Discussion for article #238884
The kid could have made his name shine brighter than this Trump thing with a bit of fun and zany but pointed return fire…
Little known fact. The “T” in TPM stands for Trump.
9 Likes
Let me get this straight.
Endless talk about Bill Ayers (a guy Obama met at a couple of fundraisers in the 90’s) is fair game during Obama’s presidential campaign.
Yet discussing the factually accurate recounting of a spousal rape allegation against Donald Trump is somehow out of bounds.
Got it.
36 Likes
Ivana Trump doesn’t want the checks to stop. So, grain of salt there.
The story may not have been hugely relevant but the type of person Trump hires to work for him is. He seems to like buffoons, probably reminds The Donalds of Himself, his favorite person in the world.
12 Likes
The same applies to Hillary.
Show us his transcripts. Show us his birth certificate. Are there pictures of him smoking a joint in college? I hear he knows an anarchist. Where does he go to church? what did his pastor say?
Please. STFU.
17 Likes
The Chump even wants Sarah in his cabinet!!!
4 Likes
BUT OHBummer Went TO The CHURch WITH THe aNGRY black MAN who damned AMerica. Wright?
8 Likes
The story was accurate.
The subject is fair game because Trump is a candidate for the presidency.
Moaning Ho got it totally wrong—but Joe has a thing for Trump, anyway.
And finally—it’s Mike Barnicle.
Hire a proofreader.
10 Likes
Yes, Wright.
1 Like
BUt SwELL chUCK saves Moaning.
MSNBC contributor Mike Barnacle said divorces are "ugly" by nature and questioned what else reporters would be looking at in Trump's background.
From where did Mr. Barnacle plagiarize that nugget of wisdom? Wing Nut Daily?
Reporters should look at every scintilla of Trump’s background, just like they’re doing with Sanders and of course Clinton.
9 Likes
In those period pictures with Ivana, Trump looked as if he was deep in his fried food period. I’d push the Elvis’ brother from another Mother angle to solidify the base…
1 Like
I’m not sure the criticisms of the “Morning Joe” crew make sense. This is the world we live in, where the lives of candidates for President are fair game, no matter how far back you go. Obama was gigged for smoking pot as a student. W was gigged for joining the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, and Romney for going on a Mormon mission. Jeb Bush has released his tax records going back three decades, and Clinton’s sexual peccadillos have been discussed and dissected going all the way back to the eighties. If Trump wants to be a candidate, he’s going to have to stand up to similar scrutiny. It’s not fair, but it’s the way things are in this day and age. Additionally, of course, I can understand why the “Morning Joe” crew might not want to discuss divorce depositions. If they do so, they appear to legitimize the practice for all public figures, even those appearing on “Morning Joe.”
7 Likes
Was Ivana lying back then (under oath)? Or is she lying now?
3 Likes
Really? This is “arcane” and “omg, what else could they be looking into?” We’re talking about people who fucking frothed at the dickhole over Obama’s birth certificate and college/law school transcripts and him smoking some weed 40+/- years ago, and yet they’re all talking about a candidate accused of spousal RAPE as though it was unfair to go “digging” that deep? FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCKY FUCK…I just want to hold them down and shit in their mouths, especially JoSco, who no doubt was relating a little too well to the idea that something like that could be dug up and become a present-day problem for someone in light of his little intern issue. Truly…this shit is beyond belief sometimes. I hope they all get run over by the fucking bus in 2016.
8 Likes
Mika reminds me of Chris Matthews. On any day they are all over the place in their convictions. Pathetic
3 Likes
Aint that the fucking truth!!!
3 Likes
“Morning Joe on Wednesday was not pleased with what a Daily Beast reporter had to say about decades-old rape allegations against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
Scarborough is dead right on this one. Nobody cares about the past!
For example – and this is purely hypothetical – suppose a sitting US congressman were having an affair with his 28-year old intern, and she suddenly turned up dead in his office one morning.
If that happened in 2015, it would have “merit”. It would be “something new”; but if it happened in 2001, it would be “arcane”. It would be “irrelevant”.
(It’s easy to understand Scarborough’s point if you put it in simple terms like these.)
26 Likes