Jump to content

NY Times Publishes Op-Ed From Trump Senior Official


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And this is what we should be talking about(not the naiveté of some posters here). 

 

These clowns may have just cost the Dems any chance at the House with this. I can't see how anybody would be so abjectly stupid as to hand Trump, on a platter, with white gloves, his "Deep State" argument-ender. 

 

That's why I say: watch out. This very well could be a Trump-run thing. How hilarious would it be if the source duped the Times? Wouldn't they have to out him/her? I don't see how they win either way. If they don't, they are hiding the truth. If they do, then under this scenario, that person just became the #3 troll of all time(I will always hold a special place in my heart for the guy that got Oprah with "Over 9k" as 2, and of course, Trump himself is #1), and fully entitled to all the privileges of that esteemed office, like: going on TV and making fun of them, writing a book on how, and making money from it.

 

But, getting back to this story as NOT being the best counter-intelligence op of all time? What were they thinking? Perhaps this started as somebody's hair-brained scheme to counter Q-Anon? That's the best I can do right now: this was a poorly considered attempt at going after Q-Anon. If so, man, who knew they were so scared of 4chan?  

2 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

I just have my popcorn ready, waiting to see them argue

Yes, which is basically what this board does whenever this happens. Well, that, and thank God neither one of us is coming after them.

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Who's right? Tom or Ocin? 

Why don't you get off your lazy ass, for once, do the necessary work, and PROVE IT YOURSELF?

 

It would make quite a change from your eternal copypasta approach to this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

I just have my popcorn ready, waiting to see them argue

 

There is no argument.  I'm applying the legal standard found in labor law and in the Constitution.  He's trying -and failing - to define the word "metaphor."

 

I'm not even going to argue with him, as there is no argument to be had.  The President has no power to remove the VP from office.  End of discussion.  Any attempt to argue otherwise is at best ignorant...and OC certainly isn't ignorant, so the motivation behind his useless arguments is by definition much, much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

There is no argument.  I'm applying the legal standard found in labor law and in the Constitution.  He's trying -and failing - to define the word "metaphor."

 

I'm not even going to argue with him, as there is no argument to be had.  The President has no power to remove the VP from office.  End of discussion.  Any attempt to argue otherwise is at best ignorant...and OC certainly isn't ignorant, so the motivation behind his useless arguments is by definition much, much worse.

You can't argue with me and, now, you know it. 

 

You keep talking about what is "legal", in a town rife with illegality, as though we are all supposed to stand up and salute? Who is being metaphorical? :wacko: Why don't you talk about Mom and Apple Pie while you are at it?

 

Actually, don't. You know what I am saying. You've failed miserably to refute it. The President has the power to accept the resignation of the VP, that he gets day 1 in office, at any time. That's the end of the discussion. You being ignorant of the fact that he gets the resignation? That's almost shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I disagree.

 

If such a person existed, their entire purpose would now be subverted by coming forward.  There would be no logical reason to publish such a piece.

 

The only purpose this serves is to propagandize.

 

It's a fiction, just as Woodward's book is.

 

It's agree it was coordinated to release with the book, but posit that it's easy to coordinate when there's only two actors involved (Woodward and the Times) and there are no real sources.

You may have a point about it being coordinated with Woodward's book as he's developed many relationships with the power brokers in Washington over the years (although if the piece was released last week people would claim it was coordinated with Jon McCain's funeral).  One of which may be a top member of the Trump administration.  I think there is a source and it will eventually be revealed.  Then that person will probably get a book deal and be a hero to half the country.  One of the many possible motives in publishing this piece.

 

What that person will have to explain is if it's their collective job to "contain" Trump's worst impulses, how does publishing an anonymous op-ed not produce the opposite effect?

Edited by Doc Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to interrupt the riveting political back and forth but for those of us who enjoy a wager, not-sketchy-at-all oddsmakers MyBookie posted odds today on the leak. Link below. Apparently Bovada is taking bets too but I couldn't find where on their website.

 

https://mybookie.ag/sportsbook/trump-specials/

 

These guys have the field as the favorite at -310 against a bunch of admin officials. Pence, interestingly, is the individual frontrunner at -150. Personally I'd stay away from those odds...but Kelly at 4-1 is mighty tempting. If I can parlay that with the Buccaneers to cover and the Bills/Ravens under and find a site to take it I'm thinking about taking out a second mortgage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This op-ed makes a strong indirect case for Trump conspiring with the Russians. It's basically saying Trump has no morals at all and likes dictators but the people in the administration are keeping him on track. They were not there during the campaign when this "amoral" person was listening to criminals like Paul Manafort. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

This op-ed makes a strong indirect case for Trump conspiring with the Russians. It's basically saying Trump has no morals at all and likes dictators but the people in the administration are keeping him on track. They were not there during the campaign when this "amoral" person was listening to criminals like Paul Manafort. 

That was hilarious!!

You should do stand up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Not to interrupt the riveting political back and forth but for those of us who enjoy a wager, not-sketchy-at-all oddsmakers MyBookie posted odds today on the leak. Link below. Apparently Bovada is taking bets too but I couldn't find where on their website.

 

https://mybookie.ag/sportsbook/trump-specials/

 

These guys have the field as the favorite at -310 against a bunch of admin officials. Pence, interestingly, is the individual frontrunner at -150. Personally I'd stay away from those odds...but Kelly at 4-1 is mighty tempting. If I can parlay that with the Buccaneers to cover and the Bills/Ravens under and find a site to take it I'm thinking about taking out a second mortgage.

Now this is in my wheelhouse ! Love the parlay idea... have no idea who would book it though. ( just as an aside I don’t like anything this weekend)I agree Pense makes no sense at those odds. 

14 hours ago, B-Man said:
 

 

 

.

Saw trump raise this question as well. They have to no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, westside said:

That was hilarious!!

You should do stand up!

But it is what the op-ed author was saying. The grown ups were not with him during the campaign, he likes dictators and is amoral. He probably conspired with Putin to win the election 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But it is what the op-ed author was saying. The grown ups were not with him during the campaign, he likes dictators and is amoral. He probably conspired with Putin to win the election 

 

Actually, he probably didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Who was in the campaign to stop him? He loves Putin. 

Shouldn't all of these "grown ups" have been able to:

 

A. Stop an amoral idiot and a tin pot dictator from stealing an election by opening a Facebook page?

 

B. Find evidence of the above by now?

 

C.  Create made up evidence more compelling and less see through than Steele?

 

or 

 

D. You know....convince Americans that the "grown ups" deserved to be elected on their own merits?

 

Any one of thes 4 would have worked.  C is all they have left.

Edited by 4merper4mer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Shouldn't all of these "grown ups" been able to:

 

A. Stop an amoral idiot and a tin pot dictator from stealing an election by opening a Facebook page?

 

B. Find evidence of the above by now?

 

C.  Create made up evidence more compelling and less see through than Steele?

 

or 

 

D. You know....convince Americans that the "grown ups" deserved to be elected on their own merits?

 

Any one of thes 4 would have worked.  C is all they have left.

The point is, there were no grown ups during the campaign. Paul Manafort was the "grown up" at that time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...