki12  replied to  MrFrost @7.4.4    one week ago

You still bleating that nonsense? Tell us where trump hurt you. 😥

 
 
 
bugsy
7.4.7  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @7.4.6    one week ago
Tell us where trump hurt you.

Well, there are clues out there. The price of butthurt cream has gone down because of the increased leftist purchases.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.4.8  KDMichigan  replied to  loki12 @7.4.6    one week ago

[Deleted] WTF does that meme have to do with anything?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.4.9  MrFrost  replied to  loki12 @7.4.6    one week ago

You still bleating that nonsense? Tell us where trump hurt you. 😥

Trump couldn't hurt me if he tried.. LOL 

 
 
 
loki12
7.4.10  loki12  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4.8    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.4.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @7.4.5    one week ago

at least they both have their eyes closed

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.4.12  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @7.4.9    one week ago

You will notice that there isnt a single right wing comment on this thread that disputes the accuracy of the NYT report.  They just dont care. 

That is their answer for everything sour in Trumpworld these days , "I don't care". 

They aren't sending their best. 

 
 
 
loki12
7.4.13  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @7.4.12    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.4.14  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @7.4.1    one week ago
I would vote for Sponge Bob, (with Patrick as VP), over trump any day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

That says far more about you than it does about Trump.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.4.15  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @7.4.14    5 days ago

That says far more about you than it does about Trump.

This isn't about ME, is it? Remember that whole, discuss the article, not the members? 

 
 
 
cjcold
7.4.16  cjcold  replied to  loki12 @7.4.6    4 days ago

Trump is hurting me, my friends and family, my country and my planet with every anti-environmental, anti-science decision he makes. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8  livefreeordie    one week ago

we should eliminate both the National Weather Service and NOAA  as federal agencies. There is no Constitutional authority for their existence to be funded by taxpayers and just increasing the federal bureaucracy 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @8    one week ago

yes we'd all be better off having you stick a wet finger in the wind and telling us what the weather will be. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @8    one week ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif Can't have anyone telling the 'president' he is wrong.  

 
 
 
katrix
8.3  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @8    one week ago
we should eliminate both the National Weather Service and NOAA  as federal agencies

Have you bothered to research why they were created in the first place?

Sorry if you don't think everyone having access to a correct weather forecast is important ... but hey, it's just people's lives, property and livelihoods. No biggie, right?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.3.1  livefreeordie  replied to  katrix @8.3    5 days ago

Nowhere did I say that there is no market or public need for this information. the left confuses needs and wants with Government mandates.

There is no reason that the private sector should not provide these services. 

The Constitution provides no authority for the Federal Government to engage in this activity.  It just adds more bureaucrats and costs to taxpayers.

As James Madison, father of the Constitution stated:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

James Madison and in Federalist #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.2  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @8.3.1    5 days ago
the left confuses needs and wants with Government mandates

As I stated above, you have apparently never bothered researching just why this was considered to be a government mandate. You may not have thought about this, but weather events affect our national security. And some of us appreciate that our government is helping to save lives and property.

Of course, almost everyone is "on the left" when compared to you, except for the religious right.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.3.3  livefreeordie  replied to  katrix @8.3.2    5 days ago

I disagree with the weather affecting our national security.  What Military strategy do you employ against weather?  Are we going to block out the sun?  deploy aircraft and/or ships against hurricanes?  blow up tornadoes?

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.4  katrix  replied to  livefreeordie @8.3.3    5 days ago
I disagree with the weather affecting our national security. 

Luckily, you don't run our military or our national security teams. They disagree with you. They even *gasp* agree that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.3.5  livefreeordie  replied to  katrix @8.3.4    5 days ago

That shows how far our military leadership has departed from actually thinking in terms of military strategy and military superiority over our enemies to one of political correctness.

Real military leaders like Patton or MacArthur would have never succumb to this kind of idiotic thinking.  They wouldn't embrace hoaxes like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Mankind cannot dictate the climate or weather.  This is just new age nonsense.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.3.6  r.t..b...  replied to  livefreeordie @8.3.5    5 days ago
Mankind cannot dictate the climate or weather.

Oh, but we can and have indeed affected it. Unintended consequences to be sure, but consequential nonetheless, at least to those willing to accept the overwhelming preponderance of scientific data and thus responsibility for our collective actions. NASA knows it, our military knows it, your neighbor and his grandchild knows it...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3.7  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @8.3.4    5 days ago
They even *gasp* agree that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.

Immediate?

Really?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
8.3.8  livefreeordie  replied to  r.t..b... @8.3.6    5 days ago

and science says AGW is nonsense.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.3.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  livefreeordie @8.3.8    4 days ago
and science says AGW is nonsense.

Science who? Is that like Mac Book telling us we should buy a Windows Surface?

The facts show the vast majority of climate scientists do believe in AGW, so regardless of what your friend Sci Ence might say, it is very real.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.3.10  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @8.3.8    2 days ago

and science says AGW is nonsense.

