Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, May 15, 2017

Ann Coulter on Trump: "I'm not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn't North Korea, and if he doesn't keep his promises I'm out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues." Coulter on Matt Drudge on Trump: "I'll let him speak for himself, but I think all of the Trump true believers are petrified."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So maybe you should shut up and start listening to the people who've been right about stuff.

Which would mean becoming a liberal.

#1 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 06:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Reading the comments of -------- like Atax, Fishpaw, TonTon, Federalist, AFK, Boaz, Docnjo, etc., Trump is the greatest thing since sliced bread. To their way of thinking, obviously Coulter is a Rino.

Fact is, the only reason why anybody tries to defend Trump is because they were horrified at the alternative.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-05-15 06:23 PM | Reply

Sigh. Let me just self-censor this for you. ------ Ann ---- Coulter --- -- --- go ------ -- - ------ herself with a -- - ---------------!

#3 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-05-15 06:31 PM | Reply

#2

There is no more alternative.

Yet people are still defending Donnie Dump.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-15 06:31 PM | Reply

Snowflake Drumpf supporters aren't getting off the hook for any of this, sorry. Bernie Bros don't get a break, either. This American isn't going to forget the events before, during and after the 2016 campaign any more than I forget protesting the Iraq War or the treatment of our last president.

Hanging all of this on them. Scarlet letter style.

#5 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-05-15 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Chuffy, conflating Trump supporters with Bernie supporters is pretty ------- stupid imo. But then again, this argument has already been played out a thousand times here on the DR.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-05-15 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Snowflake Drumpf supporters aren't getting off the hook for any of this, sorry. Bernie Bros don't get a break, either. This American isn't going to forget the events before, during and after the 2016 campaign any more than I forget protesting the Iraq War or the treatment of our last president.

Hanging all of this on them. Scarlet letter style.

Posted by chuffy at 2017-05-15 06:35 PM | Reply

Your Bernie Bro shtick is getting old. Why not blame the true culperates the DNC and the Democratic party for giving us a horrible candidate.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-05-15 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Snowflake Drumpf supporters aren't getting off the hook for any of this, sorry. Bernie Bros don't get a break, either. This American isn't going to forget the events before, during and after the 2016 campaign any more than I forget protesting the Iraq War or the treatment of our last president.

Hanging all of this on them. Scarlet letter style.

#5 | Posted by chuffy

The "bernie bro's" were russian hackers trying to sew divide in the dem party. You're only helping putin by repeating that propaganda.

They didn't just support trump with fake posts, they attacked clinton with slander that appeared to come from bernie supporters, and smeared clinton with posts that appeared to come from bernie supporters.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 06:44 PM | Reply

"Your Bernie Bro shtick is getting old. Why not blame the true culperates the DNC and the Democratic party for giving us a horrible candidate."

Hillary Clinton won the primaries, she wasn't just handed the nomination. But Bernie Bros should have listened to Bernie after she god the nomination, we would be much better off today if they had.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 07:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary Clinton won the primaries, she wasn't just handed the nomination. But Bernie Bros should have listened to Bernie after she god the nomination, we would be much better off today if they had.

#9 | Posted by danni

Or we'd be better off if clinton supporters had listened to bernie in the primary when he said he matched up better against trump than clinton did.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 07:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

So. We're back to debating Hillary vs Bernie?

Stop living in the past.

Start looking to the future.

2018 is right around the corner.

What's can be done to win gerrymandered red states?

#11 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-15 07:21 PM | Reply

What's can be done to win gerrymandered red states?

#11 | Posted by ClownShack

Nothing. So we have to win the swing states.

If you don't learn from the past you're doomed to repeat it. That's why we're still debating hillary vs bernie. A lot of hillary supporters still refuse to acknowledge anything was wrong with choosing a corporate puppet to lead the people's party. If they do the same thing again, we'll get the same result.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- had listened to bernie in the primary

The primary was ancient history when the choice was Clinton or Trump, as Bernie tried to tell you.

