Obvious posed propaganda pictures to show how 'virile and in shape' Putin is - is painfully awkward knowing that if he really did fish shirtless - he would be sunburnt like hell.
Tell me that in 30 minutes the guy would be Rock Lobster Red -
Independent polls show the guy's approval rating in Russia to be close to 90% so, even though this seems ridiculous to us it must be working with the Russian people.
Mr. "pasty white shirtless" lives in a nation where everyone else is "pasty white" and therefore, I don't think anyone there finds this offensive, unusual, or something noteworthy.
As you can tell from a couple of responses, Putin is the new hero of the American right. You shouldn't make fun of a murderous dictator who is our new and greatest ally.
Your response made me go back and reread the responses promisem, because I didn't see what you apparently did.
I suppose live to learn, Wilderness, and Ken could be called Right-wing, conservative might be more appropriate, but close enough.
Live to Learn commented on his popularity in Russia - with the note that seemed to imply agreement with the OP
Wilderness spoke of how petty the topic of the Op was - that would seem a fair point regardless of which side of the aisle you are on. Wouldn't you agree that making fun of a lack of tan is kinda cheap?
Of course Ken might be the worst offender by noting that most Russians are "pasty white."
Are these the comments that you took to imply he's their new hero? Or were you just taking a crack at Conservatives regardless of its merits?
I know I have commended your commentary before GA, but let me applaud you again. I do enjoy your contributions.
"Amazing how petty we've become, isn't it? A man must wear the "proper" clothes, have the "proper' hair color and comb it the "proper" way, must speak "properly" with the "proper" PC words or they become objects of derision and the name calling starts afresh."
GA, if you don't see this post as rude and condescending, and you don't recognize that it's typical bullying from the above person to the original poster (and others), then our differences are much greater than I thought.
Please see my other response below.
I don't see rudeness and bullying promisem. I do see sarcasm, and how that is perceived is an individual choice.
As for our differences... My surprise is that you were surprised.
For someone who seems to try hard to be rational, I'm deeply disappointed that you can't see obvious bullying on an ongoing basis. I don't believe we should stay silent about bullies or defend them because they fit our political views.
Your second paragraph fits my above point.
You have me confused now promisem.
It is obvious that I disagree with you that critical and opposing responses qualify as bullying. I just don't see it. An honest question is if you see consistent disagreement and criticism of your views as bullying? I wouldn't have thought so, but that is the only thing I can see that you could be referring to.
Your statement that my closing "surprise" line is an example of your bullying point is even less obvious to me.
If it is the consistent opposing views that are critical of your views that you define as bullying... then my only possible response would be a snarky suggestion about staying out of the kitchen... or something like that. I am sure there are political choir rooms that cater to collegiate views, or provide safe zones for particular ideologies, but this HP forum isn't one of them.
Of course if the criticism and opposing views aren't what you are referring to as bullying, then you can see my obvious confusion and should help me out with a little clarification.
GA, I didn't start this discussion because someone bullied me. I started it because another HP member has consistently bullied someone else.
It's one reason why so many people have abandoned these forums compared to even a few years ago.
No promisem, the reason some have abandoned these forums, (my opinion of course, and I have been here 7+ years), is that their ideological proclamations couldn't stand peer review, or they could not find a sustainable support group here.
Of course there were, and are, (me?), obnoxious knotheads that were/are a a pain in the butt - just the effort of scrolling past their senseless and obvious attack comments was a frustrating effort - for both the Left and Right leaning, but generally speaking those were the exception rather than the rule.
I would rebut that those that left did so because they couldn't stand the heat of having their precious ideology challenged. Again - the choir room mentality. I hope I can take just a little credit for challenging the kumbaya crowd in this HP politics and social issues forum. That's what lively, informed, and respectful discussions are all about. We all have choices, and that you are still here is yours.
So stop pouting and get your game together.
ps. If you couldn't already tell, your wish was granted. Your first return comment turned this into a two-martini night. I really do enjoy these forums. ;-)
Stop pouting? Then please stop supporting bullies. Heaping abuse on someone for posting a comment about a foreign dictator is not peer review.
It's easy to accept the bullying behavior after a while by becoming immune to it. I suggest you spend time on Reddit and compare the civility there with the lack of it here.
Finally we have an agreement. It was a struggle, but we got there. We both stubbornly think the other is wrong about the bullying charge.
In my day, a bully took your lunch money. Today he says disagreeable things to you. If I could borrow a bit of Wilderness' sarcasm I would say I gotta get with the times.
"As you can tell from a couple of responses, Putin is the new hero of the American right. You shouldn't make fun of a murderous dictator who is our new and greatest ally."
Yep. Our greatest ally...as we kick out their spies and they kick out hundreds of our diplomats and staff. Our greatest ally.
GA is right - this is nothing but a backhand slap at conservatives in general, and without a shred of reason for doing so. You can do better - conservatives as a group are wrong approximately as often as they are right and I'm positive you can find something that's actually true to whine about.
