but remember, when Trump uses this language, it’s nit befitting his office.

What has he done to attack the constitution, exactly? he’s had some policy decisions overturned by courts, but that happens all the time, that’s why we have courts. it happened to obama, it probably happens to all presidents.

what a victory for feminism she must be. let’s show how evil trump is, by acting exactly like he does. Brilliant.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39936/watch-fresh-face-dem-congresswoman-were-gonna-hank-berrien?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Glad she’s got her priorities in order :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Young a stupid, she will get blowback from her constituents today for sure. What’s his excuse for his constant stupid inappropriate behavior?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Young a stupid, she will get blowback from her constituents today for sure. What’s his excuse for his constant stupid inappropriate behavior?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

his excuse, is that deep down, he’s a jerk. apparently, so is she.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

his excuse, is that deep down, he’s a jerk. apparently, so is she.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Deep down are you kidding, his true self has been evident his entire life and while it might be good for TV ratings if your a game show host, his behavior is so disrespectful and so inappropriate for our president. He is just continuing to sell the Trimp brand, it’s as plain as day, even if it’s not his grand plan. If Congress doesn’t put an end to it, it may be mueller or eventually the NYAG. He is such a smuck he really deserves to be put in his place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never mind that he has insulted Muslims numeous times and she finally has a platform to respond.

But Jim will tell you how the Dems. are worse.

Deep down are you kidding, his true self has been evident his entire life and while it might be good for TV ratings if your a game show host, his behavior is so disrespectful and so inappropriate for our president. He is just continuing to sell the Trimp brand, it’s as plain as day, even if it’s not his grand plan. If Congress doesn’t put an end to it, it may be mueller or eventually the NYAG. He is such a smuck he really deserves to be put in his place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sometimes I think the anti-Trumpers disagree with everything that comes from the right, without even reading it. I said that deep down, he's a jerk. That's why he behaves this way, because he's a terrible, terrible person. I think I'm saying the same thing you're saying - he's disgusting. Jeez.


"If Congress doesn’t put an end to it"

Congress has NO constitutional authority to "put an end" to someone being a jerk. We have the right, if we choose, to be crass jerks. Being a jerk, isn't an impeachable offense. As of right now, there's no impeachable offense. "Because I hate his guts", is not a constitutionally valid reason for impeachment. Let's see what the investigations uncover.

Congress can't impeach him on the basis that they don't like him. Stunning that you would state otherwise.

Never mind that he has insulted Muslims numeous times and she finally has a platform to respond.

But Jim will tell you how the Dems. are worse.

Each side has tens of millions of people, plenty of jerks on both sides. But among politicians and TV pundits, where I sit, the liberals are way worse. Their ideas on the economy are abject failures, many (not all) of their social issues are just weird, so instead of explaining why their ideas are better, they engage in attacks. It's all they have.

Trump may be one of the worst individuals out there. But he is constantly criticized by fellow Republicans. Who on your side told Hilary that her "deplorables" comment was offensive? Who on your side will say that this maniac's language is every bit as disgusting as Trumps?

And here is a sincere question, not trying to be a wise guy...what did Trump do, to insult Muslims? The travel ban? If that's what you're referring to, that's a joke. The ban didn't include countries with the largest Muslim populations on the planet. The ban wasn't targeting "Muslims", it was targeting Muslims from specific nations, which the Obama administration said were hotbeds of terror and which didn't do a good job of vetting who was who. If he wanted to ban all Muslims, why wasn't Turkey on the list of countries to which the ban applied?

Trump represents most conservatives darkest emotions. Fear. Hate. Greed. Oppression.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Each side has tens of millions of people, plenty of jerks on both sides. But among politicians and TV pundits, where I sit, the liberals are way worse. Their ideas on the economy are abject failures, many (not all) of their social issues are just weird, so instead of explaining why their ideas are better, they engage in attacks. It's all they have.
d?

See I disagree - I see the Repub. electing fowl mouthed, racist people constantly - people under indictment and they don't care. Look at the constant insults in this forum that come from the Repubs.

Look at the hypocrisy coming out of the Repub. supporting everything Trump says (the changing of the platform not to criticize Russia) tariffs (how many soy beans did we sell to China in Nov and Dec.?), insulting our allies, the swooning over the stock market (remember how you were enjoying the increase in your 401K) yet now they've developed lock jaw over his causing the market to crater, the lack of concern over the deficit (and it is not the same to have a deficit when the economy sucks like when Obama was left the worse economy since the depression vs when Trump was left one cruising along). Also, the hypocrisy of the Right hating the government except when the Right needs $ to put food on their table. Don't forget the Right leaning states get far more in govern. $ back on average then they pay to the government. They gladly have their hand out yet complain about the government at the same time.

But he is constantly criticized by fellow Republicans. Who on your side told Hilary that her "deplorables" comment was offensive? Who on your side will say that this maniac's language is every bit as disgusting as Trumps?



Pls. Republicans are mostly silent when it comes to Trump. The way he treats the generals is appalling (yet he was a draft dodger). Some Repubs. will criticize some things Trump says but they will act like they don't remember anything he said the next day.

For about the 100th time - didn't Hillary apologize the very next day for saying that? I know if your children said something and apologized and never said it again you wouldn't constantly bring it up.

paul if you
want to deny that republicans are critical of trump, fine. there was a while
movement within the party called never trump. of course there are lots of hypocrites, but i see a lot more self policing than i see in the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said "mostly". I don't believe people in either party are as partisian/ie voting blindly for 1 party as I think you think they are.

Pls. Republicans are mostly silent when it comes to Trump. The way he treats the generals is appalling (yet he was a draft dodger). Some Repubs. will criticize some things Trump says but they will act like they don't remember anything he said the next day.

For about the 100th time - didn't Hillary apologize the very next day for saying that? I know if your children said something and apologized and never said it again you wouldn't constantly bring it up.

formthe 100th time, she apologized after she said it, and after people
told
her that it would
benefit her politically to do so. you didn’t answer
my question, where was the outcry on the left when she said it?

there is a lot
more to the gop than trump. compare paul ryan and mitch mcconnell to nancy pelosi and chuck schumer? come on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yet now they've developed lock jaw over his causing the market to crater,

although up a lot today:hihi:

formthe 100th time, she apologized after she said it, and after people
told
her that it would
benefit her politically to do so. you didn’t answer
my question, where was the outcry on the left when she said it?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you mean this awful statement, that you and other Trumplicans have extracted one word from and repeated it endlessly?
That word somehow justifies the multitude of awful statements and enabling of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic groups by Trump.
And remember the Call and response "Who's paying for the wall?" Chorus: Mexico

"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

[Laughter/applause]

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

although up a lot today:hihi:

How has the market done, since he has been in office? And interesting that you only brought up the stock market, not GDP or unemployment.

And how do you know he caused this, as opposed to it being an organic correction, as those do happen sometimes, it's not always anyone's fault.

Do you mean this awful statement, that you and other Trumplicans have extracted one word from and repeated it endlessly?
That word somehow justifies the multitude of awful statements and enabling of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic groups by Trump.
And remember the Call and response "Who's paying for the wall?" Chorus: Mexico

"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he’s done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

[Laughter/applause]

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

"you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?"

She's talking about tens of millions of Americans.

Do you mean this awful statement, that you and other Trumplicans have extracted one word from and repeated it endlessly? That word somehow justifies the multitude of awful statements and enabling of racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic groups by Trump.


There was more than one word that made her statement awful. Her whole statement was awful. And it enabled or justified calling people who supported Trump rather than Hillary racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. It was an ugly, divisive politicized statement that is worse than anything I recall Trump saying.

There was more than one word that made her statement awful. Her whole statement was awful. And it enabled or justified calling people who supported Trump rather than Hillary racists, sexists, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic. It was an ugly, divisive politicized statement that is worse than anything I recall Trump saying.

:bs:

Try this one and you don't have to look far for more
Today's Democrat Party is held hostage by left-wing haters, angry mobs, deep state radicals, establishment cronies, and their fake news allies.

How has the market done, since he has been in office? It has gone up but less than the same # of months during Obama's admin. And interesting that you only brought up the stock market, not GDP or unemployment. all have continued with the same trend that was occuring prior to his being elected. Edit - the trend on the deficit sure changed.

And how do you know he caused this, as opposed to it being an organic correction, as those do happen sometimes, it's not always anyone's fault.

Didn't you claim in the past that the stock was going up bc of Trump?

Apple decline was related to China and tarrifs - they said so. Trump claimed a tarriff war was easy to win. Didn't he even call himself Mr tarriff?

:bs:

Try this one and you don't have to look far for more
Today's Democrat Party is held hostage by left-wing haters, angry mobs, deep state radicals, establishment cronies, and their fake news allies.

