Bogie56

Trump's Biggest Whoppers

13,907 posts in this topic

Why Trump’s fake publicist act matters: It proves he’s exactly the weirdo and liar we all suspected he was....

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/16/why_trumps_fake_publicist_act_matters_it_proves_hes_exactly_the_weirdo_and_liar_we_all_suspected_he_was/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

then bill clinton's extra-deskular activities oughta matter too, wouldn't you say? :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then bill clinton's extra-deskular activities oughta matter too, wouldn't you say? 

 

Bill Clinton isn't running for president. He already won. Twice.

 

Your comparison would only hold water if this latest controversy were about Melania Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump surrogates are out in full force today trying to dampen the sexist claims in the recent NY Times story.  He does not objectify women say all of the surrogates.  Excuse me.  The man runs beauty pageants and you are saying he does not objectify women?  That's a whooper.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton isn't running for president. He already won. Twice.

 

Your comparison would only hold water if this latest controversy were about Melania Trump.

why only today hillary boasts she's gonna put bill in charge of the economy.

 

maybe you should tell her. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump surrogates are out in full force today trying to dampen the sexist claims in the recent NY Times story.  He does not objectify women say all of the surrogates.  Excuse me.  The man runs beauty pageants and you are saying he does not objectify women?  That's a whooper.

 

... and debate with rival Ted Cruz over whose wife is the ugliest.

 

 

then bill clinton's extra-deskular activities oughta matter too, wouldn't you say? :lol:

 

Oh Nippy. You tickle me how you always "like" your own posts.

 

Confidence is a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another reason Trump should be disqualified from being President.  The other day at an NRA conference he suggested that schools should no longer be gun free zones.  Today on a talk show he sort of walked that back.  But when confronted with his changing stance, Trump tried to clarify his position by saying teachers should have guns because "there are unbelievable things happening in our schools."

"Unbelievable things happening in our schools."  He wasn't talking about wacko gunmen threats here. What did he mean by this?  Teachers should have guns because classrooms are unruly?

Trump is a dangerous colossal idiot.  What is America doing even considering him as President?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trump is a dangerous colossal idiot.  What is America doing even considering him as President?

 

Because America has a lot of colossal idiots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another reason Trump should be disqualified from being President.  The other day at an NRA conference he suggested that schools should no longer be gun free zones.  Today on a talk show he sort of walked that back.  But when confronted with his changing stance, Trump tried to clarify his position by saying teachers should have guns because "there are unbelievable things happening in our schools."

"Unbelievable things happening in our schools."  He wasn't talking about wacko gunmen threats here. What did he mean by this?  Teachers should have guns because classrooms are unruly?

Trump is a dangerous colossal idiot.  What is America doing even considering him as President?

trump probably means there should be armed security personnel stationed at schools to respond to shootings when they occur.

 

if school shootings continue just how would hillary stop them? sensitivity training? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trump probably means there should be armed security personnel stationed at schools to respond to shootings when they occur.

 

if school shootings continue just how would hillary stop them? sensitivity training? :lol:

 

"Trump probably means"  He should travel with an interpreter.  You ask him what he means.  Hardly anyone does.

That is not what he said.  He was talking about arming teachers because "there are unbelievable things happening in our schools."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trump is a dangerous colossal idiot.  What is America doing even considering him as President?

 

 

My pet "dream" is that "America" views him like Yertle the Turtle and is allowing him to think he is King Of The Pond just a little while longer... at least through November and suddenly every state in the country turns blue. Both he and the Republican Party lose in the most spectacular downfall in history. Yet we ALL must stroke his ego first. The higher they rise, the more dramatic the fall.

 

Although this has ABSOLUTELY NO POINT AND NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE DISCUSSION, it is still fun to add here.

 

Think of the Trump Campaign starting out with sheep (and luring his followers as sheep), then fire engines... and finally, this huge balloon that blows consistently at his coronation in Cleveland. Think of Ernie and Bert as part of the "demographic" (along with the Musssshleems, Chineeeze and Mexican Raypeests and Oreo Manufacturers and every body else who is not necessarily an Angry White Male dependent on both Fox News & Cialis) that the GOP secretly planned to destroy even BEFORE Humpty Trumpee sat on his wall and opened his HUGE trap.  (Let's be realistic here. The GOP politicians all THINK like Trumpee. They just don't feel it is polite etiquette and the correct way to brainwash the little lemmings on Election Day.)