My post has much more to do with the rudeness of certain posters than it does with conservatives in general. And with the fact that they defend Putin because he helped win the election for Trump. It was sarcastic for an obvious reason.
Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. But if you don't like rudeness then don't be rude yourself - my comments were about the OP, which was exactly like a little child calling names because (s)he can't find anything else mean to say. Coupled with "I hate you!", it's the most common come-back from my 8 year old grand daughter.
Plus, of course, a response to the derision directed at conservatives. You say it was only sarcasm, but I didn't read it that way. Not after the OP.
OMG! Wilderness, you used the (s)he pronoun. When you start using 'zhe' or 'ze' then I will know that Borg has finally assimilated you.
Check out the stupid headline of more pronouns invented everyday - -
I'll leave the collective to you: free people are not a good fit there. The ultimate nanny state (Borg collective) would be great for socialists, though.
Civil people are a good fit here. Bullies are not. Do you agree?
I agree. At least as long as "civil" does not include name calling. Does it?
Such as "petty" and comparing someone to an 8-year-old child? Do we really want to go through a lengthy history of the bullying by certain people?
Hypocrisy: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel." - Merriam-Webster
I don't see anything in my original post that was directed at you on a personal level.
And insulting Ptosis once again by comparing him to your 8-year-old granddaughter simply offers more proof of my point.
Ptosis? I merely commented on the maturity of people that resort to name calling. If Ptosis is one of those people, and the shoe fits, well...
Do you see the same level of maturity in our president?
Close. Quite close. Although I don't recall him ever starting the name calling, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if he did (descriptions that fit and are pertinent to the topic, however virulent, don't count).
Did you feel a little sleazy typing that?
You don't remember Trump initiating name calling. Really?
As for the second part of your response....I have no words.
You don't recall? That's hilarious! You've been watching to many Congressional Hearings lately!
351 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … sults.html
The definitive list of every person Donald Trump has called a loser http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/the-d … d-a-loser/
Trump's Childish Name-Calling Is a Time-Honored Strategy of Bullying http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/d … presidency
"Little Marco", Lyin' Ted", "Low Energy Jeb", "Crooked Hillary", "Crazy Bernie", "Pocahontas"
If it is true - is it an insult?
Is it true that nobody can insult you without your consent?
Are DJT's crude insults effective because they are true?
Is it ok to insult people, if you believe that the insulting statement is true?
Here's a good example of probably true AND insulting from https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jsp … w/750/html
The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria’s Freedom Party, Belgium’s Vlaams Blok, France’s National Front, Germany’s Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain’s U.K. Independence Party (UKIP). In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.
A bunch of Archie Bunkers in short.
Uhhh...I don't recall equating insulting with calling names.
But, mostly perhaps, I don't listen much when he talks. He lies, he exaggerates and he presents just one side. Like every other politician.
Oh please. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending that you weren't talking about him.
Some people have a strange fixation with Putin.
Amazing how petty we've become, isn't it? A man must wear the "proper" clothes, have the "proper' hair color and comb it the "proper" way, must speak "properly" with the "proper" PC words or they become objects of derision and the name calling starts afresh.
My derision toward Putin is much more than cosmetic. His behavior reflects that of a dictator and tyrant. Is that supposed to be petty. Are we suppose to trust him just because you think that we are all just taken aback by his bravado before the camera?
I call Putin a tyrant regardless of what he wears or how he dresses. Is that just 'name calling'?
LOL You, too, can do better Cred! The OP isn't about being a dictator or a tyrant; it's about derision for having a pasty white skin and going without a shirt. And you can call him a tyrant all you wish, but "Mr. Pasty White Shirtless" is nothing but name calling, and a poor effort at that.
No, I'm sorry if everybody thought I was body-shaming him. I thought I wanted to point out that the photo ops that make Putin appear to be an admirable guy is pure propaganda. There were other pictures of Putin's Siberia vacation that are just as posed fully clothed such as the picture of him with mushroom in his hand while sitting on a log next to somebody else, captions reads about Putin picking mushrooms.
As if he really did pick that mushroom, wash it off, sit down in front of a camera, on a nice tree log, with a beautiful background talking to his buddy sitting next to him. Just a regular guy ...
Almost any image of his has been choreographed because it is psychological propaganda. He used to be seen as Action-Man but gone are the outdoor stunts with wild animals, lately it's been Mr Ordinary, portraying him more as a down-to-Earth man of the people.
That's why Putin nutted up when a famous photo of him looking like a tough guy was altered to make him look gay. I wonder what ever happened to the person who did that? Russia bans all gay looking images of Putin and calls it “Internet extremism.”
43 images in below link - the propaganda of the "world's most interesting guy" - That's what I was making fun of. The guy is in good shape. He's 67 years old.
http://www.businessinsider.com/43-pictu … istrict-32
Vladimir-Putin-as-a-gay-clown beer label:
And besides all that, it's freaking cold in Siberia, in the other pictures with clothes on - you can tell it's a bit chilly.
