Civility in 2018 vs. 1980...
President George HW Bush past away last night. God rest his soul. A Democrat Congresswomen was on TV on the Fox News channel discussion how great it was back in the 1980s when things were more civil in DC... What? You got to be kidding. It was Ronald Reagan’s Presidency when things were nasty and he was treated horribly by the same Democrats. The same as today with Trump. The only difference is Trump did not take it lying down. He gave it back twice as hard and twice as nasty...
For some of you that may be too young to remember, just go and google it. It is a piece of history we should all be reminded of. It was Reagan who wanted to change Washinton DC and cut it down to size. America was waning in light of Japanese technology. Soviet Union was our foe in the world stage and HIV and AIDs was the scourge of disease just surfacing. Reagan was attacked on a daily basis by the Democrats and the media...
The only thing is, the more we change...the more things stay the same.Here is one -
https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/06/ … im-graham/I do enjoy these remedial history lessons.
As usual, your "facts" are wrong. A more significant sweeping move by the press to expose government wrongdoing was in the 1960s when the underground press attacked Johnson and the Vietnam War, then went after Nixon. So, if you'd like to be correct, the left-wing press actually attacked a Democrat first and then a Republican. They laid the groundwork for the mainstream press to be more critical of the establishment, which is what it's supposed to do. Journalism is a check on the establishment, Democrat or Republican, meant to keep them in line.Just the other way around. The job of the free press is to oversea our government officials as a watchdog. It is part of our Constitution going back to the beginning.
It is only in recent years they have become partisan and support of one party over the other...in the process distorting elections and skewing public opinion.
The press is no longer a trusted source...
A sad day for America. It has been since 2000 or so...I want to take this opportunity to thank all for participating in this discussion. I started this discussion and it is clear to me people with different opinions can come together and discuss issues without resorting to name calling or fist fights.
These are important times for our nation. We are more divided than ever and I am afraid if we don’t air our differences, it will get ugly. I hate to see another civil war develop in our country. My wish is that the media revert back to their Constitutional mandated duty. Leave politics to the politicians and cover the news and not become the news.
For individuals like you and me, I say stay informed. Use your own common sense and don’t let others, whoever they are, even me, tell you what to think or do.
Everything discussed here can be validated with the web now. That is the best thing that happened. The internet has leveled the playing field. We no longer just have the big 3 network reporting to us. We are free and with that comes responsibility. We get the government we deserve.Only recently has the press become partisan? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Go study American history. Go do some research. Stop making statements about things you LITERALLY know nothing about. You're just guessing - saying whatever thing suits your political views. You can start here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007 … party-time
I'll take one quote for you: "early American newspapers were unabashedly partisan".
And show me anywhere in the Constitution where it explains the duty of the press. ANYWHERE.
And I can't remember which specific election it was - 1836 or 1840 - but it was particularly vicious.The intent of the framers is well documented...
Here is a summary of the Freedom of the Press -
Freedom of Press-
Freedom of the press protects the right to obtain and publish information or opinions without government censorship or fear of punishment. Censorship occurs when the government examines publications and productions and prohibits the use of material it finds offensive. Freedom of press applies to all types of printed and broadcast material, including books, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, films and radio and television programs.
The Constitution's framers provided the press with broad freedom. This freedom was considered necessary to the establishment of a strong, independent press sometimes called "the fourth branch" of the government. An independent press can provide citizens with a variety of information and opinions on matters of public importance. However, freedom of press sometimes collides with other rights, such as a defendant's right to a fair trial or a citizen's right to privacy. In recent years, there has been increasing concern about extremely aggressive journalism, including stories about people's sexual lives and photographs of people when they were in a private setting.
In the United States, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger our national security. By the same token, the government cannot:
Pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.
Impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person except in rare instances.
Impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.
Compel journalists to reveal, in most circumstances, the identities of their sources.
Prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.
Collectively, this bundle of rights, largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the “freedom of the press” guaranteed by the First Amendment. What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and now Web sites and Internet postings.
It is what separate us as a democratic republic from dictators and kings and tyrants. Just look at any of a number of banana republics and south America and you will see how the press is suppressed and journalists tortured and killed for reporting on bad deeds of the government.
I am shocked most Americans don’t understand the bill of rights and how they came about...Show me IN THE CONSTITUTION, aside from the first amendment, where it explains the role of the press.
And what about your statement about the press "only recently becoming partisan". Care to retract?I explain it in the other post...
It does not have to appear in the Constitution to mean what it is intended.
The Constitition was never meant to be an all encompassing document.
It is only 8000 plus words written in common language so that the average person can read it and understand it.
The press plays an important role in keeping the government honest.
It is as simple as that. Without Woodward and Berstein, the watergate scandal would never see the light of day.
Who are the Woodward and Berstein on today? Not Jim Acosta...Crankalicious,
I wrote a piece on American Civics 101...
It appears at the top of google search.
You might want to check it out.
It is a short summary course on American civics.
I decided to write it a while ago after finding out many of my colleagues do not fully understand how our country was founded and how it works. Apparently, they were never taught this in public school.Wrong and wrong. You are wrong over and over again, much like your statement about the press becoming partisan recently, which is wrong, as I proved. Here is your statement:
The job of the free press is to oversea our government officials as a watchdog. It is part of our Constitution going back to the beginning.
You said, essentially, the job of the free press is in the Constitution. IT IS NOT.
As we all know, what is in the Constitution is interpreted differently by different people and has changed over the years as different issues have come up. If it's so easy to understand what the authors of the Constitution intended, then why are judges all over the political spectrum?It is too long to explain here in the forum.
Please know that the Constitution is a framwork not meant to be taken as law.
By your definition, nothing in today's laws are in the Constitution, just like social security, medicaid and medicare and obamacare,,.Crank,
I would be happy to continue this discussion at my hub on “American Civics 101”
You can tell me which section I got wrong there.
This was written a few years ago and it is still relavent today.
I used it to teach a voluntary civics course to high schoolers sponsored by the League of Womens Voter this past summer.Yes, a framework. And legal scholars have been debating back and forth for hundreds of years what it means and are still debating it today. Many people argue, in fact, that Social Security should be eliminated specifically because it is not spelled out in the Constitution.
Still dodging one of my points. When you say things that are so ridiculously wrong ("journalism just recently became partisan"), your other arguments are easy to dismiss. I mean, if you can so easily make false statements, why should anyone take anything else you say seriously at all?
Hmmm, sounds familiar.You are blinded by your own ignorance.
You can use the argument - just because it is not in the Constitution than it is unconstitutional but that would be wrong...
It is only a framework.
That is the reason for Supreme court justices.
These are the very people appointed to interpret laws passed by Congress to see if it passes muster.
The reason there are debates for the most part is how some judges view our Constitution. I explain this in detail in my hub.
Originalist like Scalia and Thomas and others believe it is the job of the court to decide Constitutionality but not make laws. That is the difference between them and liberal justices like Ginsberg and Kagan and Sotomyer.
They think we can interpret the wording of the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean...
I hope you see the difference.Let me cite a real case of recent history to explain the difference.
President Obama is a Constitutional lawyer professor before he was a politician.
He said on numerous occasions he could not make or change the law like DACA. That is the dream act to allow children of illegal immigrants to stay and avoid deportation...
In 2016, just before he left office, he issued an executive order doing just that. He clearly did something he knew himself it was unConstitutional.
Only Congress can pass laws regarding immigration reform.
You would think all 9 Supreme Court Justices would rule on this as a open and shut case. Right?
You would be wrong. We have activist justices who thinks DACA is fine and President Trump cannot cancel it...
This is why our system is so screwed up now. We have judges who themselves have lost touch with their purpose and responsibilities...There's not really any point in debating with you since you believe that partisanship in journalism just started the other day and anyone who could believe such an obvious falsehood probably doesn't have a firm grasp on the difference between truth and fiction nor does that person know how to discern between the two.
I won't even mention the fact that your responses to me appear to be continuations of your own logic and have little to no resemblance as logical responses to what I have said. In other words, you're not even remotely accurately restating what I said or interpreting it correctly.
As an example, you wrote:
You can use the argument - just because it is not in the Constitution than it is unconstitutional but that would be wrong...
I am specifically NOT saying that.
You are absolutely right - newspapers, magazines and other media has always been partisan, at least in as much as they pulled no punches in taking politicians to task (not sure they were ever as boldly and consistently partisan, though).
What has changed is that used to be in the "editorial" section, whether termed that or not. Now it is everything they do - when media (particularly TV news) reports nothing in the political arena except partisan slams at politicians it is something else. And that's what we see now - while a network may report on a hurricane or a massive snow storm, or a huge pile up on the freeway, as soon as it enters the political arena it changes and becomes commentary rather than news.Agree 100%. A particular newspaper can be partisan but they are individual opinions confined to the editorial pages.
What we have today is a mix of bias, partisanship and outright lies mixed in as NEWS.
That is the danger and most people believe what they read from the NYT as if it is gospel.
I hear this from professors and librarians...
They are bought into this lie.
They would not even entertain any possibility of bias when it is clearly in the front pages...Wilderness, I don't know why you and I can't come together because we agree on a lot.
First, I am very compelled by your point, in another forum, of the primacy of the "rural v. urban" argument. There's a lot there.