You're right. She, like most politicians, are as disgusting as Trump. He fits right in with the crowd.

paul-

yes, the market went up by a higher percentage under obama. because it has tanked before he got there. i give obama credit all the time for helping the economy, but it’s easier to grow the market by 15% year after a crash, than it is to do so after 8 years of significant growth. it’s like weight loss, if you need to lose 50 pounds, the first 5 are easier to lose than the last 5. i’m not trivializing what happened under obama.

you are desperately trying to avoid giving trump credit for
anything. i don’t think GDP growth is following the same trends as it did under
obama.

i claimed that trump helped the market. i still believe his policiesnhave helped the market. i can’t prove it obviously, but i’m very confident the market would be lower if not for his doing away with regulations and his tax cut. thatbthe market is down this year, doesn’t prove his policies failed, although it’s a safe bet his trade war hasn’t helped us yet.

i agree apple, which i own a lot of, is getting creamed, they say because of a sluggish chinese economy. part of that is probably because of the trade war, which i understand is hurting the chinese economy more than its hurting us, so hopefully that helps us get a good deal. but the chinese economy can’t grow like crazy forever, and not every hiccup they have is the fault of the sitting american president, is it? apple
has also failed
to gain much traction in india, and none of that is trumps fault.

the market is getting creamed the last 6 months, and part of that is absolutelybthe tariff and trade wars. now, allow
me to speculate, and it’s pure speculation. IF the trade war ends with very favorable terms to us, and IF as a result ifnthatbthe market and the economy do well, will you give him credit? or will you say that it’s because of the obama tailwinds he inherited.

i also loaded up more on apple yesterday, and i’m supremely confident that a few years from now, i will be very very glad for this dip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree she shouldn’t have called the POTUS what she did it was wrong

But to call it disrespectful because she’s a democratic .. and not see Trumps behavior and language as disrespectful toward the office or the Nation.. is beyond me

But cortez is attacked for less


https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46757179
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree she shouldn’t have called the POTUS what she did it was wrong

But to call it disrespectful because she’s a democratic .. and not see Trumps behavior and language as disrespectful toward the office or the Nation.. is beyond me

But cortez is attacked for less


https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-46757179
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who are you referring to, who doesn’t see Trumps behavior as disrespectful?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Disrespectful or unacceptable?
This should not be the new normal and it does not stand alone as an example.
President Donald Trump retweeted an image that accuses multiple political opponents of committing treason against the United States of America, demanding that they be prosecuted and imprisoned for their crime.

Think about that for a moment, because it is extraordinary. The chief executive of the United States is urging the government that he heads, the people whom he can hire and fire, to arrest those who dare to oppose him. He is equating resistance to his rule and criticism of his actions to acts of betrayal against the nation itself.

In the image tweeted by Trump, the gallery of accused traitors sitting behind prison bars includes Hillary Clinton, the she-devil of every Trump rally. She shares that crowded prison cell with 10 other people, including special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI Director James Comey. Two predecessors as president, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are also among those who are targeted as traitors to be punished.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee who still sits in office, is also among the alleged traitors. In an interview with the New York Post this week, Trump was asked what crime Rosenstein committed to deserve to be put behind bars.

“He should have never picked a special counsel,” Trump said.

it’s not going to be the new normal. here’s a bit of advice, Pete. if you don’t want to ever see the likes of Trump again, then perhaps when the GOP nominates a decent person, your side could treat them fairly. that doesn’t mean say nothing but positive things, it means praise when they deserve it, criticize when they deserve it. And try to pretend to show a speck of consistency. Your side portrayed George W Bush as a low-IQ version of Hitler, McCain was a senile old racist, Romney was a heartless plutocrat who objectified women by having resumes in a binder. that crap, is a big big reason why Trump won the primary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s not going to be the new normal. here’s a bit of advice, Pete. if you don’t want to ever see the likes of Trump again, then perhaps when the GOP nominates a decent person, your side could treat them fairly. that doesn’t mean say nothing but positive things, it means praise when they deserve it, criticize when they deserve it. And try to pretend to show a speck of consistency. Your side portrayed George W Bush as a low-IQ version of Hitler, McCain was a senile old racist, Romney was a heartless plutocrat who objectified women by having resumes in a binder. that crap, is a big big reason why Trump won the primary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll take your advice and raise you some republican dirty tricks that led to that.

Just why do you think Kavanaugh claimed his problems getting confirmed was revenge for the Clintons, do you know what his role was in the Arkansas Project?

1976 - Jimmy Carter was widely attacked by Republicans for truthfully admitting he had experienced moments of lust.

1980 - Bill Casey's Theft and Reagan's Debate Performance - In a 1983 book, Gambling with History, Time correspondent Laurence Barrett revealed that Reagan campaign aides "filched" (stole) President Carter's briefing papers to help prepare Reagan for the 1980 debate. Chief of Staff James Baker would later say that Reagan's campaign manager William Casey was the thief. Ronald Reagan defended the theft saying: "It probably wasn't too much different than the press rushing into print with the Pentagon Papers." Reagan appointed William Casey to head the CIA where he become the chief architect of the Iran-contra operation.

1980 - The October surprise - Republican operatives encourage Iran not to release the hostages prior to the presidential election with the promise of unfreezing Iranian assets under Ronald Reagan.

"The CIA Old Boys were reeling. In the 1970s, exposure of their dirty games and dirty tricks made the Cold Warriors look sinister--and silly. Then, President Carter ordered a housecleaning that left scores of CIA men out in the cold. In 1980, the CIA men wanted back in and their champion was former CIA director George Bush. With Bush and Ronald Reagan in power, the old spies could resume their work with a vengeance. The temptation was to do to Jimmy Carter what the CIA had done to countless other world leaders--overthrow him." --Robert Parry, Bush and a CIA Power Play, February 29, 1996

Oct. 18, 1980 , Chicago Tribune reporter John Maclean told a U.S. foreign service officer, David Henderson, that a Republican source had supplied a fascinating tip -- that George Bush was flying to Paris to discuss the hostages with Iranians.

"The Iranian parliament was meeting and we had every information from Bani-Sadr and others that they were going to vote overwhelmingly to let the hostages go. And at the last minute on Sunday [two days before the election] for some reason they had adjourned without voting.... The votes were there, but the Ayatollah or somebody commanded them to adjourn." -- President Jimmy Carter

"The phrase 'October Surprise' kept cropping up and was soon campaign rhetoric. The more I listened, the more I realized that they were actually dreading the thought that the hostages might be released--if it happened at a time they thought would be inconvenient for their election plans." … "[I] think the hostages' release...had to do with a deal, struck before the deal-maker was in office." -- Patti Davis (Reagan's daughter)

1980s - Iran-Contra Affair - Revealed a Republican cabal to illegally sell weapons to U.S. enemy Iran to finance the training and support of a Nicaragua Contra drug cartel which used CIA trained death squads to terrorize and maintain control over the people to grow and harvest cocaine. Nov. 18, 1987 A Congressional report states US President Ronald Reagan bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides in the Iran-Contra Affair. The reporter who linked the CIA to the sale of Nicaraguan crack in Los Angeles in the 1980s was found with two bullet holes in the back of his head, which of course was ruled as an apparent suicide.

Key people implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal reappeared at high-level posts in later Republican administrations, most notably in George W. Bush's administration.



BCCI Affair - Pakistan-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) catered to the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, Manuel Noriega, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a web of Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush. BCCI was a massive criminal enterprise, engaged in fraud and money laundering for drug dealers, terrorists and arms traffickers all around the world. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 described the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations." Democratic Senator John Kerry presided over the Senate probe that exposed the fraud, abuse and terrorist financing.

1986 - Karl Rove helps Bill Clement, the first Republican in a century to win a Texas gubernatorial race by holding a press conference to announce that a bug had been found in his office. Rove complained about how their campaign strategy was showing up so consistently in the other camp. The bug had only 2 hours left in a 3 hour battery life, which barely gave Rove time to plant the bug call the police and news media and smear a good Democrat Mark White.

1988 - Willie Horton Ads - The 1988 Bush-Quayle “Willie Horton” commercial played to overt racism and fear mongering. Whisper campaign questions Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis' mental state and that Kitty Dukakis once burned an American flag.

1992 - Ross Perot accuses Republicans of "dirty tricks" against his presidential campaign including a wiretap in his Dallas office and threats to publish phony nude photos of his daughter and sabotage her wedding. In July, Perot drops out until after his daughters wedding and then re-enters the race, splits the conservative ticket with George Bush and Clinton wins the presidency.

House Bank scandal - Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, along with 7 freshman Republicans referred to as the Gang of Seven or "The Young Turks," tried to get rid of Democratic Congressmen by making a dramatic public display of denouncing corrupt Democrats in the House Bank scandal which amounted to Congressman getting advances on their paychecks because of very loose rules in the House Bank, which was not actually a bank. No money was stolen or lost. This back fired a little when it was found that Newt had also written a number of overdraft checks.

1994 - Republican Karl Rove helps George W. Bush in his Governors race against incumbent Democrat Ann Richards. Rove starts a whisper campaign that Richards is gay and runs push polling phone calls asking voters "would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians."

1996 - Billionaire, Ross Perot on "Meet the Press" said Republican Party operatives had asked him in 1992 for $1 million to finance a political dirty tricks campaign before he entered the race as an independent candidate. Perot, implicated Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour.


Troopergate was an early part of the "Arkansas Project." Republican fundraiser Peter W. Smith admitted to paying Arkansas State troopers Larry Patterson and Roger Perry $6,700 each to smear the reputation of President Bill Clinton. Self described "Conservative Hit Man" David Brock, writing for the Scaife owned American Spectator wrote and broke the story in 1993.

In a 1997 Esquire article titled "I Was a Conservative Hit Man" Brock recanted his claims. In 1998 he went further and personally apologized to Clinton. Brock went on to write: "Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative" in which he exposed the right-wing conspiracy to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton and Anita Hill.