I hate to break this to you... but this type of 'propaganda' is what all Politicians/Leaders do.
You think when Clinton went into the NY Subway for a 'ride' (and had to be told they no longer use tokens) that wasn't for 'propaganda' purposes?
You think when Obama stopped in at Five Guys to have a burger with some regular folks that wasn't for 'propaganda' purposes?
You call Putin a dictator and tyrant, but Obama killed a lot more people (with drones, with jets, funding 'separatists' and with troops) throughout the world during his 8 years than Putin did during that time.
During Obama's 8 years we toppled Libya, tried to topple Syria, continued our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (well we paused it, but started it again), massed tens of thousands of troops along the Russian border just weeks before the election (Hillary not getting elected put a wrinkle in whatever plans they had in the works for that).
I don't know what to tell you. Compared to say... Peru's Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, Putin is indeed a tyrant. Compared to America's Obama years, he was a pretty mild guy.
Your last paragraph was a pretty stupid thing to say, Ken...
If by 'stupid' you mean accurate, then yes it was.
Obama’s policies killed hundreds of thousands of people, with these four nations being the glaring indictment of his foreign policy and military disasters (data from 2009-2016 via the UN and other government sources):
Iraq: 82,320 (Civilian only)
Afghanistan: 22,941 (Civilian only)
Syria: 301,781 (Civilian and combatants)
Libya: 29,758 (Estimates for all casualties by UN since 2011 war)
Not including refugee deaths trying to escape to Europe from these countries, nor drone kills in other nations, nor interference in nations like Egypt where we caused thousands to be killed.
Putin is no angel and is responsible for the deaths of thousands also, but those efforts have been in neighboring and former Soviet nations where Russia has may have a far more legitimate reason for being than we have toppling Libya and Syria (which Putin defended, and if we hadn't been funding the resistance in Syria and smuggling them weapons, Putin would have never sent troops to support his ally).
Obama did not invent the "war on terror". You conservatives have always advocated the hard line in regards to prosecution of this war. This started with GW Bush, with the goal to get Bin Ladin. If Obama was weak in this area, you rightwingers would have been all over him like a cheap suit.
If Obama were not a Black president, you know that this discussion would not be conceived of. Comparing Putin with Obama is ridiculous and attests to the subtle racism that I discover in far too many white people.
Credence, before more ignorance spews from your fingers and onto these threads in regards to my positions on things... how about you do yourself (and anyone who reads your tirades) a favor and read my positions on things, and maybe educate yourself, at least to my stance, if not some facts as well:
https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Ameri … ith-Russia
https://hubpages.com/politics/Seeing-wh … nistration
I will, but let's not say that your articles are gospel, just your opinion.
I never said that directly in this particular thread that I recall.
I do not recall using those two particular words in that order.
I do not know what the word 'is' is.
It'll be just the tip ....
Trump's mother was Scottish. He also loves to golf and they say for such a tall, large frame he is very limber. This is an endearing picture. Look at the happy smile on his face.
This is Trump, getting ready to host the Putin's at the White House.
Seems to me people are imagining slights where there are none.
Putin deserves to be made fun of for his ridiculous "macho" poses. We all know he is a ruthless KGB thug who kills off or "disappears" anyone who dares oppose him. A nasty piece of work.
Trump wants to stay on his good side? anything wrong with that?
Chamberlain wanted to stay on Hitler's "good side" as well. It is a loathsome excuse for Trump's bromance with the man, Putin.
That is a purely sane and rational outlook to have. But with certain factions within the U.S. an entirely unforgivable one. The faster we remove those people from D.C. that want to make Russia the 'big bad enemy' that we have to go fight, the better for those of us who would like to see a few more years of existence.
You and your crowd were doing this thing regarding Russia and the former Soviet Union prior to Trump. Now that Trump is there it's all ok with Russia now?
Yeah... 'me and my crowd were doing this' ... Credence you don't know a damned thing about a damned thing, but you keep doing that.
Lets not get belligerent, you keep portraying yourself as above the fray, when your opinions and affections as revealed in your posts say otherwise.
Above the fray isn't what I am going for...
Accurate would be nice, I do hate it when I take an opinion on something and then come to find I am in the wrong.
But I DO accept when I am wrong. And I DO accept that things are way more complicated than is easily comprehended.
Let me give you an example.
I spent years trying to understand the 'Arab Spring', Benghazi, the Egyptian overthrow. What was the goal? Why was the Obama Administration taking these steps?
So I dug, and found some answers long before they became known here in the states by even a minority of people.
One part, was that we were shipping anti-aircraft missiles to Syria from Libya, via Turkey, to arm 'separatists'.
But I still didn't 'get it'.
