Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2018, 09:42 AM)jj22 Wrote: I mean if you want to act like Trump hasn't been accused of sexual assault and rape then so be it.

My point remains. Melanie stayed with him and supported him. If you attack Hillary for staying with Bill then you must do the same to Melania, or we just can't trust your views.

No, don't whatabout, actually answer the question.  You intimated that the women Bill was involved with sexually were partially to blame for Bill's infidelity.  I asked you about the woman who accused him of raping her.  Do you stand by Hillary's actions against this woman or is that more of "stand by your man" in your mind?

[jj22]

I believe it's stand by your man. That's what women do. Right or wrong. How many times have we seen women attack the girl and not their cheating spouse? I stand by Hillary's actions as a wife just as I do Melania's.

Now back to my point your trying to avoid due to you guy's hypocrisy. Why is it different for you when it comes to Hillary and not Melania?

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 11:00 AM)jj22 Wrote: I believe it's stand by your man. That's what women do. Right or wrong. How many times have we seen women attack the girl and not their cheating spouse? I stand by Hillary's actions as a wife just as I do Melania's.

Now back to my point your trying to avoid due to you guy's hypocrisy. Why is it different for you when it comes to Hillary and not Melania?

Hillary is "bitchy".  Melania is "cool".

[jj22]

(07-18-2018, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Hillary is "bitchy".  Melania is "cool".

Right.

**crickets**

But they can carry on slamming Hillary for standing by Bill. Even as they support Melania.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-17-2018, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah...it's exactly the same when I hold Trump accountable for his actions and words and we he calls anyone who disagrees with him a loser or some other made up, 3rd grade nickname.

Exactly the same.

Yep.

Hey, you want to be a hypocrite, by all means, go ahead; while I go ahead and call out your hypocrisy.

(07-17-2018, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sure thing.  Whatever helps you ignore what Trump is.  

Did I say Trump was NOT a con-man?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Hillary is "bitchy".  Melania is "cool".

Correct.  Feel better JJ?

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 11:00 AM)jj22 Wrote: I believe it's stand by your man. That's what women do. Right or wrong. How many times have we seen women attack the girl and not their cheating spouse? I stand by Hillary's actions as a wife just as I do Melania's.

Now back to my point your trying to avoid due to you guy's hypocrisy. Why is it different for you when it comes to Hillary and not Melania?

Well as I mentioned earlier the major difference is only one has ran for POTUS and therefore deserves public scrutiny. 

Secondly, perhaps it is because Melenia has not always stood by her man as she has made public on a number of occasions.

Thirdly, Melenia is as fine as frog hair

Did you like how Melania stood by her man of the child separation issue? 

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Hillary is "bitchy".  Melania is "cool".

(07-18-2018, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well as I mentioned earlier the major difference is only one has ran for POTUS and therefore deserves public scrutiny. 

Secondly, perhaps it is because Melenia has not always stood by her man as she has made public on a number of occasions.

Thirdly, Melenia is as fine as frog hair

Did you like how Melania stood by her man of the child separation issue? 

How objectifying of you.  Clearly you understand the finer points of the conversation at hand.  

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 12:57 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hey, you want to be a hypocrite, by all means, go ahead; while I go ahead and call out your hypocrisy.


Did I say Trump was NOT a con-man?

Yep.  made up nicknames like Trump uses versus me explaining what he does what he looks like make me a hypocrite.
Trump supporters will say anything to protect him.

Got it.

Indeed you did!  Admitting you have a problem is the first step!

Bye!

[jj22]

(07-18-2018, 01:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well as I mentioned earlier the major difference is only one has ran for POTUS and therefore deserves public scrutiny. 

Secondly, perhaps it is because Melenia has not always stood by her man as she has made public on a number of occasions.

Thirdly, Melenia is as fine as frog hair

Did you like how Melania stood by her man of the child separation issue? 

By flaunting that she "really doesn't care"? No I thought that was pretty tacky honestly, and not sure why her handlers thought that was "cool" given where she was going...... But if that was Michelle who wore that on a visit of child concentration camps could you imagine the outrage?!