Troopergate
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative


The "Arkansas Project" funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, was designed to damage and end the presidency of Bill Clinton through a series of bogus investigations. After wasting more than $25 million of taxpayer money to trump up charges against the Clintons on Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate and Filegate the right-wingnuts had to settle with exploiting the fear of Hillary Clinton to trap Bill Clinton into fudging about an affair.

February 12, 1999 The Republican controlled Senate acquits President Clinton of all impeachment charges. President Clinton had been asked "have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court." The definition excluded oral sex and President Clinton truthfully answered: "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." The founding fathers defined impeachment for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States."

CIA operative Barry Seal came forward to refute the Republican attempt to link Clinton with Pablo Escobar. When in fact the drug ring in question was actually being run as a CIA sting operation and had nothing to do with Clinton.

The Arkansas Project smear campaign was amplified by the propaganda organs of the Republican Party including The Washington Times, owned by ultraconservative cult leader Sun Myung Moon, Right-wing propagandist billionaire Rupert Murdoch (FOX News and New York Post) as well as wing nut buffoon, Rush Limbaugh and the Internet gossip column "Drudge Report."

During the Clinton presidency the federal budget moved from a quarter-trillion-dollar deficit to a 2 trillion dollar projected surplus. Clinton balanced the US budget, fostered the longest economic expansion in US history, reduced crime and the number of people on welfare. Unemployment dropped from 7.5% to below 4% for the first time in more than 30 years and the Dow Jones rose from 3,200 to a record breaking 10,000.

Sept. 20, 2000 - Independent counsel announces that the Whitewater investigation is closed due to insufficient evidence against the president and first lady.

Clinton Timeline
Arkansas Project
The Hunting of the President
The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy
Republicans launched over 55 official congressional investigations against President Clinton including one investigation on the Clinton family cat "Socks" and12 hours of testimony on the use of the White House Christmas card list. Not one official congressional investigation has been started on George W. Bush.

GOP Investigated Pres. Clinton’s Cat

2000 - Republican Karl Rove is at the heart of George Bush's vicious smear campaign against fellow Republican John McCain in the South Carolina primary, claiming McCain was a stoolie while a P.O.W. in Vietnam and now emotionally unstable. Rove is also credited with a coordinated stealth campaign of push polling which asks South Carolina voters: "If you knew John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child would you be more or less likely to vote for him?" This was followed up with direct mail and church parking lot flyers to convince voters McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually his illegitimate daughter and that his wife was a drug addict. A Bush operative also stole McCain's email lists and directly emails McCain's closest supporters with scandal and lies. Ironically Karl Rove's mentor Lee Atwater, was the political strategist for Strom Thurman, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who actually did have an illegitimate African American daughter.

The 2000 presidential campaign was overwhelmed by a smokescreen of suspicion created around Al Gore, designed to demorlize the Democratic base and suppress the overall vote.




Bush debate material is sent to Al Gore's campaign in an effort to make it appear as if Gore is spying on Bush. Bush's cousin calls race for Bush on FOX News, leading other networks to follow suit, prematurely. Thousands of Florida voters are wiped from the voting rolls by brother Governor Jeb Bush.

In May of 2001 the preliminary findings of the United States Commission on Civil Rights regarding the stolen election of 2,000 were published, concluding that Florida Gov. Bush, and the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, turned a blind eye on election day which caused “a pattern of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency.” Read More...

"The Commission found that the problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election were serious and not isolated. In many cases, they were foreseeable and should have been prevented. The failure to do so resulted in an extraordinarily high and inexcusable level of disenfranchisement, with a significantly disproportionate impact on African American voters."


An open invitation to election fraud
2000 - Attacking Hillary - Right-wing propagandist Rupert Murdoch attacks Hillary Clinton in the midst of her 2000 senate race with a poisonous smear campaign. Murdoch-owned New York Post claimed that in 1974 Hillary had called one of her husband's aides "a f#cking Jew bastard." The story was based on a book published by Murdoch-owned HarperCollins, titled State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The right-wing media went to town with the story and within hours, it was repeated on CNN, NBC, and of course, Murdoch-owned FOX News. Eventually it was discovered that the source and object of the story was a former Clinton campaign aide named Paul Fray, who was a Baptist and not even Jewish and had lost his law license for taking a bribe. Fray had also written to Mrs. Clinton in 1997, apologizing for calling her names and spreading false stories about her. The damage was done but Clinton won anyway.

2002 - Republican Dirty tricks oust Democratic Sen. Max Cleland by attacking his patriotism. Cleland, who volunteered for Vietnam and left three limbs there, had to endure seeing pictures of himself in a Republican Saxby Chambliss campaign ad next to images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Chambliss sat out the Vietnam war with a bad knee.

Dirty-Bomb Politics

Republicans in Michigan recruited “stealth” candidates to run as phony Democrats for nine state Senate seats. The Muskegon Chronicle exposed and derailed the plan.

Republican "dirty tricks" in US mid-term elections

2003 - On JULY 8, Syndicated columnist Robert Novak mentions to Rove that former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA undercover operative. Rove's comment: "I heard that too." On JULY 8, Novak's syndicated column reveals publicly the classified information that, according to "two senior administration officials," Plame is an undercover CIA operative, .

Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Timeline


Republicans Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, nicknamed “Turd Blossum” by George Bush, are the prime suspects in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame as hardball payback for her husband Joseph Wilson's criticism of the Bush administration.

Republican staff members of the US Senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, Senate officials told The Globe. From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password.

Senate GOP staff pried on Democrats

"Republican psy-ops are conveyor-belt slick, and ever on the offensive. The Heritage Foundation alone has lines to 1,500 conservative radio talk-show hosts. They build infrastructure, they build TV studios. Eighty percent of the talking heads on television are from conservative think tanks. Eighty percent. They train their people.” -- George Lakoff, Rockridge Institute

2004 - Republican Karl Rove is credited with an orchestrated stealth campaign of phone calls, direct mail and email in the bible belt claiming that if John Kerry were elected he would ban the Holy Bible in America. Church goers all across the country are told to "vote for the Christian." Even though John Kerry had lived his entire adult life in public service while George Bush was a spoiled, drunken frat boy bailed out by one family friend after another and who only found religion when the electoral math was explained to him.


Republican operative Nathan Sproul's company is under investigation for allegedly destroying voter registration forms signed by Democrats. Now comes new evidence about Sproul's connections to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Republican dirty tricks

A group financially bankrolled by Bush supporters bankroll TV ads smearing the military record of John Kerry.

Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record
Swiftboat Veterans: their lies and the real truth about John Kerry

George Bush's New England campaign chairman in 2004 and top Republican Party official was convicted on telephone harassment charges for his part in a plot to jam election day 2002 phones used to give rides to the polls. James Tobin could get up to seven years in prison and $500,000 in fines when he is sentenced in March.

Former Bush campaign official indicted in phone-jamming

2005 - Phony Robo Calls - The Republican Party makes illegal phony robo calls pretending to be Democrat in 2005 VA Gov race.

and when the usual suspects he bring this back to trump, why isn’t that whataboutism?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete i couldn’t read all that, but let me say that the willie horton ads were rough, but fair and accurate. because it worked, doesn’t mean it was racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

also pete, why wasn’t your post a classic example of whataboutism? all you did, was whataboutism?

i don’t have a problem with pointing to past examples to try to prove hypocrisy. your side calls it whataboutism when my side does it, but it’s brilliant when you do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who are you referring to, who doesn’t see Trumps behavior as disrespectful?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

99% of Trump supporters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

99% of Trump supporters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is the data to back up this ill informed comment? When people on this forum criticize the man,you still make these unfounded statements. How can you expect to be a credible contributor here when you constantly fail to recognize the obvious?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

also pete, why wasn’t your post a classic example of whataboutism? all you did, was whataboutism?

i don’t have a problem with pointing to past examples to try to prove hypocrisy. your side calls it whataboutism when my side does it, but it’s brilliant when you do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
As you have no idea what side I’m on but call me a liberal because I’m very +++ anti Trump
It absolutely is whataboutism though in Trump’s case that would be citing one case to justify Trumps many transgressions
In this case both parties have pulled this BS for years and justified it by saying their position is the one that will save us
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete i couldn’t read all that, but let me say that the willie horton ads were rough, but fair and accurate. because it worked, doesn’t mean it was racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Neither could I
Willie Horton is a great example of fear politics
Bad things happen in a free country that’s one of the chances we take
We have the highest % of people in prison in the world, claim to be the bastion of freedom and have the highest recidivism.
Give me a rational explanation for that.
As an aside, Immigrants are a insignificant point in that equation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Neither could I
Willie Horton is a great example of fear politics
Bad things happen in a free country that’s one of the chances we take
We have the highest % of people in prison in the world, claim to be the bastion of freedom and have the highest recidivism.
Give me a rational explanation for that.
As an aside, Immigrants are a insignificant point in that equation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bad things happen. but if a bad thing happens because
an idiotliberal politician decides to give weekend passes to sociopaths who hurt people, than thatnliberal politician should have to
answer for that. you disagree? it’s wrong to hold people, at least liberals, accountable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bad things happen. but if a bad thing happens because
an idiotliberal politician decides to give weekend passes to sociopaths who hurt people, than thatnliberal politician should have to
answer for that. you disagree? it’s wrong to hold people, at least liberals, accountable?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps all people who might possibly commit a crime should be imprisoned, then you could feel safe.
Unless you were one of the people so judged
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps all people who might possibly commit a crime should be imprisoned, then you could feel safe.
Unless you were one of the people so judged
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
willie horton wasn’t in prison for something he
might do. your hypothetical is way off. as usual, you dodged
my question. if a liberal politician advocates for policies which hurt innocent people, why is it racist fear mongering to hold him accountable?

