Lied about his mistress to the press and public, engaged in campaign finance shenanigans to pay her off. Lied about his net worth to the banks.
He's going to jail if he's not reelected. No wonder he started campaigning so soon after becoming President.
The media lied about our president being a Russia agent and you believed it.
shareTrump put Rex Tillerson in his cabinet specifically to finalize the trillion dollar pipeline deal with Russia. The reason Trump never got to lift those sanctions is because democrats were too loud about it for him to get away with it. By the end of 2017 Trump knew it was never going to happen so he cut Tillerson loose and focused on relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel instead.
No doubt I would definitely prefer to be buddies with Russia than Saudi Arabia. But the deal Putin hoped he would get with Trump is essentially the same deal MBS is getting and a similar deal that Netanyahu has had with the US for years. Saying Israel is worse than Russia or Saudi Arabia is Antisemitic nonsense. But even if Russia was indeed a better run country than Israel it still doesn't mean we need them in our pockets. Then they just become another Israel that we don't need draining our economy. We should distance ourselves from all of them. But we should start with Saudi Arabia where they execute more people for violating stupid laws than Iran and Venezuela do combined.
The democrats may be at fault for only focusing on distancing ourselves from Russia but the republicans are at fault for not focusing on distancing from any of them... except Iran because MBS and Bibi instructed republitards to hate them. Blech. Retardicans make me sick.
You sabotaged any chance at diplomacy with Russia because Russia put a stop to your war against Syria for Israel, and you make us do whatever Israel tells us to do because it's "antisemitic" not to. Great plan. Hope nobody ever finds out about it.
shareSince you didn't read anything I wrote and just continued with unrelated drivel then I will repeat myself.
Trump put Rex Tillerson in his cabinet specifically to finalize the trillion dollar pipeline deal with Russia. The reason Trump never got to lift those sanctions is because democrats were too loud about it for him to get away with it. By the end of 2017 Trump knew it was never going to happen so he cut Tillerson loose and focused on relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel instead.
No doubt I would definitely prefer to be buddies with Russia than Saudi Arabia. But the deal Putin hoped he would get with Trump is essentially the same deal MBS is getting and a similar deal that Netanyahu has had with the US for years. Saying Israel is worse than Russia or Saudi Arabia is Antisemitic nonsense. But even if Russia was indeed a better run country than Israel it still doesn't mean we need them in our pockets. Then they just become another Israel that we don't need draining our economy. We should distance ourselves from all of them. But we should start with Saudi Arabia where they execute more people for violating stupid laws than Iran and Venezuela do combined.
The democrats may be at fault for only focusing on distancing ourselves from Russia but the republicans are at fault for not focusing on distancing from any of them... except Iran because MBS and Bibi instructed republitards to hate them. Blech. Retardicans make me sick.
I challenge you to counter any of those points.
Oh and we're still awaiting your reply here:
https://moviechat.org/nm0874339/Donald-Trump/5c8a660056403a0ee6f45d30/Hey-THRILLHOUSE-Time-to-face-your-statements-about-Iraq-WMDs
“You” sabotaged.
“Your” war against Syria.
Where are you from again?
Your media (STATETV aka FOX) lied about Obama not being born in America for 8 years, and you believed it.
share
Your media (STATETV aka FOX) lied about Obama not being born in America for 8 years, and you believed it.
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/16/flashback-how-fox-news-promoted-trumps-birtherism/213152
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2011/04/20/fox-news-goes-full-birther/178860#Head1
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2011/04/20/fox-news-goes-full-birther/178860
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hannity-obama-kenya-birthers-230317
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/sean-hannity/528144/
https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2017/11/10_conspiracy_theories_that_tu.html
[deleted]
ttps://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/16/flashback-how-fox-news-promoted-trumps-birtherism/213152
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2011/04/20/fox-news-goes-full-birther/178860#Head1
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2011/04/20/fox-news-goes-full-birther/178860
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hannity-obama-kenya-birthers-230317
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/sean-hannity/528144/
https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/2017/11/10_conspiracy_theories_that_tu.html
They were cynically promoting what you even refer to as "silly birther nonsense" in order to de-legitimize the president. Why are you ok with a supposed "news" organization doing this?
shareI can't accept this idea without specific examples. Give me some and I'll look at them. Until then, all you and the other poster are doing is making unsubstantiated charges based on an apparent belief you two have concerning Fox.