Now , years later, things are far more clear; of course I admit it took someone with far more detailed knowledge than I have, along with paying attention to some EU news, and listening to some of their politicians to really 'get it'.
In short, it was a game of dominoes... with the ultimate goal of opening up a flood of refugees into Europe. That's right, there are people in the highest positions of both EU and America that WANTED those millions of people flowing, much like the Obama Administration made efforts to make it known throughout Central and South America that not only were they welcome in the U.S. but that there would be social (government) support for them when they got there. (Which of course they weren't going to advertise to Americans that they were pursuing such a course, especially not as we tried to climb out of a recession).
Its not enough to know what is going on, you have to dig into the WHYs of it.
Like WHY are so many millions flowing into Europe?
Because the Chancellor of Germany and many other leading politicians made it known that they would take those refugees and provide for them, they were INVITED.
And the same happened here, we had millions more immigrants than had been seen in prior years flow in from the southern border during Obama's second term. Because they were invited, because they received immigration welfare and other benefits as soon as they arrived.
https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immi … Households
I am not angry with them over it. If I were in their shoes I'd take everything I could get as well.
But knowing that our wages have stagnated, and our taxes have gone up, and our Insurance no longer covers diddly and now healthcare is coming out of my pocket, I have a BIG problem with a government that puts ANY interests over the best interests of its citizens, and its future as a nation.
Odd that "conservatives" support a murderous dictator even after he interferred with our elections. In other times it would be an act of war.
Well there you go, anyone who firmly believes the tripe that has been peddled by the MSM regarding stolen elections by Russia, is someone who has chosen the path of cognitive dissonance rather than factual based rationalization and review.
Such a person isn't worth debating with, as all they are doing is regurgitating talking points they have heard from the MSM, they are adding nothing new to a debate, just more senseless and ill thought out rhetoric.
I don't believe tripe. I believe the FBI, CIA and NSA.
And multiple congressional committees controlled by the GOP.
Why don't you?
Anyone who believes Breitbart over the above is certainly not worth a debate.
You believe the tripe, let me prove it to you.
Where did you get your information about the FBI, CIA, and NSA?
Did you read the actual reports?
Or did you get this information from CNN and the like?
How about the actual committee statements and reports...
Did you read their official findings and statements?
Or did your information come from the Washington post?
Breitbart? I don't read it, do you?
Well, gee, I tend to believe Republican congressmen and senators when they get on TV and say they have enough evidence to keep the investigation going and put together bills to protect Mueller.
I believe an Attorney General who recuses himself and an assistant AG who hires an independent counsel. I believe Donald Trump Jr. when he admits sending out emails about private meetings with Russians to get dirt on Clinton.
I tend to believe FBI directors and federal prosecutors who get fired for investigating Trump.
Where do you get your amazing insights? From Fox News?
No I don't watch Fox news either.
I actually find ignoring the MSM altogether has done wonders for my blood pressure, and positive outlook. I honestly don't know how anyone can watch any of the main news networks, they are negative, inaccurate, and unhealthy IMO.
I do watch One America News Network, about an hour or so a week to keep tabs on what is going on, maybe a half hour of Bloomberg business on the weekend, along with the WSJ that's how I stay informed. If I want to see something in particular (IE - Trump's Boyscout speech) I usually can find it on YouTube.
The people who got fired, got fired for leaking information, taping private conversations with the President and leaking them to the Press, choosing to ignore his directives despite that being their job/duty to do so...
There is a disconnect here, if these same people did these things to Obama, you would be outraged tenfold from what you feel right now for Trump.
But because you don't like Trump, anyone who undermines him, breaks the law to inform against him, does not do their duty to spite him, you are OK with, and you fully believe anything they have to say, despite the fact that they have proven themselves not to be professional and above the fray... but rather IMO unprofessional at best, and outright traitors to the nation at worst.
If you don't want to work for someone, if you don't want to follow that person's directives, commands, etc. ... you can resign. I have done that very thing when confronted with such choices myself. What you DON'T do, is lie, undermine, record and inform against the President of the United States.
Comey is a traitor to the United States of America in my book, not for his potential cover up of what Clinton did as SOS, not for anything in regards to his investigation of Trump prior to becoming President. But when Trump DID become President, and he chose to leak a bunch of petty crap to the media, and inform against him... well trade the names Trump and Obama, and what do you think should be done?
promisem, you did ask to see your "following responses." It looks to me like you are taking lack of support for your condemnations to be a sign of support for that which you are condemning, when it could just as easily be just a lack of support for your condemnations.
Since you restated your declaration that Putin is a hero to Conservatives, but this time without citing previous comments in this thread - then it appears I was right, you were just tacking a swipe at Conservatives using a false pretext as justification.
Think about that... how valid can an opinion be if it isn't supported by the facts it uses?
GA, I don't give a damn who supports me on here or not. Burgess and Wilderness can launch all of the broadsides they want. You can take your usual subtle approach with defending them.