so when the gop points out what willie horton actually did, that’s playing to racial fears. but when the democrats tried to tell us that clarence thomas can’t be trusted around women, with all
kinds of
evidence that he didn’t do anything wrong, that’s ok.

makes all kinds of sense pete. you’re blind. i could say 2+2=4, you’d immediately say i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

willie horton wasn’t in prison for something he
might do. your hypothetical is way off. as usual, you dodged
my question. if a liberal politician advocates for policies which hurt innocent people, why is it racist fear mongering to hold him accountable?

so when the gop points out what willie horton actually did, that’s playing to racial fears. but when the democrats tried to tell us that clarence thomas can’t be trusted around women, with all
kinds of
evidence that he didn’t do anything wrong, that’s ok.

makes all kinds of sense pete. you’re blind. i could say 2+2=4, you’d immediately say i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Willie Horton is the textbook example of a dog whistle ad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Willie Horton is the textbook example of a dog whistle ad
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you ever answer challenging questions? what does it say about your beliefs, that you constantly dodge?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete do you even know the facts? Horton was sentenced to life without parole for
murder. Some liberal idiot thought he was a good candidate for a weekend furlough program where released inmates promise that they’ll come back. well he didn’t, and while out, he raped somebody. that’s what happened, that’s exactly what happened.

do you disagree that people who think it’s a good idea to let murderers out for the weekend on the honor system, deserve criticism?

put down the kool aid, and think rationally for two seconds. just two seconds.

you look at the willie horton situation, and you aren’t bothered that a murderer was able to get a weekend pass, but you’re bothered that republicans used the event to club Dukakis with?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where is the data to back up this ill informed comment? When people on this forum criticize the man,you still make these unfounded statements. How can you expect to be a credible contributor here when you constantly fail to recognize the obvious?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s funny when you ask for facts and numbers for a response that’s clearly Hyperbole. But no such concern for Trumps posted claims?? Or are you just inline with his
ideas.

Creditable contributor ?? Are you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s funny when you ask for facts and numbers for a response that’s clearly Hyperbole. But no such concern for Trumps posted claims?? Or are you just inline with his
ideas.

Creditable contributor ?? Are you ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have seen you fail to recognize the obvious on countless occasions. How am I supposed to distinguish hyperbole with your track record? I am in line with SOME of his ideas,guilty. Not too sure what you mean by creditable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow thanks for all the points and counter points my mind has been changed so glad for all the posts thanks everyone. Said no one ever.

pete do you even know the facts? Horton was sentenced to life without parole for
murder. Some liberal idiot thought he was a good candidate for a weekend furlough program where released inmates promise that they’ll come back. well he didn’t, and while out, he raped somebody. that’s what happened, that’s exactly what happened.

do you disagree that people who think it’s a good idea to let murderers out for the weekend on the honor system, deserve criticism?

put down the kool aid, and think rationally for two seconds. just two seconds.

you look at the willie horton situation, and you aren’t bothered that a murderer was able to get a weekend pass, but you’re bothered that republicans used the event to club Dukakis with?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Do a little research
Here’s what Reagan said when this happened when he was governor
Under California’s program when Reagan was governor, two prisoners murdered people while out on furlough. When critics challenged the program, Reagan defended it with a vehemence that seems impossible to fathom today. “More than 20,000 already have these passes,” he said after the first murder, “and this was the only case of this kind, the only murder.” California was “leading the nation in rehabilitation,” he said. “Obviously you can't be perfect.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do a little research
Here’s what Reagan said when this happened when he was governor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Imagine what things would look like if the GOP actually embodied RR today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do a little research
Here’s what Reagan said when this happened when he was governor
Under California’s program when Reagan was governor, two prisoners murdered people while out on furlough. When critics challenged the program, Reagan defended it with a vehemence that seems impossible to fathom today. “More than 20,000 already have these passes,” he said after the first murder, “and this was the only case of this kind, the only murder.” California was “leading the nation in rehabilitation,” he said. “Obviously you can't be perfect.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were the people that Reagan let out, previously sentenced to life without parole for murder? If so, guess what? He deserved to be criticized for that.

I agree you cant be perfect, and I agree we need to be humane the way we treat prisoners. But letting brutal murderers out for a weekend on the honor system? I'm sorry, you're a lunatic if you think that's a good idea.

Imagine what things would look like if the GOP actually embodied RR today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A vague, baseless, unsubstantiated insult, from you, towards republicans? Get outa here...

A vague, baseless, unsubstantiated insult, from you, towards republicans? Get outa here...
How is that an insult? I used to think republicans respected RR.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good for her. If Trump were to say the same his constituents would erupt in applause, commending him him for not being “politically correct” and for not acting like a traditional politician, which is is why he was ultimately elected. Anyone who supports Trump and is offended by her comments is a hypocrite and most importantly, a true “snowflake.”

As a side note, Its no secret Trump has zero regard for the environment. I’ll never understand how so called “fishermen, conservationists, environmentalists, etc” can support this assclown...someone who is set on ruining the environment that we all enjoy. A truly, irresponsible, embarrassment to the Presidency if there ever was one.

My first and last post in this cesspool of a forum called Politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were the people that Reagan let out, previously sentenced to life without parole for murder? If so, guess what? He deserved to be criticized for that.

I agree you cant be perfect, and I agree we need to be humane the way we treat prisoners. But letting brutal murderers out for a weekend on the honor system? I'm sorry, you're a lunatic if you think that's a good idea.
Here’s the paragraph before the one I previously quoted
I n the mid- to late-80s, all 50 states had furlough programs. These passes allowed inmates to leave the prison for periods of time ranging from a few hours to several weeks, depending on their sentence and their behavior in prison; while in the community, they could visit family, look for work, or participate in religious activities. Almost 10 percent of state and federal prisoners received a furlough in 1987. Nationally, murderers served an average of eight years before they were paroled or commuted, so furloughs were, in the toolkit of a previous generation, an uncontroversial proposition. They offered incentives for good behavior behind bars and a good way for inmates to reacclimate to the life they would almost certainly return to outside of prison. “Use of furloughs for prisoners in the U.S. is widespread, successful and relatively problem free,” the editor of a magazine for corrections professionals told the New York Times in 1988.

When we talked to him in his office at Northeastern University, where he is a professor of politics, Dukakis said furloughs were a sensible means of protecting public safety.


MICHAEL DUKAKIS
“One of the values of a furlough program,
0:00
Dukakis points out that one of the most liberal furlough programs at the time was the one in the federal prison system under President Reagan and Vice President Bush. And under California’s program when Reagan was governor, two
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here’s the paragraph before the one I previously quoted
I n the mid- to late-80s, all 50 states had furlough programs. These passes allowed inmates to leave the prison for periods of time ranging from a few hours to several weeks, depending on their sentence and their behavior in prison; while in the community, they could visit family, look for work, or participate in religious activities. Almost 10 percent of state and federal prisoners received a furlough in 1987. Nationally, murderers served an average of eight years before they were paroled or commuted, so furloughs were, in the toolkit of a previous generation, an uncontroversial proposition. They offered incentives for good behavior behind bars and a good way for inmates to reacclimate to the life they would almost certainly return to outside of prison. “Use of furloughs for prisoners in the U.S. is widespread, successful and relatively problem free,” the editor of a magazine for corrections professionals told the New York Times in 1988.

When we talked to him in his office at Northeastern University, where he is a professor of politics, Dukakis said furloughs were a sensible means of protecting public safety.


MICHAEL DUKAKIS
“One of the values of a furlough program,
0:00
Dukakis points out that one of the most liberal furlough programs at the time was the one in the federal prison system under President Reagan and Vice President Bush. And under California’s program when Reagan was governor, two
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as always, you chose not to answer my question. Horton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. that sentence is reserved for the most brutal of murderers ( few murderers get that sentence). yet he was given a weekend pass, as long as he gave his word that he’d come back on sunday afternoon. never occurred to anyone that he might lie about that.

i will ask again, please let me know if you don’t understand the question...are you really ok with letting inmates walk out for the weekend unsupervised, when they have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

we have to draw the line somewhere about who gets furloughed, and no one has a crystal ball, so good faith mistakes will be made. i get that. but extending this privilege to people sentenced to life without parole, is asinine. can you tell us if reagan’s program did that? not all
murderers are equal. very few get sentenced to life without parole, that is reserved for the worst of the worst.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as always, you chose not to answer my question. Horton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. that sentence is reserved for the most brutal of murderers ( few murderers get that sentence). yet he was given a weekend pass, as long as he gave his word that he’d come back on sunday afternoon. never occurred to anyone that he might lie about that.