They were cynically promoting what you even refer to as "silly birther nonsense" in order to de-legitimize the president. Why are you ok with a supposed "news" organization doing this?
You were just given six links that you even replied to and cut and pasted. What exactly do you think all those guests were doing on Fox News if the network wasn't cynically promoting what you even admit was a bogus story?
Either the network was promoting the story because they thought it was true, or they were cynically promoting it to delegitimize the president. But one of the two has to be true for them to keep inviting Birther nutjobs on as guests in order to promote the story.
Or, they might have been presenting all points of view. BTW, when was the last time Fox had a birther on? I recall watching Fox very often up until I stopped watching TV at all and that was something like a couple or three years ago. I don't recall any birthers on after Trump called on Obama to release the long form birth certificate, and as I recall, Trump never said that he thought Obama was not born in Hawaii; only that he could end the controversy surrounding his birthplace by releasing it.
As an aside, I want to show just how silly the birthers could be. An old friend of mine is a devoted birther, and a piece of evidence upon which he based much of his belief was the tape in which Obama's grandmother allegedly said that she was present at his birth in Kenya in 1961.That is the interpreter held that she said it. So, according to him, this is proof that Obama was born in Kenya.
But later on in the same tape when the interviewer seeks to confirm that the birth was in Kenya, she clarified to say that she was not present when he was born, and that her grandson was born in the US. Further, Kenya was under British control then and they have no records of his birth taking place in Kenya, and there are records of him being born in Honolulu in 1961, including a birth notice in the Honolulu newspaper. So, it appears that he accepts the evidence that supports his fervently-held view but rejects evidence that does not, even from the same source document, in this case an audio recording.
This is intellectual dishonesty.
Now, while I disagree with much of what Obama did as President, AFAIAC, he was a legitimate holder of the office.
"Or, they might have been presenting all points of view."
If this is what you're claiming then I question your intellectual honesty for implying someone like Sean Hannity actually presents "all points of view" when he repeatedly invites prominent birthers like Jerome Corsi onto his show to promote a bogus birther conspiracy theory. I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, I just have a hard time believing you're not aware that Sean Hannity is a highly partisan hack who only ever presents one side of an issue.
Excuse me, but I don't recall implying anything about Hannity. Personally, I don't watch him. All I said was that Fox does not promote this birther nonsense and I honestly don't recall them ever doing it. If you define having a regular guest on a program as promoting or agreeing with what that person says, then the intellectual honesty that you seem to question in my case, would also demand the admission that any time Fox presents a liberal such as Cathy Areu, Neal Gabler, the late Alan Colmes, or Donna Brazile, among many others, they are promoting and agreeing with what they are saying.
Does the presence of these very smart people mean that Fox actively promotes liberal or progressive viewpoints? Judging from what I have read here, I can't see you saying that.
My point is that just because a Fox contributor or host has a guest on, it does not mean that they or Fox agrees with them.
Again:
www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/16/flashback-how-fox-news-promoted-trumps-birtherism/213152
Seeing as how you so easily discovered the intellectual dishonesty of the birther movement, how can you possibly claim Fox was giving so much air time to birther nutjobs in good faith? Do you really think they were not able to find the records of him being born in Honolulu in 1961 themselves, including a birth notice in the Honolulu newspaper? C'mon. It's not being intellectually honest to even claim what they did as defensible.
A brief refresher in June 2008, responding to widespread chain email conspiracies about nefarious secrets -- including that his middle name was "Muhammed", his campaign posted a copy of his birth certificate on their website. Conservative writers set to work attempting to discredit the document. Hannity immediately invited #1 Birther Jerome Corsi onto his show and they kept pushing the BS for the next 3 years until he finally released his long form certificate. He didn't respond at first because he assumed it would just send these nutjobs into a further frenzy like the first time.
So again, this is supposed to be a "news channel". The promotion of these conspiracy nuts for 3 years served what purpose exactly if not an attempt to avoid real issues and delegitimize the president?
