Sekirodiealot
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 18 Gru 2019
I figured he'd react like that
Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿
- Twórca wątku Randall Fragg
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Dołączono
- 17 Mar 2020
What is his plan if trump wins or joe Biden wins
Both endings We will get content and potential a thread on this site
Biden wins ending his business will dry up And be living in the streets and use that book he made as TO
Trump wins he gets to join the traitors when they Secede from the union
- Dołączono
- 10 Sie 2019
Looks like you're screwed then.
- Dołączono
- 16 Maj 2019
Same. I'm still on the "don't call your shots just drop the bombshells raw" mode of thinking, and the threat looked like weak cope. If 60 Minutes was a better organization they would've released first once Trump made the threat.
Glad he delivered, OP was not a faggot for once.
- Dołączono
- 21 Lut 2018
Omg I'm so glad I forced myself past some of the most infuriating media unfairness because 26:07 is topkek.https://youtube.com/watch?v=CqVX29JTZ4sHe actually posted the entire video. I thought he was bluffing.
Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse! #MAGA
Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse! #MAGAwww.facebook.com
Trump releases contentious ‘60 Minutes’ footage before broadcast
President Trump on Thursday released nearly 38 minutes of video footage from a “60 Minutes” interview that he walked out of Tuesday after claiming bias from correspondent Lesley Stahl. “Look a…nypost.com
Trump releases contentious ‘60 Minutes’ footage before broadcast
Not even gonna transcribe it bc it has to be heard.
- Dołączono
- 27 Wrz 2018
Does she literally start crying around 29 minutes? Lmao, I'd say getting bullied by Big Bad Drumph is what you all deserve but it probably wasn't even a real cry. I wonder if they'll try and include that in whatever deceptive cut they end up releasing.https://youtube.com/watch?v=CqVX29JTZ4sHe actually posted the entire video. I thought he was bluffing.Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse! #MAGA
Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse! #MAGA
Trump releases contentious ‘60 Minutes’ footage before broadcast
President Trump on Thursday released nearly 38 minutes of video footage from a “60 Minutes” interview that he walked out of Tuesday after claiming bias from correspondent Lesley Stahl. “Look a…Trump releases contentious ‘60 Minutes’ footage before broadcast
Inventor of the Telephone
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 29 Wrz 2020
Stahl: yOu'Re VeRy aGgReSsIvE.
Trump: *turns to Pence, all smiles* Hi, Mike, how you doing, you having a good time?
- Dołączono
- 16 Gru 2019
I think what made Trump release it was the lie that he stormed off the set when he didn’t. Stop fucking lying.mp3
also what a pathetic bitch, “it can’t be verified”
defend her Chris Wallace, you both can jerk each other off while crying over being bullied
also what a pathetic bitch, “it can’t be verified”
defend her Chris Wallace, you both can jerk each other off while crying over being bullied
Inventor of the Telephone
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 29 Wrz 2020
She interviewed Pence directly afterwards:
Stahl: So, uh, what just happened with the president?
Pence: President Trump is man of great passion, he speaks his mind.
Stahl: But why he walk out.
Pence: *reiterates*
Stahl: But w-w-why he walk out.
Pence: *initiates press release mode*
Stahl: *initiates mega-bitch mode* Are you not going to answer our questions?
Pence is really good at answering questions with non-answers. He may have been manufactured in the same facility that produced Zuckerberg. He's like a caricature of a politician from The Simpsons.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 17 Gru 2019
>Obama is well-respected around the world
>yeah thats why Asia & the Middle East treated him like a joke
- Dołączono
- 13 Paź 2020
Trump may be many negative things. A fucking war criminal with good rep with the media that decried Dubya's war crimes is not one of them.
I look forward to the thread on this guy. I mean, what does he even do with his life, other than bloating his liver over Trump?
- Dołączono
- 26 Lis 2018
Pence is the model of a safe establishment politician. He plays by the book, he's a sportsman, and he sticks to his morals. There were worse candidates than he, and he sure as hell won't be caught sniffing hair any time soon.
