Bruddah IZ
DA
True. Thatʻs why Iʻm always laughing at you people. You donʻt piss me off.
The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread
- Thread starter Nonononono
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
Have they removed Trump yet?
Hüsker Dü
DA
People with any sort of intelligence piss him off.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Not anyone here though.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Sharpie gate.
Oh Bob......
You must admit you do enjoy plying/flushing your own waste....as it shows.
I noticed that all the Trump 2020 flags have disappeared from my morning walk around the golf course. Maybe it's because of the wind.
On the other hand, a house 2 doors down is having a new roof put on. That's definitely because of the sun, because the roof replacement is in preparation for the installation of solar panels.
On the other hand, a house 2 doors down is having a new roof put on. That's definitely because of the sun, because the roof replacement is in preparation for the installation of solar panels.
Are you seriously going to state that in your post.....
I can easily link all of your implied disappearances
of 2020 " Flags " to your past posts of " walking " around
a specific facility......
Ahmmmm.....here's a refresher dirtbag...
You state you walk around the " Golf Course "
During your walk around the " Golf Course " you
imply that Trump 2020 flags are coming up missing.
You have a posting HISTORY of admitting and posting
pictures of stolen items you confessed to taking from
a " Golf Course " that is most likely the same
" Golf Course " you currently walk around.....
Then you attempted to " Negotiate " the sale of admitted
stolen items to another poster on this forum....
(That poster admitted to using these types of items
in his excursions at various facilities that require these
items.)
Your posting history displays a solid bias against Trump
and anything affiliated with him....
Your Posting history also has a confirmed record of Lying.
Therefore I can only ascertain that a higher % source of the
missing Trump 2020 flags would be an individual
removing them.....not the wind blowing them away or you
would have stated you found some of the flags randomly on
your walks....
In other words.....I think you are like the " Clepto "
who returns to the scene to affirm his deeds...
You just had to do it on a forum..........
Now what Mr Coocoo - QED
This is exactly how dumb you people are, nono, multi, etc.
A friend of mine on fb just posted this.
When voters are as stupid as you and her, our republic has no hope...
This is what we are up against. I posted a video of tRump’s wonderful reception at game 5 of the World Series. I got this from a woman in the South. She actually believes this.
“Soros gave each person $1000 and a game ticket to pull that off.”
A friend of mine on fb just posted this.
When voters are as stupid as you and her, our republic has no hope...
This is what we are up against. I posted a video of tRump’s wonderful reception at game 5 of the World Series. I got this from a woman in the South. She actually believes this.
“Soros gave each person $1000 and a game ticket to pull that off.”
Sheriff Joe
DA
YIKES!
Maybe it's a small carrier and they floated it down the Euphrates. That woulda got it close... but they had to drop it in after the dam, so... it still had to be a ship of the desert for a few miles anyway...
Maybe it was really a canoe. With 18,000 troops. Floating to the Kingdom of Saud. Or just to guard the oil. But in either case Huli Huli Boi will be Very. Upset. (tm) about the suicides the new deployment will cause.
Huli is such a dumb hypocrite. He's not even smart enough to know that Don the Con was bound to change his mind once a few rational people got to him. So now we have more troops in Syria and Huli thinks that has something to do with Carriers. What a cluck.
Sheriff Joe
DA
May I Introduce to You the Young Man Believed to be the ‘Whistleblower’; Pssst: He Also Tried to Interfere in 2016 Election
Posted at 5:34 am on October 31, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
On Oct. 28, 2013, President Barack Obama and James Comey participate in the installation ceremony for Mr. Comey as FBI director at the bureau’s Washington headquarters. PHOTO: CHARLES DHARAPAK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Real Clear Investigation’s (RCI) Paul Sperry has revealed the name of the young man he believes is the Ukraine “whistleblower.” If true, and Sperry makes an extremely compelling case, I suppose he is no longer a whistleblower. A better description might be “person of interest.”
