Trump telling staff he's running for a rematch against Biden in 2024

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  124 comments

By:   Sarah K. Burris

Trump telling staff he's running for a rematch against Biden in 2024
President Donald Trump has been talking to his allies about a 2024 campaign rematch against President-elect Joe Biden. According to Axios, Trump is already talking to his advisers about it, indicating that he understands that he has lost the election. The realization comes "even as the president continues to falsely insist that he is the […]

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



sarahburrissq.gif

Published

12 mins ago

on

November 9, 2020

By

Sarah K. Burrisshutterstock_318051176.jpg September 15, 2015, Donald Trump, 2016 Republican presidential candidate, speaks during a rally aboard the Battleship USS Iowa in San Pedro, Los Angeles, California (Photo by Joseph Sohm/Shutterstock)ShareTweet

========================================================================================

=================================================================================

President Donald Trump has been talking to his allies about a 2024 campaign rematch against President-elect Joe Biden.

According to Axios, Trump is already talking to his advisers about it, indicating that he understands that he has lost the election.

The realization comes "even as the president continues to falsely insist that he is the true winner, that there has been election fraud and that his team will fight to the end in the courts," noted the report.

Trump was only the third president in history to lose after his first term in office, and no other president in history has attempted a rematch and won.

ON THE PODCAST: Election Day 2000... all over again?

"Aides advising Republicans who are likely to run in 2024 are dreading the prospect of a Trump run given the extraordinary sway he holds over millions of GOP voters," said Axios.

Trump spent the better part of the 2020 election calling Biden mentally unfit because of his advanced age. Trump will be that same age in 2024.

The impact of a Trump race could also freeze any other Republican candidate with hopes to mount their own 2024 campaign against Biden. It could also make fundraising for the Republican Party difficult if a former president is hoovering up all of the GOP cash.

Axios also recalled that on the day of Trump's inauguration he filed his 2020 election paperwork, starting the reelection campaign.

Trump is already fundraising for a legal defense fund, but the money is going into an account that would allow him to refund the debt from his own loans to the campaign. He's also asking for money for Georgia but that money too is going to retiring his debt.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

This asshole will announce his new campaign the day after he leaves the White House.  He won't be able to bear being out of the limelight for 24 hours. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

meh, he'll either be cooling his jets in the big house or taking a dirt nap by then ...

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.1  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

Can a felon in prison run for president?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  cjcold @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

Unfortunately, yes.  Depending on the felony, they may not be able to vote, but they can run.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.1.2    3 weeks ago

too funny. You can run for president but you can't vote for yourself

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

He can run but he can't win...

 
 
 
MAGA
1.2  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Good! 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

deleted

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @2    3 weeks ago

I think he'll partner, or sign on, with either Newsmax or OANN. 

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.1  MAGA  replied to  evilgenius @2.1    3 weeks ago

There was talk of his sons buying OANN.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  MAGA @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
There was talk of his sons buying OANN.  

They should definitely do that. Then they should push big money on Carlson to move from Fox. Good times!

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.3  MAGA  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

Not just Carlson but their entire opinion program host group!  

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    3 weeks ago

I wish a heifer would. We'll see after NY indictments.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago

If Trump runs in 2024 it'll likely be from prison.

I rather doubt Biden will run for a second term, I'm hopeful for a Michelle Obama/Melinda Gates ticket in 2024. 'M & M 2024!' Or perhaps 'OG's 2024!'...

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    3 weeks ago
I'm hopeful for a Michelle Obama/Melinda Gates ticket in 2024. 'M & M 2024!' Or perhaps 'OG's 2024!'..

There is a marked difference between being hopeful and engaging in wishful thinking.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    3 weeks ago

Trump/Haley '24 or Haley/Owens '24. Neither would hurt my feelings and by then, they are going to be running against Harris. NBFD

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
Trump/Haley '24 or Haley/Owens '24.

Nah!  Go for the gold!  Trump/Palin '24!!

