Pretty disgusting thing to say.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Kasich belongs in the Dem Party. Trump represents GOP voters much more than these clowns like Romney, McCain and Kasich.
Wtf? “I’d” is what he said and is the only way it would make any sense in the context of the sentence.
WSJ? What in the world is wrong with them?
I PROBABLY HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH MARGOT ROBBIE.
That's exactly what it was. All a set up by Team Obama
Unbelievable. He clearly says I’d probably. They double down on lies all the time now and they wonder why people detest the media?
The retarded liberals in that thread are unbelievably dumb and/or they’re so unhinged that they can’t even admit a simple truth. There’s this moronic black woman on there that keeps saying he clearly did not say I’d. Uh yeah, he did. “I’d probably” is what he said. His voice even changes.
You can’t reason with these people.
You can’t reason with these people.
are we listening to the same audio? It sounds a lot more like I than I'd. and the WSJ recording is much more clear, the WH seems to be using a very cheap recorder. Why is the WH even focused on something this pointless? If he accidentally said I instead of I'd who cares.
If our political discourse has devolved into people taking a line-in-the-sand no-retreat no-surrender stand over I vs. I'd in an audio recording and how that profoundly affects the interpretation of a statement by the president, damn. Just damn. Let's get a grip and acquire some perspective, people.
WSJ has been friendlier to Trump than most. This, and the Stormy payoff story earlier this week, seems to signal a change for them.
WSJ has been friendlier to Trump than most. This, and the Stormy payoff story earlier this week, seems to signal a change for them.
Im just confused about why the WH is freaking out about it. I hadn't even heard about it until Sanders went on a tweet storm over it. They paid a 3rd party to transcribe the audio and they said it was "I". It's silly either way he says its because no president will ever have a good relationship with Kim Jung untill his ass is dead and and Trump def doesn't now.
Most of the media is evil, stupid, or both. It’s both.
But I’ve never seen a man have everything he says or does dissected and turned into something negative.
He clearly says I'd. May want to listen again.
The difference between "I" and "I'd" is a pretty big deal considering what the sentence in this case is. People will read that and think Trump says hes friends with Kim.
Oh well... if they want to say he said I... they can shut the hell up about going to war over a tweet
Last edited:
I think he says I'd.
I also think WGAF. Everybody must be triggered 100% of the time.
Common sense says he doesn't have a relationship with Un at present. If the implication is that he does, go ahead and waste your time trying to prove it.
I am mixed on Trump but this crap is ridiculous. If you don't like his policy, argue your points.
I also think WGAF. Everybody must be triggered 100% of the time.
Common sense says he doesn't have a relationship with Un at present. If the implication is that he does, go ahead and waste your time trying to prove it.
I am mixed on Trump but this crap is ridiculous. If you don't like his policy, argue your points.
So if it was I'd, do you think he can have a good relationship with Kim? Both versions of the sentence are bullshit. The only outcome where the US has any relationship with NK is Kim dead along with all the senior members of the ruling party.
Are you kidding me? This is why we don’t take you people seriously. It’s clearly I’d. How the hell did you hear I?
He’s talking about a hypothetical. His voice even elevates like a person who’d be saying, “I’d probably even get along” with blah blah blah.
Your hatred has clouded even a basic ability to understand and admit a simple truth.
Just like that Bama player clearly said F’ Georgia, right? Funny what people hear what they want to hear.
This is Libs ideal candidate. Checks most every of their boxes.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...onfirms-senate-bid-says-yup-were-running.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...onfirms-senate-bid-says-yup-were-running.html
I worked with a white girl who had married an Hispanic guy and took his Hispanic last name. Marriage didn't last long. She soon remarried with a white guy but retained her Hispanic last name. I asked her why. She said that having an Hispanic name entitled her to a lot of "free stuff" and advantages in society and she was not about to give them up.
This is why many were/are skeptical of the shithole remark. Trump can be on AUDIO and the left STILL lies about what he said.
It's possible he said I'd but his annunciation is so poor you can't really tell. But once again, ITS BULLSHIT either way. He doesn't and would not have a good relationship with Kim and why would you want him to. You are sticking up for a man that is saying he would be pals with a guy that murders 100k+ of his own people every year and threatens to nuke the US every other day. Sure he can talk to Kim and maybe alleviate the pressure a bit, but there is no reality where they have a "good relationship". Only some kind of brain damaged person like Dennis Rodman would want a relationship with Kim.
Anyone with a criminal record shouldn't even be allowed to run for office. how the hell is that not a law already.
Many states would not allow this. Maryland recently passed a law allowing felons to run for office. What a shit-hole of a state.
Same if someone wasn't born in this country and was born in Kenya and faked a Hawaiian birth certificate
actually had to research it a bit. This is why criminals can't be stopped from running for congress. Apparently you can even run if you are in prison and this has happened before and he won and served from prison.
"Since a State does not have the authority to add qualifications for federal offices, the fact of conviction, even for a felony offense, could not be used to keep a candidate off of the ballot under State law either as a direct disqualification of convicted felons from holding or being a candidate for office, or as a disqualification of one who is no longer a “qualified elector” in the State. Once a person meets the three constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy in the State when elected, that person, if duly elected, is constitutionally “qualified” to serve in Congress, even if a convicted felon."
"Since a State does not have the authority to add qualifications for federal offices, the fact of conviction, even for a felony offense, could not be used to keep a candidate off of the ballot under State law either as a direct disqualification of convicted felons from holding or being a candidate for office, or as a disqualification of one who is no longer a “qualified elector” in the State. Once a person meets the three constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy in the State when elected, that person, if duly elected, is constitutionally “qualified” to serve in Congress, even if a convicted felon."
Did you hear for yourself? Are you so hard lined that you too will just buy what they left is selling? Lemming much?
To him CNN is "real news"
Obama and Hillary were/are friends with leaders and people who murder/maim-torture/enslave many more than that and yet you people on the left were ok with that.
One of the worst posts in this thread and that’s saying a lot. FTG.
Similar threads