Apparently, all of Washington has known his name for quite some time. I first heard his name as one of three possibilities a couple of weeks ago. And last weekend, an OANN report revealed his identity. His name is Eric Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah). He is a 33-year-old CIA analyst who once worked for (drumroll please)…former CIA Director John Brennan.
Sperry wrote a detailed piece about Ciaramella which can be viewed here.
Excerpts from Sperry’s report:
The Washington Examiner’s Steven Nelson contacted Ciaramella’s attorney’s office on Wednesday after Sperry’s report was published. Their spokesperson refused to confirm or deny if Ciaramella was the whistleblower.
This is the individual about whom Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote had “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate.”
Sheriff Joe
DA
October 30, 2019
Vindman: Another impeachment witness who's not exactly unimpeachable
By Monica Showalter
It's happening again.
The Democrats have trotted out for the cameras another supposedly unimpeachable impeachment hearing witness, building him up as the Ultimate Trump Slayer, the trump-Trump trump card, the reason it's now all over for President Trump. We've seen this show before, first, during the Mueller special counsel affair. Then with NSC aide Fiona Hill. Then with U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor. The cold hard facts show something different.
This time, it was National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman, billed as the top Ukraine man for the president, reporting to former top Russia hand Fiona Hill, an NSC aide who had Joe Biden write the top blurb to her 2012 scholarly book on Vladimir Putin. Like Hill, Vindman was sold to the public by the Democrats as someone unimpeachable — nonpartisan, objective, and in his case a decorated war veteran and the ultimate immigrant success story, in reference to his background as a 1979 Ukrainian Jewish refugee emigrating from the old Soviet Union.
Here are some problems with that "narrative":
First, the public relations buildup, which was twofold.
The New York Times, in the space of less than a day, it seems, given the short notice of the announcement of the impeachment witnesses, put out a long and positively hagiographically glowing profile, with oodles of tiny details that can't be found on Google. Think they had some help for the big Hollywood-style buildup of Vindman, from the Democrats putting on this show? I am going to guess yes.
The other thing was Vindman's showing up for the cameras in a spotless military uniform, medals gleaming from his chest. The guy always wore a suit and tie to his NSC job. Let's call that what it is: some public relations manipulations to keep Republicans from seeming too mean to him by asking him tough questions. And of course, a bid to win the public over to impeachment, given that the public still respects the troops. If this trooper says something, why, then, all of them must think the same. They never extended such courtesies to, say, Oliver North, or Michael Flynn, but now a uniform is useful for their purposes, one that neither they nor Vindman in his NSC job ever had use for before. Packaging. And in any case, all kinds of people have military medals, because combat does not distinguish political opinions. In other words, many medals are worn by NeverTrumps. The same deal goes for Jewish émigrés from the USSR. Two words: Max Boot. The public relations buildup is attempting to trump facts with emotional imagery.
There's more. During the question-and-answer section, Vindman attempted to make changes to an official transcript, given that he was in on the July call between Ukraine's president and President Trump. The reportage suggests that President Trump's transcript was dishonestly concealing references to Burisma. But there are a lot of reasons an ellipsis could have been used — the tape didn't catch the word, etc. Vindman argues that he knew the word that quite possibly the machine did not. He also was quick to run to lawyers and, like Taylor, seemed to be obsessed with chain of command, which the commander in chief does not have to follow in precisely the way Vindman prefers. Correct the record? It certainly also was a convenient opportunity for a NeverTrump to place in the words he wanted. The Times says he tried to "correct" the transcript. He may just as easily have been trying to insert words that were never said out of a NeverTrump political motivation.
And about Burisma, the huge, flamingly corrupt energy company in Ukraine that amounts to a gargantuan slice of the economy of that country — it is hardly no national security concern, as Vindman argued in his opening statement. That Joe Biden's son was making tens of thousands of dollars each month in a no-show board job, and that Vindman argued that this wasn't a national security priority, calls into question his so-called expertise. Actually, it makes an argument that he just hated Trump.