There is no justification for conservatives to defend and support Vladimir Putin on HP and elsewhere just because he helped Trump win the election. He is an enemy of our country, period.
Why is he an enemy of our country?
Honestly I would like to read some facts on this, if you have any.
I understand much of the reasons behind what is going on ( IE - https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Ameri … ith-Russia ) and I understand that America (Obama/Clinton) tried to interfere with both the Georgian and Russian elections a few years back.
But I would really like to know why you so fervently believe Putin and Russia to be our enemy.
We have opposed each other in every major conflict in the world from the end of World War II until today including Vietnam, Ukraine, Georgia, the Crimea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Both sides have major standing armies facing each other in Europe. Both sides have thousands of nuclear missiles pointing at each other. Both sides have hundreds of submarines playing tag along their coasts.
If our own military and intel agencies think Russia is an enemy, why do you so fervently disagree with them?
Lets add on that, what is the basis of his disagreement? What legitimate source did he discover that says that all these federal agencies can not be trusted in their findings.
Try reading the article I linked in the above post, there is my response...
Do you know some of the facts we are dealing with as far as the Russian military goes?
Russia has some 700,000 under arms in the military (not including interior border and police forces, but they would only matter in defensive and security operations).
The USA has more than 1 million active duty personnel and NATO as a whole over 3 million.
NATO outspends Russia by a factor of around ten times, and has done so for years. Ten times.
According to NATO’s own figures, the alliance spent $943 billion in
2014. Conversely, even if we are generous and ignore both the collapse of the ruble and also subsequent revisions downwards of the defense spending, in 2015 Moscow spent at most $80 billion.
Russia is still essentially deploying legacy Soviet forces, that they maintain well enough that they can roll them across the Red Square on parade from time to time. Even their latest Su-35 fighter, for example, is really a heavily-developed version of the Su-27, a plane that first flew in 1977.
My best guess as to what was supposed to happen, is that we planned on actually engaging Russia in a war (maybe there are enough in D.C. that still want to make it happen) soon after Clinton got elected, but that didn't happen. So all those troops and tanks and fighters that were amassed along the border didn't get put to use.
If nukes didn't come into play, I'd give Russia about as much of a chance against the combined NATO forces amassed against it as Iraq had. It might take a whopping week before NATO troops were sitting in Moscow.
And Putin knows this better than anyone.
Put yourself in his shoes... what would you be feeling about an army massed along your southern border that was more than twice the size of the one you had, with tanks and fighters and missiles that you knew were superior in technology and number to your own?
If it weren't for those nukes you mentioned, there wouldn't be a Putin right now, we would have steam rolled over Russia years ago. Soon as Putin decided to stand with his ally in Syria, and resist America's efforts to topple that nation, that was put into the works DESPITE knowing they had nukes.
Those are the types of dangerous decisions being made in D.C. right now, you shouldn't be angry with Putin, you should be damned afraid of those who have taken control of your government and are making the decisions, regardless of what Trump, or the American people want.
Promisem, I didn't come to anyone's defense. I just commented on what I thought was wrong with your opinion/declaration.
Perhaps support was the wrong word. I didn't mean to imply you needed anyone's support - or cared if you had it. What I did want to be clear about was that the basis you used to support your own statement didn't appear to be valid.
Of course you can return the effort and prove I was wrong in thinking that you were wrong - just by showing that the three posters you referred to were in fact defending Putin. If your opinion is valid that should be an easy task.
You absolutely have a right to disagree with me. But I think I have a compelling case in being right when someone consistently heaps mocking personal abuse on other posters and, in this case, calling the OP petty and comparing him to an 8-year-old child. Even worse, showing support for Putin.
For the record, I don't think the original post was worthy of a posting. But the responses by a couple of people were far less worthy.
Even when not the central character in a picture - Val is still posing ----- as a tourist (left edge)
wait a minute, same kid, same Ronald Reagan - looks like same scene - but different clothes! Whatta a Chameleon!
I think the above image is reversed because the kid is sticking out his 'left' hand. Also very good example of Ronnie using propaganda pictures himself. Must've rehearsed these at least twice the 'spontaneous' moment.
But we all knew is was fake news all this time anyway.
That is interesting, its like a throwback reminder to when we were all united as Americans, there were political splits, and there was corruption in D.C. ... but absolutely nothing that compares to how bad things are today.
Yes, thanks to traitors who love Putin for putting Trump into the White House.
Wow... you have really gone off the deep end haven't you?
Apparently. There isn't a shred of evidence Putin took any action whatsoever that even helped to add a single vote to Trump, but the claim will be made anyway that it was all Putin's doing.
It's amazing, isn't it, the level that Trumpaphobes will go to so spread lies. Trump himself could learn from them!
The Electoral Process put Trump into the White House. 60+ million voters put Trump into the White House.