Chuffy is exactly right; history won't be kind to those that enabled Trump, right or left.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-15 07:41 PM | Reply

Again, you are wrong. But this keeps going circles. HRC was not an acceptable candidate. History will look back in wonder that the DNC was so arrogant that it rammed such an unacceptable choice down everyone's throat such that the result was the election of Donald Trump.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-05-15 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"HRC was not an acceptable candidate."

Why not? Be specific.

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 07:49 PM | Reply

- HRC was not an acceptable candidate.

You mean the person that won the primary by 4 million votes and the general by 3 million votes?

You're a loon.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-15 07:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Re #12

I tend to agree. We need to take a lesson from the French. Neither major party candidate won. But, their "Trump" candidate was soundly beaten.

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-05-15 07:49 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-15 07:50 PM | Reply

"What's can be done to win gerrymandered red states?"

Nothing.

"So we have to win the swing states."

How many are even in play at this point?

#19 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 08:11 PM | Reply

"Or we'd be better off if clinton supporters had listened to bernie in the primary when he said he matched up better against trump than clinton did."

That is not a logical thought. I voted for Bernie in the primary. Then, I listened carefully to Bernie after the primary and voted against Trump and for Hillary who I would have welcomed as our first female President. Whatever convoluted logic you use to exhonerate your self from assisting Trump gain the presidency that's your business. I don't even want to know.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-05-15 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Why not? Be specific.

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan

Because she enriched herself by selling power to the most evil people in the country, and then claimed to be a liberal.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The primary was ancient history when the choice was Clinton or Trump, as Bernie tried to tell you.

Chuffy is exactly right; history won't be kind to those that enabled Trump, right or left.

#13 | Posted by Corky

If you're going to argue that you must choose the lesser of two evils in the general, why doesn't that same rule apply to the primary?

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 08:25 PM | Reply

Because she enriched herself by selling power to the most evil people in the country, and then claimed to be a liberal.

#21 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-05-15 08:22 PM | FLAG:

Citation needed.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 08:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"she enriched herself by selling power to the most evil people in the country"

I should've invested in butt paste.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-15 08:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-why doesn't that same rule apply to the primary?

The primary was over when the real vote counted and you were nowhere to be found. The primary was lost by a landslide, which should tell you something about who the voters thought was the lesser of two evils.... or maybe who could win.

Projecting your standards on the voters is rarely a wise choice, even in a primary.

In the general, the real corportist was Trump.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-15 08:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

These are the real progressive Dem policies that we could be werking on now had not so many "liberals" sat on their hands or thrown away their votes.

Not a 'corporatist' policy among them....

www.vox.com

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-15 08:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If Clinton had won the election we would be reading a thread titled 'Rachel Maddow Worried HRC-Haters Were Right. Bank on it.

#27 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-05-15 08:47 PM | Reply

"If Clinton had won the election..."

Yeah, it seems we hear a lot of this these days. Someone says "Mr. Trump is terrible!" and the response is not "No, he isn't." but rather some variation of "So how terrible was your candidate that she lost to him?" As if that matters at all.

#28 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 08:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every argument is --------. America had ONE duty, to keep Trump out of office. You failed.

Use any excuse you want, it was your duty to do all in your power.

Trump is the result, congrats.

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-05-15 09:02 PM | Reply

Citation needed.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan

Sounds like you need more than a citation.

Sounds like you need to get a clue.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 09:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The primary was over when the real vote counted and you were nowhere to be found. The primary was lost by a landslide, which should tell you something about who the voters thought was the lesser of two evils.... or maybe who could win.

Projecting your standards on the voters is rarely a wise choice, even in a primary.

In the general, the real corportist was Trump.

#25 | Posted by Corky

I have the patience to keep going round and round with you on this until.

The primary was lost in states that don't matter in the general. What good did all those red states do for hillary on nov 6th?

If primary voters had voted for the lesser of two evils, as you say everyone should do in the general, we'd have president sanders right now.

So I'll ask you again, since you always run away every time I ask - if the DNC trots out another wall street "democrat" puppet in 2020, are you going to support them?