Second, I too am driven up the wall by newspapers that turn their news into a partisan act, taking swipes at people with language in news stories. It's one thing to do so in an editorial. Quite another to do so in a news story.
However, I suspect they do that because ratings and circulation go up the more partisan our news sources become. Does anyone really want "regular" news? I suspect the data says no. What we want is our opinions to be reinforced with everything that we do.
I fear that our citizenry is becoming increasingly stupid and intellectually lazy in addition to physically lazy. Everyone is pretty much obese nowadays, both in body and mind.
In honor of George HW Bush...41st President of the US.
I wrote a hub comparing Reagan to Trump...a while ago.
Here is the name of my article -
Hubpages.com/politics/Comparing-Trump-to-Reagan
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
0There was a time when we expected our presidents to be role models, exceptional leaders who brought us together and left the extreme divisiveness to others. I miss those days. The current low-life in the White House has the character of a mafia Don and the temperament of a spoiled child.
I would gladly take back Dubya to rid ourselves of this disgusting grifter.
Previous presidents had the maturity and character to deal with critics. We should expect that from our leaders and not tolerate the childish behavior displayed by the current "president."Really,
So John McCain and Mitt Romney would be preferable?
Guess what, they were too civil and the media ripped them apart at election time.Jack, do you really think the media treated them any differently from other presidential candidates? Any candidate who becomes a frontrunner is scrutinized by the media and has their gaffes or character flaws run and rerun on 24-hour news. If you have respect for Trump's behavior, that's your preogative, but I keep reminding my grandchildren that this is not how a leader should behave. Actually, I let them know our president's behavior is not how a decent human being should behave. I wouldn't want them to think lying and bullying are acceptable under any circumstances.
To understand where we are today...you have to go back to the 1980...
It was the media that treated GOP candidates unfairly year after year...and every since Reagan and Bush 41. The bias in the media has been well documented and books written... When McCain was running against Obama in 2008, they went after him big time...throwing everything including the race card...with Romney, they went after his weath and his treatment of women, manufactured by the way. Romney was the nicest guy who refuse to go low.
Come 2016, we had 17 great candidates and one by one they went under because they could not stand the vicious attack by the media. Only Trump was able to turn it around and challenge the media. They were livid...everything they tried that worked in the past has failed.
You might say, Trump is a creation of the bias media. To this day. They still have not figured out what Trump is about. I guess you don’t either.To prove my point. Go back and see and hear and read Trump’s speech where he gave when he announced his running for president...
There was no objection from the press the first 3 days after. It was later that they selectively focused on his comments about Mexican immigrants...they made it sound like he was a racist xenophobe...
He was clearly talking about some criminal elements of the illegal population, not all immigrants.
The media drove the story and most Americans just went along believing...One more thing, with Trump, almost every instance, he was attacked first. Going back to Rosy O’Donnell and others, he was attacked first and he responded with counter attack twice as hard. That is one of his trait. He learned from experience that you never quit and you attack those that attack you and never back down. Ths is also why he never apologizes. That give his enemy ammunition against him. I can write a whole book about Trump...
Yeah, he's such an admirable human being. Do you want your kids and grandkids to be like him?
So let me ask you this, what do you tell your grandkids when they are being bullied on the playground?
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I wanted to chime in and say that I tell my daughter to ignore them. Bullies feed off of reactions. They get bored pretty quickly if you don’t give them that.
Unless my daughter is physically in danger and needs to defend herself then I will never tell her to attack anyone - because I don’t think attacking someone is an admirable trait, regardless of your reasons behind it.You didn't answer my question which is, ofcourse, your prerogative, but I think I'll refrain from answering yours unless you answer mine.
I will answer it. No I would not want my kid or grandkids to behave like Trump. He has a lot of baggage and too arrogant and self centered...
However, I can defend him from unfair attacks by the media and his detractors.I criticize him for somethings I disagree with but like many of the policies he put in place. These have helped our nation and our citizens.
I can separate the man from his administration. He wants to make America great again and I support that.
I tell them they are acting like our current President and that no one acts that way other than him and his followers.
So just ignore it. They will go away eventually.That is not the right approach. The answer is you hit back at a bully so that he will think twice before doing it again.
It is the right approach.
Exchanging punches/words only adds to the hostility.
Not giving someone what they want (a reaction or emotional response) is the best way to get rid of them.
Of course, if you also tend to enjoy bullying and confrontation then you hit back. Which is what we see with Trump.I suggest you watch the film Walking Tall - original made in 1973...
Here is the synopsis on wikipedia -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_Tall_(1973_film)...you’re using a movie as a reference on how best to deal with everyday real life situations? Really?
Having faced many bullies in a semi-tough neighborhood growing up, I learned you hit back only when there is no other choice. Otherwise, all you do is fight.
You don't hit a bully back automatically. Unless you are here on HP.
I'm with Aime. The best course is to ignore the bullying, unless it's physical, then something more must be done. Each bullying situation is different and so the best response might be different.
That said, bullying from a leader, versus bullying from a peer, is a whole new level.of abuse. A teacher bullying a child would be handled differently than bullying from a child of the same age. Bullying of an employee by the boss is far more difficult to address than bullying from a coworker. Bullying from any leader or authority figure is a much more egregious offense, because of the already existing imbalance of power.
That is why I am appalled that any American would think it acceptable to vote for a disgusting, lying bully to hold the highest office in the land. It's truly embarrassing to call him our President.The specific bullying I was referring to is the way the main stream media has treated Donald Trump the day after he announced he was running for President. His reaction to this “bullying” is to attack the media by calling them out and reporting some “fake news”...with regard to him.
This is uncharacteristic of past GOP candidates. People like McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 were bullied as well but they just cower under and never defended themselves. Guess what, they lost.
Trump’s new strategy in dealing with a biased press is working in his favor.
You might not like his tactics but he gets results.I think you are mistaken that Trump won because of his bullying. I think he won in spite of ot. His core base of about 30% seem to admire his bullying, but the rest who voted for him didn't really like it but decided to hold their nose and vote for him anyway. Some of them admit they regret it; others are stuck defending the mean, childish man-child because they won't admit their horrible mistake.
Every President and presidential candidate receives the same treatment from the media. Only Trump is too weak and narcissistic to handle it with maturity and grace. Reagan, Bush I and II, Obama, they all dealt with the same media scrutiny, but maintained their strength of character.PrettyPanther, we have to disagree on this. Trump won because he was non conforming. He realized after the last two election losses, the deciding factor was the biased media. They attacked GOP candidates and made false charges against McCain and Romney...
Before Trump jumped into the fray, he met with many of the candidates and decided they were not strong enough to beat Hillary and the media.
Thst was the reason he gave to decide to run himself.
He was near retirement and could have played golf all day and spoil his grandkids...
He did this to turn America around. The proof of the pudding is if Hillary have won, what do you think America would be today?
Would we have the last two years of successes? On the economy and foreign policy and even ISIS?
Why has ISIS fallen off the world stage? Obama said we had to live with this annoyance.
Trump went after ISIS and decimated them.
This is just one example and I can speak of many more...
That is the difference a strong leader makes.
Like him or hate him, Trump got us results.
I really hate to get involved in political discussions on public forums, but I must say, Jackclee's supportive comments for Trump are a little weird. And that's putting it lightly.
I know that there are some people who like Trump because they believe he's helping the economy, but those individuals should be advised that even though jobs have been added, an equal number if not more jobs have been lost since he was elected.
Trump is a bad person. Period. There is no room for that type of behavior in our country. Maybe Asian countries are used to dictatorship-style leadership but we Americans are not.
And that's no to say Jackclee was born in an Asian country, and that may have been kind of a low blow, but I mean, come on! His comments just make no sense.Hi Alexis, it's nice to have a new voice in the political forums. Trump supporters are desperate to make Trump seem normal. They spend a lot of time trying to claim past presidents behaved similarly, when they clearly did not. It is a form of self-protection,to make themselves feel okay about choosing a lying bully for President.
Just my opinion, of course, formed from reading their excuses, rationalizations, and denials for over two years now.
Trump is not normal, and we must never let anyone get away with claiming he is.When did I say Trump is just like other Past Presidents?
Just the opposite. I said Trump is different because he found a way to counter the biased media. You need to pay attention more...You're totally correct @PrettyPanther. Just hearing "Trump" make my blood pressure rise. Though I am not a fan of Bush Sr. or Jr. and don't really believe people genuinely mean much of what they're saying now that he's passed (meaning they're just posting these things for "likes" or whatever), they are a thousand times better and smarter (Bush Sr. at least) than Trump.
My husband Is ex-military, working for a private "security" firm that operated in Iraq, Afganistan, among other countries. I'm not really comfortable going into detail about what he's witnessed during his career, but to put it this way, some military people loved being over there while others hated it.
My husband hated it, and not just because he had friends who died, but because of the truth he saw. As I said, I'm not at liberty to say much, but if I make a claim or have an opinion about certain political leaders, I usually have a very justified reason.
Again, you'll hear a lot of soldiers bragging about fighting over there, and you'll also have soldiers who will never be normal because of the things they know...not seen.