- Dołączono
- 27 Wrz 2018
Pence is pretty much a composite of the elder statesman stock character and he complements Trump well. There are times when I think Trump could stand to behave more like he does, particularly with their respective debate performances but overall Trump's bull in a china shop approach is what you need when dealing with lying journos in the media like this.
To liberals that yearn for the 'good old days' of Obama 'respect' from simping cosmopolitan euros is the only respect that matters.
- Dołączono
- 24 Cze 2020
Mmm.... the salt.
- Dołączono
- 12 Sty 2017
https://youtube.com/watch?v=CqVX29JTZ4sHe actually posted the entire video. I thought he was bluffing.Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse! #MAGA
Look at the bias, hatred and rudeness on behalf of 60 Minutes and CBS. Tonight’s anchor, Kristen Welker, is far worse! #MAGA
Trump releases contentious ‘60 Minutes’ footage before broadcast
President Trump on Thursday released nearly 38 minutes of video footage from a “60 Minutes” interview that he walked out of Tuesday after claiming bias from correspondent Lesley Stahl. “Look a…Trump releases contentious ‘60 Minutes’ footage before broadcast
The pouty, puckered lips of Lesley ties the room together.
- Dołączono
- 16 Sie 2018
Super-Chevy454
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 2 Kwi 2018
As well as having a son acting like Hunter Biden the hunted.
Pope Negro Joe the XIIIth
AI Pope of Entropic Declesiastics/Ver. U+1F0ED
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 2 Paź 2017
Oh shit, nigga got a dog? Sorry Trump, have to vote against my own interests this round, this nigga got a dog you know?
- Dołączono
- 24 Cze 2020
GlassOfWaterGate?
For fuck's sake....
For fuck's sake....
- Dołączono
- 21 Mar 2019
Does this count as TDS? (2020 election Biden landslide ‘more likely’ than Trump win: Nicholas Kristof) - I feel like it should, even if it's from an absolute rag like Yahoo! News. Every headline I see from them is pretty much TDS riddled, but claiming that 'Biden is more likely to get a landslide victory than Trump' really goes above and beyond. The sheer fantasy that 'vote blue no matter who' can energize a voter base the way a cult of personality does, so that it can landslide like one, is hysterical.
Also the queue was 20,000+ long for some reason.
CNN exclusively used photographs from before his inauguration started and after it ended (there's a giant clock visible in the shots), which made it look like there were barely anyone around. If you actually dug into the images and film of the inauguration proper (particularly the UHD 360 camera they set up that took a picture of the entirety of the crowd centered around the actual ceremony) you could see that it was truthfully packed when the ceremony was going (there's a landmark that can be used to measure the crowd despite the radically different angle.)
Trump responded to CNN's claims saying that his inauguration had the most viewers in history. This is true, but only if you count the streaming services, which didn't really exist for Obama's original inauguration, and nobody really cared that much for his second one.
Truthfully: His inauguration had lower attendance than Obama's first. Although the size of the inauguration is totally meaningless outside of political slapfights, there's known mitigating factors for it, so I'll say them anyway.
- Obama's inauguration was a historic moment, being the first black president. No one short of maybe the first woman will ever reach that level of significance. Hispanic, Asian, Native, etc just aren't going to reach that level, because most people aren't racist and the average American only really thinks about race with any significance when it comes to white v black. And even for the SocJus types, Obama was still the first 'nonwhite' president.
- Despite the above guaranteeing Trump would never reach the level Obama did, there was active supporter suppression going on around the inauguration. People reported having their jobs threatened if they were caught going out to see the inauguration, people were denied vacation days that coincided with the inauguration, and there were very active campaigns to excommunicate, shame, or get fired anyone who was caught out as a 'Trump supporter', like if they went to the inauguration.
- At DC, protestors attempted to hold up traffic and formed human chains to block foot traffic at every single street leading to the inauguration, and had to be forcibly moved by the police, attempting to prevent anyone from attending.
tl;dr - Neither Trump nor CNN lied, but both manipulated the data as they presented it. Trump did have a smaller inauguration than Obama's, but literally anyone other than a woman (not hillary) would have, and the fact that he reached the attendance he did despite the constant attempts to interfere with it in an effort to delegitimize his presidency says more about him and his supporters than any comparison could.
