Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:24

Trump is having his usual back and forth with his detractors, this time with his former Secretary of state Rex Tillerson:

Dumb as a rock...


Trump's back to projecting his own faults on others again. Seems he can't help being the pot that calls the kettle black. Tillerson runs rings around Trump in the brains department, of course getting away from the Trumpite Administration should prove that point. Back to Trump flipping out over where the Mueller probe is headed... He's a walking powder keg and the fuse is quickly burning down.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
esd
Posts: 17962
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:38

I did find this pretty funny:
Trump on Twitter.
It is being reported that Leakin' James Comey was told by Department of Justice attorneys not to answer the most important questions. Total bias and corruption at the highest levels of previous Administration. Force him to answer the questions under oath!
(Emphasis mine)

Could you imagine Trump answering questions under oath? :rofl:
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 00:27

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:47
So if most people can only speak on the extreme, what make of the people who try to speak in the middle, like me? As you can see in my current argument with @Bishop
IIRC, I said that those who speak in the extreme about an opinion are generally trying to convince someone else of something. At least in this context.
...Like you said, the truth is probably somewhere in between (which is again what I'm essentially arguing for). However is it really the case people willingly trump up their heroes, being aware they're inflating the facts? (Or in your word, they are just testing) I don't think so, the zeal and obsession most people have about their extreme view points kinda send the message that they truly believe their inflated view as the one true fact. :roll:
No, they're not "testing." In some cases, one can take something to the extreme in order to test it. But, in the case where they're speaking like this, that's not "testing", it's an intent to influence an opinion. They may or may not entirely believe it themselves, depending on their motivation. But, if they're like most of the people saying such things, they probably developed that opinion in an environment that wouldn't challenge it.
Again, I open the invitation: anyone else want to come and stand in the middle, we have this thing called "reason" that you will find in short supply most place else. More important, you'll find yourself more happy here, because we tend not to go looking for a reason to be pissed off at anything and everything. :P
Being "in the middle" is so uncomfortable. It's much easier to just turn up the volume to eleven. ;) I'm rarely "in the middle" about a lot of things. There are few "greys" in my world. For instance, bacon is good and boiled okra is bad... That's just "fact." :) On most, if not all, moral or ethical subject, I see good and bad, not "maybe" or "grey." With people? They're sometimes a bit more complex and it's their behaviors that must be judged.

Honestly, I think "extremes" are worth paying attention to in all things. I don't mean one must believe them or hold to them, but we must notice and remark upon them at least to ourselves. If we see "extremist" headlines about some political issue, it can give us a good idea about what that view may be based upon not so we can better understand the opinion, but so we can better understand the opinion-maker.

Note: I'm apparently "weird." I will make an "extreme opinion" about something in order to test it. Usually I will include a disclaimer stating that intent, but not always... Why test it? Why not? :) It's not just for fun, either - I really want to know what others might think about such a thing.
esd wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:38
...Could you imagine Trump answering questions under oath? :rofl:
Trump? OH, you mean "Individual-1" as he's currently listed in the latest indictments brought forward today?

I can see him uttering a lot of oaths while answering questions...

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:40

esd wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 23:38
I did find this pretty funny:
Trump on Twitter.
It is being reported that Leakin' James Comey was told by Department of Justice attorneys not to answer the most important questions. Total bias and corruption at the highest levels of previous Administration. Force him to answer the questions under oath!
(Emphasis mine)

Could you imagine Trump answering questions under oath? :rofl:
I remember Bill Clinton lying under oath, being impeached, and still finishing his term. Removal by impeachment is a pipe dream. The House impeaches. The Senates votes to remove. The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
esd
Posts: 17962
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:51

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:40
I remember Bill Clinton lying under oath, being impeached, and still finishing his term. Removal by impeachment is a pipe dream. The House impeaches. The Senates votes to remove. The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
I didn't mention, or imply, impeachment once in that post. I just think Trump under oath would be absolutely hilarious. He contradicts himself constantly, under oath would be no different.

