Jump to content

The Joe Biden Presidency Thread


Mr. Hoopah!
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Carter said:

Man I want to laugh but honestly this is infuriating. What kind of piece of **** tries to play the "targeted Trump supporter" victim card with everything that has happened this year involving police and Trump supporters all being the ones saying the victim deserved it.

**** these people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, falconsd56 said:

While all of the details have not been released. There is info regarding the debts he has including including loans on Trump tower.

There is a better than good chance that atleast some of those debts are held by foreign financial institutions....including some that are probably russian.

You'd think with all the coverage the NYT gave to Russiagate that they would have led with the Russia stuff. I wonder why they didn't. I mean is what they have just not that promising? Did the source not consider it to be the main point of interest? I guess it's just surprising that the same information that was going to be so crucial to the Russia stuff actually came out about a month before the elections, and the biggest stink being made is over Trump being exactly the kind of pretend billionaire ******* we thought he was in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I knew for a fact that it would be disappointing the very instant I heard it all came from a leak to the NYT. I'm just saying everyone ought to know by now that that's a strong indication that the leak won't be the kind of leak where you can tell someone about it and they'll feel differently about Trump as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Serge said:

You'd think with all the coverage the NYT gave to Russiagate that they would have led with the Russia stuff. I wonder why they didn't. I mean is what they have just not that promising? Did the source not consider it to be the main point of interest? I guess it's just surprising that the same information that was going to be so crucial to the Russia stuff actually came out about a month before the elections, and the biggest stink being made is over Trump being exactly the kind of pretend billionaire ******* we thought he was in 2016.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say if there were money going to Russian interests it's not going to be in a line item titled 'Russia.'

Besides this was the first story.

You drop something big to get their attention and save the good stuff to keep them coming back for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sun Tzu 7 said:

I'm going to take a wild guess and say if there were money going to Russian interests it's not going to be in a line item titled 'Russia.'

Besides this was the first story.

You drop something big to get their attention and save the good stuff to keep them coming back for more.

Then why wouldn't the NYT start with the Russia stuff and then come back to all the more mundane financial bull****ting Trump's already famous for? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Serge said:

Then why wouldn't the NYT start with the Russia stuff and then come back to all the more mundane financial bull****ting Trump's already famous for? 

You'd be writing pages upon pages of text criticizing the NYT's for leading with the Russia angle if they did that.  Now you're criticizing them for NOT doing what you've complained (falsely) that all media has been doing for years?

Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You'd be writing pages upon pages of text criticizing the NYT's for leading with the Russia angle if they did that.  Now you're criticizing them for NOT doing what you've complained (falsely) that all media has been doing for years?

Ridiculous.

So they shouldn't have led with the Russia stuff they had been talking about for years because a guy on a message board might have posted about it? Do you still think about things before you post them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Serge said:

So they shouldn't have led with the Russia stuff they had been talking about for years because a guy on a message board might have posted about it? Do you still think about things before you post them?

JFC, never said they didn’t because of you.  I was pointing out that you criticized them for supposedly over-coveringRussia and then you criticized them when they don’t lead with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Serge said:

Then why wouldn't the NYT start with the Russia stuff and then come back to all the more mundane financial bull****ting Trump's already famous for? 

Y'all can respond to what I actually post whenever you want. I'm not the one sitting here telling you what you would have posted and then somehow gaining satisfaction by responding to my own imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

JFC, never said they didn’t because of you.  I was pointing out that you criticized them for supposedly over-coveringRussia and then you criticized them when they don’t lead with that.

Yeah, that's why I say it would make a lot more sense from their perspective if they got some good Russia stuff to lead with that. Because they've been pushing that narrative and needed more to go with it. You somehow made that about how I would respond to it, as if that were a real reason not to lead with the Russia stuff. They ought to want to shut people like me up by proving all their Russia coverage was justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm imagining Trout sitting at his table drinking coffee and reading the New York Times in the morning.  Serge walks through the room, sees the paper and loses his ****.  Trout starts telling him it's a great paper with quality journalists, which only makes Serge more upset.  Then uncle B0ner comes in and takes the paper out of Trout's hands.  He smacks Serge across the face with it.  He then lets out a wet fart, reaches back into his pants and wipes his *** with the paper.  He places the paper in front of Trout and stares at him for a solid 3 seconds.  B0ner leaves.  Following that is 12 hours of dialogue between Trout and Serge.  They don't even notice that the **** stained paper has made the room smell like a public bathroom.  They don't care.

Edited by Baby Dik Dik
My former name is now censored
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Baby Dik Dik said:

I'm imagining Trout sitting at his table drinking coffee and reading the New York Times in the morning.  Serge walks through the room, sees the paper and loses his ****.  Trout starts telling him it's a great paper with quality journalists, which only makes Serge more upset.  Then uncle B0ner comes in and takes the paper out of Trout's hands.  He smacks Serge across the face with it.  He then lets out a wet fart, reaches back into his pants and wipes his *** with the paper.  He places the paper in front of Trout and stares at him for a solid 3 seconds.  B0ner leaves.  Following that is 12 hours of dialogue between Trout and Serge.  They don't even notice that the **** stained paper has made the room smell like a public bathroom.  They don't care.

I would have eaten the paper and told Trout to wait for a solid leak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...