Civility in 2018 vs. 1980...

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (266 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 15 months ago

    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.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this
    2. crankalicious profile image90
      crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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...

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. crankalicious profile image90
          crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. jackclee lm profile image81
            jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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...

            1. crankalicious profile image90
              crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. jackclee lm profile image81
                jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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...

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                2. crankalicious profile image90
                  crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image81
                    jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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,,.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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...

            2. crankalicious profile image90
              crankaliciousposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

    3. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      In honor of George HW Bush...41st President of the US.


      https://hubstatic.com/14314134_f1024.jpg

  2. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 15 months ago
  3. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 15 months ago
    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      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

  4. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago

    There 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."

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          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...

        3. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          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...

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, he's such an admirable human being. Do you want your kids and grandkids to be like him?

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              So let me ask you this, what do you tell your grandkids when they are being bullied on the playground?

              1. Aime F profile image82
                Aime Fposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                You didn't answer my question which is, ofcourse, your prerogative, but I think I'll refrain from answering yours unless you answer mine.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    So, you are willing to compromise your values to prop up a lying bully you wouldn't trust with your kids because you like his policies. Character doesn't matter. Just remember what you did when the $h!t hits the fan. You enabled it.

              3. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Aime F profile image82
                    Aime Fposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.  smile

              4. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

            2. profile image0
              Alexis Wainwrightposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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...

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Agreed. I'm delighted he is ripping Fox News, Breitbart and Alex Jones to shreds.

                2. profile image0
                  Alexis Wainwrightposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image81
                    jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

  5. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 15 months ago

    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.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        I invite you to get a life.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          I have a perfectly fine life, thank you. You?

        2. hard sun profile image90
          hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

    2. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      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?

    3. La Veezta profile image40
      La Veeztaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "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!

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. La Veezta profile image40
          La Veeztaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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!

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. La Veezta profile image40
              La Veeztaposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

  6. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 14 months ago

    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.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

  7. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 14 months ago

    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/

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I thought we were discussing Trump? None of that has any bearing whatsoever on Trump's weirdly submissive behavior toward Putin.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              LOL

          2. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Now, that's funny. You didn't even address Trump's behavior.

      2. profile image0
        Alexis Wainwrightposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Now with the #Metoo movement... was Bill Clinton better than Trump? He was revered by the Democrats even after impeachment...

              1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Clinton isn't president. He was impeached by the House 20 years ago.

                What does that have to do with Trump in 2018?

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Someone commented Trump is not fit to be president...so I responded with another example of selective memory...

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              3. profile image0
                Alexis Wainwrightposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

  8. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 14 months ago

    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-killing

  9. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 14 months ago

    I 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?

    1. hard sun profile image90
      hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "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.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. hard sun profile image90
          hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          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.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      I think most of them can; they have become experts in denial.

  10. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 14 months ago

    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.

    1. hard sun profile image90
      hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Notice she says "the problem is the opposition."

        Classic deflection of responsibility.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Obviously we disagree.

  11. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 14 months ago

    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?"

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Richard Nixon.

          Edit: I see you edited your post after I replied.

          It won't be long.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              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."

              1. hard sun profile image90
                hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                "Y'all are like the mama of a serial killer who declares "but he is such a good boy."

                Bingo! lol.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Valeant profile image95
                    Valeantposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

  12. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 14 months ago

    "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 President

    1. IslandBites profile image87
      IslandBitesposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Mike 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. lol *SMH

      1. hard sun profile image90
        hard sunposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        It'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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)