i will ask again, please let me know if you don’t understand the question...are you really ok with letting inmates walk out for the weekend unsupervised, when they have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

we have to draw the line somewhere about who gets furloughed, and no one has a crystal ball, so good faith mistakes will be made. i get that. but extending this privilege to people sentenced to life without parole, is asinine. can you tell us if reagan’s program did that? not all
murderers are equal. very few get sentenced to life without parole, that is reserved for the worst of the worst.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It’s easy enough to do the research on Willie Horton
We imprison more people than any other country by quantity or percentage
We have greater recidivism
We’re not safer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s easy enough to do the research on Willie Horton
We imprison more people than any other country by quantity or percentage
We have greater recidivism
We’re not safer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dodged again. i did the research on horton, convicted of
murder , sentenced to life with no parole. you think we have too many murderers locked up? we should
let them go? murderers?

as always, you chose not to answer my question. Horton was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. that sentence is reserved for the most brutal of murderers ( few murderers get that sentence). yet he was given a weekend pass, as long as he gave his word that he’d come back on sunday afternoon. never occurred to anyone that he might lie about that.

i will ask again, please let me know if you don’t understand the question...are you really ok with letting inmates walk out for the weekend unsupervised, when they have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life without possibility of parole.

we have to draw the line somewhere about who gets furloughed, and no one has a crystal ball, so good faith mistakes will be made. i get that. but extending this privilege to people sentenced to life without parole, is asinine. can you tell us if reagan’s program did that? not all
murderers are equal. very few get sentenced to life without parole, that is reserved for the worst of the worst.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As to your question
I honestly don’t care what happened
“The Willie Horton ad” has been used to prevent reasonable criminal justice reform ever since it ran and has cost lives and billions
Now with privatization some people are making fortunes off the system and reform or cutting recidivism is not in their interest
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete you dodged the question once again like Jim said

Horton had nothing to lose committing rape or any other crime while out of prison on furlough
Life is life
If they tack on more years it is still life

Good thing he did not kill you while he was out free

Get it?

How is it ok? Not some know it all bull about recidivism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As to your question
I honestly don’t care what happened
“The Willie Horton ad” has been used to prevent reasonable criminal justice reform ever since it ran and has cost lives and billions
Now with privatization some people are making fortunes off the system and reform or cutting recidivism is not in their interest
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was used to try and
prevent brutal
murderers from getting weekend passes.

formthe third time, since you compared it to reagan, did he furlough murderers who were sentenced to life without parole? if not, or if you have no idea, why did you bring it up in the context of Horton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete is an odd duck. He thinks he is one step ahead....a real gotcha type.!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was used to try and
prevent brutal
murderers from getting weekend passes.

formthe third time, since you compared it to reagan, did he furlough murderers who were sentenced to life without parole? if not, or if you have no idea, why did you bring it up in the context of Horton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes he did
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete you dodged the question once again like Jim said

Horton had nothing to lose committing rape or any other crime while out of prison on furlough
Life is life
If they tack on more years it is still life

Good thing he did not kill you while he was out free

Get it?

How is it ok? Not some know it all bull about recidivism
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I didn’t dodge it
I said I don’t care
That ad was a political tool.
It is the textbook example of a dog whistle ad and you guys are still responding to it.
80 billion dollars a year
The highest imprisonment per capita in the world by far
10 to 1 compared to most of the G20

That add was around 30 years ago and still prevents criminal justice reform
We are not the safest country in the world, if prison was all we needed to do to be safe we should be

Sorry I’d rather live in a free society than an authoritarian one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

me but I am not in charge

Sorry I’d rather live in a free society than an authoritarian one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

'Free' to you, is a place where people convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole (which pretty much means your concerns about recidivism are moot) should be able to go out for the weekend, as long as they promise to voluntarily come back on Sunday night?

I'll apologize to all those Republican snowflakes whose virgin ears got upset over this use of the word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

'Free' to you, is a place where people convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole (which pretty much means your concerns about recidivism are moot) should be able to go out for the weekend, as long as they promise to voluntarily come back on Sunday night?
No Jim it’s a nation that is not driven by a mistake made more than 30 years ago that has been made into a false issue that makes reasonable criminal justice reform nearly impossible.
That does not mean make the same mistake again, but to be brave enough to take some chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Jim it’s a nation that is not driven by a mistake made more than 30 years ago that has been made into a false issue that makes reasonable criminal justice reform nearly impossible.
That does not mean make the same mistake again, but to be brave enough to take some chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently Trump was brave enough and took some chances and did what you refer to as nearly impossible by signing a prison reform bill just recently.

No Jim it’s a nation that is not driven by a mistake made more than 30 years ago that has been made into a false issue that makes reasonable criminal justice reform nearly impossible.
That does not mean make the same mistake again, but to be brave enough to take some chances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did the Horton mistake happen 30 years before the ad was made? Or was it recent, at the time the ad was made?

Apparently Trump was brave enough and took some chances and did what you refer to as nearly impossible by signing a prison reform bill just recently.

That didn't get a lot of press either, but that was a bipartisan bill.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157390318253094&set=a.10151105924588094&type=3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That didn't get a lot of press either, but that was a bipartisan bill.

Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner (another really bad evil person) was largely instrumental in getting the bill going and twisting congressional arms to get it done.

That didn't get a lot of press either, but that was a bipartisan bill.

got plenty of press,, not the Tump praising kind you long for..

the only thing Trump was involved in was it's signing of the bill ....

Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner (another really bad evil person) was largely instrumental in getting the bill going and twisting congressional arms to get it done.

Twisting republican arms that is ...

Did the Horton mistake happen 30 years before the ad was made? Or was it recent, at the time the ad was made?

The Willie Horton ad and the Angel Medrano ad both were run in the Bush vs Dukakis campaign by the opposing sides. Both happened prior to the campaign
The policy that allowed Horton to be released was in place prior to Dukakis’s election as governor and changed during his administration after the Horton incident.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

got plenty of press,, not the Tump praising kind you long for..

the only thing Trump was involved in was it's signing of the bill ....

The only thing. Incredible. Without him, it doesn't pass. He is 1/3 of the equation, and without his influence and negotiating for it, the House and Senate would not have approved it.

Twisting republican arms that is ...

If the Republican arms weren't twisted, it wouldn't have passed. Republicans controlled all three branches of government.

If the Republican arms weren't twisted, it wouldn't have passed. Republicans controlled all three branches of government.

Maybe Trump should have had his son in law do the wall negotiation.
As I understand it Kushner not only got both houses behind criminal justice reform, but also his father in law.

Maybe Trump should have had his son in law do the wall negotiation.
As I understand it Kushner not only got both houses behind criminal justice reform, but also his father in law.

For Gods sake, can you EVER just admit that someone else is right?


The federal government, controlled by the GOP, passed prison reform. is that true, or is that false?

That tact will not work Jim. It requires honesty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That tact will not work Jim. It requires honesty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the complete abandonment of honesty, is really something to behold. it’s comoletely deranged.

god help these people
if he gets re elected somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For Gods sake, can you EVER just admit that someone else is right?


The federal government, controlled by the GOP, passed prison reform. is that true, or is that false?

Did I say that was not true?

Now show me a Criminal Justice reform position from the Trump Campaign?

Who pushed Trump on that issue?

That tact will not work Jim. It requires honesty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i really thought i despised obama, as much as someone who isn’t in a mental institution, could despise a politician. that was nothing. nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

god help these people
if he gets re elected somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't vote for him the first time, but I might the second time just to watch the continous Sky Screaming followed by the Exploding Heads. Could be quite entertaining.

the complete abandonment of honesty, is really something to behold. it’s comoletely deranged.

god help these people
if he gets re elected somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like the Willie Horton issue

Did I say that was not true?

Now show me a Criminal Justice reform position from the Trump Campaign?

Who pushed Trump on that issue?

Just goes to show the President can Be influenced to better the country. The man is all ears and has more heart than he lets on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't vote for him the first time, but I might the second time just to watch the continous Sky Screaming followed by the Exploding Heads. Could be quite entertaining.

if the democrats can manage to nominate a moderate, like the 1992 version of bill clinton, they win a landslide. if they nominate a polarizing radical like Warren, Sanders, or Booker, it might be close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the complete abandonment of honesty, is really something to behold. it’s comoletely deranged.

god help these people
if he gets re elected somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you believe in that statement, I would think you’d be upset about the constant lies and mistruths coming out of the White House. I’m happy to give them credit for passing some good legislation, if he weren’t such a complete ahole and constantly at odds with anyone who disagrees with him, he would likely get more positive press.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you believe in that statement, I would think you’d be upset about the constant lies and mistruths coming out of the White House. I’m happy to give them credit for passing some good legislation, if he weren’t such a complete ahole and constantly at odds with anyone who disagrees with him, he would likely get more positive press.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
and if you don’t already know that i’m upset with his rhetoric, then you have serious issues with either comprehension or memory.

i have more disdain for trumps moral lapses than most here, and unlike
most of them, that disdain is genuine, it isn’t political. i don’t ignore bad behavior if i agree with the guy doing it.

Trump is repugnant. but in my opinion, the country is far better off with him in there, than we’d be if Hilary won.

you’re happy to praise him when he’s earned it? all you ever say about the economy, is how farbthe market is off its all time
high. how many presidents leave office with the market at an all time high on their last day?

anyone who isn’t doing cartwheels
about the current economy, is likely a pure ideologue. unless you think the debt is too concerning, but that only is genuine if you also expressed concern about the debt under the obama years, and i never heard a single, solitary democrat express such concern.

your notion that he’d get more favorable press treatmentnif he was a decent guy, is absurd. absolutely absurd. tell that to George W, or to McCain until he died. give me a break. The
media can not be favorable, not even fair, to a republican. endless made up attacks.

look at this bullsh*t about how republicans are outraged over the dance video of the socialist from queens. there is no evidence that any republican said anything derogatory about her dancing, but even newsweek put it in a headline, without quoting a single
republican who said they were offended. trump is right, they literally make it up out of thin air if it suits them. how is that wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and if you don’t already know that i’m upset with his rhetoric, then you have serious issues with either comprehension or memory.

i have more disdain for trumps moral lapses than most here, and unlike
most of them, that disdain is genuine, it isn’t political. i don’t ignore bad behavior if i agree with the guy doing it.