Why do I say that? Vets from World War I and II were traumatized by what they saw in the war, not by the same things that traumatize vets starting from Vietnam until the present. World War I and II vets were proud to have fought, even though what they saw hurt them...but their pride and dignity were still in place.
So many of our vets - our husbands, sons, daughters, and, in some cases, wives - are coming home with less of their souls. If I'm not mistaken, the statistics showed that a vet commits suicide every 18 hours or something like that. I'd have to go check again. You never saw that with vets from the World Wars and before.
I blame the Presidents. And with a little research and an open mind for finding the truth, I think you'll understand why. And if Trump ever had the chance to take America to war - like a real war, not one kinda going on in the background - we'd be in a whole lot of trouble.Thanks for giving your perspective. I believe what you say to be truthful. I am hoping more people would speak up about our government. We have whislteblower laws on the books for that very purpose. If you or anyone see wrong doing by our government, it is your duty to expose these acts. How you go about is difficult to say. Some do ao anonymously and some go to the press...
It takes real courage to speak up against our government but it is needed to keep it honest.Yeah...but you do know Trump hates whistleblowers? He said once they should be locked up or something to that effect. He fired people trying to investigate his shady dealings.
You are confusing leakers with whistleblowers.
Leakers are people who try to undermine our government and we call them “deep state”.
Whislteblowers like Edward Snowden are exposing wrong doings by our government. Quite a difference...
https://www.toledoblade.com/Will-Tomer/ … Trump.html
Yes, you are right about Trump. Leadership is more than just policies. It's also about character.
George H.W. Bush was a great example of how to lead with character. He's even allowing Trump to go to his funeral, despite all of the bad things Trump said about his son.
May Bush rest in peace, but he was not a civil man. I remember when the Democratic nominee had a woman as his running mate. Bush's exact words (and I heard him utter them) were 'she doesn't have the balls' to be vice president. Never liked the man after that.
Yeah, because that one statement is enough to turn you off, while the multitude of nasty things Trump has said about women and girls, not to mention the leering at partially dressed teens, is not enough to disqualify him from being our President.
Makes perfect sense to someone, I guess.I have a perfectly fine life, thank you. You?
That sounds just like something Trump would say in response to a valid questioning of something he said. Trumping it to steal a phrase from Randy.
I suppose that is possible. Pretty panther does seem to have me stuck in her craw; but you are correct. Responding to asininity is just as asinine.
Lol, you're not the only Trumpeter I repeatedly challenge on these forums. Sorry to break it to you, but you're no different from the rest of his loyal followers who ignore his horrific character while chastising others for far less.
Lol. I don't have to like someone, personally, to support policy. Politics is not a personality contest. Not to adults. I have repeatedly agreed with reasonable people that Trump has a litany of flaws. That does not mean I regret ensuring Hillary did not take the Oval office.
I didn't like a Bush, personally, but I voted for him. If people spent more time thinking about what is best for the country and less time attempting to undermine just because they have a bee in their bonnet because someone has weird hair, or made an off color comment I think we would be better off.
If not better off, certainly less childish.
And I will add that your hypocrisy on this critique on not going on and on about a dislike of one, while commenting about a perceived shortcoming of another does not go unnoticed. I didn't comment on it because the tactic of consistently diverting any conversation into a Trump bashing session is indicative of the fact that it is all about a personal popularity contest. This isn't high school. I will not consistently use a similar tactic against another politician I despise.The topic of this thread is "Civility in 2018 vs. 1980...". From the OP:
"It was Ronald Reagan’s Presidency when things were nasty and he was treated horribly by the same Democrats. The same as today with Trump. The only difference is Trump did not take it lying down. He gave it back twice as hard and twice as nasty..."
The topic IS Trump and his nastiness, so your accusation that I "diverted the conversation" is wrong. You brought up Bush I and stated he was not a civil man. I doubt you'll find much agreement from anyone on that. Bush I and Trump are a perfect example of class versus crass.
Jack is just searching for a way to excuse Trump's behavior, just like you were trying to say Bush I behaved similarly to Trump.
Those of us who believe our eyes and ears will have none of that, no matter how much you wish we would accept your desperate attempts to normalize Trump.Ok. I will say I disagree with the OP on Trump. He showed, during the primaries, that trash talk pays off. He is the king of it, in the political spectrum and he is not simply defending himself. It's who he is and he does not appear to be able to stop himself.
True, and he is now our President. It's embarrassing, to put it mildly.
That is where our opinions diverge. Hillary would have been a bigger embarrassment, imo, and infinitely more dangerous. Hopefully, next time either party will offer a candidate who is both personally palatable and has policy stands the majority can agree with.
I don't know how any presidential candidate could be more embarrassing than a guy who cowers before murdering dictator Putin and declares his love for murdering dictator Kim Jong Un while dissing our allies and calling the press the enemy of the people, but okay.
Alternative reality on display...
Trump did not cower under Putin.
He offered to talk to the Head of North Korea to abort a nuclear escalation...remember the missile testing...
And he told the truth and exposed some of the media for their “fake news”.
Here are two divergent views on Trump.
Which is the truth?
Let the American people decide. 2020 is only two years away.
My advice is don’t watch the media.
You are being distorted and brain washed...Agreed again. Stop watching Fox News and visiting Breitbart. You will see the world with much more clarity and a lot less hate.
No hate on my part...
You assume too much.
The only news I watch is FBC...
It tells me more what is going on than the NYT, CNN and NBC and NPR combined...
You inevitably resort to saying those who disagree with you are brainwashed. And, yes, he cowers before Putin. I believe my own eyes and ears.
What did he do specifically? The only person cowered under Putin was Obama. He bowed everywhere he went and apologized for our successes...he allowed Putin to do he did in Ukraine and Syria...and did nothing to challenge him. Obama along with Kerry and Clinton were weak in their lead from behind strategy.
I don't know that there is any evidence of Trump cowering before Putin, unless we put on your red colored glasses. Time will tell if Trump's interaction with Jong-un was as negative as you portray. I heard border crossing stations had been torn down by his regime. If his desires for reunification are sincere, honesty would compel you to rethink your comments. If he is using subterfuge to hide evil intent, I don't see Trump's statement as anything but a silly comment. He has a history of putting things in bizarre terms. I didn't see any hope of progress in relations under any previous administration. Maybe silly terms aren't so bad.
More dangerous in what way? Not disputing you, just curious why you think that way.
I find the Clintons politically corrupt and incredibly politically powerful. She could have done much damage. Trump, on the other hand, has little love from either party and is not savvy politically. Back door deals and manipulation would be much more difficult for him.
Agreed. What I find surprising is that he indeed can't stop himself, despite all of the backlash.
You would think he would learn he is undermining his own Presidency.He can't stop.himself because he suffers from several psychological disorders. He is unfit to be president.
Hey, everyone. The resident psychiatrist has weighed in. Having duly examined the man and having come to your conclusions, why haven't you had him put away?
Or, are you passing opinion off as fact?The opinion of a multitude of licensed mental health professionals using mounds of video and written evidence spanning many years versus the president's physician who administered one basic test that my autistic son can pass.
You can believe what you want, of course.Lol. It appears you believe what you want. I'm not in the habit (and am under the impression that reputable clinical psychiatrists aren't either) of diagnosing from a distance.
Trump did not appear out of nowhere. He had been in the public eye for years. Unless, it is your contention that his mental problems arose around the same moment he decided to run for president.
Trump is rife with flaws. As are we all. You cannot tell me your intolerable hatred of the man does not color your views. Not honestly, anyway.I don't hate him. I don't hate anyone. I actually pity him because he is mentally ill. However,that pity does not extend to excusing or tolerating his unstable and disgusting behavior.
It is pretty clear his narcissistic personality disorder developed in childhood and was exacerbated by his privilege and wealth.
I am confident in the truth of that. Believe it or deny your own eyes and ears. Your choice.Wow. If that is your standard display of pity it's freakishly odd.
My posting on this forum about the truth of Trump's lying, bullying, and all-around dysfunction does not conflict with pitying him in any way. I have a brother with narcissistic personality disorder who I pity, but I have also set clear boundaries for the behavior he displays around me and my family. That is the healthy way to deal with these people.
Trump should not be president by virtue of his own behavior. We should set that boundary. Unfortunately, some of you are okay with his obvious dysfunction.
His character and behavior alone make him unfit to be President, regardless of what cause him to act that way.
I voted for Bush both times and am disappointed he would say such a thing. It's contrary to everything else I have read about him.
I did a search on that quote and couldn't find it. That kind of quote usually gets a lot of media attention. Can you offer a link so I can read more about it?"she doesn't have the balls' to be vice president."
If George Bush actually said anything like that about Ferraro you can't convince me it wouldn't be found anywhere on the internet so I submit you made that up as I can't find anywhere he said anything like that! Can you? When I do find that in a gibe at Geraldine A. Ferraro, Barbara Bush said that she and her husband, the Vice President, had no intention of obscuring the fact that they are wealthy and enjoy it, ''not like that four million-dollar - I can't say it, but it rhymes with rich.'' you can't tell me no one recorded in print George saying Ferraro had no balls!Well, you can certainly call me a liar but I can't think of any reason I would have to lie about it. Considering the times, I can see why it didn't make the news enough to live on in the posterity of the internet. It didn't even make the news at the time. I believe it happened during one of the debates; but I could be wrong about the exact time he said it.