There was no hacking of the voting system. There was only exposure of Clinton and Podesta emails, and what people don't realize, is that was a tit-for-tat response for American/Clinton's interference with Georgian and Russian elections years prior.
If people made a change in who they voted for because they found out what the DNC did to Sanders, or how they really perceived Catholics, or whatever was exposed, GOOD!
Isn't that better than them being able to get away with a barrel full of lies?
There are no congressional investigations.
There is no special counsel.
DT Jr. and Kushner did not admit to meeting with Russias to get dirt on Clinton.
Six members of Trump's senior campaign staff did not lie on their security clearances including several who have resigned or recused themselves.
The left and the media are making all of it up.
Not at all. Anyone who approves of a foreign enemy interferring in our elections is a traitor. If we were in a state of war, such a person would face fines or jail. It's the law.
Do you think the law is wrong?
Ummm...just what actions do you imagine Putin took to "interfere in our elections"? And while you're at it, just what do you think Putin did that was instrumental in Trump being elected (the two are different, after all)?
Your memory is lying to you. Or nostalgia has romanticized it for you.
Not sure which era you have in mind but one aspect is The Ronald Reagan Myth
By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronal … _Myth.html
Personally, I'm much more fond of Trudeau's shirtless photo ops.
LOL. I certainly didn't expect to see such a post on this rather heated political exchange.
I would post my own shirtless selfie, but HP would probably ban me.
Well damn! Amie F, Good timing. If ever an ice water dump were needed, now is the time.
I gotta look into this Trudeau dude. If his other facets are as surprising as his off-the-cuff quantum computer explanation I saw on youtube, then France is about to hit a major reset of world opinion, and, rearrange the world stage in the process.
Now, if I could just find something to disagree with you on we could get some lively discussions going.
You can't trade the names Obama and Trump. One was a gentleman statesman and one is inept.
I know I have other "pithy" threads I need to weigh in on, but it's hard because I've become too busy with work (a good thing!). GA, I'm hoping to have time to get back to the Ayn Rand comments tomorrow.
In the meantime.....I find this thread to be so ridiculous. The OP was simply talking about Putin's ridiculous macho man photo ops, and he mentioned the white skin as evidence that he probably doesn't fish with his shirt off, unless he's doing a photo op. Simple as that. He wasn't body shaming him (the way our, ahem, president actually has done many times with women), but I find it incredulous that someone like wilderness or Ken truly cares whether or not poor little Putin is ridiculed for his pasty white skin. I don't think you guys care at all. What you really care about is any little criticism that could be interpreted to offend the Great Orange One in office (yeah, I called him a name, an accurate one; he's orange and he calls himself "great" all the time). You're so thin-skinned and snowflakey that you can't even accept criticism of someone Trump obviously kowtows to.
Yeah, I engaged in a bit of name calling. Our president does that all the time, and you admire him greatly. I'm waiting for the kudos for all my plain-speakin', no-nonsense, anti politically correct TRUTH. LOL, when pigs fly.
Oh I've had a blast with this (and most threads).
We have everything here from "you are a traitor to the country if you don't despise Putin and Trump", never mind that no one has a damned bit of evidence or even a factual based argument to throw out there to prove the election was stolen. To "you are clueless if you don't realize that lizard men rule the world, and the politicians are their puppets".
And of course, we have the wit of GA which is the most entertaining of all.
'Never underestimate the predictability of ignorance' ...and when all that is coming back in response are insults and indignation and name calling, well, that says worlds about what cards the other parties are holding.
"Never underestimate the predictability of ignorance' ...and when all that is coming back in response are insults and indignation and name calling, well, that says worlds about what cards the other parties are holding."
Does your measure of a person who engages in name calling apply to our president?
Come on now PrettyPanther, even though I agree with your comment, you have to admit that the OP, (recently clarified - and a sensible clarification it was), was just asking for the responses it received.
Attacking someone as "pasty-white." - (pre-clarification of course), as Wilderness noted - how silly can you get. Ha! What a turn the thread took. From challenging a staged photo-op to traitorous support of an enemy. Geesh!
ps. I sure hope this doesn't put me into any particular 'camp'. I just think it has been a fun and enlightening thread. ;-)
pss An Ayn Rand continuum would be fine, as long as you understand my support of her philosophies has limits. I was in such agreement with her thoughts - through "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" that I eagerly pursued her philosophies straight into the Objectivism school of thought - and quickly realized this was 'a bridge too far' for me.
Okay, I'll just leave the Ayn Rand discussion.
With regard to the OP, as I stated above, it is the height of hypocrisy for a Trump supporter to call out name calling of public figure, given that they support a president who is known for name calling.
But, whatever. Hypocrisy is nothing knew. I intentionally call Little Donnie derogatory names. After all, he is our role model. I'm trying to make a point. Of course, certain people are blind to it, and simply get their snowflakey fee-fees in a stew while blithely excusing the Name-Caller-in-Chief, the guy holding an office that used to be held in high esteem. Now, if he meets the standard of Vince McMahon's WWE, he's praised as a no-nonsense, tells-it-like-it-is, non-PC, HERO!