Here's more — he apparently worked as a registered foreign agent for Ukraine, which is an astonishing conflict of interest with work on the National Security Council, and leaking presidential transcripts to Ukraine. That's probably the biggest conflict of interest of all. Mister Probity? Thus far, the evidence doesn't show it. Here are some choice tweets and important links from those who have looked into this even further.
Image credit: ABC News via shareable YouTube screen shot.
It's happening again.
The Democrats have trotted out for the cameras another supposedly unimpeachable impeachment hearing witness, building him up as the Ultimate Trump Slayer, the trump-Trump trump card, the reason it's now all over for President Trump. We've seen this show before, first, during the Mueller special counsel affair. Then with NSC aide Fiona Hill. Then with U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor. The cold hard facts show something different.
This time, it was National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman, billed as the top Ukraine man for the president, reporting to former top Russia hand Fiona Hill, an NSC aide who had Joe Biden write the top blurb to her 2012 scholarly book on Vladimir Putin. Like Hill, Vindman was sold to the public by the Democrats as someone unimpeachable — nonpartisan, objective, and in his case a decorated war veteran and the ultimate immigrant success story, in reference to his background as a 1979 Ukrainian Jewish refugee emigrating from the old Soviet Union.
Here are some problems with that "narrative":
First, the public relations buildup, which was twofold.
The New York Times, in the space of less than a day, it seems, given the short notice of the announcement of the impeachment witnesses, put out a long and positively hagiographically glowing profile, with oodles of tiny details that can't be found on Google. Think they had some help for the big Hollywood-style buildup of Vindman, from the Democrats putting on this show? I am going to guess yes.
The other thing was Vindman's showing up for the cameras in a spotless military uniform, medals gleaming from his chest. The guy always wore a suit and tie to his NSC job. Let's call that what it is: some public relations manipulations to keep Republicans from seeming too mean to him by asking him tough questions. And of course, a bid to win the public over to impeachment, given that the public still respects the troops. If this trooper says something, why, then, all of them must think the same. They never extended such courtesies to, say, Oliver North, or Michael Flynn, but now a uniform is useful for their purposes, one that neither they nor Vindman in his NSC job ever had use for before. Packaging. And in any case, all kinds of people have military medals, because combat does not distinguish political opinions. In other words, many medals are worn by NeverTrumps. The same deal goes for Jewish émigrés from the USSR. Two words: Max Boot. The public relations buildup is attempting to trump facts with emotional imagery.
There's more. During the question-and-answer section, Vindman attempted to make changes to an official transcript, given that he was in on the July call between Ukraine's president and President Trump. The reportage suggests that President Trump's transcript was dishonestly concealing references to Burisma. But there are a lot of reasons an ellipsis could have been used — the tape didn't catch the word, etc. Vindman argues that he knew the word that quite possibly the machine did not. He also was quick to run to lawyers and, like Taylor, seemed to be obsessed with chain of command, which the commander in chief does not have to follow in precisely the way Vindman prefers. Correct the record? It certainly also was a convenient opportunity for a NeverTrump to place in the words he wanted. The Times says he tried to "correct" the transcript. He may just as easily have been trying to insert words that were never said out of a NeverTrump political motivation.
And about Burisma, the huge, flamingly corrupt energy company in Ukraine that amounts to a gargantuan slice of the economy of that country — it is hardly no national security concern, as Vindman argued in his opening statement. That Joe Biden's son was making tens of thousands of dollars each month in a no-show board job, and that Vindman argued that this wasn't a national security priority, calls into question his so-called expertise. Actually, it makes an argument that he just hated Trump.