I remember when nut job Pirro said something to the effect that his Hawaiian birth certificate just meant that 'a baby was born alive' but didn't mean the baby was born in the US.
shareThe link in your post takes me to the home page of Movie Chat.
That aside, I saw that one argument as being intellectually dishonest. I was willing to examine the other claims of the birther movement and did not find them convincing either.
A couple of questions if I might: Over what period of time did Fox 'push' this idea and about how many broadcasts were devoted to it? Frankly, the only time I remember Fox mentioning the birth certificate was when Trump brought it up. I'm sure that they did mention it from time to time, but I sure don't recall it from when I was watching TV a lot more than I do now.
In any event the matter of whether or not Fox 'promoted' the idea that Obama was not born in Hawaii is one of opinion. In your opinion they did. I don't see it that way. In my opinion, having someone who espouses a certain view, on a TV program even multiple times, is not a promotion of the person's views.
I don't think that either of us is going to change the others' minds here so I'll wrap it by thanking you for your courtesy. Our exchange did not degenerate into name-calling and insults, and for that i am indeed grateful.
You take care.
Weird how that link took me back here too.
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/16/flashback-how-fox-news-promoted-trumps-birtherism/213152
This should work.
Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, and the rest who I linked to are all employees of FOX, and are representatives of the network. They are promoting the birther movement. What don't you comprehend?
shareThe problem I have is that I see no evidence that Fox was promoting it. Granted, they may have given airtime to those that did but but this does not mean they are promoting it anymore than CNN or MSNBC letting a spokesman for a conservative cause speak means that CNN or MSNBC is promoting the conservative cause.
It is nothing more than giving all sides of a controversy a chance to be heard.
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I do hope that will at least consider my point of view.
Every single time FOX runs / ran 'promos' on their network encouraging their viewers to tune into Sean Hannity's show and Pirro's show (which they do around the clock) they are 'promoting it'.
shareHe will never go to jail. #SuckOnIt
shareMaybe. Maybe not. Crooks like him have bought their way out of trouble all their lives. It's part of rich privilege. He'll avoid impeachment and most likely win his second term. Regardless, he'll stand trial after his presidency and have a lot to answer for.
So lucky you--you get your infantile, childish, corrupt bully for another four years. Keep cheering it on as you will. All you're cheering on is the destruction of our country an its reputation on the world stage.
But you DID "stick it to the libs" so you must be proud of yourself.
What makes you so sure Trump will win again?
shareI'm not sure of anything. I'm just assuming the a$$hole will win. Somehow, he won the original 2016 election. His base hasn't wavered on iota no matter HOW batsh!t insane he becomes and they even seem to leave him MORE the crazier he gets. I'm just assuming the orange cretin will somehow skate by like he's done his entire life.
shareBernie will win. Everything is going to be fine.
shareI hope you're right.
shareI always thought trump only won because Hillary was hated more than he was, or equally at least.
Bernie Sanders had an equal, if not greater following and Hill and her cohorts screwed him royally. They were just supposed to forget all about it and vote for her? In what world?
The DNC rigged the primary in many ways that were exposed by WikiLeaks PLUS the arduous voting requirements in place kept countless Sanders supporters from voting. I still think Bernie would have beaten Hillary fair and square.
I know it seems like there are more ignorant, sexist racists than anybody else around when someone like trump becomes president but it’s not going to be the same again.
I know trump won’t win.
Again, I hope you're right. Our entire country depends on 2020 election results.
I'm white and my wife is Asian and I must say--this is the first time I've ever been afraid of a presidential election. Being an interracial couple in Trumpland can have its bumps in a road. Some a$$hole shouted out his car to my wife last year and told her "GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!" and someone vandalized our car two years ago and left a nasty note.
The last thing my wife and I need is for these knuckle draggers to continue feeling emboldened by a line of white supremacist presidents.
Trumpers say all the time: "Racism hasn't increased since Trump's presidency!"
Yeah? Then why is it that, in the decade my wife and I have been married, those two incidents happened after Trump was elected. Those knuckle draggers didn't have the balls to do it before Trump came along. That's a fact.
So, yes--we need a sane president again and soon.
That’s awful. I’ve always lived in big cities with a lot of diversity. But when I visit upstate New York I’m reminded that a mere 100 miles from Manhattan in almost any direction is MAGA country.
