Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

04-02-2017 , 05:45 PM
Here are the Democrats that voted YEA for Alito's cloture vote in 2006, which he won 72-25-3. Let's see if any of those Democrats are still there. Which, to be fair, was over a decade ago.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...n=2&vote=00001

YEAs

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA) WILL VOTE NO
Carper (D-DE) WILL VOTE NO
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL) WILL VOTE NO
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

It appears only 3 Democrats remain in the Senate that voted for Alito's cloture motion in 2006. All 3 have stated they will not vote for cloture for Gorsuch.
04-02-2017 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatkid
Is there an argument for not taking a dump in McConnells mouth?
Too much of the smelly brown stuff coming out of his mouth already.
04-02-2017 , 05:45 PM
since yall wanna talk about PBJ or w/e, i'ma turn yall onto something rightchea

https://www.amazon.com/Jams-Jellies-...ASt.%20Dalfour

seems to always be some variance, you can get some flavors cheap from various retailers at different times depending on stock or season or what not
04-02-2017 , 06:18 PM
PB & J boy still thinking he's a pro politics boy. Bro nobody is listening. Take it to T_D.
04-02-2017 , 06:52 PM
I'm confused. Did Trump merely get peed on, or did he ingest the pee?
04-02-2017 , 07:04 PM
Trump: How exposed am I with this dossier?
Lawyer: Urine a little over your head.
04-02-2017 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I'm confused. Did Trump merely get peed on, or did he ingest the pee?
I think he just liked to watch.

Spoiler:
04-02-2017 , 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I'm confused. Did Trump merely get peed on, or did he ingest the pee?
It's not clear that either of those things happened. The document only talks about peeing on the bed specifically, not on any particular individual. But it is more fun to speculate.
04-02-2017 , 07:23 PM
trump: it's not pee, it's squirt!

russian intelligence agent: actually, it's pee

trump: you gotta help me out of this, man
04-02-2017 , 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
I'm confused. Did Trump merely get peed on, or did he ingest the pee?
I thought the dossier stated that he paid escorts (hookers) to pee on each other while he watched.

Edit: Source
04-02-2017 , 07:39 PM
I really enjoy the parenthesis explanations.

(perverted)

(whom he hated)

(urination)
04-02-2017 , 07:41 PM
BTW, in the least surprising reveal ever, apparently Bill O'Reilly was sexually harassing everything that moves at Fox that wasn't already being groped by Ailes. The problem is that these sorts of conservative white males have no culture of responsibility, and their behavior is enabled by low conduct standards and lack of accountability among the business elite. If cops are allowed to do their jobs like they use to, good hard lecture in the back room could do the trick. Anyway, these guys need to pull up their pants, accept Jesus, and stop blaming others for their problems.
04-02-2017 , 07:41 PM
So many Trumpkins would think it was awesome he hired hookers to pee on a bed on which the Obamas had slept.
04-02-2017 , 07:42 PM
Today is a new day and I feel like this administration can really turn things around if we give them a chance. They survived a few bumps in the road and now they seem geared up to excel.
04-02-2017 , 07:44 PM
Also, one can infer from the fact that MSNBC is just the equal and opposite counterpart of Fox that Rachel Maddie was likely doing something similar, so there's that also. She's gotten away with it so far.
04-02-2017 , 08:16 PM
“nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck” — @latimes https://t.co/yS2qVM4XWu

LOS ANGELES TIMES

PART I
Our Dishonest President
PART II
Monday
PART III
Tuesday
PART IV
Wednesday
By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD

APRIL 2, 2017

It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters. The Times called him unprepared and unsuited for the job he was seeking, and said his election would be a “catastrophe.”

Still, nothing prepared us for the magnitude of this train wreck. Like millions of other Americans, we clung to a slim hope that the new president would turn out to be all noise and bluster, or that the people around him in the White House would act as a check on his worst instincts, or that he would be sobered and transformed by the awesome responsibilities of office....

[Looks like three more parts on the way.]

Last edited by simplicitus; 04-02-2017 at 08:21 PM.
04-02-2017 , 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Today is a new day and I feel like this administration can really turn things around if we give them a chance. They survived a few bumps in the road and now they seem geared up to excel.
April Fools was yesterday.
04-02-2017 , 08:39 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...en-trump-putin

Daddy's disappointed. Bad Donald.
04-02-2017 , 09:14 PM
So Trump is lighting up the white house blue tonight in honor of "Autism Speaks." Sounds great, right? But then you find out Autism Speaks is not exactly a great organization for autistic folks.

April, Autism, and Allies
http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/apri...sm-and-allies/
Quote:
Every April, fear-mongering organizations like Autism Speaks – organizations that profit from stigmatizing, harming, and exploiting Autistic people – do a big publicity thing that they call “Autism Awareness Month.” And every April, the Autistic community and their real allies counter by declaring “Autism Acceptance Month,” calling for an end to the stigmatization, pathologizing, and fear-mongering, and, most of all, calling for people to stop supporting Autism Speaks.

And every time we post something asking people to stop supporting Autism Speaks, people argue with us about it. Some of them attack us, some try to engage us in debate, and even the most well-meaning ask the same question we’ve all heard so many times before: “What’s wrong with Autism Speaks?”

Well, here’s the thing. I’m a heterosexual man, and I do my best to be an ally to LGBTQIA people. Now, let’s say I’m doing something that helps to promote or support an organization. Maybe I’m sharing that organization’s stuff on Facebook, or participating in some mass publicity event of theirs. If I start hearing from gay people that the organization in question is harmful to gay people and that they’d rather I not give it my support… I’ll withdraw my support from that organization immediately, and without question. I’ll take down any links I’ve posted online that support that organization. If necessary, I’ll post a public notice that I’ve withdrawn my support, in order to undo any damage I may have done by helping to publicize the organization.

Again, I will do this without question. I will not argue. I will not demand “proof” that the organization is doing harm to LGBTQIA people. First I will withdraw my support from the organization. Then, I will do a bit of research on my own, to find out what’s wrong with the organization.
04-02-2017 , 09:30 PM
That is a horrible sentiment. Asking people to support their claims is not insulting.
04-02-2017 , 09:32 PM
I think the frustration the author is feeling there stems from the fact that Autism Speaks is designed to look like an advocacy/ally organization. If you look at their twitter feed, it looks totally harmless and even positive. Until you realize that many of the memes they are posting are misinformation and very harmful to a vulnerable community. It's probably frustrating to have to explain this over and over to people.

Source for reference:
https://twitter.com/autismspeaks
04-02-2017 , 09:52 PM
Either the best or worst thing about Trump winning is 4 more years of @mitchellvii

04-02-2017 , 10:21 PM
I support the Democrats plans to filibuster. It is time to extend Harry Reid's nuclear option to SCOTUS. Do it now with a solid respectable nominee like Gorsuch, and then when the next vacancy comes up it will be so much easier to send someone through again. A Democrat filibuster is step one of this process.

It's nice to agree with most of you ITT, we can all support the filibuster together.
04-02-2017 , 10:22 PM
Disapproval rating = 118%

Math checks out
04-02-2017 , 10:24 PM
hornbug,

Are you American? If so you should really leave the country. Voting for Trump is unforgivable.

      
m