Trump is repugnant. but in my opinion, the country is far better off with him in there, than we’d be if Hilary won.

you’re happy to praise him when he’s earned it? all you ever say about the economy, is how farbthe market is off its all time
high. how many presidents leave office with the market at an all time high on their last day?

anyone who isn’t doing cartwheels
about the current economy, is likely a pure ideologue. unless you think the debt is too concerning, but that only is genuine if you also expressed concern about the debt under the obama years, and i never heard a single, solitary democrat express such concern.

your notion that he’d get more favorable press treatmentnif he was a decent guy, is absurd. absolutely absurd. tell that to George W, or to McCain until he died. give me a break. The
media can not be favorable, not even fair, to a republican. endless made up attacks.

look at this bullsh*t about how republicans are outraged over the dance video of the socialist from queens. there is no evidence that any republican said anything derogatory about her dancing, but even newsweek put it in a headline, without quoting a single
republican who said they were offended. trump is right, they literally make it up out of thin air if it suits them. how is that wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Oh I acknowledge your repeated claim you detest his rhetoric, that is not what I asked. You and others claim you are discusted with a lack of honesty on this board, to which I asked why you don’t have the same discust for the lies coming out of the White House. Saying you don’t like the man, believing the lies and not taking issue with them are two different things. So your ok with Trumps constant lying, provided he is promoting your agenda, but lying ( a stretch at times as opinion and lying aren’t the same ) on this board makes you crazy.

Double standard don’t you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh I acknowledge your repeated claim you detest his rhetoric, that is not what I asked. You and others claim you are discusted with a lack of honesty on this board, to which I asked why you don’t have the same discust for the lies coming out of the White House. Saying you don’t like the man, believing the lies and not taking issue with them are two different things. So your ok with Trumps constant lying, provided he is promoting your agenda, but lying ( a stretch at times as opinion and lying aren’t the same ) on this board makes you crazy.

Double standard don’t you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's kinda like a vice versa or backatcha kind of thing.

Oh I acknowledge your repeated claim you detest his rhetoric, that is not what I asked. You and others claim you are discusted with a lack of honesty on this board, to which I asked why you don’t have the same discust for the lies coming out of the White House. Saying you don’t like the man, believing the lies and not taking issue with them are two different things. So your ok with Trumps constant lying, provided he is promoting your agenda, but lying ( a stretch at times as opinion and lying aren’t the same ) on this board makes you crazy.

Double standard don’t you think?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t believe his lies. zero double standard. zip.

i take issue with his lies. he should
be told to stop lying. that doesn’t mean that i can’t say he’s better at this job, than Hilary.

i’m fair GS. ‘Fair’ means i fault him when he is wrong, and i praise him when he does well. You think fair means ignore all the good and focus on the bad.

i didn’t elect him to be the morality czar, or to date my mother. i voted for him to kill terrorists and grow the economy. and to build a wall.

here’s the double standard. there’s video of schumer and bernie saying we need a wall, the democrats once voted for a bill that included 13 billion for a wall. it was a swell idea then. but now, because we hate trump, it’s immoral.

so because illegal crossings are at a low, that means we don’t need a wall? violent crime is also down, would you say we no longer need the police?

a wall will further reduce crossings. if you deny that, you’re not rational.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree if and when a wall is ever built it would temporarily reduce crossings, but at what cost to build and what about maintaining it? There are so many better ways to police and protect our borders, without putting that bill on our children and future generations. It is a campaign promise without any sound thought behind it, but it’s what the base wants and that is why he is holding the government and it’s emploees hostage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree if and when a wall is ever built it would temporarily reduce crossings, but at what cost to build and what about maintaining it? There are so many better ways to police and protect our borders, without putting that bill on our children and future generations. It is a campaign promise without any sound thought behind it, but it’s what the base wants and that is why he is holding the government and it’s emploees hostage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"would temporarily reduce crossings,"

How would a wall, ever be at a point, where it didn't prevent even a single person from crossing? Not everyone who wants to cross is Macgyver.

"at what cost to build"

5 billion, a pittance.

"and what about maintaining it?"

A great question, one that needs to be answered. But remember the wall generates some savings, because 64% of the people who cross, are on welfare.


"There are so many better ways to police and protect our borders"

I keep hearing that. Can you elaborate on what would work better than a wall? Everyone says this, no one offers specifics. You can't have a cop every 100 yards for thousands of miles.

"putting that bill on our children"

It's not even a rounding error compared to what we're saddling our kids with.
"
"It is a campaign promise without any sound thought behind it"

There is sound thought behind it. It will keep some people out, you said that yourself. I haven't seen a border patrol agent say it wouldn't help.

Do you shut your door at night, or do you rely on better technology, like drones and motion detectors?

The way out for the democrats, is to offer to fund the wall but demand that he give them what they want on DACA. Trump would have to agree to that, because it's the best deal he's likely to get. If he turned that down, he'd look like an idiot. That's the way out for the democrats.

And again, many of the democrats were in favor of the wall, until the day of Trumps inauguration. That's not principled. It's political.

Party line I get it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree if and when a wall is ever built it would temporarily reduce crossings, but at what cost to build and what about maintaining it? There are so many better ways to police and protect our borders, without putting that bill on our children and future generations. It is a campaign promise without any sound thought behind it, but it’s what the base wants and that is why he is holding the government and it’s emploees hostage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are reasonable arguments with various documentation and statistics which are opposite to the ones you present or support or believe. I know you don't like my links, but just saying stuff, like your doing here . . . and I don't mean to disparage what you are saying . . . assumes that everyone will accept your word as golden. But there are, simply, lots of opinions and arguments that dispute what you say here. I could provide other links pertaining to the effectiveness and economic value of a border wall, how well fences and walls are working to stop the flow in Eastern Europe which was a main point of entry for illegals and asylum seekers, and elsewhere, but I'm sure even the short one that I am posting here is probably too much for your taste. You may well not even read it and probably think it is a lie if you do. But here is one teeny argument for a wall. among scads more that you can find if you choose too. It isn't the best presentation, but it is short:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/22/homeland-security-secretary-border-walls-work-yuma-sector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

SAN ANTONIO, Texas – The congressman who represents more of the U.S.-Mexico border than anyone else says it is fallacy to think a border wall equates to border security.

U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican from San Antonio, spent a decade as an undercover officer for the CIA chasing, in his words, bad guys. In an interview with presenter Ali Velshi on MSNBC, Hurd made clear where he stands on President Trump’s efforts to secure $5.7 billion for a border wall.

“This fallacy that a wall equals border security. I have more border than any other member of Congress, 820 miles of the border. I spent a decade as an undercover officer in the CIA chasing bad guys,” Hurd said.

“We are monitoring or keeping track of the wrong metric. It is not how many miles of wall that is going to keep us safe. Are we keeping bad guys and are we keeping drugs out of our country? The best way to do that is with technology and manpower. Building a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to keep the border secure.”

Hurd’s interview with Velshi came before the House of Representatives passed legislation that included $5 billion for a border wall and before Friday’s government shutdown.

Hurd said he backed a a short-term continuing resolution passed by the U.S. Senate that did not include the $5 billion. “The American people sent us to Washington to get things done, not burn the place down. We should be able to fund the government now,” Hurd said.

Hurd tried to introduce the Smart Wall Act that was stymied by the Republican leadership of Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy. Hurd said of the legislation:

“It is uses technology and manpower, addresses root causes. What are the root causes of illegal immigration? Violence and lack of economic opportunities in places like the Northern Triangle – El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. We should be talking about plussing up the State Department’s budget, USAID’s budget.

“We should be working with Mexico on this issue. The Mexican president, Lopez Obrador just announced $30 billion in economic development for Central America. We should be partnering with them on that to address those root-driving that is causing illegal immigration to come to our country.


“But, we are not using the latest and greatest technology along the border. A Smart Wall using technology, we can deploy that for under a billion dollars all through the entire border, and do that within a year. That is how we secure our border. That is how we have operational control of the border and making sure that we are protecting the American people.”

Hurd also pointed out that he had introduced a bill with U.S. Rep. Pete Aguilar, a Democrat from California, that addressed border security and provided a permanent legislative fix for DREAMers.

“It addressed some of the root causes in Central America. We have whipped that bill. It has more than 218 votes. We were just unable to get it to the floor because leadership would not bring it up. There are real solutions to this problem. Why this leadership team does not want to bring these to the floor, why we do not want to see a vote, I do not know the answer. But I say, everybody has an idea, let’s bring it to the floor. Whoever gets 218 votes, that goes onto the president’s desk.”

Hurd added that he visited Central America a few months back and saw U.S. officials teaching locals about community policing. “This works,” he said.