Hope that never happens to you guys again.
I always thought trump only won because Hillary was hated more than he was, or equally at least.That is largely my reason for voting the way I did. share
Jussie Smollet certainly bought his way out of jail.
shareConsidering the fact that I've spoken out against Smollet on this board more than once, I can't think of a single reason why you're mentioning this to me.
share"I can't think" should have been the entirety of your comment.
shareWhat a surprise that that is your chosen response.
And yes, I CAN think...that's why I did NOT vote for Donald Trump. I have a brain which kept me from doing so.
I didn't vote for him either, but I am beginning to think many votes for him came from people who refused to let the media decide the election, i.e., think for us.
shareYou know why I didn't vote for Trump? Not because of party lines or Hillary (I hate her, too), or policy--I didn't vote for Trump because the man is a moron and a psychopath. You don't need the media for that. One needs only to watch the man speak on TV or read a single one of his tweets.
Anyone who can't see Trump's psychosis should seriously consider getting a checkup themselves because that's just scary if people can't see the unhinged nature of this man.
Of course he's a scoundrel. He's a liar, cheat, con and all around horrible person. I've always been skeptical about his "Russian Collusion" but I have and still am a 100% believer that he's guilty of dirty money crimes. Problem is--those offenses might only get him in trouble AFTER his presidency. Until then, we may just be stuck with the orange turd for another term.
And it's a damn shame. Collusion or not, he's neither a good person nor a good leader. He's and example of how many bad people can somehow get ahead of all of us normal folks in life, make it and be praised for it. It's the true cosmic joke, really.
Trumpers gloat now (like the children they are) over how the report "Clears" Trump but, in reality--they're gloating over a man who's run our country through the mud and thinks he can do whatever he wants in life. And he, apparently, can.
There are some good people in this world suffering misfortune left and right and this...this cretin with his diet coke in a gold rimmed glass just keeps right on getting everything he wants from the world in underhanded ways and having to answer for none of it.
Is Trump guilty of collusion? I've always felt in my heart NO. Is he guilty of money laundering and other money offenses? Oh, yes. But good luck impeaching him on that.
Now the idiot may have 2020 sewn up because he and his supporters will use the collusion vindication as their 2020 platform for how he was "unfairly treated by the democrats" and the dems will be stupid and run someone like Warren instead of someone like Biden or Bernie.
I'm very worried for our country's future.
Spot on dteam6.
Sadly, I agree 100% with everything you've said.
Sadly, as much as I loathe Trump, I always thought the Russian angle was a bad one for the Democrats to pursue, instead of focusing on policy and Trump's overall shitty character and complete lack of fitness for the Presidency.
Sadly, as you state, Mueller's findings will simply embolden and 'vindicate' the hardline Trump supporters.
Yeah, it's sad. I was hoping maybe that Moscow tower thing could somehow shed light on his dirty money schemes (as that would have been a high profile scheme to apply that charge to) but I guess there wasn't enough evidence of a crime there.
The problem with money crimes is: 1. They can be very difficult to prove and 2. You can't impeach a preside based on what he did in his past.
Our system is broken. His mental health alone makes him unfit. Problem is--our system so broken that psychotic people can become president and pay doctors off to amen reports. Same with other health reports.
All these guys in jail? Cohen? Who are they? They are as many of us feared: Trump's fall guys. Trump is an illiterate moron but he knows how to scheme and somehow had it set up for all those guys to take the fall on various matters. Cohen was the "buffer". Now he's going to prison (as he should) for crimes that Trump SHOULD be just as indictable for. Unfortunately, he's not. Trump has a "I knew nothing about what my lawyer was doing" excuse for all of those violations.
But I'm confident that (in truly poetic fashion) New York has something to peg him on. Unfortunately, it won't be until after his presidency.
Instead of working on the corruption angle or worrying about what happens to Trump after the Presidency, we should be focusing on providing a better and more appealing alternative to him right now, or at least before November 2020.