Absolute comedy gold.

"But Mr Trump, you just said you didn't say that, so why are you now saying you did?"
"I'm not, I'm not, that's fake news. You know, and a lot of people know this, I say the bigliest things. It's true. True."
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:57

Masterbagger notes:
The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
Face it, Trump's headed for a date with the 25th Ammendment, not impeachment as it means nothing. He's a flipout and the Republican party has no reason to face the music when Mueller proves he colluded with the Russians. What they have to worry about is the question of his entire administration, Pense included being invalidated by the Supreme Court and what happens when that decision is only opposed by Trump's appointees. His nomination of Barr as Attorney General is testing these waters. Trump knows what's coming and what the end result might me and is fighting for more than his Presidency. He's fight to keep himself, his family and cohorts from very long prison sentences.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:28

Hank001 wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:57
Masterbagger notes:
The Senate just gained more of a Republican majority and they know they won't survive the next election if they remove President Trump. The only way to stop 4 more years of Trump is to run a better candidate and platform.
Face it, Trump's headed for a date with the 25th Ammendment, not impeachment as it means nothing. He's a flipout and the Republican party has no reason to face the music when Mueller proves he colluded with the Russians. What they have to worry about is the question of his entire administration, Pense included being invalidated by the Supreme Court and what happens when that decision is only opposed by Trump's appointees. His nomination of Barr as Attorney General is testing these waters. Trump knows what's coming and what the end result might me and is fighting for more than his Presidency. He's fight to keep himself, his family and cohorts from very long prison sentences.
I'm sure the conservative majority on SCOTUS will go along with that just like you imagined.
esd wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 02:51

I didn't mention, or imply, impeachment once in that post. I just think Trump under oath would be absolutely hilarious. He contradicts himself constantly, under oath would be no different.

Absolute comedy gold.

"But Mr Trump, you just said you didn't say that, so why are you now saying you did?"
"I'm not, I'm not, that's fake news. You know, and a lot of people know this, I say the bigliest things. It's true. True."
I'm jumping ahead. The only reason to get Trump to make statements under oath is to get him on a perjury charge. I don't think it would go over well here if they tried it. It might break twitter.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:37

Masterbagger snugly noted;
I'm sure the conservative majority on SCOTUS will go along with that just like you imagined.
If the really care about keeping the constitution intact, yes, they'll have little choice.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:00

Hank001 wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:37
Masterbagger snugly noted;
I'm sure the conservative majority on SCOTUS will go along with that just like you imagined.
If the really care about keeping the constitution intact, yes, they'll have little choice.
You are aware that it isn't SCOTUS that removes a President from office? Not by impeachment or the 25th Amendment? It's Congress. By a 2/3rds majority. That you don't have and won't get. For your own sake please stop and face your own reality. You might find it ugly but you have to deal with it at some point.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:15

Masterbagger says:
That you don't have and won't get. For your own sake please stop and face your own reality.
Back up and find I accused Trump of being the pot that calls the kettle black. Face the facts yourself. What I was refering to comes AFTER congress envokes the 25th ammendment. The question then becomes what happens to Trump's entire administration if it was illegally put in place by an illegally elected President? It will be the constitutional question of the ages and will come down to one question and yes, all pun intended: Does political expediance TRUMP the Constitution? My vote is for SCOTUS to rule in favor of the constitution.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
esd
Posts: 17962
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:31

Hank001 wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:37
Masterbagger snugly noted;
Cut that out. It's rude, unnecessary and unwelcome. I am quite willing to pull the plug on this thread if people don't stay on their best behavior. And no, don't reply - just don't do it again.
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:34

@ esd
Right. Roger copy all.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:34

Hank001 wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:15
Masterbagger says:
That you don't have and won't get. For your own sake please stop and face your own reality.
Back up and find I accused Trump of being the pot that calls the kettle black. Face the facts yourself. What I was refering to comes AFTER congress envokes the 25th ammendment. The question then becomes what happens to Trump's entire administration if it was illegally put in place by an illegally elected President? It will be the constitutional question of the ages and will come down to one question and yes, all pun intended: Does political expediance TRUMP the Constitution? My vote is for SCOTUS to rule in favor of the constitution.
Congress doesn't invoke the 25th Amendment. The Vice-President does with a majority of the President's cabinet. If the President tells Congress he can still serve it takes a supermajority of both houses of Congress to vote to remove him. Nothing happens to the President's administration. The Vice-President takes the office. There is no scenario written into the Constitution where an entire administration is invalidated by a court ruling.