Here's more — he apparently worked as a registered foreign agent for Ukraine, which is an astonishing conflict of interest with work on the National Security Council, and leaking presidential transcripts to Ukraine. That's probably the biggest conflict of interest of all. Mister Probity? Thus far, the evidence doesn't show it. Here are some choice tweets and important links from those who have looked into this even further.
Vindman: Another impeachment witness who's not exactly unimpeachable
By Monica Showalter
It's happening again.
The Democrats have trotted out for the cameras another supposedly unimpeachable impeachment hearing witness, building him up as the Ultimate Trump Slayer, the trump-Trump trump card, the reason it's now all over for President Trump. We've seen this show before, first, during the Mueller special counsel affair. Then with NSC aide Fiona Hill. Then with U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor. The cold hard facts show something different.
This time, it was National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman, billed as the top Ukraine man for the president, reporting to former top Russia hand Fiona Hill, an NSC aide who had Joe Biden write the top blurb to her 2012 scholarly book on Vladimir Putin. Like Hill, Vindman was sold to the public by the Democrats as someone unimpeachable — nonpartisan, objective, and in his case a decorated war veteran and the ultimate immigrant success story, in reference to his background as a 1979 Ukrainian Jewish refugee emigrating from the old Soviet Union.
Here are some problems with that "narrative":
First, the public relations buildup, which was twofold.
The New York Times, in the space of less than a day, it seems, given the short notice of the announcement of the impeachment witnesses, put out a long and positively hagiographically glowing profile, with oodles of tiny details that can't be found on Google. Think they had some help for the big Hollywood-style buildup of Vindman, from the Democrats putting on this show? I am going to guess yes.
The other thing was Vindman's showing up for the cameras in a spotless military uniform, medals gleaming from his chest. The guy always wore a suit and tie to his NSC job. Let's call that what it is: some public relations manipulations to keep Republicans from seeming too mean to him by asking him tough questions. And of course, a bid to win the public over to impeachment, given that the public still respects the troops. If this trooper says something, why, then, all of them must think the same. They never extended such courtesies to, say, Oliver North, or Michael Flynn, but now a uniform is useful for their purposes, one that neither they nor Vindman in his NSC job ever had use for before. Packaging. And in any case, all kinds of people have military medals, because combat does not distinguish political opinions. In other words, many medals are worn by NeverTrumps. The same deal goes for Jewish émigrés from the USSR. Two words: Max Boot. The public relations buildup is attempting to trump facts with emotional imagery.
There's more. During the question-and-answer section, Vindman attempted to make changes to an official transcript, given that he was in on the July call between Ukraine's president and President Trump. The reportage suggests that President Trump's transcript was dishonestly concealing references to Burisma. But there are a lot of reasons an ellipsis could have been used — the tape didn't catch the word, etc. Vindman argues that he knew the word that quite possibly the machine did not. He also was quick to run to lawyers and, like Taylor, seemed to be obsessed with chain of command, which the commander in chief does not have to follow in precisely the way Vindman prefers. Correct the record? It certainly also was a convenient opportunity for a NeverTrump to place in the words he wanted. The Times says he tried to "correct" the transcript. He may just as easily have been trying to insert words that were never said out of a NeverTrump political motivation.
And about Burisma, the huge, flamingly corrupt energy company in Ukraine that amounts to a gargantuan slice of the economy of that country — it is hardly no national security concern, as Vindman argued in his opening statement. That Joe Biden's son was making tens of thousands of dollars each month in a no-show board job, and that Vindman argued that this wasn't a national security priority, calls into question his so-called expertise. Actually, it makes an argument that he just hated Trump.
Here's more — he apparently worked as a registered foreign agent for Ukraine, which is an astonishing conflict of interest with work on the National Security Council, and leaking presidential transcripts to Ukraine. That's probably the biggest conflict of interest of all. Mister Probity? Thus far, the evidence doesn't show it. Here are some choice tweets and important links from those who have looked into this even further.
Image credit: ABC News via shareable YouTube screen shot.