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

That someone would consider Candace Owens as acceptable material for a presidential ticket is startling in itself. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

That someone would consider Kamala Harris acceptable material for a Presidential ticket is the really unbelievable thing.   The most liberal Senator in the senate?

C'mon Man!

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    3 weeks ago

or Tucker Carlson...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.6  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Yeah the grifter Candace Owens is the equivalent of someone who served as Attorney General in the most populous state in the nation for six years and in the US Senate for four years. lol. 

Candace Owens best career achievement  has been to speak at far right ideological conferences. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

And there isn't a damned thing wrong with that. It would almost be as relevant as you running. We know your stance John..........and, contrary to your belief, it isn't the most popular.......unless you count "late arrivals at the polling stations".

 
 
 
MonsterMash
4.1.8  MonsterMash  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

LOL

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.9  Krishna  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
Nah!  Go for the gold!  Trump/Palin '24!!

ounds good!

Or...better yet... why not Palin/Trump! '24!!

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.10  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

I’ll go with Trump-Haley 24!  Or Haley-Scott if the great one decides not to do it.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Krishna @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
Or...better yet... why not Palin/Trump! '24!!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

Yeah, the former Senator of Delaware and VP who after 47 years in government has accomplished the following great things for the people ....... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ well, not much really for 47 years but he did manage to pad his and his sons net worth handsomely since he left office in 2016.   Imagine that .....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.6    3 weeks ago
Candace Owens is the equivalent of someone who served as Attorney General in the most populous state in the nation for six years and in the US Senate for four years

I see the equivalency....oh...I had my daydream glasses on

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  MAGA @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

The great one????

Seriously, XX, you really need a nap or something

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.16  MAGA  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Our VP elect a whore!  Come on man!  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

An unsupported, despicable, misogynistic comment.

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.18  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.17    2 weeks ago

How can comment 4.1.16 be misogynistic when it only talks of one woman on a planet with billions of women?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

it can not.

but I wouldn't be calling her a whore, either.

no point in it and no class

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

Because it presumes Harris a whore because 25 years ago she had a relationship with a married man who helped start her career.   Ask MAGA about his reasons for declaring Harris a whore if you do not believe me.   If that does not clear it up for you I can add more details.

In the meantime, do you consider Harris a whore?   If so, why? 

Also, what are the defining characteristics of a whore?   Does Harris possess those characteristics?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.18    2 weeks ago

Also, be careful of what you defend.   Some people express deeply ugly, contemptible notions with total disregard for their reputation (and credibility).   Defending these notions gives the appearance of you adopting them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

John: 8.7

 
 
 
mocowgirl
4.1.23  mocowgirl  replied to  MAGA @4.1.16    2 weeks ago
Our VP elect a whore!  Come on man!

While I don't agree with the labeling applied by some to women who don't live by some inane sexual purity code, I believe it could be beneficial to understand that the US has survived and thrived despite our elected male leaders being adulterers and possibly even a homosexual or two.

I have sincere doubts that Harris is capable of doing anything that her predecessors haven't already done.

Sex with Presidents: The Ins and Outs of Love and Lust in the White House  Hardcover – Illustrated, September 22, 2020

by  Eleanor Herman     (Author)

While Americans have a reputation for being strait-laced, many of the nation’s leaders have been anything but puritanical. Alexander Hamilton had a steamy affair with a blackmailing prostitute. John F. Kennedy swam nude with female staff in the White House swimming pool. Is it possible the qualities needed to run for president—narcissism, a thirst for power, a desire for importance—go hand in hand with a tendency to sexual misdoing?

In this entertaining and eye-opening book, Eleanor Herman revisits some of the sex scandals that have rocked the nation's capital and shocked the public, while asking the provocative questions: does rampant adultery show a lack of character or the stamina needed to run the country? Or perhaps both? While Americans have judged their leaders' affairs harshly compared to other nations, did they mostly just hate being lied to? And do they now clearly care more about issues other than a politician’s sex life?

What is sex like with the most powerful man in the world? Is it better than with your average Joe? And when America finally elects a female president, will she, too, have sexual escapades in the Oval Office?