I want you look at this image.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ty.svg.png

Tell me with a straight face that Russia did that.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:51

@ Masterbagger;

Since the 25th Amendment is:

The 25th amendment allows for the Vice President to become president in the event of death, resignation, removal from office or impairment that prevents the current president from fulfilling his or her duties.

And if Meuller proves collusion then Pense was part of the package. So the situation will have to go to Scotus. Is Pense really the Vice President? Or is he voided along with the President? I'm sure at this point Mueller is waiting for the next congress to be seated before he drops his bomb. Supermajority in the senate will mean little in that case.

And yes, I think (besides gerrymandering) that Russia had much to do with the result in the critical electoral states that got Trump's edge over Clinton. And I'm sure that's going to brought out in the Special Council's findings.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 06:25

Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 00:27
IIRC, I said that those who speak in the extreme about an opinion are generally trying to convince someone else of something. At least in this context.
So ... just like how most politicians get their votes, be it Trump, or those who like him, or those who hate him? Got it. Remind me where's the difference? :gruebel:
No, they're not "testing." In some cases, one can take something to the extreme in order to test it. But, in the case where they're speaking like this, that's not "testing", it's an intent to influence an opinion.
See, maybe I'm weird in this regard, but I don't see why that works for other people. When I see or hear something reasonable, I don't insistingly fact-check it. But when I do, then my fact-checking mechanism gets trigger. The stronger I feel about something, the more I inclined to doubt it. And this work both way: I don't compulsively believe in an "good" number, neither I impulsively reject a "bad" number either. For example:

- If I hear someone saying "Trump is nowhere a good businessman he claims to be, he's average at best or just a little above average" I would incline to agree and that's that. Even though I have been listing Trump's achievements, I'm also aware of his other short coming. But when I see something like this:
Bishop149 wrote:
Tue, 4. Dec 18, 22:21
As I alluded to earlier he would be richer than he is today if he had simply taken the money his dad left him, invested it in the stockmarket (in the safest possible way) and then buggered off to spend his life playing golf.
Zero business acumen required, by applying his he has made himself poorer . . . . and has only avoided complete personal bankruptcy thanks to the grace and favor of the government.
It make me go: huh, really? Let's investigate to see if that is true, because it sounds too ridiculous to be true. After the investigation, not only I conclude the statement are entirely not true, it also makes me realize I actually have not given Trump enough credits before. So it back fire.


- It was a similar thing with Hilary. Before the primary I actually intended that I would vote for her. I didn't really care that much about politic, and my family generally think she's decent, smart, a strong woman. I like her more than Pelosi, and after that trainwreck called Sarah Palin, we hold Hilary highly as the only dignified woman in politic. And ironically, what made me changing my vote wasn't because all the bad things that were said about her, it was because of the "good" things that were said about her. When the primary started to ramp up and the Hilary hype ran like a freight train going down the hill at 200mile per hour ... enough that McCain famously said "if the election is tomorrow Hilary would win by a landslide". Dear McCain may his soul resst in peace, but it was his statement that triggered me: "I like Hilary but ... is she really that great?!? :? " . What followed was the usual fact-checking I tend to do. After weeks, I failed to find anything that would convince me she's as great as people said. Hell, after reasserting the evidences, I even failed to explain to myself WHY did I think I would vote for her originally. By the time the general campaign kick into gears, before she even started her dance with Trump, I already decide my vote would not go for her.

