Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
blackbird

64 Ways Obama is Sabotaging Trump

Recommended Posts

It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#W2APqBS2eyLASAui.99

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, blackbird said:

It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president ...

This is just silly.  I read the first few points, and it's just stupid.

WND is not a site for legitimate news btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, blackbird said:
It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#W2APqBS2eyLASAui.99

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/

This.... source, appears to have little understanding of the need to show some sort of evidence, or even logic or even consistency in making wild assed accusations. 

The only one sabotaging Trump is Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

What do Obama or Trump have to with Federal Politics in Canada ?    

 How do I move it to United States Politics?

Just sent a request to the Administrator to ask it to be moved.

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 How do I move it to United States Politics?

 

No worries...our overlords will do it in short order.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is just silly.  I read the first few points, and it's just stupid.

WND is not a site for legitimate news btw.

So you have read the long article in 10 seconds?   Amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

This.... source, appears to have little understanding of the need to show some sort of evidence, or even logic or even consistency in making wild assed accusations. 

The only one sabotaging Trump is Trump.

You couldn't have read it in 30 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You couldn't have read it in 30 seconds.

I can skim the reasons they posted, and they're bloody nonsense. Which is about what I'd expect from worldnet daily.

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is a far-right website and publisher founded by the ridiculously impressively mustachioed Joseph Farah in 1997, as a project of his Western Center for Journalism.[1] WND espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism. WND's coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the very conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint. WND makes Fox News look positively moonbatty in comparison. Managing Editor David Kupelian claims that WND "serves as your watchdog on government 365 days a year. We guard your priceless freedoms by aggressively exposing corruption and evil everywhere, and by championing good."[2]

While they present themselves as news, WND is a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom, and they have run stories from extremely questionable sources on many, many occasions.[3][4] WND are one of the earliest and longest running publishers of Ann Coulter's insipid columns, as well as editorials from such august political analysts as Chuck Norris, Pat Boone and Charlie DanielsWikipedia's W.svg. The addition of editorials by disgraced baseball bigot John RockerWikipedia's W.svg[5] and an obsession with so-called "black mob violence" marked a shift from their less than subtle dog whistles into more overt racism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

I can skim the reasons they posted, and they're bloody nonsense. Which is about what I'd expect from worldnet daily.

WND (formerly WorldNetDaily or, as it was affectionately known to its fans, WingNutDaily or WhirledNutDaily) is a far-right website and publisher founded by the ridiculously impressively mustachioed Joseph Farah in 1997, as a project of his Western Center for Journalism.[1] WND espouses a fundamentalist Christian, creationist world view, with a healthy dose of jingoism. WND's coverage provides multiple sides of the issues: the very conservative viewpoint and the ultra-conservative viewpoint. WND makes Fox News look positively moonbatty in comparison. Managing Editor David Kupelian claims that WND "serves as your watchdog on government 365 days a year. We guard your priceless freedoms by aggressively exposing corruption and evil everywhere, and by championing good."[2]

While they present themselves as news, WND is a tabloid for radical right-wingers. Their publishing standards are rock-bottom, and they have run stories from extremely questionable sources on many, many occasions.[3][4] WND are one of the earliest and longest running publishers of Ann Coulter's insipid columns, as well as editorials from such august political analysts as Chuck Norris, Pat Boone and Charlie DanielsWikipedia's W.svg. The addition of editorials by disgraced baseball bigot John RockerWikipedia's W.svg[5] and an obsession with so-called "black mob violence" marked a shift from their less than subtle dog whistles into more overt racism.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WND

 

 

I thought you were a "defender of the right", as your info says.  You can't be a defender of the right and be a leftist at the same.  You know what happens if you try to walk with one leg on each side of the fence.   This link you gave with the critique of WND has the sound of being written by a leftist, probably a liberal democrat and maybe even more radically left.  It's funny that these anti right people always find time to throw in a bit of anti-christian jibes.  Regardless of what you believe spiritually, the article 64 Ways seems to be reasonable.