Also "We'll vote him in and then hold him accountable once he wins!!" is absolute horseradish, it's the same myth they claimed with Hillary. Voting is how you hold them accountable. You can make toddler poopy faces and storm around angry all you want when you get offended, but if you vote for them anyway, they don't care. And if you vote congress solid blue, the president blue, and support a candidate who ouright plans to pack the court for political reasons, so it becomes just another branch of congress, you lose the ability to even try to hold them accountable.
Also the queue was 20,000+ long for some reason.
'You're right, both Democrats and Republicans have problems. Now, let me discuss only the flaws the Republicans have, because I neither believe nor care about both sides being flawed, I just want you to vote for my side.' If you want to appeal to someone by saying 'both sides are flawed but let me convince you why you should vote this way anyway' at least make the attempt to discuss both sides' flaws.
This is coming from the people who masturbated to the idea of a country where old people no longer existed and couldn't vote, so that only the 20 and under demographic voted back in 2016, and also the people who raged that old people shouldn't be allowed to vote on climate change or Brexit because 'it doesn't affect them like it does young people'.
in 2016, there were a few places that published lists of not only those who said supportive things of Trump, but a comprehensive list of celebrities and notable figures who just didn't say anything at all. Refusing to speak up on the side of Hillary made them worthy of harassment, because we were to infer they might secretly be Trump supporters, and that's not allowed. You're verbally for them, or you're against them.
This has been a thing since 2017, and the truth is in the middle:
CNN exclusively used photographs from before his inauguration started and after it ended (there's a giant clock visible in the shots), which made it look like there were barely anyone around. If you actually dug into the images and film of the inauguration proper (particularly the UHD 360 camera they set up that took a picture of the entirety of the crowd centered around the actual ceremony) you could see that it was truthfully packed when the ceremony was going (there's a landmark that can be used to measure the crowd despite the radically different angle.)
Trump responded to CNN's claims saying that his inauguration had the most viewers in history. This is true, but only if you count the streaming services, which didn't really exist for Obama's original inauguration, and nobody really cared that much for his second one.
Truthfully: His inauguration had lower attendance than Obama's first. Although the size of the inauguration is totally meaningless outside of political slapfights, there's known mitigating factors for it, so I'll say them anyway.
- Obama's inauguration was a historic moment, being the first black president. No one short of maybe the first woman will ever reach that level of significance. Hispanic, Asian, Native, etc just aren't going to reach that level, because most people aren't racist and the average American only really thinks about race with any significance when it comes to white v black. And even for the SocJus types, Obama was still the first 'nonwhite' president.
- Despite the above guaranteeing Trump would never reach the level Obama did, there was active supporter suppression going on around the inauguration. People reported having their jobs threatened if they were caught going out to see the inauguration, people were denied vacation days that coincided with the inauguration, and there were very active campaigns to excommunicate, shame, or get fired anyone who was caught out as a 'Trump supporter', like if they went to the inauguration.
- At DC, protestors attempted to hold up traffic and formed human chains to block foot traffic at every single street leading to the inauguration, and had to be forcibly moved by the police, attempting to prevent anyone from attending.
tl;dr - Neither Trump nor CNN lied, but both manipulated the data as they presented it. Trump did have a smaller inauguration than Obama's, but literally anyone other than a woman (not hillary) would have, and the fact that he reached the attendance he did despite the constant attempts to interfere with it in an effort to delegitimize his presidency says more about him and his supporters than any comparison could.
You're not getting a 'lesser of two evils' if you're voting to vote someone else out. You'll literally never have the opportunity to vote for someone more than 'the lesser of two evils' if you prove you'll just vote the party line and against 'the big bad red' no matter what your party puts forth.
Also "We'll vote him in and then hold him accountable once he wins!!" is absolute horseradish, it's the same myth they claimed with Hillary. Voting is how you hold them accountable. You can make toddler poopy faces and storm around angry all you want when you get offended, but if you vote for them anyway, they don't care. And if you vote congress solid blue, the president blue, and support a candidate who ouright plans to pack the court for political reasons, so it becomes just another branch of congress, you lose the ability to even try to hold them accountable.