I didn't call you a liar, I said it seems you made it up. You might have made it up for many reasons that have nothing to do with a reason to lie about it. You just might be mistaken, you might have imagined it, you might actually believe it when it never happened, none of which makes you an intentional liar. So, you have to admit if Bush said that it would be found somewhere and it isn't and you don't even remember where it was said - you are starting to sound like "Dr." Blasey Ford!
Are you related to Bill Clinton and spend time pondering what 'is' is? You said I made it up, which is the same as lying.
I can pretty much guarantee you every word spoken by every politician was not recorder back when he was running for Vice President. I heard it. You don't believe I did. Not a problem.Ok, if you insist you lied I'm not going to argue with you. You just lie and then try to twist the conversation to try and make yourself out a victim. Typical.
It is fine if you don't believe what I said. But, your then pretending you didn't type exactly what you did is what I find foolish.
I'm just going to throw this out there. In no way does Trump only call names, etc. when he is attacked. We could find a multitude of examples. No, I'm not doing the legwork cause we all know it's true. Plus, Trump takes our nation to new moral lows almost every day. I'm not even beginning to buy this passive aggressive he is only defending himself stance.
He's the President..he's in the position of ultimate bullying capability and he attempts to use that to its fullest extent just as Putin and the Saudis likely bully him.I'd agree that Trump isn't defending himself and, he started the ball rolling by his aggressive and ill mannered behavior during the primaries. Although everyone else appears to have cheered the lowering of the bar by jumping in and doing the same; we can agree that Trump was first to move the bar to its current low.
I don't know how you came up with Putin and the Saudis bullying Trump. Maybe you'd care to share what information you used to come to that conclusion?Of course, I don't know this for sure. But, I used the best available information concerning Trump's dealings with Putin and the Saudis, combined with the way he kowtows to them on the world stage, to come to my conclusion that he is being bullied in a sense. We'll find out more about Putin when the Mueller investigation report is released.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago0
For Live to Learn and Jackclee, who apparently missed or forgot our President's appalling and embarrassing submissiveness to Putin in Helsinki.
During a 46-minute joint press conference, Trump delivered no criticism of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, no mention of the country’s alleged hand in the recent use of a nerve agent on British soil and no criticism over its attempts to interfere with the 2016 elections.
Trump not only declined to criticize Putin, but broke with the assessments of his own intelligence agencies, House and Senate committees and members of his Cabinet to question whether Russia even played a role.
“My people came to me. [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats came to me, and some others. They said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be,” Trump said. “I have confidence in both parties.”
That refusal to endorse the American intelligence and confront Russia, prompted Coats to issue an unusual statement defending his office’s conclusions.
But Trump didn’t stop there. He went so far as to endorse Putin’s brazen idea to have Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators travel to Russia to interview Russia agents, in exchange for giving the Russians access to U.S. intelligence officials in its own investigations.
--------
But presidential historian Julian Zelizer can’t think of a moment in American history comparable to the Trump-Putin summit.
“This kind of unscripted, in your face, attack against political parties in the U.S., intelligence agencies in the U.S., while standing next to an adversary, there’s not anything quite comparable to that,” Zelizer said. “He decided to go after his own intelligence and the FBI right in front of a leader who has such a long list of bad behavior, especially against the U.S.”
Even as Trump looked weak, Putin asserted himself in ways both subtle and forceful.
When asked by a U.S. reporter if Russia had compromising material about Trump, Putin didn’t deny that possibility, instead deflecting by saying he’d heard “these rumors” that the Kremlin had embarrassing information from Trump’s visit to Moscow in 2013, but said people should “disregard” them.
While Trump consistently referred to his counterpart as “President Putin,” the Russian leader once referred to him as “Donald.”
http://time.com/5340050/donald-trump-vl … -analysis/So is this the same Putin Russia that Hillary demonstrated the Reset Button? As Secretary of State.
The same Obama official that did nothing while Ukraine was invaded...
And Syria is in chaos which lead to over a million refugees fleeing the country...
Which has done more damage to our foreign policy?I thought we were discussing Trump? None of that has any bearing whatsoever on Trump's weirdly submissive behavior toward Putin.
Trumps's "weirdly submissive behavior toward Putin" doesn't hold a candle to that of Obama to the rest of the world. He was absolutely great at lying down to be walked on, and taking American down with him.
Right. It's disgusting that Obama treated our allies like allies and our enemies like enemies.
Thank goodness we have Trump to do it the other way around.Now, that's funny. You didn't even address Trump's behavior.
I want to say as kindly as possible: I don't think politics is your thing. I mean, this is why I really don't like to get involved in things like this, but to read your comments - I just have to say with all the respect I can muster...you're not making any sense.
Trump has spit in the faces of highly decorated veterans. He's spit in the faces of people who have served this country with all their heart. All the while, he's a compulsive liar who never succeeded in business, in all honesty.
His father supported him over and over again. Anything he didn't get support for or commit fraud to save has failed.
He claims he has added jobs. If you knew anything about the American market as a whole, you'd know politics has little to do with how a market does really. Markets are breathing, living environments that are affected by more than one lying con man.
I am really at a loss for words reading all your comments. I don't think anyone has blatantly called you out, but I will...you have no idea what you're talking about.
And it's kind of offensive in a way. Not because you have been rude or mean. But because you're saying things that are basically not true.I appreciate your comment and I take it under consideration. I am not doing this on purpose. You may not know me but I have been here on Hubpages quite a while. I also write about many topics and have published over 500 articles.
With regard to Trump, if you follow my postings going back two years, you would know my original position on Trump. I supported Ben Carson and later Ted Cruz for president. When it came to voting, I could not vote for either Trump or Hillary. After his election, I decided to take a wait and see attitude. He started to deliver on many of his promises. You might not agree with them but he did what he promised to the base of his supporters. I was skeptical because he was not a conservative. As you might guess, I am a conservative and have proudly claim that.
When he started to appoint conservative justices and passed tax reform and a host of other actions, I began to come around. I can make the distinction and separate the flawed person of Trump and his policies that help America.
I hope you can at least contemplate a bit what I am saying.
While this was happening, I see the media attack him day after day and never reported on the positive things he has done. I started to defend Trump here on HubPages. I don’t always agree with him on all topics. When he failed to cut spending and raised the debt ceiling, I criticized him...
Anyway, it may be crystal clear to you that Trump is a bad dude. But even bad dude can do some good things as President of the USA. He has decimated ISIS which was a thorn on our side for how many years?
I can go on but your mind is made up. Just so you know where I am coming from...peace.
Here is a simple question to ask...
The person you perceive to be this bad person of Trump, did you have the same feeling prior to 2015?
Before he ran for president...what was your opinion of Trump?
He was well known personality, a celebrity, a big democratic donor...
The Clinton attended their wedding...
How did this person turn from Dr. jackal to Mr. Hide overnite?Trump was a bombastic, egotistical celebrity. He should have stayed a celebrity. The minimum standard of conduct is much lower for a celebrity than for President of the United States. Well, at least, it used to be, until certain voters decided Trump's behavior was acceptable for a President.
Big mistake on their part.Now with the #Metoo movement... was Bill Clinton better than Trump? He was revered by the Democrats even after impeachment...
Clinton isn't president. He was impeached by the House 20 years ago.
What does that have to do with Trump in 2018?Someone commented Trump is not fit to be president...so I responded with another example of selective memory...
Since I have not stated what I think about Clinton, nor has anyone else on this thread, who do you believe has selective memory? You're just trying to divert from the facts of Trump's unacceptable behavior.
What Clinton did has nothing to do with Trump now.Don’t forget, a conservative is consistent. We treat everyone the same. We don’t selectively get outraged. As for bad behavior, every past president has done something...we take the good with the bad...JFK had his many mistresses...there are no saints in DC.
However, I do care about where our country is heading...
Trump was a better choice than Hillary in 2016. The people voted...the rest is history.I need a break from all this discussion...
I guess I must have touched a nurve, considering all these responses.
I said pretty much all I have to say.“Don’t forget, a conservative is consistent. We treat everyone the same.”
That’s cute. Hate to break it to you but consistency is not a left/right quality, it’s a human one. And one not many humans possess. It’s usually the ones that claim to have it that definitely don’t, though... wink wink.
That's the beauty of being a liberal. They can't look back, or forward. The outrage of the now is all they can focus on.
So, because Bill Clinton was elected president over 20 years ago, we should simply ignore Trump's behavior now?
And, to assume every liberal who criticized Trump is a staunch Bill Clinton supporter is illogical and partisan stereotyping of the worst kind.Absolutely not. But, perspective pp. Perspective. I won't go into a litany of transgressions by politicians but it was argued by every supporter, and his wife, that it was a witch hunt; in Clinton's case. His transgressions did not warrant the outrage, etc. etc. etc. This has been the go to argument for every political figure under fire for as long as I can remember.
Trump is no different. His supporters are no different than supporters have always been. The difference I see is the attack angle from those who are not supporters. It's a level of holier than thou, I'm more intelligent than you, let's band together and brand bs I haven't previously seen.