I have read part of the 64 Ways down to about #32 and it makes complete sense.   It is nothing outlandish which some might think from the title.  It actually makes a whole lot of sense.  It simply is pointing out how the anti-Trump people are part of a professional protest organization of activists and activist trainers, and it is run by Obama in the background for now.  It describes how they are going about their plan to oppose Trump's agenda and possible bring Trump down.  Haven't finished reading it.

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Argus is that he's torn between supporting Trump's policies while not supporting Trump.

It's what happens when right wing heads explode and implode at the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is just silly.  I read the first few points, and it's just stupid.

WND is not a site for legitimate news btw.

Michael, read #56 and tell me if u believe the Senator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I thought you were a "defender of the right", as your info says.  You can't be a defender of the right and be a leftist at the same.  You know what happens if you try to walk with one leg on each side of the fence.   This link you gave with the critique of WND has the sound of being written by a leftist, probably a liberal democrat and maybe even more radically left.  It's funny that these anti right people always find time to throw in a bit of anti-christian jibes.  Regardless of what you believe spiritually, the article 64 Ways seems to be reasonable.

I have read part of the 64 Ways down to about #32 and it makes complete sense.   It is nothing outlandish which some might think from the title.  It actually makes a whole lot of sense.  It simply is pointing out how the anti-Trump people are part of a professional protest organization of activists and activist trainers, and it is run by Obama in the background for now.  It describes how they are going about their plan to oppose Trump's agenda and possible bring Trump down.  Haven't finished reading it.

#56 is interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I thought you were a "defender of the right", as your info says.

Yes, a defender of the right, not the wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, blackbird said:
It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#W2APqBS2eyLASAui.99

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/

I can believe it. Just watching the leftist liberal media and the democratic party with their constant attacks against Trump over every little thing he says or does tells me that Obama and Hillary with their buddy Soros are most likely working very hard behind the scenes to try and topple Trump. The problem with these fools is that they have a problem dealing with their loss. They refuse to accept it. Deplorable losers. Their destruction of America has now been put on hold. The people that voted for Trump like and want his policies implemented which will be good for all ordinary Americans even for the fools who are being used by those losers mentioned above to try and convince them that Trump is their enemy, not their friend.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Donna Brazile  should be #66, when she gave Clinton  a list of topics before the town halls or was it the debates, which were going around then.  Many reporters ask her about this and she denied it and just came out saying anything that she didn't know or do anything wrong.                                                                      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donna-brazile-passing-debate-questions-clinton-camp-mistake/story?id=46218677  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If even a quarter of those are partially true, and they are, it shows how subverted and corrupt American politics is. Canadian politics is close but luckily we have more strict regulations to ignore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is just silly.  I read the first few points, and it's just stupid.

WND is not a site for legitimate news btw.

This - this is what you need to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, blackbird said:

And now leftist liberal Rachel Maddow is gone. She made a complete azz of herself. Let's hope all of these leftist liberals keep falling. And please don't come to Canada. We have enough of our own leftist liberals to have to deal with here in Canada.  

Edited by Michael Hardner
Delete article quoted in it's entirety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said this before and I will say it again people NEED to NOT support parties but the Country first because corruption runs rapid now a days and look how divided the US is and the former head of SS said Trump isn't safe anymore in the White House because of  people jumping  fences. Of course, the ones seem to be  doing it weren't around when JFK. was murdered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2017 at 1:09 PM, Michael Hardner said:

This is just silly.  I read the first few points, and it's just stupid.

WND is not a site for legitimate news btw.

 Yeah because we know CNN and et all are MUCH better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

 Yeah because we know CNN and et all are MUCH better.

Yes! We actually DO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argus said:

Yes! We actually DO!

37) Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said he was certain the former president and elements of the Democratic Party were behind the protests because they have been too organized and too professional to be random eruptions of grass-roots discontent.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/64-ways-obama-is-sabotaging-trump/#1DOHqivqgw7ASeJJ.99

It's true as this article on WND says.  I think it should be obvious the protests were NOT just random grass-roots protests.  They were well organized.  Your claim that WND is not a credible source doesn't stand up.   The 64 Ways do make sense.  If you want to believe everything the CBC tells you (or doesn't report) or the CNN slant go ahead.  But I don't.

Edited by blackbird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...