71% of viewers of Netflix, Michelle Wolf, Don't want NK Peace.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • OakRiver

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 12, 2014
    15,013
    77
    IN
    I think that the title is a little off. It is 71% of Michelle Wolff's audience rather than 71% of Netflix. After her performance at the Correspondent's Dinner it should be no surprise that her audience would hold those views. However it is very disappointing that people would rather place their dislike for the POTUS above the success of their nation.
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    0sdqkh6cnfu01.jpg
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    Sad really, big media reacts to President Trump like the medieval Catholic church would have reacted to a Jew being installed as the king of France.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,174
    113
    North Central
    I think that the title is a little off. It is 71% of Michelle Wolff's audience rather than 71% of Netflix. After her performance at the Correspondent's Dinner it should be no surprise that her audience would hold those views. However it is very disappointing that people would rather place their dislike for the POTUS above the success of their nation.

    On reflection there may be an extra comma.

    M
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,150
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Well, think for a moment, if Obama would have been on the verge of a major foreign policy victory for the US.

    :rofl:

    no. Seriously.

    :lmfao:

    Stop laughing. It’s just a thought exercise.

    :):

    STOP IT!

    Okay. What if? Look how many republicans were rooting for him to fail. And not just fail at ****ing up the country, but fail regardless of good or bad, just because he’s....









    ...a democrat.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,174
    113
    North Central
    Well, think for a moment, if Obama would have been on the verge of a major foreign policy victory for the US.

    :rofl:

    no. Seriously.

    :lmfao:

    Stop laughing. It’s just a thought exercise.

    :):

    STOP IT!

    Okay. What if? Look how many republicans were rooting for him to fail. And not just fail at ****ing up the country, but fail regardless of good or bad, just because he’s....









    ...a democrat.

    You really think America first Republicans would be disappointed in a real nuclear deal? I do not.

    M
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    Well, think for a moment, if Obama would have been on the verge of a major foreign policy victory for the US.

    :rofl:

    no. Seriously.

    :lmfao:

    Stop laughing. It’s just a thought exercise.

    :):

    STOP IT!

    Okay. What if? Look how many republicans were rooting for him to fail. And not just fail at ****ing up the country, but fail regardless of good or bad, just because he’s....









    ...a democrat.

    The details matter, because there can be many descriptions of "failure." There's failing in subjective general terms, which both Obama and Trump detractors have wished for. There's failing on specific items about which there is widespread disagreement on whether the policy in question is good or not, eg. the Iran Deal, owing to the back-room cloak-and-dagger manner in which it was done, and some of the some trade-offs which were made. Then there's failing at specific items which are generally agreed by everyone to be a good thing, like the denuclearization of N. Korea. I don't really believe it's likely or possible, but then again I can't think of any good reason to be against it, as-described, regardless who's working the deal. If seediness is exposed (as was the case with the Iran deal), then I'm fine with someone opposing it. But opposing it out-of-hand, lacking any such details, just because of the identify of who's involved? I don't think these are equivalent.

    With the Iran deal, it seems we began by positing that Iran would eventually become nuclear, no matter what. So we accepted that reality, and tested what kind of deal could be worked within the parameters of that assumed event horizon...and assisted by the prospect of lucrative deals for Boeing, and partner-country firms. It appears "we" chose the assumed event horizon that we did because it was the one which was most lucrative to the people who were lobbying the involved governments at the time. So I just see that as very different than what we're discussing here. If more details come out, I could very well change that view. But based on what's been put forth so far, I can see no good reason for anyone to hope Trump fails at this point.

    Put a different way: I'd need to see evidence that, for example, Trump's negotiations were based upon the assumption/plan of N. Korea _nevah_ denuclearizing, and us being willing to accept that assumed worldview in exchange for, say, a mere "slowdown" in the rate of missile tests, and Trump being allowed to build a Hotel/Casino in Pyongyang. That's the sort of detail I think would need to be present, to make your "thought exercise" a valid, linearly-comparable one.
     
    Last edited:

    phylodog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    59   0   0
    Mar 7, 2008
    18,751
    113
    Arcadia
    Well, think for a moment, if Obama would have been on the verge of a major foreign policy victory for the US.

    :rofl:

    no. Seriously.

    :lmfao:

    Stop laughing. It’s just a thought exercise.

    :):

    STOP IT!

    Okay. What if? Look how many republicans were rooting for him to fail. And not just fail at ****ing up the country, but fail regardless of good or bad, just because he’s....









    ...a democrat.

    Seems you consider both sides equally immature and morally corrupt. I don’t agree. No one needed to wish for Obama to fail, he more than took care of that all on his own and a blind, deaf person could witness it. That is, assuming the measuring stick is the strength and values of this nation.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    For the resistance, wherever you might fall in their lineup...


    [video=youtube;RpsAJQ0iZ2M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpsAJQ0iZ2M&t=19s[/video]


    ;)
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,150
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Seems you consider both sides equally immature and morally corrupt. I don’t agree. No one needed to wish for Obama to fail, he more than took care of that all on his own and a blind, deaf person could witness it. That is, assuming the measuring stick is the strength and values of this nation.

    Huh. Apparently that didn’t come off as hilarious as it did in my head. I was half joking.

    But anyway, I don’t see them as equivalents. No way was it anything like hoping we get nuked by NK so Trump won’t be more popular. Not like wanting a recession to devistate the working class so that Trump can’t claim victory over the economy.

    But I was half serious. Some people were rooting for Obama to fail, and not just to fail at ruining the country.
     
    Top Bottom