HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 69,813

Journal Archives

WARREN: "Calling on Trump for help is like-if your house is on fire-calling an arsonist to come help

“Let’s be real clear,” Warren began. “Donald Trump is looking out for exactly one guy, and that guy’s name is Donald Trump,” and the audience cheered. “Look, he smells that there is change in the air and what he wants to do is make sure that change works really, really well for Donald Trump.”

Colbert repeated Trump’s claims that he wanted to win for America so much we’d get tired of winning, but Warren wasn’t having it. “This is the deal, you gotta kinda look a little closer at Donald Trump. Because this is his main claim to how it is that he says he’s qualified to be president of the United States. He says, in business he wins, wins, wins. Well, the truth is: He inherited a fortune from his father… he kept it going by cheating and defrauding people, and then he treks detractors through chapter 11.”

Attempting to clarify as a pre-emptive strike against litigation, Colbert said that Trump has never broken the law. Warren insisted that Trump has never been caught breaking the law. “Look, that really is the heart of it, that Donald Trump knows that there’s change and the question is: ‘So what’s gonna happen from that?’ We have an economy that’s in real trouble. But when the economy is in this kind of trouble calling on Donald Trump for help is like, if your house is on fire, calling an arsonist to come help out.”


1 Picture = 1000 Words


"NO": The Second Part of Trump's Answer That Got Audible Gasps From the Audience

The Second Part of Trump's Answer That Got Audible Gasps From the Audience
By misskitty64
Wednesday Mar 30, 2016 · 8:13 PM PDT

When I watched the Chris Matthews interview with Trump on MSNBC tonight, I’d already seen the video exchange where Trump said that women who had gotten an illegal abortion should be punished. But when I watched the entire discussion, Trump made an even more shocking, and I think, more newsworthy statement that no one even bothered to mention.

Was this because he was saying something that everyone took as a given? I really hope to God not.

At the end of that whole segment, just before the commercial break, Chris asked him if the guy who had gotten the woman who had an illegal abortion pregnant should also be punished. After hemming and hawing for a few seconds - during which Chris pointed out that ‘some would say the guy had something to do with it’, Trump said simply...


I just about fell out of my chair. But I wasn’t the only one. There were audible gasps from the pro-Trump audience members, a good portion of which were women.


Mathews, returning to moderator, told Trump, “By saying you’re pro-life you mean you want to ban abortion. How can [you] ban without some kind of sanction? Then you get into that very tricky question of a sanction. A fine? On human life? Which you call murder? A fine? Or, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant? What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions?”

“I would say no,” said Trump after hemming a bit.

“Well, they’re usually involved,” Matthews snarked.



I don't mind one bit, Mr. President

I look forward to watching you when you wake up from your well-deserved nap.....

"goddamn communist n****r lover"


Christopher Hayes

The guy who calls the pepper-sprayed woman a "goddamn communist n****r lover" is wearing a Make America Great Again hat, natch.


According to the NY Daily News, this is the man responsible for pepper-spraying the girl:


GOP senator: "no basis" for Republicans to block Garland


“The leader’s not real happy with me,” Collins said, adding that she even reread the Constitution to make sure she was remembering it correctly.

“I knew there was no limit on when during a president’s term he appoints nominees to the court, but I wanted to make sure I really understood the exact wording,” she said.

While Collins says she understands why a majority of her colleagues are opposed to holding hearings to consider Garland, she disagrees with their logic.

“The president, whether Republicans like him or not, is our president until next January, until Inauguration Day, and it just seemed to me that there was no basis for saying that no matter who the president nominates, we were not going to consider that individual,” she said. “I don’t know how exactly this decision was made.”


Editor's note attached to all of Huffington Post's Trump coverage:


Wisconsin’s biggest newspaper pens brutal takedown of Trump: ‘Reject this un-American candidate’


“No to his bigotry.

“No to his contempt for women and minorities. No to his vague, clueless bluster about the problems facing the nation.

“No to Trumpism, which runs counter to the ideals of this nation of immigrants, to the notion that by working together under the rule of law, we can protect freedom and promote inclusion and fair play.

“Wisconsin Republicans: Reject this un-American candidate on April 5.”


“A Trump presidency would float down a river polluted by hyperbole and misstatement, tacking left to right, right to left, claiming up is down, white is black, night is day. A reality TV Wonderland,” it says toward the end. “Only we live in the real world, where the words and choices of presidents can have momentous consequences — war and peace, feast or famine, freedom or tyranny, life or death.”

“Voters can do the nation a huge service on April 5,” it concludes. “They can say ‘no’ to Donald Trump.”


Grassly: Why Bother?


GOP insiders admit Republicans paved the way for Trump.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 38 Next »