Am I like ... the only one with this kind of psy-profile? :doh:
They may or may not entirely believe it themselves, depending on their motivation.
And here is the dangerous part. They may aware of what they say is a lie at the beginning, but keep that lie going for long enough, and when confronted or challenged you would feverishly defend that lie ... then at some point, you would start convincing yourself the lie is now the truth. I think most people here (including those often at odd with my opinion) would readily agree with me when I say Trump certainly has that problems ... but then, so are most of the people who oppose him. So again ... tell me where's the difference? :gruebel:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 07:05

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:28
I'm jumping ahead. The only reason to get Trump to make statements under oath is to get him on a perjury charge. I don't think it would go over well here if they tried it. It might break twitter.
- under what other circumstances could he possibly commit perjury?
- he lies constantly and openly in public office - surely it would just confirm what we already know
- why should it be any different if he lies under oath - he lies all the time, every day..
- he also constantly breaches the emoluments code of ethics every day, as well as colludes with foreign countries to undermine Democracy
- he's totally compromised financially and he's also utterly incompetent in matters of governance..

- all you can say is that he's a successful businessman, but that's only because he gets away with breaking the rules..
- his twitter comments plainly show that he brazenly commits obstruction of justice daily, and obviously intends to continue doing so..
- his entire family currently walks in a snowstorm blizzard of dubious legality - he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever..

- any so-called personal hatred of Trump has nothing to do with it - these are facts borne out by the testimony of Michael Cohen (and others..)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSUAXUfHcsw

- of course, you are entitled to your opinion - but don't you sometimes feel that you are flying through some pretty heavy flak..?? :sceptic:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 20:54

Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 06:25
...See, maybe I'm weird in this regard, but I don't see why that works for other people. When I see or hear something reasonable, I don't insistingly fact-check it. But when I do, then my fact-checking mechanism gets trigger. The stronger I feel about something, the more I inclined to doubt it. And this work both way: I don't compulsively believe in an "good" number, neither I impulsively reject a "bad" number either. For example:

- If I hear someone saying "Trump is nowhere a good businessman he claims to be, he's average at best or just a little above average" I would incline to agree and that's that. Even though I have been listing Trump's achievements, I'm also aware of his other short coming. But when I see something like this:
Bishop149 wrote:
Tue, 4. Dec 18, 22:21
As I alluded to earlier he would be richer than he is today if he had simply taken the money his dad left him, invested it in the stockmarket (in the safest possible way) and then buggered off to spend his life playing golf.
Zero business acumen required, by applying his he has made himself poorer . . . . and has only avoided complete personal bankruptcy thanks to the grace and favor of the government.
It make me go: huh, really? Let's investigate to see if that is true, because it sounds too ridiculous to be true. After the investigation, not only I conclude the statement are entirely not true, it also makes me realize I actually have not given Trump enough credits before. So it back fire.
I didn't say it works... It's just something that people tend to do. :) It's kind of like asking someone to loan you $500 and then, when refused, asking them for $20... They may not believe the person is a Saint, but surely if everyone is calling them one then there must be something good about them, right?
...Am I like ... the only one with this kind of psy-profile? :doh:
Of course not. :) In hindsight, that election was one of the worst in terms of a worthy candidate being put forth. What happened? The Republicans freaked-the-heck-out when Hillary's campaign appeared to be practically unopposed. There was no way that Bernie Sanders was going to win the nomination - He was too Left for the Democrats and, in my opinion, was drinking a bit too much of his own Kool Aid being buoyed by a core support group of mostly younger people, who don't tend to vote despite their enthusiasm. (It reminded me a lot of Ron Paul's campaign bid.)

We ended up with a candidate that had a base reminiscent of the Tea Party, with enthusiastic popular support from a large base, but a bit of an ephemeral agenda. "Ephemeral" because he said a lot of stuff, but a lot of it either didn't make sense or couldn't realistically be accomplished. But, it always raised the spectre of "A Great Enemy" to fight.

