President Trump- The Implications

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Remember all the 'foaming at the mouth", slobber slinging, histrionics that went on here for years over Billy Bob getting a little on the side in the White House...??

Where is the indignation from the "moral" people who went on and on and on for so long now that their good buddy has been paying off his hookers (porn stars he ISN"T married to...) to keep them quiet??   I hear crickets....

Condoning and complicity.

Shows exactly the "moral fiber" attached.

Physical evidence, and testimony impeached Clinton. He lied to Congress and the FBI in his testimony.

All there is against Trump is allegations and accusations. You can run around and spout payoff all you want, there has not been testimony or evidence proving anything. But hey that's the way the Lib's role these days, an allegation is a conviction. Just like Eric Holder's statement that Darren Wilson will be arrested, tried and found guilty of a racially motivated killing.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Did everyone log in with their AOL to do all the bitching?

The scandal happened in 1998...   This website was registered in 2001...    You fail at math.

So you have not read all the past posts here...that's all that proves.  The slobber slinging continued for decades and even was seen in the last Presidential election.  Or did you miss that part of the national discourse?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Physical evidence, and testimony impeached Clinton. He lied to Congress and the FBI in his testimony.

All there is against Trump is allegations and accusations. You can run around and spout payoff all you want, there has not been testimony or evidence proving anything. But hey that's the way the Lib's role these days, an allegation is a conviction. Just like Eric Holder's statement that Darren Wilson will be arrested, tried and found guilty of a racially motivated killing.

The current Trump stuff is just a continuation of actions that have been adjudicated repeatedly for decades... true, there is no courtroom findings yet... let's watch and see what happens!  And here is a prediction for you - banking records of the hookers he didn't marry.  Exposed soon.

But even that won't deter a true Minion... it's the rational, thinking, mentally and intellectually functional rest of the world that will "get" it...

[patric]

Here's the Dem's and Lib's new hero that's being groomed for the White House. Covers all the bases for ya.

Chelsea Manning

Have you never said "If you want to change government, run for office?"

[Conan71]

So you have not read all the past posts here...that's all that proves.  The slobber slinging continued for decades and even was seen in the last Presidential election.  Or did you miss that part of the national discourse?

I think we all knew there were deep character flaws in Trump prior to him ever running for POTUS.  In addition, these all seem to be things which happened prior to him taking office from what we know...at this point in time.  With Clinton, there apparently was still a pattern of cheating and forcing himself on other women once he was in the WH.  The cheating seems to be a time-honored tradition in the Oral Orifice er Oval Office dating back a couple of centuries, that never bothered me so much as the alleged attack on Kathleen Willey.

As of yet, we've heard nothing indicating Trump's abhorrent moral behavior has continued into the White House.  Those of us who knew what a D-Bag he was prior to running didn't condone his behavior and we didn't vote for him.  Same with Clinton.  At least I'm consistent with my world view on alleged molesters and cheaters and leadership roles.

One thing I will say I appreciate about Obama is he didn't seem to have any major moral flaws.  Our politics differed, but as a human, I have always respected him.  Bush II's biggest problem was listening to the wrong advisors on certain foreign policy issues, otherwise he seemed to have a pretty good moral compass.

[rebound]

I think we all knew there were deep character flaws in Trump prior to him ever running for POTUS.  In addition, these all seem to be things which happened prior to him taking office from what we know...at this point in time.  With Clinton, there apparently was still a pattern of cheating and forcing himself on other women once he was in the WH.  The cheating seems to be a time-honored tradition in the Oral Orifice er Oval Office dating back a couple of centuries, that never bothered me so much as the alleged attack on Kathleen Willey.

As of yet, we've heard nothing indicating Trump's abhorrent moral behavior has continued into the White House.  Those of us who knew what a D-Bag he was prior to running didn't condone his behavior and we didn't vote for him.  Same with Clinton.  At least I'm consistent with my world view on alleged molesters and cheaters and leadership roles.

One thing I will say I appreciate about Obama is he didn't seem to have any major moral flaws.  Our politics differed, but as a human, I have always respected him.  Bush II's biggest problem was listening to the wrong advisors on certain foreign policy issues, otherwise he seemed to have a pretty good moral compass.

...at this point in time.   I'm not sure if you did that on purpose, but awesome if you did.  That phrase is straight out the Watergate hearings.  Dean, if I remember correctly, used it all the time and that's where it entered into common use.   Seems very apropos.

And I'm completely onboard with your Obama and Bush examples.  Both good people that we can disagree with politically.  Trump isn't (and never was) comparable.

 

[Hoss]

...at this point in time.   I'm not sure if you did that on purpose, but awesome if you did.  That phrase is straight out the Watergate hearings.  Dean, if I remember correctly, used it all the time and that's where it entered into common use.   Seems very apropos.