I've never been a fan of negative campaigning. Trump is absolutely vile and there's no way in hell I'd ever vote for him no matter what the alternative was, but the Democrats should be focusing on reasons to vote for them, and not the reasons why we shouldn't vote for the guy. One of the biggest issues in 2016 was turnout. Some liberals and Democrat sympathisers stayed at home because they simply didn't feel any compulsion to back Hillary (which I personally regard as a shame since I think she would have been a decent POTUS, but there you go).
I agree. That's why they need to run Biden. I'm not a fan of the guy but he seems like the one that MIGHT be smart enough to run on something other than "I'm progressive, diverse and I hate Trump!" because those are the main complaints from Trump voters: "You dems have no agenda other than to hate Trump!". Well, they're right. The few times I can say a Trumper is right about something: many dems ARE running on a "Trump is bad and I'm not!" platform as you stated. They need to do better than that.
That's why I maintain that Biden or Bernie are about as close as it comes to a chance to win 2020. Keep Warren and the others away. Those are the ones running on those toxic PC platforms that Trump voters voted so hard and angrily against in 2016. So many--SO many--Trump voters said: "I voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils". Well, if they don't want Hillary all over again then they need to make a swift change. So far, it's not looking good.
Bernie will win. He’s smart and he’s careful.
Tortoise and the hare..
Bernie's the only candidate I believe has the gump to force Trump to stay on topic in a debate.
shareBernie cannot STAND Trump. I can't wait to see them debate, lol.
shareShould be entertaining.
shareYes. Hillary was easy for Trump bc she has so much baggage. Where to begin?
On Bernie: trump’s got nothing but the policies they each back and Bernie’s got all of trump’s broken promises AND all of trump’s nasty baggage.
I wish we'd stop worrying about nasty baggage; all politicians are corrupt egomaniacal control freaks, otherwise they wouldn't want so much power. I'd rather they just discuss policy. Which will be difficult, I realize, since Trump likes to waste presidential debates insulting his opponents.
shareSo much cope
shareNot defending the guy, but those aren't exactly the most scandalous allegations. He's not going to jail. To think so is almost as ridiculous as him colluding with Russia.
About having a mistress, many great Presidents were cheaters unfortunately.
Franklin D Rosevelt
Dwight D Eisenhower
John F Kennedy
Lyndon B Johnson
George HW Bush
Bill Clinton
And these are only the modern Presidents. Many other had affairs including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
LBJ and Bush Senior had mistresses?
I knew about the other guys, but those two surprise me.
Johnson reportedly had a number of affairs, including one of 21 years with Madeleine Brown. A Johnson biographer wrote that when "people mentioned Kennedy's many affairs, Johnson would bang the table and declare that he had more women by accident than Kennedy ever had on purpose."
Bush Sr faced allegations of affairs, including one with a White House staffer, but he denied the allegations.
You're not familiar with Bush Sr and LBJs affairs Malko?
LBJs former mistress Madeleine Brown has taken a particularly high profile public role talking about what LBJ might have known about the Kennedy assassinations.
Bush Sr's longtime mistress Jennifer Fitzgerald was an open secret to the Washington press corps. One time the Washington Post even hilariously referred to her with the double entendre of "having served the President-elect George Bush in a variety of positions". Until Clinton, the press didn't pry into the private lives of presidents.
Okay, but can we say that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Dubya and Obama are 'clean' as far as their personal lives go?
And assuming Dubya is, isn't it rather rich of Bush Sr to act so high-minded and superior towards Dubya? But maybe that explains why Bush Sr had more of an affinity with Clinton, a fellow sleazeball, than his eldest, much derided, son.
Prior to taking office or while president? Obama was completely devoid of personal scandals in office. I think he recognized his historic role as the standard bearer as the first black president and how important it was for him to destroy negative black stereotypes rather than reinforce them; especially as the first Dem following Clinton's presidency he knew it was imperative he keep his nose clean. Although there was one suspected affair prior to being elected president that could never be confirmed.
Regardless, that was aside my point. I was just surprised that you weren't aware of LBJs or Bush Sr's mistresses.
Bush Sr was never the saint he was played up as by the press. Just look at his history of grabbing female ass uncovered by the #metoo movement.
Lol, landslide!
shareAll Presidents have been scoundrels of one breed or another. You don't climb to the top of the heap unless you're the best at being the worst. Some just handle their public image a lot better than others.
share