Said great shape. The guy is a pervert and has no self control.

And now we learn that Donald Jr. had another visitor w/him - a former Russian counter intelligence officer (Sen. Grassley said he had ties to the Russian government). Another lie (one of many). He just said Tues. that he released everything but forgot to mention this.

I'm shocked at how bad liars the Trump family is. Lie for the sake of lying - no strategy, nothing.

Witch hunt - LOL

that's nearly as horrifying as Ted Kennedy's "waitress sandwich"...speaking of no self control...and he was in Washington for like a hundred years and serious democrat presidential candidate and icon


great shape?.....good grief


"It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant’s annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. “They’d always get their girls very, very drunk,” says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells [waitress Carla] Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check."



don't think Trump can trump that :cheers:

Some guy I hardly knows says your wife has great shape I tell him he is a dic*.

In all seriousness, is this a joke? The party of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, is now lecturing the world on how to act in front of your wife, when other women are around?

The left recently attacked Mike Pence because he goes in the other direction, he doesn't even like being alone with any woman other than his wife.

And somehow that was offensive to the left. And Trump, at the other extreme, is also offensive to the left.

It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1125039
It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?[/QUOTE]

That is funny from the most prolific whiner on the Forum. You complained about anything and everything Obama did. Including getting so upset you called him a POS. And Hillary the c word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I missed the announcement that it was OK to cheat on your wife with a child, or to drunkenly drive a young girl off a bridge, leave her, and then use the family money to dodge responsibility. That was OK when those things took place?

Trump is very crass, very boorish, and had no problem with objectifying women.

"he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance "

Have times changed that much since Bill Clinton and John Edwards? You don't have to go back all that far.

Trump has very, very poor ethics. I have no problem, none, for calling him out on that...unless you give others a pass for ding worse, because they have a (d) after their name.

If you allow lunitics to set the standards , what's "acceptable " becomes loony .
Glad I work with normal people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Obama do that I complained about, which I routinely give conservatives a pass for?

I stand by those characterizations of Obama, and especially Hilary. I also say that Trump is a POS. Sure, I complained a lot during the Obama years. That doesn't mean I am guilty of hypocrisy.
.

If Trump used that same comment to compliment the wife of a friend that they socialize with on a regular basis, that's totally acceptable comment. If you don't see that it's off base for the president of the united states to comment on a leaders wife body, then sit against the wall at lunch break and whistle at the women you feel are hot as they make their way back to work.

It wasn't right of JFK, but back then it was more of a Men's world and he might have gotten a pass that leaders today certainly wouldn't. It certainly wasn't right for Bill Clinton either, that's an abuse of power, whether your the leader of the free world or your local church.

I don't consider it "acceptable" behavior, I'd consider it respectful and the behavior most of the people (of either party)I know would expect of the president of this country. I'm embarrassed at times to see the crap coming out of his mouth, or the BS he spews over twitter, I have no respect for the man.

His personal behavior is going to fall short, much of the time. Deep down, he's a jerk, or gross, or boorish, something like that.

But if he ran against the serially dishonest pantsuit lady tomorrow, I'd vote for him again. I'd love to have a president of high personal character. The GOP tried that in 2008 and 2012, the country wasn't interested.

I have to admit that PaulS sounds a little silly considering Clinton got blown in the White House. Maybe times hadn't changed yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good to see see seadangles's is back with his typical insults. Nothing constructive ever to add, just childish insults. What do you do lurk until you can't take it anymore and then feel like you have to comment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's an insult? :huh:.....good thing he didn't tell you that you were in "great shape" :musc:..wait...is it ok to comment that a guy is in "great shape" but not that a woman is in "great shape" in the era of "gender equity"?



love this....

"Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed with Chinese interference in a presidential election. This summer we mark the 20th anniversary of a major investigation by Congress of attempts by a hostile foreign power to influence an American presidential election. I’m glad the news media is pursuing the Trump–Russia scandal, but let’s not forget the differences between how they are covering Russia compared with how they reported a similar story — this one involving Communist China — that developed during Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. The Washington Post reported in 1998 that “evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.” Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?” According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana."

We need to demand better from all of the them, all the time

sure but...in a world of constantly changing rules(times)...it's hard to know what to demand

how about honesty, integrity and truth? maybe do actual journalism not opinion tin foil conspiracy bull and let the audience decide. instead we get more dividing the country


I know one thing, I can only control what I can control so what I say here won't change anything.

So when you think of President Trump, the words honesty, integrity and truth come to mind?

that was focused on the media and you know that, but don't let that change the subject of my reply . :1poke:


to answer your question directly with a yes or no, that would be a no of course.

like I said, I can only control what I can

If our president is more conservative than the last one, then that is a great thing for the country in my opinion, you are entitled to your opinion.

So you want the press to have attributes that our Pres. doesn't even have.

Very rarely have I commented on the politics of Pres. Trump. The vast majority have been on his (lack of) honesty.

What tin foil conspiricies - Russia? So everyone should just ignore the constant lies, shifting explanations and unusual interactions concerning Russia?

did I say I want that?