And I'm completely onboard with your Obama and Bush examples.  Both good people that we can disagree with politically.  Trump isn't (and never was) comparable.

 

I've probably stated this more than once, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me regarding Trump was his mocking of the disabled reporter.  Not so much that he mocked him, but he refused to admit that's what he was doing.  Own up to it if you did it and apologize.  I cannot think of one thing he's ever done that he should apologize for that he has.  I could be mistaken.  He just hates to be wrong, whether or not he is or isn't.  It stems from my mother being disabled (at the hand of my father) from age 38 until she passed away at age 68.  I was her primary caregiver for the last 10 years of her life (she was pretty easy though until she hurt herself in late 2013).  Then I had to spend a lot more time with her at home.  Lucky for me my employer was flexible enough to allow me to work much of my time from home.

I was willing to listen to his ideas, and I liked some of them.  But I also knew he was a former Democrat, and I suspected that maybe he was inserted into the Republican race to give Hillary an edge (didn't work out so well) and that both of them colluded on that (there's that word).

He's been a dumpster fire for the country.  If you guys were complaining about Obama's lack of experience and not knowing much about foreign policy, this guy knows exactly two things about them - jack and $hit.  And evidently didn't think he was going to win and didn't really want the job.  Pretty sad.  He spends half his morning getting his ego stroked by the Fox and Friends team then tweets about what was on there.  Yeah, great leader he is.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think we all knew there were deep character flaws in Trump prior to him ever running for POTUS.  In addition, these all seem to be things which happened prior to him taking office from what we know...at this point in time.  With Clinton, there apparently was still a pattern of cheating and forcing himself on other women once he was in the WH.  The cheating seems to be a time-honored tradition in the Oral Orifice er Oval Office dating back a couple of centuries, that never bothered me so much as the alleged attack on Kathleen Willey.

As of yet, we've heard nothing indicating Trump's abhorrent moral behavior has continued into the White House.  Those of us who knew what a D-Bag he was prior to running didn't condone his behavior and we didn't vote for him.  Same with Clinton.  At least I'm consistent with my world view on alleged molesters and cheaters and leadership roles.

One thing I will say I appreciate about Obama is he didn't seem to have any major moral flaws.  Our politics differed, but as a human, I have always respected him.  Bush II's biggest problem was listening to the wrong advisors on certain foreign policy issues, otherwise he seemed to have a pretty good moral compass.

Cheaters and molesters are two different things.  One is consensual, the other an act of violence.  And kinda surprised you would try to equate them.  

And continue to fling around debunked stuff.  Wan't Willey the one who was ok with Billy Bob right up until her husband found out, then changed the story to try to stay out of trouble at home?  According to her friends and changes in her 'position'...


Trump has probably been too busy tweeting for the last year to get out much...

Bush was morally ok, huh...?  Ok.  Everybody's gotta have a dream...  I submit that killing over 4,000 of our kids in the wrong war, to sooth his ego over imagined affronts to Daddy's dignity is not exactly a moral compass.  Nor passing/promoting/authorizing commission of war crimes.  Yes, waterboarding, by definition - OUR definition since WWII - is a war crime.  One which we pursued, tried, and executed, dozens of Japanese POW camp masters for after WWII.  So there is that "moral compass"...

Committing the Federal AND International crime of special rendition.

And the astonishingly bad taste of getting drunk at an international affair and groping the German Chancellor...not really a crime, but certainly not an example of good morals.

Other than a few of those kind of things, yeah, I guess he was ok...


And I have not doubt in the minds of the Minions these are trivialities.  After all, these are the "good people" who ran over and killed a woman in Charlottesville a few months ago.   Fine people...

[erfalf]

In fairness to Bush, his action of using "enhanced interrogation" was actually an improvement in a humanitarian sense from the Clinton policy of shipping off detainees to countries that didn't adhere to the convention, and having them do the dirty work. Far dirtier I might add than we ever did or would do under Bush. And Bush had the added benefit during his administration of having the most horrific attack on US soil every perpetrated. So ya know, whatever.

But other than that Bush is exactly like skin heads.

[guido911]

Wonder what this is all about....

https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/954097548498735104/video/1

[joiei]

Wonder what this is all about....

https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/954097548498735104/video/1

Hey Guido, are you getting paid for every click you can create for Fox Whatever?  Didn't click and would encourage others to think twice before adding to the guid's paycheck.

[guido911]

Hey Guido, are you getting paid for every click you can create for Fox Whatever?  Didn't click and would encourage others to think twice before adding to the guid's paycheck.

