Former President Donald J. Trump

[Diamond Dog]

.... but had the writer said something like the Clintons have their own problematic issues but this Trump guy may be an actual traitor, had he given a nod to other "conspiracies" he'd have a lot more diverse people seeing truth.

Why must you conjoin the two?

[Jimbo]

.... but had the writer said something like the Clintons have their own problematic issues but this Trump guy may be an actual traitor, had he given a nod to other "conspiracies" he'd have a lot more diverse people seeing truth.

Why must you conjoin the two?

Ask the writer. He conjoined them first. He could have made his case without the dig and I wouldn't have noticed. Trump is digging his own grave. But if he wants to take a swipe at Hillary haters let him be as factual about why they hate her as he is about why he thinks Trump might be in league with the Russians.

[Diamond Dog]

.... but had the writer said something like the Clintons have their own problematic issues but this Trump guy may be an actual traitor, had he given a nod to other "conspiracies" he'd have a lot more diverse people seeing truth.

Why must you conjoin the two?

Ask the writer. He conjoined them first. He could have made his case without the dig and I wouldn't have noticed. Trump is digging his own grave. But if he wants to take a swipe at Hillary haters let him be as factual about why they hate her as he is about why he thinks Trump might be in league with the Russians.

Sorry, my wording was clumsy.
I meant why is there a need to conjoin the two, not you personally Jimbo.

Because whatever the Clinton's have done in no way lessens what Trump is doing.

[HarryIrene]

I think a lot of commentators and journalists now feel obliged to conjoin HRC and Trump's skeletons in the closet in order to give the impression that it is serious comment/investigation and not just a witchhunt against Trump. He has played every single attempt to expose and delegitimise him and his presidency as a "fake news" witchunt; so any thoughtpieces now have to go to great lengths to try and show they are looking at these situations objectively. Trump has recalibrated how even serious investigative jourmalism is judged/accepted, and as such it seems to require a few paragraph's shining a light on HRC's quesionable integrity too in order to maintain an illusion of balance and give what they are writing validity and creedence.

[Sneelock]

Besides, HRC isn’t bullying the fuck out of NATO. DJT is.
HRC isn’t appointing somebody to the SCOTUS who thinks Sea World has more rights than people mauled by Orcas do.
Donald, settle down. But, Mommy, what about Hillary?
It’s beyond pathetic.

[Jimbo]

And my point was that IF you co-join the two then do it honestly. A comparison of the two no longer needs be on a partisan basis. The campaign is over. Evidence shows they are both SOBs. The earlier essay was more honest and on target and showed that Trump is corrupt and possibly in the pocket of the Russians. I don't think HRC was even mentioned. (If you can't say something nice say nothing.) It was fair enough. The second essay dropped in a HRC hater hate-nugget to just to show his distain for the many - also partisan - Trump supporters who usually drop a HRC hate-nugget of their own.

[Count Machuki]

Why even talk about freaking Hillary Clinton AT ALL for crying out loud? She's not the damn president.

Quote THIS bit:

But there is no way to read Chait’s story—or to do any judicious review of Donald Trump’s dealings with the Russians over years—and reach any other conclusion but that the Kremlin has damaging and deeply compromising knowledge about the president. Whether they are using such materials, and how, is a matter of legitimate argument. That such things exist, however, and that they seem to be preoccupying the president, should be obvious.

[Snarfyguy]

And my point was that IF you co-join the two then do it honestly. A comparison of the two no longer needs be on a partisan basis. The campaign is over. Evidence shows they are both SOBs. The earlier essay was more honest and on target and showed that Trump is corrupt and possibly in the pocket of the Russians. I don't think HRC was even mentioned. (If you can't say something nice say nothing.) It was fair enough. The second essay dropped in a HRC hater hate-nugget to just to show his distain for the many - also partisan - Trump supporters who usually drop a HRC hate-nugget of their own.

WHO CARES?

I swear to God this is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The important stuff is what the Count quoted, and it's important not just for what it says, but for where it appears, namely Politico, which might as well be USA Today (in other words, a very mainstream outlet). It's significant, I think, that this stuff is coming out of the shadows of partisan organs like Daily Kos or Wonkette and into some very bright sunlight.

[Six String]

Trump's here in the UK this Friday (the 13th!). He'll get splattered.

Wish he'd visit Salisbury and lick a few park benches.

[Sneelock]

He'll arrive late and leave early. you want any more than that you'll need to throw him a parade. he loves parades.

[naughty boy]

Trump's here in the UK this Friday (the 13th!). He'll get splattered.

Wish he'd visit Salisbury and lick a few park benches.

Oh wouldn't that be just WONDERFUL?

Wouldn't that be the most supreme example of JUSTICE the world has ever seen?

Oh oh oh

ohhhh

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Jimbo needs to join his tribe...

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/11/17526836/ ... ws-villain

[Sneelock]

Ha Ha Hillary. Ha Ha Pantsuits. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I was doing my thing at work while Tucker Carlson was on last night (or the night before)
Tucker had a guest host so maybe the mechanics of the thing were a little easier to spot.
Like Tucker the guest host had on someone she disagreed with. like Tucker she presented herself as a fair and understanding person before engaging them. and then she did what FOX News has been doing reliably since the "Hannity & Colmes" days -- she presented a conflicting point of view for the sole purpose of marginalizing it. like Carson she looked smugly into the camera at the end of the "debate" as if to say. "obviously they were no match for ME!!!!"

there are 2 TV's in the break room. for about a week now a guy has the FOX on the main TV - he watches basketball on the other TV then when someone goes to change the channel (it's always on VERY LOUD) on the main TV- he comes out. tells them he's watching it. lingers until they leave and then leaves it blasting while he returns to his basketball game. No other programming is allowed. He'll back down if somebody goes Alpha Male on him but usually people don't really want to engage with him.

it was on this morning - the remote wouldn't work to change the channel and it was LOUD. it went something like this: oh, those foolish people in the Democrat Party, oh how out of touch they are with the AMERICAN PEOPLE by not admitting what a baseball coaching, fun loving, average American this Kavanaugh guy is. oh, how they hurt themselves by suggesting anyone will be affected negatively by any judgements he might make. polite chuckles mixed with derisive laughter. UGH. god bless the "mute" button.

what an advantage the Trump Admin. has in having the Nation's most popular News Channel be 100% behind anything he does. shit, there were people on there explaining why Melania's "I don't care do U?" jacket was a wonderful thing and why would anybody insult the American People by saying otherwise.

sheesh.

[sloopjohnc]

Ha Ha Hillary. Ha Ha Pantsuits. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I was doing my thing at work while Tucker Carlson was on last night (or the night before)
Tucker had a guest host so maybe the mechanics of the thing were a little easier to spot.
Like Tucker the guest host had on someone she disagreed with. like Tucker she presented herself as a fair and understanding person before engaging them. and then she did what FOX News has been doing reliably since the "Hannity & Colmes" days -- she presented a conflicting point of view for the sole purpose of marginalizing it. like Carson she looked smugly into the camera at the end of the "debate" as if to say. "obviously they were no match for ME!!!!"

there are 2 TV's in the break room. for about a week now a guy has the FOX on the main TV - he watches basketball on the other TV then when someone goes to change the channel (it's always on VERY LOUD) on the main TV- he comes out. tells them he's watching it. lingers until they leave and then leaves it blasting while he returns to his basketball game. No other programming is allowed. He'll back down if somebody goes Alpha Male on him but usually people don't really want to engage with him.

it was on this morning - the remote wouldn't work to change the channel and it was LOUD. it went something like this: oh, those foolish people in the Democrat Party, oh how out of touch they are with the AMERICAN PEOPLE by not admitting what a baseball coaching, fun loving, average American this Kavanaugh guy is. oh, how they hurt themselves by suggesting anyone will be affected negatively by any judgements he might make. polite chuckles mixed with derisive laughter. UGH. god bless the "mute" button.

what an advantage the Trump Admin. has in having the Nation's most popular News Channel be 100% behind anything he does. shit, there were people on there explaining why Melania's "I don't care do U?" jacket was a wonderful thing and why would anybody insult the American People by saying otherwise.

sheesh.

You'd think with all this validation they get from Fox they'd be happier and not have to harass women wearing Puerto Rico jerseys or check moms' IDs along with their pool cards.

[Snarfyguy]

He'll arrive late and leave early.

And insult the Queen.

[bobzilla77]

I don't know if anybody else cares about the Nevada ranchers that got pardoned. I found it kind of fascinating that the US President would give a thumbs up to this kind of behavior - it seems like no matter who's in charge, the President should stand up for the idea that the Fed does in fact have power. Like, do you really want to give a thumbs up to insurrectionists? What good does it do? They''re just gonna get mad about something else and gonna rise up against you one day.

This piece has a lot of food for thought. Trump is gambling that by getting the people who live on the land out there to battle each other, he can give away all the protected land to industry and they'll support him while he does it.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-real-stor ... e1a8f735f/

[Davey the Fat Boy]

He sees them as emblematic of his base (rural white Christians). Their social, political and cultural supremacy is one of his only political convictions.

[bobzilla77]

Yep, and he's stil making campaign promises to them. One day they may wake up and discover not feds coming to collect taxes, but oil men coming up to kick them off the land, and their militias will have to decide if they fight against people like that or just do what they say.

[sloopjohnc]

He sees them as emblematic of his base (rural white Christians). Their social, political and cultural supremacy is one of his only political convictions.

Yep. But like Bobzilla writes, it is a potentially dangerous precedent.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Maybe. But precedent hardly seems to mean anything anymore. In modern America, the same act is good when it benefits my tribe and bad when it benefits yours.

I think his “base” understands this implicitly. It’s a feature, not a bug.