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.24  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.20    2 weeks ago
The definition of misogynistic is prejudiced against women, not a woman. 4.1.16 insults one woman, not women, so how can it be misogynistic?  

Only she knows the real reason she had a relationship with willie brown. If her reason for having an affair with willie brown was to further her career she will never admit it. 
we do know she thinks biden is racist. She called him that in the first debate, yet that doesn’t stop her from partnering up with him to be his vice president, which most definitely furthers her career. 

i can’t say one way or another if she used willie brown to further her career. I wasn’t there. I will admit the possibility exists.
 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.25  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.21    2 weeks ago

“Some people express deeply ugly, contemptible notions with total disregard for their reputation (and credibility).   Defending these notions gives the appearance of you adopting them.”

yeah, i see that quite often. And simply because i support trump, never mind why because that doesn’t matter to most here, i have no credibility anyway.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.24    2 weeks ago
The definition of misogynistic is prejudiced against women, not a woman.

I explained this to you.   MAGA deems Harris a whore because she had a one year relationship 25 years ago with a married man who opened career doors for her.   He does not have any evidence of any actual whorish acts yet he deems her a whore.

This means that any women who has a relationship with a married man who opens doors for her is ipso facto a whore.

See?

This is MAGA logic.   This logic is misogynistic.

Only she knows the real reason she had a relationship with willie brown.

Exactly!   So how is it that MAGA can repeatedly label her a whore?

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.27  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.26    2 weeks ago

A whore is someone who engages in sexual acts for pay. Doors being opened to further a career is a form of payment. So if that was her motive then yes, she is a whore. As is anybody else doing the same thing for the same reason.

Was that her motive? I don’t know, but the possibility exists. Are you going to deny that possibility? If so then you are no different than him because you don’t know her motive either.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.27    2 weeks ago
Doors being opened to further a career is a form of payment.

So when you find another woman who has had a boyfriend who opened doors, do you consider her a whore?   

Any woman in these circumstances is ipso facto a whore to you?

When you find a man whose girlfriend opened doors, is he a man-whore or gigolo?

If so then you are no different than him because you don’t know her motive either.

Here is the difference.   I see a woman whose boyfriend of a year opened doors for her 25 years ago.   I do not deem her a whore based on that.   MAGA does.

Now, given the facts, if you are going to deem a woman a whore simply because 25 years ago her boyfriend of a year opened doors for her then you are operating on misogyny.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.29  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.27    2 weeks ago

Gazoo,

First of all, the relationship Harris had a year-long relationship with Brown. She didn't just bed him for a position. It was an actual relationship. But that shouldn't matter. Men have sex all the time with women, even women who are superior to them at work, and no one calls them whores, do they? It's "Oh man, you scored", right? See the double standard there, because as a woman who spent the earlier part of my working career in a male-dominated field, I got hit on by men all the time, and when I said no, I got the "Oh she's a cold bitch" thing thrown at me. There was no kudos to my sense of propriety, just disdain. 

Yeah being a woman is a great thing in a man's world. If you have consensual sex with a guy, he scores, and you get called a whore, but turn him down and you are a cold bitch. 

No misogyny there/ sarc.  

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.30  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.28    2 weeks ago

I thought i made my self very clear when i said if her motive for having that relationship was to further her career then yes, she is a whore. that goes for any woman, or man, in the same situation. I have also said several times that only she knows her motive. Clear now? Or do we have to go over this stuff again?


 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.31  Gazoo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.29    2 weeks ago

yeah, i see what you’re talking about but I would call a man who used sex to further his career a whore, prostitute, man whore, whatever term one wants to use. Regardless of gender, is a person who uses a sexual relationship to further a career, respected? No.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.32  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.31    2 weeks ago

I'm not sure I would call them a whore, female or male. But I would call them calculating. A whore is someone who sells their body for a living. People have always used sex for various reasons, and they are not whores. It's also something that I would never do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.30    2 weeks ago
I thought i made my self very clear when i said if her motive for having that relationship was to further her career then yes, she is a whore. that goes for any woman, or man, in the same situation.