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 09:06 PM | Reply

"Sounds like you need more than a citation."

Put me on that list as well. My guess is you need a dictionary.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-15 09:07 PM | Reply

Sounds like you need to get a clue.

#30 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-05-15 09:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

We have had years of innuendo about Secretary Clinton's alleged corruption. So "clue" us all in. I want names. I want dates. I want dollar figures. I want something other than the odd speech to rich people and vague mumblings about an A+ rated international charity from which the Clinton family derived not a single red cent of actual income. And whatever you come up with had bloody well better add up to something worse than an honest to goodness plutocrat whose shady business dealings and character flaws have been repeatedly proven in court or confessed to publicly. Frankly, at this point, I think these expectations are more than fair.

#33 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 09:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Coulter talking trash about Trump?

Are Coulters's book sales down?

Maybe Coulter has testicular cancer?

#34 | Posted by Tor at 2017-05-15 09:20 PM | Reply

We have had years of innuendo about Secretary Clinton's alleged corruption. So "clue" us all in. I want names. I want dates. I want dollar figures. I want something other than the odd speech to rich people and vague mumblings about an A+ rated international charity from which the Clinton family derived not a single red cent of actual income. And whatever you come up with had bloody well better add up to something worse than an honest to goodness plutocrat whose shady business dealings and character flaws have been repeatedly proven in court or confessed to publicly. Frankly, at this point, I think these expectations are more than fair.

#33 | Posted by DirkStruan

It must be nice to be able to demand such a high burden of proof that aside from a notarized document signed by clinton reading "dear goldman sachs, thanks for the bribe" nothing will qualify.

It's as weak as those who think there is nothing to see between trump and the russians.

The things that are most damaging are the most well hidden.

You must be pretty stupid to think evil billionaires are in the habit of giving million dollar "donations" to politicians in exchange for nothing. That's why they all do it right? That's how rich people get rich isn't it? Giving their money away for free?

#35 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-15 09:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

It must be nice to be able to demand such a high burden of proof that aside from a notarized document signed by clinton reading "dear goldman sachs, thanks for the bribe" nothing will qualify....

#35 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

FF!

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-15 09:38 PM | Reply

"The things that are most damaging are the most well hidden."

The perennial cry of the wild eyed conspiracy theorist.
"The fact I have no proof is proof of how diabolical the conspiracy is!"

#37 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-05-15 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hillary had her flaws, God knows, and the campaign made major mistakes, but the fact is that after all of those mistakes and the Russians and Trump and RW media lies, she still got 3 million more votes than Trump. Fact is, she lost by about 88,000 votes in 3 states. So Trump technically won the election under the rules we have, but he did NOT win "The American People". People who live on the coasts count as citizens, too, after all. They have the majority of the population and they generate the majority of GDP of the US.

Looking back, I think the mistake we made was to try to run the "First Woman President" immediately after the "First Black President". Too many firsts for a population as racist and misogynistic as ours. Too much change in too short a time.

#38 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-05-15 10:06 PM | Reply

I think the mistake we made was to try to run the "First Woman President" immediately after the "First Black President".

The problem Hillary had wasn't being the first woman president. After all. She got about 3 million more votes than Don the Orange.

The problem with Hillary was her message. "I'm with Her!" And "It's my turn!" Didn't really attract voters in swing states, where people were unemployed and desperate for work.

Donnie lied his arse off, and it worked.

Now his constituents are left with buyers remorse and the rest of us are stuck on the ride.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-15 10:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Looking back, I think the mistake we made was to try to run the "First Woman President" immediately after the "First Black President". Too many firsts for a population as racist and misogynistic as ours. Too much change in too short a time.
#38 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

I agree with your post, but not this part. Its not that she's a woman or man. She was part of a dynasty that the "red states/counties" are so against. You should be too.

On the racist side, you might have had an argument if Obama wasn't the most leftist the Dems had to offer. If he was more centrist I doubt you would have had so much resistance. The country is polarized by suburbs&urban vs rural, this is what each side needs to overcome to defeat the other.