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trump probably means there should be armed security personnel stationed at schools to respond to shootings when they occur.

 

if school shootings continue just how would hillary stop them? sensitivity training? :lol:

A little reality check on this question--

 

In my neck of the woods there have been police officers in public schools for decades. They're not security Personnel they are real armed police officers who are assigned to the school district.

 

In the last few years a number of school districts all over the United States have assigned teachers to carry guns. I'm not an authority on which ones they are but we see them on the news all the time.

 

However, I would state that most teachers in the United States do not carry guns themselves.

 

The public schools in my area have all kinds of security mechanisms. The outside doors are locked. You can't get into a school unless you have a security card or the main office clears you and opens the door.

 

School districts that can afford them have metal detectors.

 

Once inside the schools there are security cameras that are manned by the armed police officers.

 

Police officers also Patrol the school grounds and campus. The designated parking lots are also supplied with cameras that are watched by the police officers.

 

In some schools the police simply leave patrol cars on campus with the cameras as a security mechanism.

 

All this security at schools has been a reality in the United States for decades.

 

However, security is left to the auspices of the individual school districts. It's not controlled by the federal government and it's not controlled by the states. Although these two entities may give them money for that purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little reality check on this question--

 

In my neck of the woods there have been police officers in public schools for decades. They're not security Personnel they are real armed police officers who are assigned to the school district.

 

In the last few years a number of school districts all over the United States have assigned teachers to carry guns. I'm not an authority on which ones they are but we see them on the news all the time.

 

However, I would state that most teachers in the United States do not carry guns themselves.

 

The public schools in my area have all kinds of security mechanisms. The outside doors are locked. You can't get into a school unless you have a security card or the main office clears you and opens the door.

 

School districts that can afford them have metal detectors.

 

Once inside the schools there are security cameras that are manned by the armed police officers.

 

Police officers also Patrol the school grounds and campus. The designated parking lots are also supplied with cameras that are watched by the police officers.

 

In some schools the police simply leave patrol cars on campus with the cameras as a security mechanism.

 

All this security at schools has been a reality in the United States for decades.

 

However, security is left to the auspices of the individual school districts. It's not controlled by the federal government and it's not controlled by the states. Although these two entities may give them money for that purpose.

then police assigned to the vicinity of schools need to be beefed up if anything. I personally doan think passing out rods to teachers is the correct remedy...

 

guns being too glorified in the popular culture needs to end. liberal filmmakers like quentin tarantino need to knock it off with the gratuitous ultra-violence in their films and because liberal democrats love the adoration of hollywood liberals they will never call the hollywood crowd on it 

 

never. as long as hollywood liberals vote overwhelmingly democratic they can make all the sick ultra-violent films and TV shows they want to with nary a squawk from the likes of dianne feinstein and barbara boxer...

 

but those two prizes will scapegoat the NRA whenever they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guns being too glorified in the popular culture needs to end. liberal filmmakers like quentin tarantino need to knock it off with the gratuitous ultra-violence in their films and because liberal democrats love the adoration of hollywood liberals they will never call the hollywood crowd on it 

 

never. as long as hollywood liberals vote overwhelmingly democratic they can make all the sick ultra-violent films and TV shows they want to with nary a squawk from the likes of dianne feinstein and barbara boxer...

 

You bring up an interesting point here, Nippy (I hope you don't mind the name "Nippy". I think it sounds friendlier than Nipkow, and the first three letters aren't allowed by themselves). When it comes to violence in film and TV, what do you think is worse: the films of Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese, or older shows like Gunsmoke and The Rifleman? There's no question that the newer films are bloodier, and more graphic. But my argument has always been that the older shows are much more morally reprehensible in their depiction of violence, because they make gun violence look nice, clean and simple. People are shot, there's little to no blood, and they quickly slump over dead. That's not reality. Gun violence, or any violence, is never clean and easy. It's bloody, sloppy and disgusting. Violence should be shown in all of it's repugnant horror as a warning that violence should be abhorred and avoided. Now, if you want to argue that violence in general should not be shown, then you may have a point. But looking at the majority of films released, they are less violent now than they were 30 years ago. And as always, better parental supervision over what their children watch is the ultimate answer. Again, I'm guessing you meant children watching the violence, and not adults. Any adult that is swayed into violence by a movie or TV show has greater problems that should be addressed with counselling and/or medication, not censorship.