Yes I fully understood what you wrote.   My comment was made with that full understanding.   What you did not do is deal with the circumstances at hand.   You tried to bypass the earned criticism of MAGA's comment by making a conditional statement.   I am not letting that stand.

In this case there is no evidence whatsoever that Harris engaged in a one-year long relationship with a man 25 years ago so that he would open a career door for her.   None.   In fact, Harris has spent the last 25 years demonstrating that she is an intelligent competent woman who can achieve success on her own merits.  (By the way, I do not like Harris or her ideology so strike that thought if you had it.)  This should contradict any presumption that she needs to whore herself to get ahead.

Deeming Harris or any woman a whore simply because her boyfriend of one year opened a door for her is mysoginistic.   It deems a woman a whore under the presumption that her relationship was necessarily to earn favors.   It is bigotry and the name for this particular bigotry is mysoginy.

Nobody should be suggesting Harris (or any other woman) is a whore for this alone.   It is despicable and MAGA's oft repeated labeling of Harris a whore should be condemned, not spun.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.34  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.33    2 weeks ago
You tried to bypass the earned criticism of MAGA's comment by making a conditional statement.   I am not letting that stand.

It sounds as if he supports or agrees with MAGA's assertion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.34    2 weeks ago

Exactly.   There is no middle ground here.   MAGA continues to label Harris a whore.   MAGA offers no conditionals, he simply makes the claim based (via comment history) on her one year relationship with Brown 25 years ago.

Clear as a bell.

So spinning this is tacit support for MAGA's comment.   Anyone who supports MAGA's comment is operating on mysoginistic principles and I will respond accordingly.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.36  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.35    2 weeks ago

There is a woman who said (in 2016) that Trump grabbed her by the pussy as they sat on a couch in a Manhattan club years ago.  She says she did not know Donald Trump. 

Why do we spend so much time worrying about who Kamala Harris consensually had sex with  years ago when we have a president accused of sexual assault numerous times and the subject barely gets off the ground?

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.37  Gazoo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.33    2 weeks ago

It all boils down to motive, and we do not know her motive. Maybe her decision was pure, or maybe it was selfish. We don’t know, only she knows. It is quite possible maga is right. It’s also quite possible he’s wrong. And that goes for any person in the same situation.

i’m not going to go there because i don’t know. I will admit its possible though. Maga doesn’t know yet insists she is. You don’t know but insists she isn’t and claim misogyny. 

one final time, nobody here knows the truth yet one person claims she is while another claims she isn’t and it’s misogynistic while a third claims it’s possible but admits we don’t know and will never know. That’s it in a nutshell.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.38  Kavika   replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.36    2 weeks ago

I find it quite interesting how the right-wingers are so interested in Kamala sex life. You really have to wonder why that is. 

They probably are trying to avoid discussing this group of whores. 

512

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.39  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @4.1.38    2 weeks ago

Men are called MAC's not whores when they get a lot of ass. I as a MAC no this but in fairness my MAC days ended 33 years ago. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
4.1.40  Gazoo  replied to  Kavika @4.1.38    2 weeks ago

I don’t think you understand what a whore is.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.41  Kavika   replied to  Gazoo @4.1.40    2 weeks ago

Oh, I understand what a whore is, it's you that is struggling with the meaning. Why are you so interested in Kamala's sex life. It was a year long and consensual relationship. 

You would be better served to explain why Trump is not allowing the administration pandemic team to meet and coordinate with the incoming team. 

I know that may be difficult for you but if you get your mind off of Kamala sex life you could take a stab at it.

Or perhaps it's because you don't care about hundreds of thousands of Americans catching the virus and thousands dying from it, hospitals being overwhelmed and health workers struggling to help and some of them dying as well. 

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.42  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @4.1.39    2 weeks ago

Enlighting to say the least.

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.43  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.39    2 weeks ago

That is outdated thinking and needs to end NOW.  Your dim view of women is noted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.36    2 weeks ago

You totally missed the point then.    

