Will she or won't she?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:57 am

^^^ Could it be that the established power merchants will lose a significant amount of power, influence and money if Trump gets elected when he clearly doesn't need their money and endorsements?

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:20 am

The elders of ancient Israel are squealing like fucked goats..Don't haul us off to Babylon...(sound of rending garments)

Sure, Trump’s potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House. But it’s far worse than that. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government. This is a crisis for conservatism. And, once again, this crisis will not go to waste.

--Glenn Beck

And what is the ONLY personage to which the GOP faithful can bow and gain suckage?

OdiDiDiJUUDd77SGEHDkdkKD

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:26 am

Just because Chump has enough money to not take bribes errrrr campaign contributions doesn't mean he won't do the bidding of those wishing to contribute to his campaign. It just means that he has plausible deniability when it comes to accusations of being bought off by those interests.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:44 am

Piedo in Seattle wrote:Just because Chump has enough money to not take bribes errrrr campaign contributions doesn't mean he won't do the bidding of those wishing to contribute to his campaign.

You know this how? Is he hurting for money? Tell me how he needs money or his need to give favors at a later time. You must know something to make such statements. BTW, are you the last one here that uses Jim Rome lingo when trying to sound relevant?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:57 am

Atomic Punk wrote:
Piedo in Seattle wrote:Just because Chump has enough money to not take bribes errrrr campaign contributions doesn't mean he won't do the bidding of those wishing to contribute to his campaign.
You know this how? Is he hurting for money? Tell me how he needs money or his need to give favors at a later time. You must know something to make such statements. BTW, are you the last one here that uses Jim Rome lingo when trying to sound relevant?

He doesn't need money. Tell me where I said that he needed money or that he would take contributions, crossdressing asswipe.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:14 pm

Atomic Punk wrote:
Piedo in Seattle wrote:Just because Chump has enough money to not take bribes errrrr campaign contributions doesn't mean he won't do the bidding of those wishing to contribute to his campaign.
You know this how? Is he hurting for money? Tell me how he needs money or his need to give favors at a later time. You must know something to make such statements. BTW, are you the last one here that uses Jim Rome lingo when trying to sound relevant?

Epic smack! Rack you, tranny shitstain.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:40 pm

That Trump has money or doesn't take financial political donations doesn't change the equation. This is proven by his immediate pandering to Big Corn as soon as Cruz was shown to be leading handily in the Iowa polls. This is evidence that the narrative about Trump's immunity to special interests is false.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:02 pm

This recruiting of an obviously brain damaged and embarrassingly stupid surrogate convinces me that Trump is actually a Democrat troll out to destroy the Republican party. Pretty damn brilliant if you ask me.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:28 pm

Trump doesn't need Palin's endorsement. Cruz did, though. It was a smart play.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:57 pm

The only thing that Palin's endorsement of Trump accomplished was the burying in the news of the Clinton TS/SAP emails on her private server. Palin herself either doesn't move the political needle at all or is a slight negative for Trump for picking up a political has-been remora.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:50 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Atomic Punk wrote:You know this how? Is he hurting for money? Tell me how he needs money or his need to give favors at a later time. You must know something to make such statements. BTW, are you the last one here that uses Jim Rome lingo when trying to sound relevant?
Epic smack! Rack you, tranny shitstain.

He really did get his smack tight. That's what we're here for.

Wait? This isn't the sarcasm thread?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:56 pm

Our Lord and Savior's warning to Alaska: "Keep Sarah home"?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/24/us/alaska-earthquake/

T1B

Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?

Re: Will she or won't she?