"I intentionally call Little Donnie derogatory names."
But why? Because you hate him? Because you're upset over losing an election? Because you have nothing else to offer, so resort to name calling to indicate displeasure? Why?
"After all, he is our role model."
Might be yours, certainly isn't mine!
"I'm trying to make a point."
But what point? That you don't like him, are stressed and unhappy? Rolling on the floor, screaming and drumming your heels would relieve that stress much better than name calling - physical activity always does.
Point being that resorting to third grade "debate" tactics says more about you and what you have to offer to a discussion than it does about Trump; information about Trump is nonexistent in such cases.
The one and ONLY reason I call him Little Donnie, or The Great Orange One is to get a reaction from Trump supporters who voted for a guy who bullies, belittles, and calls people names into the highest office of the land, an office that used to be treated with respect and is now degraded by its occupant.
A reaction that shows they do care about civility, yet were willing to overlook it in voting for a very low man into what used to be a high office.
I don't hate Donald Trump. I'm not upset over losing an election. My candidate has lost many times in many elections and I've not called the opponent a name.
LOL, "third grade debate tactics?" You still haven't answered my question, because you avoid it like the plague every time.
Do you see the same level of maturity in our president? If not, you're a hypocrite. If so, you have no basis for criticizing ptosis or me for name calling of a public figure.
Just answer the question.
Hmm. I answered that question somewhere, and to someone. Yeah, I view him the same way.
Do you? Does he do it to get a rise, as you do? And therefore it's all right? Personally I don't ever see it as a good thing to resort to name calling, and for the reason given. It says more about the speaker than the object of their derision, and it isn't saying anything good.
Yet, you voted for exactly that type of person to occupy the highest office of our beloved country. Not only that, you refuse to directly hold him responsible for his words, claiming you don't pay attention, or something to that effect. Like I said, they oughta put you on the payroll.
By the way, I don't do it to get a rise, but to make aoint. You have repeatedly held your fellow hubbers to a higher standard of behavior than our president. You even once said celebrities should be held to a higher standard than The Donald. That one was good for a nervous chuckle.
All I can say, is, "we're in trouble, folks."
As usual I didn't vote for anyone; I voted against the worst candidate the country has ever seen.
"By the way, I don't do it to get a rise, but to make aoint."
Really? Did I misunderstand "The one and ONLY reason I call him Little Donnie, or The Great Orange One is to get a reaction from Trump supporters"? I thought it was pretty plain.
As is typical of your style, you are intentionally not including my entire point.
"....is to get a reaction from Trump supporters who voted for a guy who bullies, belittles, and calls people names into the highest office of the land, an office that used to be treated with respect and is now degraded by its occupant.
A reaction that shows they do care about civility, yet were willing to overlook it in voting for a very low man into what used to be a high office."
Apparently, you care about civility, except when it comes to the POTUS
"yet were willing to overlook it in voting for a very low man into what used to be a high office."
You seem to forget that they voted for the best person available. The POTUS should be civil (which is not the same as being PC or bowing down before every foreign government) and Trump isn't. Better that than Hillary, though - a lack of civility does not equate with the damage she could (and would with her huge political power base) have done. Trump may be, and is, low on the pole, but he's far above his opponent.
IDK, all I know is most leaders live in a bubble for so long that they are completely out of touch and the handlers generally run things. Meaning, it wouldn't matter whose butt is in the Oval Office, they are merely a figurehead.
"Security concerns make it inevitable that president will be somewhat cut off because the President cannot insert themself into any part of normal life without a phalanx of security guards.
Protesters cannot be permitted to get close enough to pose a threat, but they ought to be able to get close enough so the president can see that they are there. " - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/25/opini … ubble.html
Having ego-boosting rallies shows how easily handled DJT can be as long as you are stroking his ego. It's bad enough to propagandize the public, but to have a twice daily BS report of rosy news shows how much of a bubble the Prez is in.
"... screenshots of positive cable news chyrons (those lower-third headlines and crawls), admiring tweets, transcripts of fawning TV interviews, praise-filled news stories, and sometimes just pictures of Trump on TV looking powerful." - https://news.vice.com/story/trump-folde … hite-house
"IDK, all I know is most leaders live in a bubble for so long that they are completely out of touch and the handlers generally run things. Meaning, it wouldn't matter whose butt is in the Oval Office, they are merely a figurehead."
Which is a part of why he was elected. That should not be so hard to understand, and no, Donald Trump has no "handlers".
Fine, but my only point is that you are holding others to a standard you overlook in Trump. Who cares who ran against him? If you checked the box next to his name, you voted for him. If you are not going to hold POTUS to a minimum standard of civility, then you cannot hold others to that standard without being a flaming hypocrite.