Much like you, I try to fact-check everything that sounds... fishy. But, I'm not a professional Political Science guy who follows all the campaigns and knows the stories of all the people involved. I can't as easily detect when something is "fishy." Neither can most people. And, all those little fishy things that aren't quite true that get pushed out the door to the voting public? They add up. They keep piling on top of each other until they form the basis of an opinion.
...So again ... tell me where's the difference? :gruebel:
Well, who said there's a difference? I simply offered the qualifier of "most people." That includes politicians and elected officials, since most of them are people too. :)
Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:34
...I want you look at this image.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ty.svg.png

Tell me with a straight face that Russia did that.
I know it's not directed at me, but - What do you think achieved that?

Was it that these people voted for Trump because he is a natural loadstone that attracts the support of people? Or, did something help draw that support to him? He had a "campaign," right? There was marketing and "getting the message out" and "cast your vote for Trump if you want your problems solved" and all that, right? And, of course, there was the constant demonizing of Hillary, too, influencing the "swing vote." If it had been any other candidate, the after action report would be the same. So, it wasn't purely due to some "Trump Factor" and marketing, social media, other media coverage, certainly, without a doubt, had a strong influence.

It's worth noting that Hillary won the Popular Vote. So, would it be fair to dare you to opine upon that with a straight face? :) More people voted for Hillary than Trump. That means that Hillary won, right? ... :D

I don't know wtf I would have felt if Hillary had won. I was certainly not in favor of her candidacy. But, she did win the popular vote, so if you maintain that Trump's victory "means something" then what does her unheralded "victory" mean?

From what I recall of the testimony of the heads of various Intelligence agencies before Congress, Russia's meddling did not have a "signficant" impact on the election, according to their statements. But, it had some sort of effect, somewhere.

Edit-Add: Related to "extremes" discussed above:

Clearly, this is an "extreme" article. It's in a decently well-known rag "The Atlantic." And, it's extreme, seemingly with no reason for why it's covering the topic:

Presidential Emergency Powers - What could Trump do if he declared a National Emergency.

Basically, if Trump declared a "National Emergency" then a host of dictatorial powers come into play. This is the stuff of nightmares for those who worry about Trump... And, that's probably exactly why they created the article. :) So, will this "extreme" idea be picked up by others and given broader exposure? Is it "too extreme" for other agencies to address? We'll see. And, who knows, maybe Trump would do it just because he can? And, then what? :)

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 09:53

- surely he cannot unilaterally declare a National Emergency, he can only make an offer of advice.. :sceptic:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:35

BugMeister wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 09:53
- surely he cannot unilaterally declare a National Emergency, he can only make an offer of advice.. :sceptic:
No. He could declare a National Emergency because someone didn't bring him a Coke first thing in the morning... BUT, he would then have to submit some specifics to Congress along with exactly what's going on and what powers he is claiming in response to whatever Emergency is being claimed and Congress could tell him to go get stuffed. :)

But, he could do it on his own, no problem. He'd have to deal with the political and possible criminal consequences, though. Invoking "Emergency Powers" for his own personal gain would be... "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" doesn't even begin to cover the criminal charges involved in exercising such power for one's own benefit. This is the sort of declaration that happened after 9/11.

Interesting note: Ongoing National Emergencies Still in Force

PS - This is the sort of terrifying and inflammatory thing that militant Democrat Mothers tell their liberal children at night... "You go to sleep, now, or President Trump will declare a National Emergency!" ;)

Would he? It would be like him shoving a fork into an electrical outlet with his tongue... The backlash would probably end up with him in prison.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:56

Morkonan wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:35
PS - This is the sort of terrifying and inflammatory thing that militant Democrat Mothers tell their liberal children at night... "You go to sleep, now, or President Trump will declare a National Emergency!" ;)

Would he? It would be like him shoving a fork into an electrical outlet with his tongue... The backlash would probably end up with him in prison.
Remember 2 years ago when Trump first got into the office, there was this hysteria talk (participated by many around the internet, including in this thread) about Trump and the nuclear button? I found that hilarious then, I'll probably find this just as hilarious now. :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”