 

By the way, when there was a major backlash against violence and profanity in music, film, TV and videogames, it has been by Democrats like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton, among others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up an interesting point here, Nippy (I hope you don't mind the name "Nippy". I think it sounds friendlier than Nipkow, and the first three letters aren't allowed by themselves). When it comes to violence in film and TV, what do you think is worse: the films of Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese, or older shows like Gunsmoke and The Rifleman? There's no question that the newer films are bloodier, and more graphic. But my argument has always been that the older shows are much more morally reprehensible in their depiction of violence, because they make gun violence look nice, clean and simple. People are shot, there's little to no blood, and they quickly slump over dead. That's not reality. Gun violence, or any violence, is never clean and easy. It's bloody, sloppy and disgusting. Violence should be shown in all of it's repugnant horror as a warning that violence should be abhorred and avoided. Now, if you want to argue that violence in general should not be shown, then you may have a point. But looking at the majority of films released, they are less violent now than they were 30 years ago. And as always, better parental supervision over what their children watch is the ultimate answer. Again, I'm guessing you meant children watching the violence, and not adults. Any adult that is swayed into violence by a movie or TV show has greater problems that should be addressed with counselling and/or medication, not censorship.

 

By the way, when there was a major backlash against violence and profanity in music, film, TV and videogames, it has been by Democrats like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton, among others. 

 

That was the point that the director of The Dirty Dozen made when people complained about The dirty Dozen being so violent.

 

 

What do people expect combat to look like?   What do people expect it to look like when entire buildings of people that include children in them supposed to look like?

 

War isn't pretty.  War films should not look like that.

 

But as far as the old shows like Gunsmoke, The Rifleman, The Big Valley, Wanted dead or alive, Marverick (now there's a man who ran from violence unlike the star - Garner - who was wounded in Korea) etc: 

 

They were made in an era where you were only allowed to show so much violence on TV.

 

Sam Pekinpah changed that along with his contemporaries.

 

 

Me, I watch westerns more and more often because they are set in the pre-internet era.  I love the actors too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not ONLY are Trump's "solutions" to almost ANY problem this country faces conveyed in the most simplistic manner and by use of short little so-called "truths"(and probably why our own Jake, ANOTHER "man of few words", likes the guy so damn much) and in so CLEARLY attempting to appeal TO all those OTHER "men of few words" in this country, BUT NOW with this LATEST little "change of heart" Donny has about the issue of guns in this country(note the guy within the last decade was ON RECORD saying he AGREED with many of Obama's thoughts about this issue)...well...if this LATEST little "change of heart" the guy seems to have had doesn't CLEARLY PROVE to all his "admirers" what a damn "Say anything the idiots out there want to hear" kind of HUCKSTER he is, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL?!!!!!!!! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just flip-flopped on climate change today as well.  Calling it a hoax in a speech and investing in climate change means in Scotland for his business there.

I bet at least one of his supporters here will say 'smart Donny.'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in OTHER words Bogie, it's PRETTY damn safe to say that Donny has only ONE "core value" then, RIGHT?!

 

And that would be: Self-Promotion at the EXCLUSION of any OTHER core values.

 

Well then, ain't it a shame all the rubes out there are too busy watching and admiring his "macho" antics, and aren't really listening to how many times the blowhard flip-flops on issues.

 

(...but hey, just as long as the guy can manage to place his name on buildings, he must be a "great leader", huh!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up an interesting point here, Nippy (I hope you don't mind the name "Nippy". I think it sounds friendlier than Nipkow, and the first three letters aren't allowed by themselves). When it comes to violence in film and TV, what do you think is worse: the films of Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese, or older shows like Gunsmoke and The Rifleman? There's no question that the newer films are bloodier, and more graphic. But my argument has always been that the older shows are much more morally reprehensible in their depiction of violence, because they make gun violence look nice, clean and simple. People are shot, there's little to no blood, and they quickly slump over dead. That's not reality. Gun violence, or any violence, is never clean and easy. It's bloody, sloppy and disgusting. Violence should be shown in all of it's repugnant horror as a warning that violence should be abhorred and avoided. Now, if you want to argue that violence in general should not be shown, then you may have a point. But looking at the majority of films released, they are less violent now than they were 30 years ago. And as always, better parental supervision over what their children watch is the ultimate answer. Again, I'm guessing you meant children watching the violence, and not adults. Any adult that is swayed into violence by a movie or TV show has greater problems that should be addressed with counselling and/or medication, not censorship.

