[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It fits exactly with this comment by dangles and all of it is correct.

All of it is not correct. And all of it is opinion.

t's comical that you think it is vitriolic repetition, if so then what is "witch hunt, invaders, fake news, etc." Some call these things oft repeated by Trump, dogwhistles or verbal violence, they could also be labeled as vitriolic repetition.

You can label them whatever you want . . . AND YOU DO. So are you special? You and wdmso and Spence and Nebe and Gotstripers get to label and I can't? As far the vitriolic label, in the first instance I was throwing it back to wdmso when he said "Because of Trumps endless vitriolic rhetoric and contempt for the office in which he sits."

And if "witch hunt, invaders, fake news, etc." displease you, you can show how they are not correct labels, refute them.

Heather Nauert certainly treats the reporters with a different hand than Trump and what goes around comes around. Do you think she would take Sarah Sanders job?

I don't know. Do you? She would do a good job.

I don't think he hates women, but is what the Brits call a "sex pest" not knowing proper boundaries.

That has not been proven. But proof is not required for belief. So it is not relevant for me if you think he is a sex pest. Certainly, other successful Presidents have been demonstrated to be sex pests (especially while in office), even more than Trump is refuted to be, but that has had no affect on how they governed, or how they are admired. It looks like Trump is singled out, I am sure for current political reasons.

And when you look at prissy saints, perhaps you could include Kavanaugh and others in that bunch for their involvement in the Clinton impeachment.

I'm not interested in those whataboutisms. But I'm sure you can look at it. And if you do and tell us your opinion, I, and others, may object.