Calling you a liberal is not on the same level as you calling me racist, misogynistic or ignorant. Some are dirty words, one is not.I agree that, to a certain externt, supporters of Clinton and Trump have behaved similarly. The difference between the two men, though, is astronomical. One was competent in his work, the other is not.
There you go...you just confirmed everything I have been saying.
Liberals will be selective in how they judge politicians...
Because Clinton in their eyes, was a successful and competent President, all the other stuff with impeachment and corruption and the sex was OK and forgivable. On the other hand, with Trump, who is equally detestable in his personal behavior...but in your eyes is imcompetent and an embarrassment, therefore, he is not worthy of the office.
Does that sum it up pretty good?
The problem with that line of thinking...
To conservatives, Trump is doing great in delivering what he promised.
On the economy and jobs and trade and energy and on immigration and foreign policy and the supreme court...he is winning.
If you are going to be consistent, who has it right?Trump is not equally detestable in his personal behavior. All we have to do is watch his Twitter account to know this. The man IS an international embarrassment and is making America a joke. That has NOTHING to do with politics, being a liberal, a conservative, etc.
What most people are your referring to? The media, or academia, or Hollywood celebrities or MSNBC or CNN?
What percent would you say is considered “Most”? 60%, 70%, 80% or 90%?
Check out Trump’s approval ratings...A better poll...
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -6179.htmlI'm not sure what your point is; those are not good numbers, either.
They are not the overwhelming majority that you claim.
If 40%, in some poll, 48%, agree with his job approval, don’t you think you should take a pause? And reconsider? Maybe?
My contention, which may be faulty is that the media is driving those poll numbers by reporting 90% of negative stories on Trump and not reporting on some of the positive things he has accomplished...Jack, I said nothing about an overwhelming majority. I said "most people."
Sorry, but you cannot convince me to ignore my own eyes and ears and declare Trump a good president. Not gonna happen.That is fine...you are a free thinker and I respect that, even though we disagree. There is not a lot of daylight between our views on Trump.
Both of us can’t be right.Just a background information.
My path with Trump started over 10 years ago in 2006.
I wrote an article on Squidoo, now on HubPages on “Trump State Park”.
He was a local developer who bought a piece of property near my town and wanted to build condominiums...
The town zoning board would not allow it and he ended up donating the property to the State as a Park.
You can read on the history of this fiasco...
I was not a fan of Trump, even before he ran for president...
“hubpages.com/travel/Trump_State_Park“
Skewed higher by the famously pro-Republican Rasmussen Reports.
Trump has the lowest approval ratings and highest disapproval ratings of any President since the beginning of modern polling.
He is rated the worst President in history by a survey of Presidential historians, both conservative and liberal.
Hardly good news.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203207/tru … sion=print
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_StatesHow did these same poll do on Reagan while he was president? And how they rate him now?
It is uncanny...I hate to bring up this but they said the same thing about Ronald Reagan... I am a student of history and I am blessed with an excellent memory.
Remember they called him a 2nd rate actor, just reading his lines,a cowboy and an embarrassment on the world stage. They made fun of him calling out the Soviets an evil empire and calling for the fall of the iron curtain and he is dangerous would start a nuclear war...I can go on and on.
Check out the latest presidential rating poll. Reagan rank one of the highest by historians. In term of his accomplishments despite all the flaws...
Where did I say all the other stuff is forgivable? You must be seeing things.
As for the rest, he will be judged by history, just like every President. I could be wrong, but I predict he will rank among the worst modern-day presidents, if not THE worst.I will take you up on that. That was what they said about Reagan too...
Trump, whether you like him or hate him, will be one of the most consequential President in modern times. - mark my words.
You can come back to this forum and tell me if I am right or wrong in 6 years.
As far as competency goes, who would you want to be on your team if you are dealing with thugs like Putin, and Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping and Ali Khamenei...
Barack Obama or Donald Trump?
If your life depended on it, who would you bet on?Lol, no contest, I'll take the intelligence, steely resolve, and integrity of Barack Obama over Trump's lying, whiny narcissism any day. I wouldn't trust Trump with my dog.
A bit of reality for 2020-
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detai … l-electionWhat about results?
Match Obama’s 8 years in office with Trump’s first two?
Who accomplished more in the world stage?
Who got the better deals for the US?
Who has made the world a safer place? (In terms of ISIS)
Who has gained in party membership?
Under Obama, the Democrats lost over 1000 seats in Congress and state houses combined.
Actually, Clinton was a better conservative than Trump or the current Republican party.
He decreased the budget deficit every year in office from 1994 to 1998 and then got us our last surplus in 2000.
As a true conservative and not the fake ones you believe, I'd call that a successful President.
EDIT: Trump winning? Trump and the current Republican party are adding trillions to our national debt with their massive tax cut for the rich and out-of-control spending.Clinton was no Conservative. He triangulated with a divided government. He claim credit for policies that Conservative republicans implemented. Remember the welfare reform bill which he signed into law. At the time, he said he was against it but later, when it was successful, he claim credt for it.
Here is Time story on the Clinton welfare reform bill -
http://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/He was at least a fiscal conservative because he balanced the budget.
What Republican has done the same in the last 30 years?None, but as we all know, the House of Representatives controls spending.
Most of the time, the Democrats hold the majority and that is why we have a $22 trillion debt.
Republicans spend mostly on national defense and Democrats on social programs...So then Clinton was a fiscal conservative.
The House does not "control" spending. The process includes the administration, House and Senate.
If Republicans currently control the White House and Congress, why are deficits skyrocketing and not going down?
https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-ba … et-processGood question...that is what I’ve been complaining about and criticizing Trump for giving in to the over spending...
I also blame Paul Ryan who is ineffective as Speaker.
He talks a good game but never delivers...
He is no Conservative and neither is Mitch McConnell.
Matter of opinion. Opinions diverging does not warrant calling people universally derogatory names.
Ah, here we go again. Where did I call anyone (except for Trump, who I frequently point out is a "lying POS") a universally derogatory name? Since you said "people," I assume you are not referring to Trump .
I'm not going to go through the history of your posts and certainly correct me if I'm wrong....have you never said or implied Trump supporters are racist, misogynistic or any other derogatory comment?
No, I've said that Trump voters, with their votes, indicated that Trump's racist and misogynistic remarks were acceptable conduct for a President (also, his bullying of a Gold Star family, his mocking of a disabled reporter, his bragging about grabbing puss!es). If they had deemed that conduct to be unacceptable for a President, they would not have voted for him. Pretty simple, really.
I have also presented data showing that a significant percentage of Trump voters are racist, but that is the data talking; I'm just relating the info.
I have called Trump supporters gullible for believing a wall will be built and Mexico would pay for it. I doubt I have ever stated Trump voters are racist or misogynistic because I try very hard not to make false blanket statements about groups of people. I probably stated some are, which I assume even you would not dispute.
I don't expect you to prove or retract another of your false characterizations of me, since you repeatedly failed to do so with previous false statements.
It's now a clear pattern with you, so I'll just continue to set the record straight, shrug, and move on.
Oh, folks were angry with what Bill Clinton did. Even though it wasn't the worst act a President has done, it got him in deep trouble and cost him his presidency.
Trump has admitted on tape he has basically assaulted women. He had an affair on his wife with a porn star.
As for my political standing, I take neither side. Politics is exactly what it is: politics. And at the end of the day, none of us have a say in the end results. The powerful play their chess games and we're merely the pawns that keep the game going.
With that said, I'm not one who hates taxes because I like nice roads and things of that nature - things that are vital to making a developed country what it is. Economies go up and down and no one person has a say in that.
As far as Trump's "promises," he's broken more of them than he has kept them. And some of them he's kept really didn't help us as a country.
In my writing carry, I have written so many articles I couldn't even place a number on them...it has to be well over a thousand. As a writer, I cannot take sides. I have to write with a neutral mindset because I may have to write about topics I don't really care for.
Furthermore, I have lectured in various universities about a number of topics, as well as trained debate teams. In all of those situations, one must never take sides.
Therefore, I can't find a middle ground for a topic such as Trump, then chances are most sane and right-minded individuals could never see Trump as a positive thing for this country, no matter what promises he keeps or breaks.
I could write several books about conservatives who conducted themselves in less than conservative ways, as well as about liberals who behave far more conservative than is expected of liberals.
Point being, nothing in this world is absolute. People do as they wish, only taking certain positions publically for some personal interest. So political terms such as liberal and conservative actual have little meaning in reality, other than a political tool.I respectfully disagree. Politics aside, they have real consequences for our people and our country. I am a Reagan conservative. When he was elected, our country was down in the dumps under 4 years of the Carter Administration...whom I voted for by the way. Reagan’s conservative ideas turned our economy around and lead to the longest boom in our country’s history. This is well documented and our country is better as a result.
He was so popular, he was elected 49 out of 50 states in his 2nd term. Democrats voted for him in droves. Don’t tell me it does not matter. It matters what policies our government put in place. I am not against paying taxes. The difference between you and me is I believe there should be a limit to government spending. I think 25% of my income going into the treasury should b enough to pay for what needs to be done...
Is that too much to ask?