Meanwhile, Congressman Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, has explained why he voted against President Trump and the House Republican leadership’s $5.7 billion for border wall. The provision was included in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) fiscal year 2019 Appropriations bill.

“I voted against this bill because I cannot support a wall that is nothing more than a 14th Century solution to a 21st Century challenge,” Cuellar said. “President Trump and Republicans were offered options to keep the government open, which they chose to ignore over an ineffective and expensive border wall. They turned their backs on border personnel, veterans, educators, and federal workers across the country who depend on steady paychecks.”

Cuellar pointed out that if a continuing resolution includes $5.7 billion of border wall funding, the first 55 miles of wall are set to be constructed in Webb County, which he represents.

“This massively expensive barrier will have devastating effects on private property rights, the economy, and the environment in the areas I represent,” Cuellar said.

“We can secure our border in a sensible, cost-effective manner, that does not include an antiquated border wall. I will continue to fight against the wall and work in Congress to properly allocate funding towards border security infrastructure, technology, equipment, border security personnel, as well as economic development in Central America and Southern Mexico.”

Cuellar also issued a Border Barrier Fact Sheet which provides a comprehensive overview of current border barriers. Click here to view the fact sheet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Party line I get it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

YOU said that a wall would keep illegals out.

Paul I can post as many links as you want to see, of border patrol agents saying a wall will help. WHat does that prove?

Well he is a congressman on the front lines and as a republican he does not agree with the concept of just putting a big beautiful concrete wall along the border where there currently is no wall. He said the idea of a concrete wall is antiquated and we are better off spending the money on technology and more personnel. And that is the argument most people who are against the wall are making. Invest in things that make sense instead of a wall.
But Trump does not want that he wants just a concrete wall. And let's not forget the fact that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall. What is really shocking to me is Trump said he was such a good negotiator and in fact he is horrendous and I have no doubt you or I can negotiate better that what he has done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well he is a congressman on the front lines and as a republican he does not agree with the concept of just putting a big beautiful concrete wall along the border where there currently is no wall. He said the idea of a concrete wall is antiquated and we are better off spending the money on technology and more personnel. And that is the argument most people who are against the wall are making. Invest in things that make sense instead of a wall.
But Trump does not want that he wants just a concrete wall. And let's not forget the fact that Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall. What is really shocking to me is Trump said he was such a good negotiator and in fact he is horrendous and I have no doubt you or I can negotiate better that what he has done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, you just can't believe that he actually wants a wall. He's a liar. He doesn't even know if the wall which he actually doesn't want, if he were honest, should be concrete or metal. No point in remembering that Mexico was going to pay for it. Why remember a lie. And, of course, Paul and Jim can negotiate better than Trump. How could a liar be able to negotiate. All the so called stories about him negotiating stuff in the past are lies. He's such a fabulous liar that he claims that he's President. They say if you tell a big enough lie, people will believe you.

The only thing we have to remember is that Trump is a liar.

Well, you just can't believe that he actually wants a wall. He's a liar. He doesn't even know if the wall which he actually doesn't want, if he were honest, should be concrete or metal. No point in remembering that Mexico was going to pay for it. Why remember a lie. And, of course, Paul and Jim can negotiate better than Trump. How could a liar be able to negotiate. All the so called stories about him negotiating stuff in the past are lies. He's such a fabulous liar that he claims that he's President. They say if you tell a big enough lie, people will believe you.

The only thing we have to remember is that Trump is a liar.


Gald to see you still dont think he's a liar ... or that it matters :faga:

YOU said that a wall would keep illegals out.

Said IF it was built, never said I agree it’s THE solution, I see it as a big waste of money to fulfill a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Said IF it was built, never said I agree it’s THE solution, I see it as a big waste of money to fulfill a campaign promise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"never said I agree it’s THE solution"

Is anyone saying that? anyone at all?

It's one component of an overall border security plan, which will obviously help.

"I see it as a big waste of money to fulfill a campaign promise."

If you want to say that while it will keep some people out, it's still a waste, that's a totally fair opinion. I happen to disagree. Reasonable people can disagree on these things.

Funny how the democrats voted to spend 13B on a wall not long ago, before Trump was POTUS. Must be a coincidence that they all changed their minds on the day of his inauguration.

Just leave that part out Jim because the Democrats have inexplicably changed their minds. I remember the outrage from GotStripers when this was supported by the Dems,don’t you? It was all they talked about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember the outrage from GotStripers when this was supported by the Dems,don’t you? It was all they talked about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my yes, everyone was telling Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders what loathsome racists they are.

Just like the outrage that occurred when immigrant children were separated from their parents by the Obama administration. They all compared Obama to Hitler, as I recall.

Just leave that part out Jim because the Democrats have inexplicably changed their minds. I remember the outrage from GotStripers when this was supported by the Dems,don’t you? It was all they talked about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You must have me confused with someone else, I’ve not been a part of this board that long, the BS I saw starting during the 2016 campaign prompted me to join in the debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You must have me confused with someone else, I’ve not been a part of this board that long, the BS I saw starting during the 2016 campaign prompted me to join in the debate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Join date...Oct.2000
Wrong guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my yes, everyone was telling Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders what loathsome racists they are.

Just like the outrage that occurred when immigrant children were separated from their parents by the Obama administration. They all compared Obama to Hitler, as I recall.
This falls in the category of keep repeating lies long enough and people will believe them.
Obama and Bush did not have a separation policy. The Trump administration didn’t, explicitly, either, but that was the effect of zero tolerance, which meant that anyone caught crossing the border illegally was to be criminally prosecuted, even if they had few or no previous offenses.

The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings and their children were separated. In most cases, if the charge took longer than 72 hours to process, which is the longest time that children can be held by Customs and Border Protection, children were sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department. Zero tolerance remains in effect, but Trump signed an executive order June 20 that stopped separations.

Join date...Oct.2000
Wrong guy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Joined yes, but I've have almost zero participation on this political board until Trump ran in 2016.

This falls in the category of keep repeating lies long enough and people will believe them.
Obama and Bush did not have a separation policy. The Trump administration didn’t, explicitly, either, but that was the effect of zero tolerance, which meant that anyone caught crossing the border illegally was to be criminally prosecuted, even if they had few or no previous offenses.

The policy meant adults were taken to court for criminal proceedings and their children were separated. In most cases, if the charge took longer than 72 hours to process, which is the longest time that children can be held by Customs and Border Protection, children were sent into the care of the Health and Human Services Department. Zero tolerance remains in effect, but Trump signed an executive order June 20 that stopped separations.

The widely circulated photo of kids in cages, which was used as a weapon to attack Trump, was proven to have been taken during Obama's presidency.

Trump expanded on what Obama did. Obama separated kids from parents, that's not refutable.

The widely circulated photo of kids in cages, which was used as a weapon to attack Trump, was proven to have been taken during Obama's presidency.

Trump expanded on what Obama did. Obama separated kids from parents, that's not refutable.

Yes that picture was taken prior to the Trump Administration, what made you bring that up?

I did not refute that some children were separated during prior administrations.

The difference is quite simple.

The separation of migrant children from adults is in fact due to the fact that Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided to prosecute first-offenses as felonies and not misdemeanors - as the Obama and Bush administrations had.

Just leave that part out Jim because the Democrats have inexplicably changed their minds. I remember the outrage from GotStripers when this was supported by the Dems,don’t you? It was all they talked about.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


You literally just proved his point, didn’t bother you before.......but Trump


Joined yes, but I've have almost zero participation on this political board until Trump ran in 2016.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You literally just proved his point, didn’t bother you before.......but Trump



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's called retirement, previously I had zero time to participate on this board, I was to busy working my butt off to hopefully get to a point I could retire. You proved nothing, other than now I have time to join in the debate, although I swear at times, it resembles nothing more than mud slinging by both sides and endless personal attacks.

Gald to see you still dont think he's a liar ... or that it matters :faga:

Actually I have seen very few politicians who don't lie. I think it is so prevalent and obvious that we just accept it as a tactic. We accept the lies, big or little or not even quite so, by those who's policy we support because we want the policy to succeed. We understand that politicians use the "lie" tactic in order to get their stuff accepted and passed through Congress, or, just as importantly, to oppose and stop someone else's policy from being successful. If you don't admit that there are lies and fake news used to attack Trump, I applaud your effort to accept all tactics that will defeat someone you believe will harm the country. As Sun Tzu said, "All warfare is based on deception."

Your the good soldier.

Your the good soldier.

*You’re
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

*You’re
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You to. But I'm not the one who's complaining about the "archaic" tactic of political lying. I think the selective complaining is another deceptive tactic.

Political "lying" as you call it, prior to this administration was typically based on a range of possible outcomes based on a range of available data, not blatant lies based on alternative facts as the current administration does.
Disagreeing with the alternative facts presented does not make the person or organization fake, because if you present an argument with some basis you can back it up with facts, just insisting loudly that you are correct and calling the other party names, does not make you right.

You literally just proved his point, didn’t bother you before.......but Trump



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps it is the constant lying from Trump which never occurred before. Or the constant chaos in the Oval office with members of his own team saying derogatory things about Trump. Or the hypocrisy of the right which would have been screaming holy hell at some of the things that are being done if prior administrations had done them (declare a national emergency to build the wall - imagine if Obama said we have a national health emergency re ACA).

But Got Stripers can certainly respond for himself.