Much like AnnCoulter articulates we as a country, tend not to want a family to hold sway over the Presidency.

Just say NO to Bush's and Clintons, and Trump family members in the WhiteHouse.

Personally I think the press smells blood and Trump is in political trouble as the GOP is weak in the knees to support Trump, again as Anne articulates.

#40 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-05-15 10:54 PM | Reply

"She was part of a dynasty that the "red states/counties" are so against."

The same "red states/counties" that went for George W. Bush? Or other "red states/counties"?

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-05-15 10:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The fact I have no proof is proof of how diabolical the conspiracy is!

Proof?

Which of the following do you need proof to believe?

•Russia aided Donnie in the general election.

•The DNC aided Hillary in the primaries.

•Obama was born in Kenya.

•Iraq was building WMDs with plans to attack America.

•9/11 was an inside job.

•George W Bush stole the 2000 elections.

Each has its believers and disbelievers.

But. Dirk. You're also the poster who asked for citations proving Religion spurred wars hatred and intolerance.

So. I'm probably wasting my time.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-15 11:00 PM | Reply

ditto. ditto.

I wanted to believe that The Donald would stick a red hot poker up the proverbial establishments ass...

then he picks a backwoods ---- from Alabammy for AG to be a tool for the prison system.

SAME AS IT EVER WAS.

hope change part deux.

#43 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2017-05-15 11:21 PM | Reply

#31 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Who will be voting for whatever liberal has no chance of winning either the primary or the general next time around just like last time around.

Clinton lost the EC by .065 percent, a statistical fluke, not a hand-wringing cover for the failure of so-called liberals to make the right call when it was Trump v Clinton.

Which is why, btw, they keep talking about the Dem primary instead; hoping no one will notice.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-15 11:36 PM | Reply

Corky.

Don't just write off Hillary's loss as a fluke.

If the DNC refuses to learn.

Then they may be faced with more losses in the future.

Hillary failed at winning the EC votes she needed.

That was her failure.

A failure Democrats can't afforded to relive.

Especially not while the Republicans have congress gerrymandered.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 12:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Then they may be faced with more losses in the future.

More statistical fluke losses? That, too, would be a fluke.

Flukes happened. Trump was the most surprised person in the room.

Of course, had some lefties not been sitting on their hands and throwing away their votes, which it looks like they would do again if they don't get their way, it would not have been close enough for even a fluke.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2017-05-16 12:58 AM | Reply

#46

Again.

You fail to hold Hillary responsible for her loss.

Feel free to blame the moon if it helps you excuse her failures.

But. Until the DNC actually looks at the reason they lost. And stops calling it a fluke. Then they'll learn nothing. And may set themselves up for future failures.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-05-16 01:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I told you guys.

You thought my unnatural love for Ann Colter was just physical. I'll admit a physical element, but mostly, i love her seedy little mind. She is fighting against being sucked into admitting that she does know what she knows.

When that finally happens, it's gonna be ugly.

#49 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-05-16 07:07 AM | Reply

And may set themselves up for future failures.

#47 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

it's like being the winner of 'The World's greatest twit' contest. It's a bittersweet victory.

#50 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-05-16 07:08 AM | Reply

So maybe you should shut up and start listening to the people who've been right about stuff.
Which would mean becoming a liberal.

#1 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

NRO and Redstate were among Trump's biggest critics before the election was over (and that has carried after the election). I would not classify either as "liberal".

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-05-16 07:11 AM | Reply

You mean the person that won the primary by 4 million votes and the general by 3 million votes?
You're a loon.
#16 | POSTED BY CORKY

Getting the most votes nationally isn't a "win" by any measure in our system.

But keep pushing this stupidity so long as it allows you to avoid criticizing your queen.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:10 AM | Reply

More statistical fluke losses? That, too, would be a fluke.

No. Then it becomes what's known as a "pattern".