Great civility to defend a murderous prince
Senators: Saudi Crown Prince Was Behind Killing Of Jamal Khashoggi
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/67322448 … gi-killingI always find it humorous when Trump supporters play the victim card. Perhaps if they could take in the information being given and discern fact from opinion like normal, educated adults, we wouldn't have to listen to them whine all day. Trump is being attacked because he committed crimes to get elected - his campaign colluded with Russia, he committed obstruction of justice when he fired Comey and admitted thinking about the Russia Investigation when he did, he broke campaign finance law by illegally paying off Daniels and McDougal, and now witness tampering with his communication to Roger Stone about testifying.
He got caught outright lying about the Kashoogi killing to preserve his own personal interest. He got caught lying about his business dealings with Russia to preserve his own personal interest. And the lawsuits pertaining to his violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution are moving forward in the courts.
The big question becomes, why can't you see him for the lawless piece of garbage he actually is?"Perhaps if they could take in the information being given and discern fact from opinion like normal, educated adults..."
This is the key issue here. Not all Trump supporters are uneducated and unable to form opinions like adults when it comes to other matters. However, when it comes to Trump, the ability to come to logical conclusions, and see the incompetence right before their eyes, is non-existent. I see it as a faith issue.
There is a segment of Americans that put their faith into Trump similar to what they do with God. That way anything he says (or does) can be overlooked or excused as, he has a higher purpose or it's just the enemy (Satan) speaking with a forked tongue, no matter how clear the evidence. This also explains the hatred for anyone who doesn't support most everything the President does.
We know Trump draws most of his support from the religious right. The American religious right, and Trumpism, seem to thrive on the victim role. The "religion is under attack" line drew the religious right together just as Trump playing the martyr card does the same thing.I agree with this. I will also add that when a person starts down the road of compromising their core beliefs in a big way, it becomes easier and easier to do so. They ignored Trump's flaws, hoping he would be that guy who comes in and heroically takes on the system and drains the swamp. Now, they are unwilling to admit he is the ugliest, slimiest swamp creature of them all.
Good point about core beliefs. And, what is a nation, or any collection of people, without basic core beliefs? What about treating others how you would want to be treated, lying is wrong..even if others do it? Trump is caught in a lie and doubles down on them. Also, last I checked, covering up for murderers isn't a good thing for Presidents to do. None of this is good for America. It does go way beyond politics.
I think most of them can; they have become experts in denial.
What those who scratch their heads at Trump supporters fail to take into account is this is indicative of support, in politics. They aren't doing anything which hasn't been done, repeatedly. I remember scratching my head during the Clinton scandal. Scratching my head during Bush and Cheney.
They look at a different set of facts than those opposing do. The things they deem important are different. And, the more negative the commentary, the greater the insults, the more resolved they are to defend against the over the top negativity.
It is human nature. Is Trump a bully? Certainly. Is there a mob of opposition bullying with insults and innuendo, devoid of facts at times? Certainly.
I remember thinking, while people defended Clinton, that the lowest common denominator had been reset. That's the way of politics. We lay in bed with devils, thinking it's a necessary evil, if the policies we deem important are being addressed.
The problem is the opposition. They refuse to give credence to our valid concerns and bash us for support because of specific policies. Not accepting that the things they find abhorrent are the things we do also. But, were the politicians who are diametrically opposed to our vision for the survival of the country in power the same would play out. We'd focus on their obvious faults, not giving credence to the desires of those who support aspects of the policy, not the person.No, nope it's not the same. You can draw some parallels here and there but, no, nothing like this. This is faith like no other in American politics. I don't think Trump even knows what his policy is from one day to the next. That's all I have to say about that.
Roger Stone invokes Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Trump, previously: "The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
Trump's campaign manager, his National Security Advisor, and his personal attorney and fixer have all been indicted. Time is short for Don, Jr.
Trump is in deep. Any other president would have resigned by now.It's a disgrace to everything and everyone who helped make America great to begin with. A nation will always have flaws that need to be worked on. That doesn't mean you hand it over to the biggest criminals in the land.
I don't think Trump gets out of this without being criminally prosecuted by someone. Though that will likely only happen after he loses in 2020...unless of course the election is rigged as he stated the last one was, lol.Which president would have resigned by now? Seriously, that is so untrue. Have we ever had a president resign prior to impeachment hearings or the real threat of one with solid evidence looming?
Richard Nixon.
Edit: I see you edited your post after I replied.
It won't be long."Have we ever had a president resign prior to impeachment hearings or the real threat of one with solid evidence looming?"
That would seem to be key here - there is no "solid evidence looming" of anything that can be used for impeachment. In spite of exaggerations, in spite of 2 years of crying about impeachment, there remains zero evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. Only the imaginations of the Trump haters that don't like him.She added that phrase after I had already replied, but in any case, it won't be long.
I no longer bother listing the obvious evidence of criminal behavior or the long list of indictments and guilty pleas resulting from the Mueller investigation, including the five former Trump aides who have pled guilty to a multitude of crimes. Y'all are like the mama of a serial killer who declares "but he is such a good boy.""Y'all are like the mama of a serial killer who declares "but he is such a good boy."
Bingo! lol.You can list as many indictments, guilty verdicts and pleas from as many people as you like. 10,000 if you can find them. But until they are about President Trump rather than other people there are exactly zero grounds for impeachment. Which was the point; imagining that the President committed a crime because someone else did is not grounds for anything but imagination - I would be surprised if more than a handful of Democrats would vote to impeach because someone else committed a crime. They might (ethics and honesty are not a strong point in our congress), but it would surprise me.
I did not bring up impeachment, LtL did. I brought up resignation. The Dems will not move to impeach unless there is bipartisan support for it, and you can bet that won't happen with this bunch of spineless cowards in office.
But, it won't be long until the full extent of his crimes are known. I used to hold out for the possibility that he didn't know how stupid and criminal his staff and family were, but there is too much evidence to indicate he was just as stupid as they are. I already knew he was that criminal. All you have to do is look at his past.
What has long been obvious to most of us will soon be obvious to everyone but the most blind of his followers.I love how Dan can say there is no evidence when we have that evidence from Trump's own words. When he said he considered the Russia Investigation on live television when he fired Comey, he admitted to Obstruction of Justice. When the audio tape of him and Cohen speaking about how to illegally pay off Daniels and McDougal during the campaign, that was evidence of a crime. His tweet to Roger Stone is pretty clearly witness tampering. Ignoring the evidence is not the same as there is no evidence, unfortunately, for Trump supporters.
"I did not bring up impeachment, LtL did."
Apparently the phrase was added after my post as well.
"The Dems will not move to impeach unless there is bipartisan support for it, and you can bet that won't happen with this bunch of spineless cowards in office."
I don't know about that - they have the guts to ignore the country in favor of padding their own pockets, after all!
"But, it won't be long until the full extent of his crimes are known."
Yeah, yeah. We've been hearing that for 2 years. Along with the assumption that because another person was guilty of a crime then Trump is also guilty of something.
"I already knew he was that criminal. All you have to do is look at his past."
Yep. All those hundreds of guilty verdicts against Trump personally and all that jail time makes it clear, doesn't it? At least it does if one is willing to go from a court settlement by a corporation to a crime by a specific person in their own mind, it does.LOL, you never change. No point responding. We've been over this ground before.
Either you believe your own eyes and ears or you don't.Let me just offer a little light.
Suppose there are two people fighting in a playground. The camera is focused on one person that is being bullied.
Let’s also say, the media gets a hold of the video and do some editing, in the spirit of saving time. They selectively shows the reaction of the victim being bullied and hitting back...
Never showing the provocation that initiated the exchange.
So you, as the unbiased observer would say how disgusting is this individual attacking someone and saying all those nasty things..
It s plain as daylight. I trust my eyes and ears...
See my point?Well, Jack, there is plenty of unedited video available of Trump, as well as official transcripts, tweets, and more.
I have seen him repeatedly lie. I saw him stand beside Putin and believe him over our intelligence experts. I saw him admit he fired Comey because "this thing with Russia." His recent tweets about Roger Stone are there for all to see, witness tampering right before our very eyes. I saw him say there would be no consequences to a Saudi murderer because they benefit us financially. I saw him say he and Kim Jon Un fell in love. I saw him admit to grabbing puss!es.
Sorry, you cannot claim all of those things are invented by the media. And I've barely touched the surface of the lies, disgusting behavior, and appalling foreign policy debacles.The media fabricated Trump into a criminal? Is that really what Jack just tried to sell? More delusional that I ever thought.
Desperation. The end is near and they're desperately trying to find a way to deny it. It's alternately funny and horrifying.
He is not a criminal. What planet are you from? You mean to tell me Over 40% of the country’s voting citizens picked a criminal to the highest office?
What else you think of Trump? Is exactly what I am saying... the media created a caricature of a man that does not exist in real life.
It is as simple as that.
All you are doing is buying into this lie and confirming these half truths. I never said Trump is a saint and perfect in every way. However, it is unfair to call him a criminal.
Trump is many things, egotist, and self centered and boasting...
He is not a criminal and he is not a clown and he is not a racist...
And one more thing, there is no collusion with Russia. It is a fabrication that was concocted by the deep state under Obama.Wowsers. We need entire Psychology departments dedicated to researching deprogramming techniques. Obviously, no amount of reason will make some people see what's right in front of them.