 

By the way, when there was a major backlash against violence and profanity in music, film, TV and videogames, it has been by Democrats like Tipper Gore, Joe Lieberman, and Hillary Clinton, among others. 

their backlashes do not appear to have had any major effect. while the violence in older TV westerns was quite sanitized those shows had something modern fare severely lacks...

 

a fixed moral compass of right and wrong while today's fare reeks of moral relativism. no right. no wrong. just vague in-between rationale of how an act of crime affects individuals and situations.

 

nothing is clear anymore and maybe that's the problem. moral clarity has been replaced by a faint-hearted feel-goodistic brand of amorality and or moral cowardice.

 

the left as cast moral objections as bigotry and prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

their backlashes do not appear to have had any major effect. while the violence in older TV westerns was quite sanitized those shows had something modern fare severely lacks...

 

a fixed moral compass of right and wrong while today's fare reeks of moral relativism. no right. no wrong. just vague in-between rationale of how an act of crime affects individuals and situations.

 

nothing is clear anymore and maybe that's the problem. moral clarity has been replaced by a faint-hearted feel-goodistic brand of amorality and or moral cowardice.

 

the left as cast moral objections as bigotry and prejudice.

 

 What you're talking about in regards to the clear-cut good versus evil morality is one reason that superhero movies are doing so well. They present clearly designated heroes and villains, with little to no gray area. In our (seemingly) more turbulent times, people cling to their hero myths for moral security.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

their backlashes do not appear to have had any major effect. while the violence in older TV westerns was quite sanitized those shows had something modern fare severely lacks...

 

a fixed moral compass of right and wrong while today's fare reeks of moral relativism. no right. no wrong. just vague in-between rationale of how an act of crime affects individuals and situations.

 

nothing is clear anymore and maybe that's the problem. moral clarity has been replaced by a faint-hearted feel-goodistic brand of amorality and or moral cowardice.

 

the left as cast moral objections as bigotry and prejudice.

 

HEY ND! Tell ya what?!

 

INSTEAD of gettin' on your whole moralistic high horse YET AGAIN and blaming all this country's and the world's problems on "Hollywood" and well, everybody ELSE, what say you GET BACK on topic in this tread and formulate an ANSWER(and hopefully, reasonably INTELLIGENTLY expressed) to MY comment right down there about how all you rubes don't seem to see how your freakin' boy Donny is flip-floppin' on SO many of his "stances"?????????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 What you're talking about in regards to the clear-cut good versus evil morality is one reason that superhero movies are doing so well. They present clearly designated heroes and villains, with little to no gray area. In our (seemingly) more turbulent times, people cling to their hero myths for moral security.

And yet the real world is more grey in area.  Yes. That is the problem with the real world.

 

My 14 year old neighbour loves superhero movies.

 

I love Batman.

 

But -

I would rather watch TV episodes with Adam West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today on CNN they read off a whole slew of insults that were hurled at the women who were said to have had affairs with Bill Clinton.  Only these horrible misogynistic insults did not come from Hillary but from Donald Trump who at the time was vigorously defending Bill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY ND! Tell ya what?!

 

INSTEAD of gettin' on your whole moralistic high horse YET AGAIN and blaming all this country's and the world's problems on "Hollywood" and well, everybody ELSE, what say you GET BACK on topic in this tread and formulate an ANSWER(and hopefully, reasonably INTELLIGENTLY expressed) to MY comment right down there about how all you rubes don't seem to see how your freakin' boy Donny is flip-floppin' on SO many of his "stances"?????????

I just wanna see donny pull it off, Dargy. then he can make a mess if things. it's payback time. washington politicians are ruining our lives so now it's time for our secret weapon...

 

The Doomsday Donald!  :lol:

vik5dd.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanna see donny pull it off, Dargy. then he can make a mess if things. it's payback time. washington politicians are ruining our lives so now it's time for our secret weapon...

 

The problem is he is likely to make a mess of the entire world.  It's not like you're electing the prime minister of Luxemburg.

And just how bad is government making your life by the way?  People who went through a world war or the holocaust would shake their head at what a pansy you are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us