I care who ran against him. That, as much as anything, determined my vote.
How would you hold him to a standard of civility? Impeach him for being uncivil? Jail him for saying things you don't want to hear? But it's odd you complain he's uncivil when you tread in the same footsteps. How about holding him to the same standards you exhibit?
Wilderness, you get the award for most stubborn poster. I cannot say any more. You know exactly what I'm doing and why I do it and I own up to it. You, on the other hand, twist and turn yourself into a bunch of lumpy knots to avoid owning up to your own shenanigans.
Done with this dialogue.
PrettyPanther, Inquiring minds want to know...
What are "snowflakey fee-fees "
Just a reminder Putin is still supporting Trump with propaganda.
'Early Saturday morning, President Trump tweeted his gratitude to a social-media super-fan, Nicole Mincey, magnifying her praise of him to his 35 million followers.
Here’s the problem: There is no evidence the Twitter feed belongs to someone named Nicole Mincey. And the account, according to experts, bears a lot of signs of a Russia-backed disinformation campaign."
At one point, the account boasted as many at 150,000 followers. According to other Twitter users, it was connected to similar accounts, which experts say suggests a network created to disseminate propaganda.-
“Nineteen to 20 percent of the messages in the month before the election were originated by bots,” said Emilio Ferrara, a researcher at the University of Southern California who conducted research on the impact of bots on the 2016 election. “About 400,000 accounts that posted tweets related to the political conversation we believe were bots.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … amp;wpmm=1
Just a quick observation about name calling. We have a president who engages in name calling. Those who are upset about name calling on this thread are supporters of our Name-Caller-in-Chief. I find that amusing when I'm in a good mood, sad when I'm pondering the future of our country, and disgusting when I'm fearful about our future.
Now, I haven't carefully read every post in this thread, but the name calling seems to be directed at Putin and Trump, not fellow hubbers. Again, I didn't re-read everything carefully, so I could be wrong here. For the record, I don't support name calling of felllow hubbers, but given some of them support a president who consistently and abhorrently engages in name calling, I find it strange they would get so uptight when someone applies a derogatory name to The Great Orange One or his buddy Putin. After all, it is one of the behaviors their man is known for. In fact, Trump supporters often praise Trump for telling it like it is, ignoring the rules of political correctness, and saying what they (the supporters) are thinking. Do you not see the hypocrisy of decrying this same behavior in a mere citizen posting on a public forum about a public figure? If you support a leader who dishes it out, then you don't have a leg to stand on when you criticize an average Joe for engaging in the same behavior, especially when directed at a public figure.
That is why I referred to the responses here as "snowflakey" which, by the way, is applying a descriptor of the behavior, not name calling.
Trump is the ultimate snowflake (now, that is name calling). He can't handle criticism and he can't handle losing (hence, his inability to accept responsibility for anything negative) without lashing out with a childish tweet or standing in front of his adoring fans and blaming his failures on Hillary or Obama or judges or congress or foreign leaders or democrats or republicans or ......
Another quick note...
I took a break from the Hubpages forums not because of any bullying but because I was weary of every thread cluttered up with ahorseback's repetitive nonsense and colorfulone's repetitive sharing of BS stories and praise of of the likes of Putin and Alex Jones.
It was my choice to take a break. No one coerced me or forced me to. I don't know why other hubbers have fled the forums, but I doubt it's because they couldn't handle the blowback on trheir ideological views, as GA theorized. It was probably just being sick of the crazy and the stupid.
Plus I was dealing with cancer, so I was trying to keep my rolleyes to a minimum.
Sorry to hear about your cancer. Are you doing well now? Glad to see you back. :-)
LOL We can agree on that! The clutter, that is.
We have a few things we agree on. Religion comes to mind.
What if they agree that religion is fanatical?
As wilderness said, when the alternative was Clinton, whom most knew/know stands for nothing other than Clinton, and know that she would sell our interests out (auction them off even) to the highest bidder every chance they got.... the poster-child candidate for the establishment, and everything wrong with it today.
by SweetiePie8 years ago
Obama and Putin are both sexy enough to be photographed that way, so why are people upset about the magazine cover? I thought it was great .
by taburkett3 years ago
Why do US citizens continue to support a failing Administration. Is it because they are communists.With the latest scandal exposed about the Administration, one would think that the citizens would wake up to the...
by Doug Hughes7 years ago
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ......
by Kathryn L Hill9 months ago
Conservatives face reality and do not let the follies of mankind go unchecked.D. folly |ˈfälē| noun1 lack of good sense; foolishness: T. foolishness, foolhardiness, stupidity, idiocy, lunacy, madness, rashness,...
by Credence26 months ago
Even when Trump may have a good idea or two, his temperament and personality negates it all.There is a place for conservatives ideas within the public forum and while their messages are valid and at least deserving of...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
To all conservatives out there, what are the 10 ways that President Obama is destroying this countrybesides instituting Obamacare?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.