Unless Mueller come up with something, there is no crime, no criminal. I still live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty.
You my friend is the helpless TDS afflicted one. God help you.
What are you going to do? Move out of the country like all those celebrities?I'm just fine Jack. America was great before Trump, and it will survive him. I appreciate the concern, but your out of context comment doesn't even make sense here. It almost seems as though you are scared of something and projecting that onto others.
I have no fear. Not sure what you are referring to.
My reference to TDS is short for Trump Derangement Syndrone.I know what the made up term TDS is Jack. I also know you have TWS and ODS.
What will you do if Mueller, and even a judge, finds Trump is guilty of crimes. Continue to defend Trump as it's all just a deep state conspiracy?I will keep an open mind and so far he has nothing except a few process crimes of some underlings...
"a few process crimes of some underlings."
Jack, you crack me up.Check this article out -
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12 … skepticism
Where’s the beef?
Also, I would be shocked if Trump was indicted for some crime, considering Hillary did much worse and was exonerated by the same DOJ/FBI cabal.
Yes, Jack, over 40% of the country likely voted for a crminal. Geez, you all knew he was a lying, bullying, pussy-grabbing POS when you voted for him, so what would be so shocking about him being a criminal, too?
Holey Moley.So, by your logic, Justice Kavanaugh is a sex offender sitting on the Supreme court?
"I already knew he was that criminal."
"The known facts will convince you you're dealing with a criminal administration"
"His recent tweets about Roger Stone are there for all to see, witness tampering right before our very eyes."
"But, it won't be long until the full extent of his crimes are known."
Which of your statements here indicate a possibility of criminal activity, as opposed to "he is a criminal"?My opinion based on known evidence. I could be wrong, in which case you can crow bigly. I don't know what you're bent out of shape about, anyway, since you believe Hillary to have committed crimes even though she was never charged.
If it turns out Donnie is pure as the driven snow, I'll be wrong, won't I?Yet the radical right on here including you keeps screaming that Hillary Clinton is guilty of many major crimes and getting away with it.
Sounds like a double standard. Are you willing to admit that Clinton is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and not just the court of your opinion?
If so, I will gladly do the same about Trump.Well, I don't know. The FBI reported to congress that she DID put classified information on a private server. They reported that she DID delete emails after "subpoening" that server. They reported that her hard drives WERE destroyed under the same circumstances.
When the FBI reports that Trump committed a crime, then you may report that he did so. I'll take that as proof, with or without a guilty verdict.
How about you? What does it take to declare Trump's guilt in your mind? That someone else committed a crime? That Cohen said someone (unnamed) told him to make hush payments?Yet Hillary was investigated multiple times by both the FBI and Congress, but she wasn't indicted for anyting. So innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and not Fox News.
Again, are you willing to admit that Clinton is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
If so, I will do the same for Trump.She is innocent under the law. She is guilty as sin of putting classified information on her personal server.
When the FBI reports that Trump committed a crime, then you may report that he did so.How can Hillary be guilty of breaking the law according to you and not guilty according to the law, the FBI and multiple Republican investigations?
What do you know that they don't?Hillary did, according to Comey, put classified information on unclassified servers. Are you suggesting Comey lied when he shared that?
Major difference between put and handled.
Comey's statement:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
In other words, there was no intent to share that information, and secondly, it was handled the same way it was handled with GW Bush and his cabinet members keeping 22 million e-mails on his own server at the RNC headquarters. Any request to treat Clinton any differently is partisanship.Of course not. That's not my point. I repeatedly said above that if Trump is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law then so is Clinton.
Does one standard apply to Trump and another to Clinton or do they both share the same standard?
Besides, putting low-level "classified" crap on a private server is so routine that the FBI and the Republican Congress didn't bother to indict her.
Otherwise, the Republicans would have to indict a lot of other people including fellow Republicans.I wouldn't classify it as low level, eight of those e-mails were of the highest classification, according to the same Comey statement.
But, yes, others were doing exactly the same thing and were not prosecuted either. There was a new standard in Clinton's case, motivated by partisanship.I don't know where you are getting your information, but FactCheck and Politifact don't agree with you.
Their answer is only 3-4 were marked classified, but not worthy of anything more than a rap on the hand.
Not even the partisan "lock her up" Trump administration could justify putting her in jail.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clint … formation/
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revis … formation/
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … ontrovers/These are the same deep state people that believed she would be elected President in 2016. They were looking out for themselves. I put Comey on the top of that list.
I got it from the actual word-for-word speech Comey gave when informing America about the investigation publicly. So while you're quoting websites, I went to the FBI Director's own words.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press … ail-system
'From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.'
I tend to take my sources directly from government sites. It seems to add more credibility to my arguments.The sarcasm is unnecessary.
There is a difference between documents marked as classified and documents containing classified information that are not marked classified.
That's why I used the words "marked classified". It's also why I use multiple sources for research including ones that investigate the government rather than just taking someone's word for it.It wasn't sarcasm, it was a statement of where my information comes from. Mine came from the person who did the investigation, not a journalist who did not have access to the e-mails in question. So I'm not going to lend much credibility to Polifact or Factcheck in this instance since they could not analyze the e-mails you're trying to convince us were not classified.
No need to be coy. Your answer was sarcastic.
You didn't respond to the difference between classified documents and documents not marked as classified that may contain some classified information. Do you understand that difference?
Do you also understand that journalists get access to such information, write what they can prove in court and don't take the word of a government official at face value?
One last question. Do you understand that some classified information is mundane, which is why Hillary and other politicians don't go to jail over it?Perhaps you should go read Comey's statement, it describes the levels of classified information and where the information from Clinton's server fell into each classification. Saying a journalist is going to get access to the eight Top Secret ones that the FBI classified is just plain false.
Yes, some classified information is mundane, and those were also classified in there. Those were not the ones I was referring to as the eight at the Top Secret level.I already have read the statement several times since it first came out. Of course I'm not saying that journalists have access to top secrets (actually, it's more often than you think).
I'm saying they investigate such questions as the extent of any damage, whether foreign governments got Hillary's emails, etc.
I suggest you read about previous cases of politicians revealing top secret information directly to the public including the names of undercover CIA agents. That's quite a bit worse than emails between government officials.
In most cases except for the agents, it's simply not that big of a deal.I simply refuted this claim by you:
'Besides, putting low-level "classified" crap on a private server is so routine that the FBI and the Republican Congress didn't bother to indict her. '
The use of the term 'low-level' was not exactly accurate, I believed. I also believe I've backed up that statement factually.I acknowledge your point that some of the emails apparently had top secret information in them.
Still, if the information is so important, why isn't she in jail along with other politicians who have done the same?
I hope you agree that it's hard to have this debate without knowing the nature of the "top secret" information.Intent and previous cases, as I imagine were ones such as GW Bush, which were both listed in Comey's statement. You sure you read it? (that is sarcasm)
Are you sure you are reading my replies? (that is sarcasm too)
If you are going to change directions on me, then intent and previous cases also support the notion that what Hillary did, no matter how foolish, is not a big deal in the eyes of the FBI, Justice Department and Republican Congress.
But it's still apparently a big deal to the radical right and Bernie supporters, who make strange bedfellows.
Neither is driving 100 mph down the highway, or driving drunk...until someone dies as a result. But we still prohibit such actions.
Not the same. People get arrested for driving drunk or driving 100 mph even if there is no death.
In many cases, classified information in a private email has more in common with driving through a red light. That's why no one gets arrested for it.
If politicians don't get arrested for revealing a CIA agent's name to the public, they obviously don't get arrested for having classified information in emails.It's obvious they DON'T get arrested for putting classified information onto insecure servers.
The question is should they? People die from that sort of thing, just as they do from driving drunk. It may not be so easy to trace the cause, but we can be assured they do.
The standard for holding a high level politician accountable is world's apart from the standard you or I would be held to. I suppose, your opinion of said politician would directly correlate to the amount of outrage displayed when encountering such a disparity.
I agree we have to hold them to a higher standard.
The question remains, do we hold all of them to the same standard or do we have different standards for each politician based on political party or personal opinion?
If so, both Trump and Clinton are innocent until proven guilty of a crime worthy of prosecution -- just like Kavannaugh. Being stupid is not a crime.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … doing.html
Why is she still in politics?I would have more faith in the Mueller investigation if they also went after the Clintons with the same zeal...
Yes, Jack, over 40% of the country likely voted for a crminal. Geez, you all knew he was a lying, bullying, pussy-grabbing POS when you voted for him, so what would be so shocking about him being a criminal, too?
Hoey Moley.By your logic (presumed guilt without a verdict by a court of law), had Hillary won, over 40% would have voted for a criminal also.
I appears we were all stuck between a rock and a hard place in that election.
Jack, how can you deny he committed crimes to get elected? There's literally audio tape of him and Cohen discussion violating campaign finance law in determining the best way to pay off Daniels and McDougal prior to the election. That's him committing a crime, hence he's a criminal. He's not a convicted criminal, no, because he got elected and cannot be prosecuted as the president.