It's happening again.
The Democrats have trotted out for the cameras another supposedly unimpeachable impeachment hearing witness, building him up as the Ultimate Trump Slayer, the trump-Trump trump card, the reason it's now all over for President Trump. We've seen this show before, first, during the Mueller special counsel affair. Then with NSC aide Fiona Hill. Then with U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor. The cold hard facts show something different.
This time, it was National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman, billed as the top Ukraine man for the president, reporting to former top Russia hand Fiona Hill, an NSC aide who had Joe Biden write the top blurb to her 2012 scholarly book on Vladimir Putin. Like Hill, Vindman was sold to the public by the Democrats as someone unimpeachable — nonpartisan, objective, and in his case a decorated war veteran and the ultimate immigrant success story, in reference to his background as a 1979 Ukrainian Jewish refugee emigrating from the old Soviet Union.
Here are some problems with that "narrative":
First, the public relations buildup, which was twofold.
The New York Times, in the space of less than a day, it seems, given the short notice of the announcement of the impeachment witnesses, put out a long and positively hagiographically glowing profile, with oodles of tiny details that can't be found on Google. Think they had some help for the big Hollywood-style buildup of Vindman, from the Democrats putting on this show? I am going to guess yes.
The other thing was Vindman's showing up for the cameras in a spotless military uniform, medals gleaming from his chest. The guy always wore a suit and tie to his NSC job. Let's call that what it is: some public relations manipulations to keep Republicans from seeming too mean to him by asking him tough questions. And of course, a bid to win the public over to impeachment, given that the public still respects the troops. If this trooper says something, why, then, all of them must think the same. They never extended such courtesies to, say, Oliver North, or Michael Flynn, but now a uniform is useful for their purposes, one that neither they nor Vindman in his NSC job ever had use for before. Packaging. And in any case, all kinds of people have military medals, because combat does not distinguish political opinions. In other words, many medals are worn by NeverTrumps. The same deal goes for Jewish émigrés from the USSR. Two words: Max Boot. The public relations buildup is attempting to trump facts with emotional imagery.
There's more. During the question-and-answer section, Vindman attempted to make changes to an official transcript, given that he was in on the July call between Ukraine's president and President Trump. The reportage suggests that President Trump's transcript was dishonestly concealing references to Burisma. But there are a lot of reasons an ellipsis could have been used — the tape didn't catch the word, etc. Vindman argues that he knew the word that quite possibly the machine did not. He also was quick to run to lawyers and, like Taylor, seemed to be obsessed with chain of command, which the commander in chief does not have to follow in precisely the way Vindman prefers. Correct the record? It certainly also was a convenient opportunity for a NeverTrump to place in the words he wanted. The Times says he tried to "correct" the transcript. He may just as easily have been trying to insert words that were never said out of a NeverTrump political motivation.
And about Burisma, the huge, flamingly corrupt energy company in Ukraine that amounts to a gargantuan slice of the economy of that country — it is hardly no national security concern, as Vindman argued in his opening statement. That Joe Biden's son was making tens of thousands of dollars each month in a no-show board job, and that Vindman argued that this wasn't a national security priority, calls into question his so-called expertise. Actually, it makes an argument that he just hated Trump.
Here's more — he apparently worked as a registered foreign agent for Ukraine, which is an astonishing conflict of interest with work on the National Security Council, and leaking presidential transcripts to Ukraine. That's probably the biggest conflict of interest of all. Mister Probity? Thus far, the evidence doesn't show it. Here are some choice tweets and important links from those who have looked into this even further.
What’s with you and all the fake news today? Deficit? Troops not coming home? Elitist Commie.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Itʻs okay if you donʻt know the reach of a carrier by now. Nor the reach of the rest of the carrier groups cruisers. The sand box is easy to patrol. A canoe club like youʻve never seen before. Your knowledge of the military, ʻbout the same as finance. Spigot boy