I want less government, not more ok?


Russia? collusion? waste of taxpayer money investigating to find out if there was any crime when nothing happened. When they get to the bottom of the witch hunt, I'm sure they will let us all know about it.


Is this more of trying to shame me for not voting for Hillary or you just trying to show you'd rather see the country fail than Trump succeed ? Or maybe you think I am not smart enough to realize we elected a worse candidate than who lost? It is July, it's over with.

NM

"So you want the press to have attributes that our Pres. doesn't even have."

You're better than that. He didn't say he doesn't want the POTUS to have those attributes, but he's honest enough to admit that, sadly, this POTUS doesn't have those attributes

Integrity was not on the ballot in the 2016 general election. Not on either side. Trump is more offensive on the immediate surface than Hilary is, but if you look at her carefully at all, I think there's zero ethics or integrity. Zip. Just ambition.

"It is the constant dismissing of anything to do w/the Russians."

The reason we brushed it off, is because - until the Trump Jr email - there was absolutely no evidence that anything happened. Now we have evidence that Trump Jr wanted to collude to get some opposition research.

"Why not let it proceed and see where it goes"

Who is saying not to let it proceed? Have at it!

NM

I don't know what "NM" means...

"Just the constant lying of meeting w/Russians"

But zero evidence of collusion.

"Correct - "wanted""

Right. Trump Jr wanted to collude with the Russians to get dirt on Hilary. I don't think that's up for debate. It's a horrible lack of judgment.

"Bruce is. He has called it a witch hunt repeatedly"

What the media did with it, was a witch hunt. That's just my opinion. The media stopped being in the hard news business, and entered the "get Trump" business.

Here's a question I keep asking, and I have never seen addressed, not once, anywhere. Were any of the leaked emails that supposedly hurt Hilary in the election, false or doctored? What I mena is, is there any debate about whether or not she was guilty of doing the things that were in those emails?

Because the liberals want me to believe that leaking those emails cost her the election. Fine, let's say I agree with that (which I don't). If honestly revealing her actions cost her the election, then how come NO ONE is asking her why she did the things she did?

Aren't her actions, a bigger story than how we learned about her actions?

I'm not saying ignore the Russian involvement, we need to look into that.

NM - No message bc everything was answered in the body. System won't let you respond if it thinks you didn't type a response.

I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion - just the possibility and there is enough things to make an investigation seem warranted. That doesn't make it a "witch hunt" (which I think Bengahzi was after the first investigation).

Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves by their constantly changing their stories and leaving out what Russians they interacted with bf the election. Trump also tries to bully the press (like he probably used to do w/his business assoc.) and the press is pushing back . So when you call someone evil they are going to get even.

I guess the topic of the G20, if that ever was the topic, has slid into the inevitable Trump collusion bit--all roads lead to "collusion."

It still isn't clear to me what is meant by "collusion" here. Getting info, if factual, is not a negative collusion unless disseminating truth is. Getting truthful information, even from a foreign government, does not interfere with the process of our elections. It does the opposite. It helps to clarify the issues for the voters.

Whether or not if I "approve" of hiding or lying about meetings the kind of which a media and the opposition Dems are figuratively foaming at the mouth to paint as proof of collusion, I can understand why the dissembling by the Trumps is done--just as those who supported the Clintons didn't fault Hillary when she tried to cover up, "lie" about, her husband's affairs. Hillary's cover-ups were considered a sign of a faithful, dutiful wife, so quite understandable. And Bill's affairs were not considered by those on the left as relevant nor an "interference" in the election process.

But lying under oath is a different and legal matter.

Curious as to why wdmso, when somebody mentions Benghazi, even when that person is doing so in retort to a Benghazi remark, refers to it as "clinging" to Benghazi. But when some others whom he agrees with (even himself) does it, it's not "clinging" anymore.

"I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion "

The media devotes half its airtime to the story. As it turns out, they were likely correct. Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story.

"Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves "

I agree he brings much of it on himself. However, the media has become the public relations arm of the Democratic party. All of the coverage of democrats is favorable, all of the coverage of republicans is negative. So while I agree with you that Trump gives them extra ammunition to use, the media would still be engaging in yellow journalism even the GOP nominated a genuinely nice guy, because that's what happened when they nominated Romney.

And Hilary brought much of this on herself, by engaging in the questionable actions that were revealed in the leaked emails. Do you agree?

"Trump also tries to bully the press"

Because they will never, ever give him a fair deal. Never, I'm not saying the media has to lie to make him look bad, he makes that easy for them. But he could be a choir boy like Romney, and they would still be determined to make him look bad. He recognizes that, and doesn't try to make nice with them.

If you think his relationship with the media is a net negative to Trump, I disagree. A lot of people recognize how biased the media has become, and rally around Trump because he calls them out on it so bluntly. It helped get him elected.

I'd say Trump and the media probably deserve each other. The difference is, it's helping Trump, and while Trump is helping MSNBC (whose ratings had nowhere to go but up), CNN has become a laughing stock.