*You’re
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't you start

Political "lying" as you call it, prior to this administration was typically based on a range of possible outcomes based on a range of available data, not blatant lies based on alternative facts as the current administration does.
Disagreeing with the alternative facts presented does not make the person or organization fake, because if you present an argument with some basis you can back it up with facts, just insisting loudly that you are correct and calling the other party names, does not make you right.

That may be your esoteric definition of political lying. Which, ironically, seems to claim that before Trump politicians didn't really lie. They just miscalculated. Or disagreed with "alternative facts." Of course, Trump cannot create alternative facts based on what he perceives as available data. But that's neither here nor there.

I mean by lies, actual lies. And politicians, as ever, know when they intentionally twist truth, or omit facts, as they always do if it is necessary to promote their agenda, and as media types do to promote theirs. "Blatant" lies, twisted or omitted facts, are all lies. And they have been the tactic of politicians, and media, and the vast majority of human beings for that matter, to convince others as to their (phony) veracity.

Your slick, sick, twisted definition of political lying is an excellent demonstration of con artistry.

That may be you esoteric definition of political lying. Which, ironically, seems to claim that before Trump politicians didn't really lie. They just miscalculated. Or disagreed with "alternative facts." Of course, Trump cannot create alternative facts based on what he perceives as available data. But that's neither here nor there.

I mean by lies, actual lies. And politicians, as ever, know when they intentionally twist truth, or omit facts, as they always do if it is necessary to promote their agenda, and as media types do to promote theirs. "Blatant" lies, twisted or omitted facts, are all lies. And they have been the tactic of politicians, and media, and the vast majority of human beings for that matter, to convince others as to their (phony) veracity.

Your slick, sick, twisted definition of political lying is an excellent demonstration of con artistry.
Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone.
Far too many of his claims have no factual basis.
Anyone else would be embarrassed to be caught, and not just double down on the BS.

The downfall of General Donnie Bonespurs long con is coming.
I figure he’s going to show up on TV sooner or later in a uniform with epaulets so I’ve given him a new nickname and don’t worry:

The Meme is Coming



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone.
Far too many of his claims have no factual basis.
Anyone else would be embarrassed to be caught, and not just double down on the BS.

The downfall of General Donnie Bonespurs long con is coming.
I figure he’s going to show up on TV sooner or later in a uniform with epaulets so I’ve given him a new nickname and don’t worry:

The Meme is Coming


You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present. Your claim that Trumps quantity surpasses those of his predecessors is just convenient blather. It is the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to.

You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present. Your claim that Trumps quantity surpasses those of his predecessors is just convenient blather. It is the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to.
Here's a couple of counts for roughly the same number of statements, now come up with a new spin for your BS

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Joined yes, but I've have almost zero participation on this political board until Trump ran in 2016.

Same here but I am honest about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps it is the constant lying from Trump which never occurred before. Or the constant chaos in the Oval office with members of his own team saying derogatory things about Trump. Or the hypocrisy of the right which would have been screaming holy hell at some of the things that are being done if prior administrations had done them (declare a national emergency to build the wall - imagine if Obama said we have a national health emergency re ACA).

But Got Stripers can certainly respond for himself.

Suck it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Suck it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another thoughtful response. I don't really expect more from you.

Another thoughtful response. I don't really expect more from you.
He's giving you all he's got.

I am almost giggling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's a couple of counts for roughly the same number of statements, now come up with a new spin for your BS

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

You said: "Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone."

I replied "You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present." I should have specified a count of "all" politicians, but that is implied in my reference to your "any" predecessors.

Your little sample of Politifact's check on the truth of a few assertions, out of the massive uncountable number of political statements by predecessor politicians is pathetic. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the few selected checks of Trump statements, nor the few selected ones of Obama, are a count or even an indication that Trump has far surpassed any predecessor in quantity of lies. You haven't even begun to check the record of all predecessor politicians. Your statement is, indeed, as I said, "the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to."

And what's hilarious, even in this skewed and insignificant number of truths and lies by Trump compared to Obama, Trump scores 29% completely true to Obama's only 20% percent completely true. The rest of the categories from mostly true to pants on fire all are versions in which some untruth exists--that is they're partial lies, which is typical of most slanted political lying and media opinion pieces.

You said: "Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone."

I replied "You have not actually made a count of how many lies politicians have made in the past and present." I should have specified a count of "all" politicians, but that is implied in my reference to your "any" predecessors.

Your little sample of Politifact's check on the truth of a few assertions, out the massive uncountable number of political statements by predecessor politicians is pathetic. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the few selected checks of Trump statements, nor the few selected ones of Obama, are a count or even an indication that Trump has far surpassed any predecessor in quantity of lies. You haven't even begun to check the record of all predecessor politicians. Your statement is, indeed, as I said, "the sort of lie, which has no factual basis, that typical politicians have always resorted to."

And what's hilarious, even in this skewed and insignificant number of truths and lies by Trump compared to Obama, Trump scores 29% completely true to Obama's only 20% percent completely true. The rest of the categories from mostly true to pants on fire all are versions in which some untruth exists--that is they're partial lies, which is typical of most slanted political lying and media opinion pieces.
New spin as I predicted, now look at the false side and not surprisingly it's Obama 150 to Trump 444.
You do understand that they did not factcheck every word spoken by each politician, but only looked at issues someone found questionable.
I'm not interested in spending the rest of my life doing political research to rebut an internet argument, perhaps you are.
And so my opinion still stands as stated
No elected American politician has ever lied as much as Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur the First.

New spin as I predicted, now look at the false side and not surprisingly it's Obama 150 to Trump 444.
Well that's just statements they've decided warranted checking. I think the WaPo's analysis of all of Trump's public remarks is more telling, what are they up to now like 6 or 7 thousand false or misleading statements? You don't even need to analyze past recent presidents, nobody could manage that volume.

New spin as I predicted, now look at the false side and not surprisingly it's Obama 150 to Trump 444.

The false side in the survey was degrees of false. All on the false side were not completely true, but partially false. That makes the trick more believable. It's called slanting in a direction while not actually being totally truthful.

You do understand that they did not factcheck every word spoken by each politician, but only looked at issues someone found questionable.

I completely understand that. Do you? Some issues someone found questionable. Some statements. That Politifact bothered to "check." Uggghh . . . there are an insurmountable number of political statements tinged with or are completely lies that they didn't "fact check." There is no way that your statement "Trump’s lying far surpasses any predecessors on quantity alone" can be verified. And there have been some very prolific liars in the present and past. What you state is not only unverifiable, it is obviously a stretch meant to demonize. It's a discredit to your analysis or opinion of Trump if you have to stoop to this tactic. You don't have to go beyond reason or logic to persuade. If you do, it makes what you say less believable. At least to a logical person. Of course, the choir, when preached to, will lap up each word as gospel truth.


I'm not interested in spending the rest of my life doing political
research to rebut an internet argument, perhaps you are.

Who's asking you to? Some of your page long research results are dull boring repetitious and slanted stuff already. Piling on more would be insufferable to read.

And so my opinion still stands as stated
No elected American politician has ever lied as much as Generalissimo Donnie Bonespur the First.

Maybe you can get Politifact to verify that.

Well that's just statements they've decided warranted checking. I think the WaPo's analysis of all of Trump's public remarks is more telling, what are they up to now like 6 or 7 thousand false or misleading statements? You don't even need to analyze past recent presidents, nobody could manage that volume.

Oh, really? :hf1::hf1::hf1::hf1::hf1: 6 or 7 thousand of Trump's remarks warranted checking? Even wdmso hasn't found that many Trump remarks to warrant pointing out . . . and a lot of what he does is pretty trivial.

And the WAPOST? That bastion of objectivity? You know there are other publications and blogs that fact check politicians, and which focus on the leftist side's lies. You might want to expand your field of information and occasionally step outside the anti-Trump arena.

Again, though, your post is just expansive opinion.

Oh, really? :hf1::hf1::hf1::hf1::hf1: 6 or 7 thousand of Trump's remarks warranted checking? Even wdmso hasn't found that many Trump remarks to warrant pointing out . . . and a lot of what he does is pretty trivial.

And the WAPOST? That bastion of objectivity? You know there are other publications and blogs that fact check politicians, and which focus on the leftist side's lies. You might want to expand your field of information and occasionally step outside the anti-Trump arena.

Again, though, your post is just expansive opinion.
Perhaps you could inform us of the mainstream publications that offer this information
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry I’d rather live in a free society than an authoritarian one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ya know Pete,
You are supporting the party that is authoritarian not I.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you could inform us of the mainstream publications that offer this information
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I get criticized for linking videos and articles, or the stuff is not watched or really read but poo-pooed anyway. I think it would be better, and more convincing, if you went on the web and searched it out yourself.

More to the point. I am not impressed by nor care much about lists of stupid lies politicians have told. And it is annoying more than informative if every mistake, or ignorant comment, or difference of opinion is called a lie just to inflate the numbers. But if they're funny, I can enjoy that. You may not have noticed, but I think that lying is a common political tactic that is used by all of them, and is accepted by those who want to believe them.

Sure, pointing out some policy to be wrong, whether it is a lie or just plain wrong, can be important. But claiming run of the mill political rhetoric to be a lie is usually a ho-hum, what's new kind of moment for me. And constantly, daily, on and on, harping on someone being a liar begins to take on the character of some psychological tic.

So, OK then, I've vented about it, and wont anymore. Carry on with informing us about Trump being the greatest liar of all time.