Actually science says the exact opposite of that. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
9  It Is ME    one week ago

" NBC News is reporting that the New York Times has learned "

Now the "Media" just mimics one another....and calls it "Reporting ?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
9.1  loki12  replied to  It Is ME @9    one week ago

Well.....they appear to share the same brain cell. 

 
 
 
lib50
9.2  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @9    6 days ago

Better than the standard gop 'some people say', or Trump's 'my friend John says'.  But we know the right has no standards for themselves.  Go after the media, Putin's orders!  And the sheep duly follow the orders after Putin's puppet takes up the call.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @9.2    6 days ago

Russia….Russia …. Russia ! jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
9.2.2  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @9.2.1    6 days ago

We can't help it if the PAB is PPAB.  And despite conservative attempts to deflect and deny, Trump and his campaign had and continue to have a 'special' relationship with Putin, to the point he is always deferential.  As if he were afraid to cross him.  

ps, need help with PAB or PPAB?  Happy to oblige. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @9.2.2    5 days ago

Sure....that's why he keeps sanctioning Putin. He loves Putin. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

Just lately:

Aug. 1, 2019

President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order imposing new sanctions on Russia

He's been adding sanctions on Russia since 2017. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @9.2.3    5 days ago

LOL from the FIRST line in your link...

responding to growing pressure from Congress

If congress had said nothing, the sanctions would never in a million years been imposed. Trump is facing re-election, he's going to play nice now. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.2.5  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @9.2.4    5 days ago
He's been adding sanctions on Russia since 2017.

LOL !

He STILL has been adding sanctions on Russia since 2017. jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.2.6  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @9.2.5    5 days ago
Russian aluminum company Rusal announced Monday it plans to invest in a new Kentucky aluminum mill to be built near Ashland in eastern Kentucky. The $200 million investment in Braidy Industries is Rusal’s first U.S. project since the Trump administration lifted U.S. sanctions placed against the company.

Rusal had been sanctioned by the U.S. government because its major controller, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, faces accusations of “a range of malign activity around the globe” by Russia, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Those actions include interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and meddling in neighboring Ukraine.

Deripaska also has close business ties to former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, who has been convicted of tax evasion and money laundering. Deripaska is suing the U.S. to have sanctions against him removed.

The Trump administration released Rusal from sanctions in January after the company reduced the ownership stake held by Deripaska. Congressional Democrats attempted to block the White House decision and passed legislation in the House that would keep sanctions in place. However, the bill fell short in the Republican-controlled Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky accused Democrats of trying to “politicize” the sanctions.

https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2019/04/15/kentucky-aluminum-plant-investor-is-russian-company-formerly-under-u-s-sanctions/

They lift certain sanctions when it suits them.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @9.2.3    5 days ago

from your link

That the Trump administration did not follow through with the additional penalties prescribed by law frustrated lawmakers. In May, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Andrea Thompson, told a Senate panel that the State Department had “teed up” the additional sanctions.

“We’ve been extremely vocal and active in pushing back on Russia’s heinous attack on the Skripals,” Ms. Thompson insisted, suggesting that the slow action on sanctions was “part of a larger Russia strategy.”

On Monday, the top Democrat and Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a joint letter to the White House threatening new congressional action to force the administration’s hand.

“Failure by the administration to respond to Russia’s unabashed aggression is unacceptable and would necessitate that Congress take corrective action,” wrote the members, Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, and Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas.

The law provided the administration with numerous sanctions to choose from . The executive order released by the White House on Thursday banned loans or other assistance to Russia by international financial institutions and prohibited most loans from American banks to Russia’s government.

European officials, especially from Eastern European countries that feel more directly threatened by Russia, have been pushing the administration for months to put the chemical weapons sanctions in place.

European officials initially expected the White House to act late last year, and then early this year. But for months, the administration stalled on the sanctions, the diplomats said.

One senior administration official said that there was no intention to delay the sanctions, but that they had not been put into place earlier this year over concern that Russia would misunderstand the message.

So, literally a year later, the POTUS announces a ban on loans to Russia by international financial institutions?

Who knew we had international "powers" ?   jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.2.8  livefreeordie  replied to  Split Personality @9.2.6    5 days ago
 
 
 
lib50
9.2.9  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @9.2.3    5 days ago
Sure....that's why he keeps sanctioning Putin. He loves Putin.

As has been pointed out to you, HE doesn't want to sanction Putin.  Because he is OWNED by Putin.  PPAB.

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @9.2.9    5 days ago
As has been pointed out to you

The only thing "Pointed Out" by "Others", was that Trump "DID" sanction Russia. Timeline matters not.

The "DID" is what mattered.

 
 
 
cms5
10  cms5    2 days ago
NBC News is reporting that the New York Times has learned

Well, if the NYT says it...it must be true. /s

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1  MrFrost  replied to  cms5 @10    yesterday
Well, if the NYT says it...it must be true. /s

Let me guess, trump slammed the NYT, and you believe what he says? Excuse me...

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cms5
10.1.1  cms5  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    15 hours ago

Oooops...you guessed wrong!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



CB
lib50


25 visitors