If someone on NT repeatedly makes blatantly misogynistic comments, do you really have a problem with them being challenged?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.37    2 weeks ago

Correct, we do not know her motive.   So how can you defend MAGA’s allegation that she is a whore?    

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @4.1.41    2 weeks ago

 Four years obsessing about Trump's relationships and not a peep. But Harris accepts a taxpayer funded position from the man she's sleeping with and that's off limits.  .  Hypocrisy much?

 because you don't care about hundreds of thousands of Americans catching the virus and thousands dying from it, h

what a despicable argument. If you talk about anything other than the virus, you don't care about it's victims. Good luck living up to that standard. 

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.47  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.46    2 weeks ago
Four years obsessing about Trump's relationships and not a peep. But Harris accepts a taxpayer funded position from the man she's sleeping with and that's off limits.  .  Hypocrisy much?

Did I say it was off limits, no I didn't. You and any other righties can obsess over it to your little heart's content. I would think that you'd have better things to do with your time, but it is your time. 

what a despicable argument. If you talk about anything other than the virus, you don't care about it's victims. Good luck living up to that standard. 

A despicable argument, LOL if anything is despicable it's your inability or willful ignorance to be able to recognize the cold hard facts of it. I have no trouble living up to my high standards. Your standards on the other hand seem to need a hand up. 

whats-driving-you-nuts-squirrel-meme.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.46    2 weeks ago
But Harris accepts a taxpayer funded position from the man she's sleeping with and that's off limits.

Feel free to criticize people who have benefited from others opening doors for them.   Accuse them of getting unfair advantages, etc. 

This is about calling a woman a whore simply because her boyfriend of a year opened a low-level door for her career.

If a woman gets a career opportunity due to the efforts of her boyfriend of a year, do you label her a whore?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.49  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.35    2 weeks ago
MAGA offers no conditionals, he simply makes the claim

Isn't that always the case of all his claims?

So spinning this is tacit support for MAGA's comment.   Anyone who supports MAGA's comment is operating on mysoginistic principles and I will respond accordingly.

Agreed.

Correct, we do not know her motive.

Even if we assume her motive was sleeping around for professional gain, that was 25 years ago and everything she has accomplished since then was probably due to her own merits and abilities.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.50  MUVA  replied to  Veronica @4.1.43    2 weeks ago

You really can't tell when something is said tongue in cheek really ?But I'm interested what are you going to do about the way people feel treat women how are you going to end it NOW and when OR if you do end it NOW can you start on racism?

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.51  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.50    2 weeks ago

Repeated on multiple threads pretty much shows your posts as your beliefs - not tongue in cheek, but simply how you view women.  What I am going to do is POINT IT out every time I see it so others see your posts for what they are.

Until people stand up & point this shit our & make others truly aware nothing changes.  You want racism to end - stand up against it instead of swallowing it & supporting a racist president.  You don't want to - don't but don't condemn people for trying to stop the shit. 

Don't post shit & people won't call you on it.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.52  MUVA  replied to  Veronica @4.1.51    2 weeks ago

It will still be tongue in cheek .I want to know how you are going to end NOW how people [think? Deleted] I will continue to post and think whatever I fucking want to thank you very much.

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.53  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.52    2 weeks ago

And I will keep pointing out your fucking bias.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1.54  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @4.1.16    2 weeks ago

Mary Magdalan was a whore because she slept around and accepted gifts

yet Christ forgave her,

possibly married her.

Why can't you be more like Christ and drop the hatred ?

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.55  MUVA  replied to  Veronica @4.1.53    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.56  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.55    2 weeks ago
And you will continue to be wrong

According to you.  In my eyes not so much - you are the one that is in the wrong.

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.57  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.55    2 weeks ago
wrong as usual about everything

Yep - another woman hating statement.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.58  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @4.1.56    2 weeks ago
In my eyes not so much - you are the one that is in the wrong.

In my eyes too.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.59  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.58    2 weeks ago

Well Gordy you are also consistent.  