And if we continue to insist on running an entrenched corporate insider (right after a relative outsider was in the WH for eight years) against a Repub candidate who was a corporate and Russian entrenched outsider, the Dems will continue to lose, likely with a similar EC map as against Trump, and America will continue to lose.

Looking at the broader thought currents in the electorate, Hillary was a bad candidate. The only reason, IMO, you can't see it is you lack even a shred of objectivity when it comes to Hillary.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:14 AM | Reply

"So we have to win the swing states."
How many are even in play at this point?

#19 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Right. So if none of them are obviously in play right now, we should just focus on pushing more of the same policies that garner increased votes in NY, CA, WA, OR ect but don't gain votes (or worse, maybe lose votes...) in PA, MI, WI ect.

It won't be good enough to run on "Trump is bad" in 2018. That's what Hillary tried to do in 2016. How'd that work out for her?

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:18 AM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY BLJJ77

Looks like the Russians are on to us here on the DR.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2017-05-16 11:19 AM | Reply

"It won't be good enough to run on "Trump is bad" in 2018. That's what Hillary tried to do in 2016. How'd that work out for her?"

Well....she convinced a bunch of people in places like NY and California that she was better than Trump but she couldn't convince enough folks in swing states that she wasn't an "entrenched corporate insider". Which, BTW, was baggage everybody knew she would have a hard time ditching.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 11:22 AM | Reply

As long as Trump gets himself impeached before starting a war, which seems increasingly likely, this 2016 election may really work out for us.

Six months of Trump followed by 3 1/2 years of Pence probably isn't as bad as eight years of Hillary.

And now its been proven that an outsider can win if they have the right message. Maybe the next one won't be a complete BS artist. (although we may have already missed that opportunity with Perot)

#57 | Posted by Sully at 2017-05-16 11:52 AM | Reply

"Use any excuse you want, it was your duty to do all in your power."

Well, I was in a coma on life support, you see. I did TRY to get them to let me go vote, but they misunderstood my request (which came out as a line of drool) as my wanting my bed raised.

I apologize for failing in my duty.

#58 | Posted by RevDarko at 2017-05-16 11:53 AM | Reply

Perot?
Ross "Look Under the Hood" Perot?

ROTFLMAO

#59 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-16 11:58 AM | Reply

," this 2016 election may really work out for us."

I say this all the time at work...."sometimes things have to get worse before they get better"

I'm sort of lying when I say it....but I'm trying to soften things for folks.

the real truth is "always" things have to get worse before they get better.....

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2017-05-16 11:58 AM | Reply


Perot?

Ross "Look Under the Hood" Perot?

ROTFLMAO

#59 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-16 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, being proven right by everything that has happened since he ran really makes him looks incompetent!

#61 | Posted by Sully at 2017-05-16 12:08 PM | Reply

LOL

#62 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-05-16 12:10 PM | Reply

Looking back, I think the mistake we made was to try to run the "First Woman President" immediately after the "First Black President". Too many firsts for a population as racist and misogynistic as ours. Too much change in too short a time.

#38 | Posted by WhoDaMan

The first woman president would have been fine. Her gender didn't hurt her. The problem was many "liberals" thought having the first woman president was more important than having a president who wasn't owned and operated by corporations and banks. They were so excited by her gender that they willfully ignored her massive flaws. Swing voters weren't willing to do the same.

So what's the plan for 2020?

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-05-16 01:00 PM | Reply

Ann Coulter's mouth is strangely attractive when you see it in person. OK OK. So I met her and got to talk with her for 15 minutes over a margarita. I admit it. And now she is down on Trump. Good on her. But she should have seen it coming.

Y'know what is REALLY pissing me off right now?

I'm forced to write under a pseudonym because of this stupid contract I'm under. I signed an NDA for five years and I'm sick of it. That being said, I did make 100K by simply signing my name. And you-- mystery Drudge poster who somehow got my email address-- can you please stop calling me the next Thomas Pynchon?

No one told me that being a writer could be so rewarding and so frustrating at the same time. Dammit.

#64 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-05-16 01:14 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort