For those that Ha ha'd

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 04:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nowhere did I say the accuser was wrong. 

How can the accused be innocent if the accuser is correct?  If the accused is innocent the accuser has to be wrong.

This is turning into another pile of gibberish.

[BmorePat87]

(10-18-2018, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, folks are just looking to excuse their hate. The Left pushed the narrative (well no one in this forum they are far too open-minded) that she wore the jacket to show she didn't care about the children. 

Both you and Fred were wrong. You were wrong about her stating multiple times that it was a message to her critics. She didn't say that until her recent interview. Her spokeswoman claimed from the get go that it had no meaning. Fred was wrong about saying she never came out and said that it was a message to her critics. She just did. 

I think the jacket was clearly a message to those criticizing her silence on the issue. At the time that was pretty obvious and her spokeswoman's claims were laughable. No doubt people probably said she was making it clear she didn't care about children, but I think the majority of the criticism was the poor optics of wearing it at all. 

She's not one of the most bullied people simply because there was a minute long video in which a rapper said he had a fictional sexual relationship with her. Her husband, the president, literally has tweeted dozens if not hundreds of insults about another first lady. When people are wearing shirts to a Presidential rally calling her a b**** or a c***, then we can revive this thread. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-18-2018, 06:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Both you and Fred were wrong. You were wrong about her stating multiple times that it was a message to her critics. She didn't say that until her recent interview. Her spokeswoman claimed from the get go that it had no meaning. Fred was wrong about saying she never came out and said that it was a message to her critics. She just did. 

I think the jacket was clearly a message to those criticizing her silence on the issue. At the time that was pretty obvious and her spokeswoman's claims were laughable. No doubt people probably said she was making it clear she didn't care about children, but I think the majority of the criticism was the poor optics of wearing it at all. 

She's not one of the most bullied people simply because there was a minute long video in which a rapper said he had a fictional sexual relationship with her. Her husband, the president, literally has tweeted dozens if not hundreds of insults about another first lady. When people are wearing shirts to a Presidential rally calling her a b**** or a c***, then we can revive this thread. 

Your assessment of both being wrong aside. POTUS explained why she wore it a while back; he could not have known this unless she had stated her reason for wearing it. 

She is cyber-bullied, no one can deny that and perhaps no one is done so more visibly. We shouldn't hold her husband's sins against her, but many do. 

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  POTUS explained why she wore it a while back; he could not have known this unless she had stated her reason for wearing it. 

Because he never says anything that he just makes up in his own head, right?

(10-18-2018, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: She is cyber-bullied, no one can deny that and perhaps no one is done so more visibly.

Hillary Clinton has been bullied a thousand times more than Melania.

(10-18-2018, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We shouldn't hold her husband's sins against her, but many do. 

We hold he acceptance of her husbands actions against her.  Hard to claim you are serious about fighting bullying when you don't take your own husband to task over it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-18-2018, 06:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because he never says anything that he just makes up in his own head, right?




Hillary Clinton has been bullied a thousand times more than Melania.


We hold he acceptance of her husbands actions against her.  Hard to claim you are serious about fighting bullying when you don't take your own husband to task over it.

Speaking of making things up. You are like the "king".
You keep saying dumass stuff like you follow Trump blindly, you only watch FoxNews.

Newflash for you.
1st I don't watch FoxNews at all, I try to keep my sources neutral. Yea, some stuff slips thru, that's just normal clickbait.
2nd, I don't follow Trump blindly, I understand his sense of humor and what he's about and he's not the best choice for a role model. He's not always correct, but he's destroying the PC Left culture that's out there. 
3rd, you should be mad that the Democrats candidate was so bad that they lost to one of the worst people in the world during the election... oh and hey, I hear she's gearing up for 2020. Go Hillary. Trump will eat her alive this time.

and yes 2 people can be telling the truth as they see it, but with out evidence, witnesses or anything that proves their story, it's hard for me to go all in on their story.

So now, you should agree with me, it's belongs in the criminal courts not for job interviews or anywhere else. Settle in it properly let both parties make their case and go from there. If it's not being done in a criminal court setting, then it's very hard to defend against, because people never lie right Fred??

[Dill]

(10-18-2018, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can't pretend that wearing a jacket WITH A MESSAGE WRITTEN ON IT was not intended as a message.

BTW the only folks whining about the vile nature of the left are the people on the right.  Normal people in the middle realize that when people wear clothing with messages written on them they are trying to send a message.

LOL apparently some can!  By the way Fred, are you sure those were words on the jacket? Maybe they were just a pattern or decoration, and "the Left" spun up a message, like reading tea leaves.   Leftists are capable of anything.

[Dill]

(10-18-2018, 08:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Speaking of making things up. You are like the "king".
You keep saying dumass stuff like you follow Trump blindly, you only watch FoxNews.

Newflash for you.
1st I don't watch FoxNews at all, I try to keep my sources neutral. Yea, some stuff slips thru, that's just normal clickbait.
2nd, I don't follow Trump blindly, I understand his sense of humor and what he's about and he's not the best choice for a role model. He's not always correct, but he's destroying the PC Left culture that's out there. 
3rd, you should be mad that the Democrats candidate was so bad that they lost to one of the worst people in the world during the election... oh and hey, I hear she's gearing up for 2020. Go Hillary. Trump will eat her alive this time.

and yes 2 people can be telling the truth as they see it, but with out evidence, witnesses or anything that proves their story, it's hard for me to go all in on their story.

So now, you should agree with me, it's belongs in the criminal courts not for job interviews or anywhere else. Settle in it properly let both parties make their case and go from there. If it's not being done in a criminal court setting, then it's very hard to defend against, because people never lie right Fred??

I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who watches Fox News.  I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who does not put up Fox talking points.

Trump is indeed "destroying PC left culture" which turns out to be the same as destroying civility in public discourse. I don't understand why you think that is good. 

Saying he is "not the best role model" covers the more accurate statement--he is the WORST role model. Could any parent disagree?  But you are ok with that because--he is uncivil? 

He's "not always correct" or NOT OFTEN correct?

You say you don't blindly follow Trump, but I don't see much daylight between Trump's explanations for why he beat Hillary or the Stormy Daniels eruption and yours--especially when you claim it is "proven" that Trump had no affair with Daniels, with no more evidence than Trump's word.

[GMDino]

(10-19-2018, 01:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who watches Fox News.  I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who does not put up Fox talking points.

Trump is indeed "destroying PC left culture" which turns out to be the same as destroying civility in public discourse. I don't understand why you think that is good. 

Saying he is "not the best role model" covers the more accurate statement--he is the WORST role model. Could any parent disagree?  But you are ok with that because--he is uncivil? 

He's "not always correct" or NOT OFTEN correct?

You say you don't blindly follow Trump, but I don't see much daylight between Trump's explanations for why he beat Hillary or the Stormy Daniels eruption and yours--especially when you claim it is "proven" that Trump had no affair with Daniels, with no more evidence than Trump's word.

[BmorePat87]

(10-18-2018, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your assessment of both being wrong aside. POTUS explained why she wore it a while back; he could not have known this unless she had stated her reason for wearing it. 

And then her official spokeswoman contradicted that with an official statement from her office. 

Quote:She is cyber-bullied, no one can deny that and perhaps no one is done so more visibly. We shouldn't hold her husband's sins against her, but many do. 

The question isn't IF she is bullied. The question is "is she the MOST (or ONE of the MOST) bullied" in the entire world. That's what she said and what you repeated with this thread. 

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2018, 01:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who watches Fox News.  I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who does not put up Fox talking points.

Amazing isn't it.  They repeat word for word the talking points crafted by Fox News yet they never watch it.  And it is somehow the highest ranked news show yet not a single conservative Trump supporter here watches it.

Kind of like how so many people were embarrassed to admit that they were going to vote for Trump to the poll takers.

[fredtoast]

(10-18-2018, 08:18 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  but he's destroying the PC Left culture that's out there. 

And that is what it all boils down to.  People don't care if he is a lying bully.  They just want someone who will make it cool to be a raging sexist, racist ass hole again.  They are all tired of trying to be nice to other people.

[Dill]

(10-19-2018, 12:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Amazing isn't it.  They repeat word for word the talking points crafted by Fox News yet they never watch it.  And it is somehow the highest ranked news show yet not a single conservative Trump supporter here watches it.

Kind of like how so many people were embarrassed to admit that they were going to vote for Trump to the poll takers.

It is possible that they don't watch Fox, but listen to Rush on the way to work and then get a Breitbart alert on their phone during coffee break and spend half the afternoon in "patriot" forums that post the latest conspiracy theory about Hillary posted from WND. 

So I don't want to call anyone a liar. It's just a stretch for anyone supporting/defending Trump to claim any kind of balance from a variety of sources.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-19-2018, 01:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who watches Fox News.  I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who does not put up Fox talking points.

Trump is indeed "destroying PC left culture" which turns out to be the same as destroying civility in public discourse. I don't understand why you think that is good. 

Saying he is "not the best role model" covers the more accurate statement--he is the WORST role model. Could any parent disagree?  But you are ok with that because--he is uncivil? 

He's "not always correct" or NOT OFTEN correct?

You say you don't blindly follow Trump, but I don't see much daylight between Trump's explanations for why he beat Hillary or the Stormy Daniels eruption and yours--especially when you claim it is "proven" that Trump had no affair with Daniels, with no more evidence than Trump's word.

Hahaha ok he can't be the worst, otherwise he wouldn't have beat Hillary?
So, he's 2nd worst.

Really? What was my reason as to why Trump won???
I want to hear it from you, I'm willing to bet you are going to be WRONG, but let's see it.

Stormy Daniels that's a mess, she's recanted, recanted the recant, lost a case and now her STFU and leave me alone money is going to pay Trumps Lawyer. Her credibility is shot, as far as I know she hasn't bothered to prove it, Show me a Timeline??

Can you prove to me that she did with evidence and not just her word? Pics, witnesses? anything?

I still don't blindly follow Trump, I like the direction our economy is going in, I also understand his mentality.

He called Stormy a horse to get his name back into the Spotlight and in regards to her Losing the Defamation case. You know no one wants to cover it for more than a paragraph or run it more than once cause it favors Trump, but not they have to (remember, you have to understand his mentality and way he thinks).

[Dill]

(10-19-2018, 05:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Hahaha ok he can't be the worst, otherwise he wouldn't have beat Hillary?
So, he's 2nd worst.
Really? What was my reason as to why Trump won???
I want to hear it from you, I'm willing to bet you are going to be WRONG, but let's see it.

I believe you said  "you should be mad that the Democrats candidate was so bad that they lost to one of the worst people in the world during the election... oh and hey, I hear she's gearing up for 2020. Go Hillary. Trump will eat her alive this time."

Didn't Trump identify Clinton as "the worst" during the election? And according to a recent tweet, "Crooked" Hillary Clinton "is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-challenges-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-2020-twitter-latest-a8062501.html

Where do you see the differences between your views and Trump's here? Like him, you even urge her to run again. Show me where I am WRONG.

Also, all this talk of "worst" begs the question of how that is defined. The candidate who was most civil, who know most about government and world politics, and who won the popular vote is somehow "the worst"; while the the most uncivil candidate who knew the least about government and lost the popular vote is only "2nd worst."  

(10-19-2018, 05:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Stormy Daniels that's a mess, she's recanted, recanted the recant, lost a case and now her STFU and leave me alone money is going to pay Trumps Lawyer. Her credibility is shot, as far as I know she hasn't bothered to prove it, Show me a Timeline??

Can you prove to me that she did with evidence and not just her word? Pics, witnesses? anything?

I still don't blindly follow Trump, I like the direction our economy is going in, I also understand his mentality.

He called Stormy a horse to get his name back into the Spotlight and in regards to her Losing the Defamation case. You know no one wants to cover it for more than a paragraph or run it more than once cause it favors Trump, but not they have to (remember, you have to understand his mentality and way he thinks).

I certainly understand the "mentality" of a man who publicly calls women "horseface" and "pig" and "Pocahantas" to "get his name back in the spotlight."  It is the mentality of a misogynist.

The real issue here is the mentality of people who say they are also not ok with the misogyny--then blink and shake their heads and support Trump anyway. That is why he is public office shaming the country.

Wikipedia has a decent timeline of the Trump-Daniels affair.

You claim that Daniel's "credibility" is shot because she "recanted the recant."  Trump denied that Cohen was his lawyer, then "recanted," then denied that he paid her 130,000 dollars, then "recanted."  If "recanting" the standard for Daniel's credibility, why not for him too, if you don't "blindly follow Trump"?

And if Trump paid Daniels 130,000 to keep silent, then it is Trump who has to "prove it,"  not her.

Also, you might step back a moment to take in the big picture. You are defending a President who may have violated campaign laws to pay off a porn star through his "fixer" whose job was to kill scandals for that president and his friends--a man whose MO is to deny deny deny deny until he has to admit charges against him. 

Part of the picture is that you and others claims to "understand how he thinks" and still want him for president.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2018, 04:54 PM)Dill Wrote: You claim that Daniel's "credibility" is shot because she "recanted the recant."  Trump denied that Cohen was his lawyer, then "recanted," then denied that he paid her 130,000 dollars, then "recanted."  If "recanting" the standard for Daniel's credibility, why not for him too, if you don't "blindly follow Trump"? 

This is it in a nutshell.  His followers are so brainwashed they believe anything he tells them even after he has lied about it repeatedly.

He gets caught in a lie he just tells them another lie and they completely forget the first lie.  The are just blind puppets.  Give them some tax breaks and they don't care if he rapes their mother.

[Dill]

(10-22-2018, 05:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is it in a nutshell.  His followers are so brainwashed they believe anything he tells them even after he has lied about it repeatedly.

He gets caught in a lie he just tells them another lie and they completely forget the first lie.  The are just blind puppets.  Give them some tax breaks and they don't care if he rapes their mother.

But the dispensation for Trump doesn't apply to anyone else, especially Democrats.

They are bad because they LIE and can't be trusted. Trump can be trusted when he is always lying.

This is also a worldview particularly reliant on right wing news sources for clues as to how to interpret Trump's inconsistencies.
E.g., he's really the most "honest" president because he keeps his word about the important stuff. The constant bad press is because of liberal bias, not because of Trump's latest public personal insult about women's looks or weekly policy about faces or the chaos in the WH.

Obama separated parents and children at the border too!

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-22-2018, 04:54 PM)Dill Wrote: I believe you said  "you should be mad that the Democrats candidate was so bad that they lost to one of the worst people in the world during the election... oh and hey, I hear she's gearing up for 2020. Go Hillary. Trump will eat her alive this time."

Didn't Trump identify Clinton as "the worst" during the election? And according to a recent tweet, "Crooked" Hillary Clinton "is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-challenges-hillary-clinton-us-presidential-election-2020-twitter-latest-a8062501.html

Where do you see the differences between your views and Trump's here? Like him, you even urge her to run again. Show me where I am WRONG.

Also, all this talk of "worst" begs the question of how that is defined. The candidate who was most civil, who know most about government and world politics, and who won the popular vote is somehow "the worst"; while the the most uncivil candidate who knew the least about government and lost the popular vote is only "2nd worst."  

I certainly understand the "mentality" of a man who publicly calls women "horseface" and "pig" and "Pocahantas" to "get his name back in the spotlight."  It is the mentality of a misogynist.

The real issue here is the mentality of people who say they are also not ok with the misogyny--then blink and shake their heads and support Trump anyway. That is why he is public office shaming the country.

Wikipedia has a decent timeline of the Trump-Daniels affair.

You claim that Daniel's "credibility" is shot because she "recanted the recant."  Trump denied that Cohen was his lawyer, then "recanted," then denied that he paid her 130,000 dollars, then "recanted."  If "recanting" the standard for Daniel's credibility, why not for him too, if you don't "blindly follow Trump"?

And if Trump paid Daniels 130,000 to keep silent, then it is Trump who has to "prove it,"  not her.

Also, you might step back a moment to take in the big picture. You are defending a President who may have violated campaign laws to pay off a porn star through his "fixer" whose job was to kill scandals for that president and his friends--a man whose MO is to deny deny deny deny until he has to admit charges against him. 

Part of the picture is that you and others claims to "understand how he thinks" and still want him for president.

You didn't give me MY Reason as to why Trump won. Both candidates were terrible choices, but the reason why she lost is pretty simple.

She catered to the rich. Trump got out there and got the middle class riled up with promises of Jobs and an Improved Economy.
The Middle Class doesn't give a whip about BeYonce bouncing her butt on stage or Madonna promising people BJ's if you vote for Hillary. That shit doesn't put food on the table. Her message about how to build the economy and get people jobs was never heard or materialized.

Bill even told her to switch her focus or she will lose. That is why she lost the election.

[Benton]

(10-23-2018, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: She catered to the rich. Trump got out there and got the middle class riled up with promises of Jobs and an Improved Economy.

I don't disagree but I am curious: midway through, do you think trump has catered predominantly to the rich?

[Dill]

(10-23-2018, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You didn't give me MY Reason as to why Trump won. Both candidates were terrible choices, but the reason why she lost is pretty simple.

She catered to the rich. Trump got out there and got the middle class riled up with promises of Jobs and an Improved Economy.
The Middle Class doesn't give a whip about BeYonce bouncing her butt on stage or Madonna promising people BJ's if you vote for Hillary. That shit doesn't put food on the table. Her message about how to build the economy and get people jobs was never heard or materialized.

Bill even told her to switch her focus or she will lose. That is why she lost the election.

Mike, would you dispute the claim Trump's numbers jumped when advanced "the wall" and the Muslim ban?

Was the middle class more concerned about that stuff than jobs?

What do you mean "catered to the rich"? Did she promise tax cuts to the top ten percent? Oppose the minimum wage? Abolish estate taxes? Oppose unions?

Also, I remember Hillary said quite a bit about jobs and the economy. She certainly wanted to keep Obama's recovery going.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/politics/hillary-clinton-economy-jobs-fact-check/index.html

This was not heard on Fox, probably.

[GMDino]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-aide-ricardel-no-longer-deserves-serve-first-194655656.html

Quote:Trump aide Ricardel 'no longer deserves' to serve: first lady's office

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. first lady Melania Trump has asked that the White House sever ties with deputy national security adviser Mira Ricardel, a spokeswoman for the first lady's office said on Tuesday.


"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House," said Stephanie Grisham, the spokeswoman.


Grisham was responding to reports that President Donald Trump is moving to replace Ricardel, a top aide to John Bolton, after she feuded with Melania Trump.

Video at the link.