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.60  MUVA  replied to  Veronica @4.1.57    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.61  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.60    2 weeks ago

Huh, your wife don't know shit either.  Been married to the same guy for over 35 years & we dated for 7 years before we married.  I read your comments to my hubby & he laughs & says "Oh one of those guys who are scared of strong women & have to call them whores & sluts to demean them & make him feel like a man."

But you know I am a woman & you stated I am always wrong.... 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.62  r.t..b...  replied to  Veronica @4.1.61    2 weeks ago

You and your husband are welcome in our home as the fates will allow where we will celebrate our long lasting relationships...in the understanding of and appreciation for the strengths that we all bring in making it a mutually beneficial endeavor.
Peace to you and yours, V. and let the chatterers chat away. 

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.63  Veronica  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1.62    2 weeks ago

Why thank you.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.64  r.t..b...  replied to  Veronica @4.1.63    2 weeks ago

You are welcome...as is your opinion. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.65  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @4.1.59    2 weeks ago
Well Gordy you are also consistent.

Do you have some point to make?

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.66  MUVA  replied to  Veronica @4.1.61    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
4.1.67  Veronica  replied to  MUVA @4.1.66    2 weeks ago

Calling me a LIAR?  I think that is a ticket worthy comment.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1.68  r.t..b...  replied to  MUVA @4.1.66    2 weeks ago

Time to move on, Muva...unless you have a point you wish to properly punctuate. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5  Paula Bartholomew    3 weeks ago

I've posted this before but will again.  It is time for a new amendment barring any president who has been impeached from ever running again.  Hopefully Trump will be in prison far past 2024 and won't be able to even consider it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5    3 weeks ago

I agree.

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.1  MAGA  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1    2 weeks ago

So if a house of another party impeached a president during his first term that president should be in eligible to run for election again regardless what the senate does.  Great idea for a GOP house after the midterms to do to Biden and Harris!  

 
 
 
Save Me Jebus
6  Save Me Jebus    3 weeks ago

That's quite the picture of Trump. I'm assuming it's Hannity that's down below?

 
 
 
devangelical
6.1  devangelical  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6    3 weeks ago

... ivanka

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6    3 weeks ago

...Pillow guy.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2    3 weeks ago

Jeff Sessions aka the Keibler Elf.  He would not even have to get on his knees.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6    3 weeks ago
That's quite the picture of Trump.

Eye's closed, mouth open and waiting, just like Putin asked or the world will see the pee tapes.

 
 
 
Save Me Jebus
6.3.1  Save Me Jebus  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3    3 weeks ago

Hahaha.

Though now that Putin has no use for Dear Leader anymore, do you suppose he might release the pee just for fun?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6.3.1    3 weeks ago
Though now that Putin has no use for Dear Leader anymore

I think Putin continues to view him as a useful idiot, only when he's completely disgraced and thrown in jail will we see the pee tapes which Putin will rub in Americas face to show how much control he wielded during the Trump regime.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.2    3 weeks ago

you crack me up with this pee tape nonsense.

When will you ever learn to stop parroting shit like that, all the while never producing one iota of evidence?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.3.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.3    3 weeks ago

When will you ever learn to stop parroting shit like tha

At least it sends a signal to the rational minded of what you are dealing with.  It's like a warning flare. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6.3.1    3 weeks ago

Maybe it will end up on You Tube.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.4    3 weeks ago

What is sad is the fact that some actually believe it wholeheartedly.

Can you even IMAGINE being THAT damn gullible?

 
 
 
Krishna
6.3.7  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.3    3 weeks ago
you crack me up with this pee tape nonsense. When will you ever learn to stop parroting shit like that,

I think you be getting your #1 and #2 confused!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @6.3.7    3 weeks ago

naw--shit is still shit, even when you dress it up and put lipstick on it.

Say, YOU don't have any evidence of this alleged pee tape ya'll keep braying about, do you?