It was "breaking news". No other network at the time had the story. You can get your information from whatever sources you like--I don't care.

[patric]

Really? We're Gonna Nuke Russia for a Cyberattack?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/18/donald-trump-russia-nuclear-cyberattack-216477

A cyberattack on U.S. civilian infrastructure could be enormously disruptive and costly. Depending on the scale and durability of outages of electricity, piped water, etc., the effect could be like what Puerto Rico is experiencing due to Hurricane Maria (though without the collapsed roadways and buildings). But, if a U.S. president initiated nuclear war in response to a massive cyberattack, Russia and China would be expected to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could leave the mainland U.S. in the condition of Puerto Rico minus all the people, buildings and wildlife. Russia and China would suffer gravely in the process, but the U.S. would lose much more than it would gain by moving from cyberwar to nuclear war.

[heironymouspasparagus]

In fairness to Bush, his action of using "enhanced interrogation" was actually an improvement in a humanitarian sense from the Clinton policy of shipping off detainees to countries that didn't adhere to the convention, and having them do the dirty work. Far dirtier I might add than we ever did or would do under Bush. And Bush had the added benefit during his administration of having the most horrific attack on US soil every perpetrated. So ya know, whatever.

But other than that Bush is exactly like skin heads.

Except for the real facts that Bush expanded it many times over - that is the "extraordinary rendition" thing that was run over repeatedly.  And Reagan was the first to practice it, so I guess all the later ones were just following the example of the war criminal President of modern times, huh?

And no, of course your Fake Fox News source is wrong as always - Baby Bush did it much worse than Billy Bob - many hundreds more.  Uh, huh...again, except for previous worse attacks on American soil totaling tens of millions...but we wouldn't want to go back more than 16 years in historical discussions, would we - something distasteful may dwell there.  So ya know, whatever.

Not exactly like skinheads - he has hair.  But he is responsible for more death, destruction, torture then any single skinhead in our history.  Or any total group, like the KKK.  You remember them, don't you?  Trump's biggest fan base.  But hey...whatever.

And if you really want to bring in 9/11, then why not talk about how we just walked away from the attack on the actual people that did that and went after Iraq instead??  Wouldn't getting those responsible for "the most horrific attack on US soil every perpetrated" be of at least some passing interest to a President of the United States?   Especially since we knew exactly who they were.  Where they were.  And who financed it all.   And just as importantly, who was NOT responsible.

That kind of abdication of responsibility to go after the attackers would seem to be at least censurable - but I think it should be at least impeachable.  But I also believe in the rule of law.   Luckily, the next President DID go after the main responsible parties and got them killed.  So ya know...whatever...


That Fake Fox News KookAid must be so just tasty...once addicted, it seems nearly impossible to get that monkey off one's back.

[erfalf]

Except for the real facts that Bush expanded it many times over - that is the "extraordinary rendition" thing that was run over repeatedly.  And Reagan was the first to practice it, so I guess all the later ones were just following the example of the war criminal President of modern times, huh?

And no, of course your Fake Fox News source is wrong as always - Baby Bush did it much worse than Billy Bob - many hundreds more.  Uh, huh...again, except for previous worse attacks on American soil totaling tens of millions...but we wouldn't want to go back more than 16 years in historical discussions, would we - something distasteful may dwell there.  So ya know, whatever.

Not exactly like skinheads - he has hair.  But he is responsible for more death, destruction, torture then any single skinhead in our history.  Or any total group, like the KKK.  You remember them, don't you?  Trump's biggest fan base.  But hey...whatever.

And if you really want to bring in 9/11, then why not talk about how we just walked away from the attack on the actual people that did that and went after Iraq instead??  Wouldn't getting those responsible for "the most horrific attack on US soil every perpetrated" be of at least some passing interest to a President of the United States?   Especially since we knew exactly who they were.  Where they were.  And who financed it all.   And just as importantly, who was NOT responsible.

That kind of abdication of responsibility to go after the attackers would seem to be at least censurable - but I think it should be at least impeachable.  But I also believe in the rule of law.   Luckily, the next President DID go after the main responsible parties and got them killed.  So ya know...whatever...


That Fake Fox News KookAid must be so just tasty...once addicted, it seems nearly impossible to get that monkey off one's back.

Misunderstand, misguided, and distracted. Par for the course. Bill Bob just wanted to keep his hands clean. Bush was a man and told them to F-Off this is what we are doing. And what we did in reality was far less harsh than what non-Geneva convention countries do to their detainees. All of ours could at least walk out under their own strength. Only your warped mind can twist that into making bush out as some war criminal and Clinton as a saint. Well, well, well, Bush was worse. You sound just as childish and petulant as the strawman you take down in every one of your arguments.