Let me help you understand that you're supporting a criminal. If a person were to walk up and shoot another person dead, you'd likely believe they committed a crime and were hence, criminal. Well, that's how many of us see Trump based on the actions he took to get elected and what we've witnessed and heard. It's called common sense, and it seems to be sorely lacking in your case.He committed no crime with Daniels, and paying her to keep her mouth shut was thus no crime either. The only crime there was that SHE violated their contract and talked.
It's things like this that make thinking people simply disregard all the "shocking discoveries" that the haters come up with. Calling it "common sense" does nothing towards proving it, just showing that truth doesn't really matter, only opinion and then only opinion that Trump is evil.
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s longtime personal and business attorney, has pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including two campaign finance charges stemming from his payment of hush money to women with whom Trump allegedly had affairs. What’s more, he admitted that “an unnamed candidate” directed him to make the hush money payments — that is, Donald Trump.
So, let's see. Cohen was found guilty of two crimes related to the hush money payments that he was directed to make by Trump, yet you say there was no crime. Again, your common sense on this issue is stunningly awful.So where is the Russian collusion?
You got to be kidding me. This whole affair was orchestrated by a deep State that is out of control.
What was Mueller’s original reason for being appointed?
If this is all they got, good luck with impeachment.Meanwhile...Paris burns...
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-h … rn-2018-12
So we have a situation where the foreign countries like France, a leader is less popular than an American President? How does that fit your narrative that the US is less respected abroad?
The same is happening in Germany...with Merkel.
Fascinating. Cohen is guilty of a crime and therefore Trump is too...because you have decided that an unnamed person is Trump. That's some really great detective work!
Do you think you will ever figure out that making calls without evidence is not the way to find truth?There is almost no chance that unnamed person is anyone but Donald Trump. Of course, you can crow bigly if it turns out not to be him. Conversely, when it is revealed to be Trump, as common sense dictates, will you admit that it doesn't take a detective to figure out the obvious?
Geez Loueez.
Lol, I'm running out of exclamatory phrases to describe the depths of denial.
Is "exclamatory" a word? LOLWhere does he say that Trump is guilty? He is saying that circumstantial evidence points to Trump. And plenty of it does.
"What’s more, he admitted that “an unnamed candidate” directed him to make the hush money payments — that is, Donald Trump.
So, let's see. Cohen was found guilty of two crimes related to the hush money payments that he was directed to make by Trump, yet you say there was no crime."
Did I misunderstand here? Is he not saying that Trump is guilty of a crime?Yes, you misunderstand.
Nowhere does he say Trump committed a crime. He implied that Trump directed hush payments, which you recently said is not a crime.Then what's the hoorah? No foul, no crime - why is everyone saying Trump is a criminal?
Multiple Trump associates have been indicted. He is part of the most massive public corruption investigation in U.S. history.
You can't claim "no foul, no crime" until the investigation is over. We don't know yet if enough evidence exists to prove he committed a crime or didn't commit one.
But it smells like it more and more thanks to his own people.Yes, yes, I know. The two year old investigation that has found exactly zero of what it set out to do - collusion between Donald Trump Sr. and Putin. Or any other Russian. Or the country itself.
The investigation that will go on until it finds something inside our outside it's original purpose, that can be used to embarrass the President.
I get that. I also get that because others were guilty of various crimes it means to the Trump haters that he, too, is guilty of something - they just don't know what yet and so will keep looking. Forever.
When someone hires another to commit a crime, that person is called a co-conspirator. And there is literally audio tape of Trump directing Cohen to commit this crime, proving who that unnamed candidate was.
As for Jack, the evidence in the collusion and obstruction is just as obvious but I've laid it out earlier. You will never be convinced of the simple truth of the matter, that's also obvious. And changing the topic to France won't help convince anyone Trump is either well-liked or innocent.You’re right. No amount of arm twisting will convince me that Trump had colluded with Russia. How this story came to light and created by the “deep state” to try and unseat a duly elected President is the bigger story.
It is shocking how easy it was for the media and the DOJ and DNC to convince half the American people that there is something real here.
The TDS just clouded their judgement.Almost as shocking as how two different people with decent levels of education can come to such different conclusions based on the evidence that is out there. That someone could ignore that "deep state" was a term created by Steve Bannon and used by Breitbart early during the election to help sell Trump as a non-DC candidate.
There is often a big difference between education and intellect.
The deep state is not a creation of any one person. It exist in our current government and that is why no matter which party is elected to power, the status quo exist... and the rich gets what they want from our government at the expense of the people. if you don't see that, I can't help you... Trump was elected partly to drain the swamp and we are finding out how hard that is and these people will stop at nothing...including making up a narrative of Russian collusion.
And your proof of this conspiracy theory is what, exactly?
the emails and text messages that have been exposed between FBI top officials and the people at the DOJ... and held overs from the Obama administration. and the FISA court violations... using faulty intelligence to surveil US citizens working on a presidential campaign...
E-mails that showed Strozk had an opinion on Trump as a despicable human being. Can you point to one action taken by him that showed any bias in his official duties? No, I didn't think so, as was proven during his appearance in front of Congress.
FISA court violations? Which one, exactly? Carter Page, a known foreign agent, previously attempted to be recruited by Russia, who decided to meet with Russians while working for the Trump campaign. It would have been a crime NOT to have put him under FISA surveillance with that resume and the action of meeting with Russians while working with his campaign.
Using faulty intelligence...I'll assume you mean the dossier. Another red herring as the FBI investigation began months before the dossier, when Papadopolous' bragged to the Aussies while in London about the e-mail hack gave them cause to investigate.
And when the FISA application was granted, Page was no longer involved in the campaign, as it was granted a month before the election, AFTER Page had been dismissed from the campaign due to his contact with the Russians. So Page, yes a US citizen, wasn't working on the campaign as you just falsely tried to claim.
Do some research, please, before regurgitating your false conspiracy theories in public and making yourself look foolish.I see you are so expert on all this...
You must be watching Fox...haha
Are you listening to yourself?
The same people, Comey, who found Hillary innocent, despite all the evidence... are the same people orchestrating Trump’s Russian collusion.
Yet, you don’t see any deep state.I, literally, just debunked all the garbage you claimed with actual facts about Page, the beginning of the FBI investigation, and the timeline of the FISA warrants, and all you have is 'Are you listening to yourself?' Seriously? Do you possess even one fact?
"The same people, Comey..."
How many people is Comey, exactly? Because you named exactly one. Hillary was given the same treatment GW Bush and many members of his cabinet got for deleting 22 million e-mails on a private server stored at the Republican National Committee headquarters while they were in power. There was a precedent for her not being prosecuted. But your partisan outrage blinds you to those facts as well.
All you have is conspiracy after conspiracy. Please find another hobby than posting those conspiracies here.
And either you are willing to produce claims from imagination and exaggeration or you are not..
You're right - we've been around this one before. I don't suppose I will ever be happy with producing verdicts and damnation from what I want to happen rather than from a factual basis, though. Just not in me.
"So often, the President would say here's what I want to do and here's how I want to do it and I would have to say to him, Mr. President I understand what you want to do but you can't do it that way. It violates the law."
Said no other Secretary of State about no other PresidentMike Pompeo is doing a great job, I am very proud of him. His predecessor, Rex Tillerson, didn’t have the mental capacity needed. He was dumb as a rock and I couldn’t get rid of him fast enough. He was lazy as hell. Now it is a whole new ballgame, great spirit at State! - DT
He can't help it. He's an old-man child.
*SMHIt's unreal. Everything the guy is about is everything I always stood up against. He's like Nelson from the Simpsons but not as funny. Of course, the Back to the Future Biff comparisons have a good deal of merit also.
Trump will be be saying similar things about Pompeo at some point. If he's still President long enough to get that point.
Related Discussions
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 2 weeks ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 767
Biden hasn't won and will not!
by Kenna McHugh 3 years ago
Have you noticed that Trump supporters are not rioting? Why is that? From a friend: Copied and pasted - info from some of the lawyers from my group: Ok in a nutshell. This is going to the Supreme Court. Where they will rule that the election is invalid due to fraud or mistakes on a country...
- 172
Never Have I Seen A President Seek So To Dived And Spread Hate
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
Here once again Biden stands at a podium swings around his hands, and rants, seeking and appoint blame on American citizens, ultimately Republican citizens. Without cause, without proof of the motive of why or what possessed this nut job that attacked Paul Pelosi. Although in front of only a...
- 99
SHOCKING: The Epstein / Trump Tape Surfaces
by JAKE Earthshine 4 years ago
Bone C*H*I*L*L*I*N*G, Shocking but certainly not surprising at this gruesome juncture: We’re far beyond the point in time when we simply run out of words to describe the Horrific Unprecedented ABOMINATION now occupying our stained and tattered oval office in shambles: This is one of those points:...
- 46
Look who is protesting the election results. Would the right do the same if Hill
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Look who is protesting the election results. Would the right do the same if Hillary had won?The answer is obviously NO. Now we see who are the real intolerant, the bigots and the deplorables...It is ironic how the left talks about inclusive except when they are doing the chosing...As a spectator of...
- 24
I don't blame Trump for "wait and see" on election results . You ?
by ahorseback 7 years ago
One thing in this election season that has been proven over and over , the American people DO NOT trust the election process , the media , the government , and so who can blame Trump ? Even democrats no longer trust the DNC and certainly not Republicans. Trumps...