Naw, I didn't think so.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
6.3.9  SteevieGee  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6.3.1    2 weeks ago

You need to monitor porn hub just in case.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
6.4  MonsterMash  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6    3 weeks ago

Michelle Obama

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
6.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Save Me Jebus @6    3 weeks ago

It’s any random Trump supporter.

384

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.5.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.5    3 weeks ago

Trump - "Damn it! I said no biting!"

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.5.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.5    3 weeks ago

Is that Nick Sandmann?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
6.5.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.5.1    3 weeks ago

It wouldn’t be difficult for him to find one with no teeth.  Reminds me of the old joke:

Q:  How do we know the toothbrush was invented in West Virginia?

A:  Anywhere else would have called it a teethbrush.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.5.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.5.3    2 weeks ago

Do you know why so few murders are solved there?

DNA is all the same and no dental records.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

Well, Trump planning to run in 2024 puts to rest the Democrat's fearmonger that Trump won't leave.

Trump is being overly optimistic.  Odds are that Kamala Harris will be the incumbent for the 2024 election.  And that will mean Trump has a good chance at winning.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @7    3 weeks ago
And that will mean Trump has a good chance at winning.

But he's have to get the Republican nomination first. And given the amount of damage he's done to the Republican party, its doubtful they'll want to nominate a total sleaze like Trump once again!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @7.1    3 weeks ago

He came pretty damn close to winning this election. There are still plenty of his cult who are out there worshipping every word that comes out of the mouth of The Great One

 
 
 
AndrewK
7.2  AndrewK  replied to  Nerm_L @7    3 weeks ago

If we're talking odds, an obese 74 year old Trump has a shorter life expectancy than non-obese 77 year old Biden. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

This suggests he is at least internally acknowledging that Biden won.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @8    3 weeks ago

How do we turn that innie into an outie?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    3 weeks ago

Time + the CotUS.   Jan 20th, 2021.

 
 
 
Split Personality
9  Split Personality    3 weeks ago

Meanwhile back at the WH where they are not conceding anything....

If you are one of the 4,000 Trump hires and get caught looking for your next job, you will be fired.

 
 
 
Krishna
9.1  Krishna  replied to  Split Personality @9    3 weeks ago
Meanwhile back at the WH where they are not conceding anything.... If you are one of the 4,000 Trump hires and get caught looking for your next job, you will be fired.

Well if they've worked at the WH under the "Super-Spreader in Chief", they may be dead from the Corona Virus before they can get fired! :-(

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Krishna @9.1    2 weeks ago

I heard that half of his SS detail has come down with it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @9    3 weeks ago

I'd take my chances. As of matter of fact, I think I would just go ahead and hand in my resignation

 
 
 
MonsterMash
10  MonsterMash    3 weeks ago

HALEY/COTTEN  2024

 
 
 
Gsquared
10.1  Gsquared  replied to  MonsterMash @10    3 weeks ago

Here's your ticket:

800

800

 
 
 
Krishna
10.2  Krishna  replied to  MonsterMash @10    3 weeks ago
HALEY/COTTEN  2024

Perhaps you'd like Mutt and Jeff 2024!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Krishna @10.2    3 weeks ago

Same thing.

 
 
 
MAGA
10.2.2  MAGA  replied to  Krishna @10.2    2 weeks ago

That’s what we are getting in January

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
10.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  MonsterMash @10    3 weeks ago

You don't want Cotton. He doesn't care about anyone and I hear he's gay. Not exactly what you're looking for in a candidate

 
 
 
freepress
11  freepress    2 weeks ago

Ha,ha,ha, the jokes on them. He is grifting off the promise of a "win" continuing to solicit donations for a recount which has disclaimer about how the money will be used for paying off his campaign debt. A debt, which like Gingrich, he will NEVER repay. The same way he will never pay the many states he ripped off for his "rallies" on the taxpayer dime while in office. The entire 4 years was a failed re-election grift off the backs of the gullible who totally bought the Barnum & Bailey circus of lies.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gsquared
Texan1211
devangelical
cjcold
Kavika
MUVA


51 visitors