Honestly Bfine, I just don't like the hypocrisy. I understand it with Politicians, but it's a bad look for American voters who know better but still play the fool. That's all I really want to point out in these discussions.

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 02:20 PM)jj22 Wrote: By flaunting that she "really doesn't care"? No I thought that was pretty tacky honestly, and not sure why her handlers thought that was "cool" given where she was going...... But if that was Michelle who wore that on a visit of child concentration camps could you imagine the outrage?!

Honestly Bfine, I just don't like the hypocrisy. I understand it with Politicians, but it's a bad look for American voters who know better but still play the fool.  That's all I really want to point out in these discussions.

Hypocrisy is indeed a funny thing as is irrational bias. We'll just disagree if you assert FLOTUS' attitude toward child separation was that she flaunted the opinion the she "really didn't care.

[jj22]

Well she made the statement not me.

[GMDino]

And (on topic of the thread) again....


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/18/donald-trump-gives-nato-new-reason-nervous-montenegro/795263002/

Quote:Donald Trump gives NATO new reason to be nervous: defending Montenegro

WASHINGTON – NATO members already worried about President Donald Trump's commitment to the European defense alliance have a new reason to be nervous.



Montenegro, or at least Trump's latest comments about it.


In an interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News, Trump again seemed to question the NATO commitment to mutual defense, and cited the alliance's newest member – Montenegro – as an example.


When Carlson asked, "why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack," Trump responded: "I understand what you're saying. I've asked the same question."


Trump went on to say that Montenegro, a small Balkan country on the Adriatic Sea, could somehow be the instigator of conflict, as opposed to, say, a country like Russia.


Montenegro has "very aggressive people," Trump said. "They may get aggressive and congratulations, you're in World War III. Now I understand that ... but that's the way it was set up."

Supporters of NATO – many of whom are also concerned about Trump's relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin – pointed out that NATO's mutual defense commitment is a deterrent, and has largely kept the peace in Europe since World War II.

"Alliance trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets," tweeted Mark Hertling, a former U.S. Army commander in Europe.


Article 5 of the NATO charter says "the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all," and that they agree to "assist the Party or Parties so attacked."


During his recent trip to Europe, Trump criticized NATO members by saying they were not contributing enough to the alliance, and he has frequently questioned NATO's relevance in the modern world. 


Trump mentioned NATO costs in his interview with Carson, telling him: "Add that to your little equation on Montenegro."

The president taped the interview after his much-criticized news conference with Putin, another NATO critic.


Many NATO members regard Putin as a threat, citing his seizure of the Crimea region of Ukraine and his cyberattacks on a variety of countries – including the United States during Trump's presidential election in 2016.


Putin has angrily criticized NATO expansion. In 2016, he and Russia were accused of fomenting a coup in a country as it applied to join NATO: Montenegro.


Trump also has previous history of sorts with the small Balkan nation: During the NATO summit last year, Trump pushed aside Montenegro Prime Minister Dusko Markovic to get to the front row for a photo op.

[GMDino]

And, yet again, Trump is a liar/fool

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630123093/trump-again-contradicts-intelligence-officials-says-russia-not-targeting-u-s?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180718

Quote:Trump Again Contradicts Intelligence Officials, Says Russia Not Targeting U.S.



Less than 24 hours after proclaiming his "full faith and support for America's great intelligence agencies," President Trump contradicted those agencies once again.

Asked by reporters at the start of a Cabinet meeting if Russia is still targeting the U.S., Trump shook his head and answered "no."

POLITICS
Trump Walks Back Controversial Comments On Russian Election Interference

POLITICS
Transcript: Dan Coats Warns Of Continuing Russian Cyberattacks

That is counter to a warning issued by his director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, who said last week that "the warning signs are there. The system is blinking," and that "today, the digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under attack."

Trump said Wednesday, "There's never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been," citing economic sanctions. Earlier, he tweeted that "so many people at the higher ends of intelligence" loved his press conference in Helsinki," and that he got along well with Putin, "which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match."

Quote:
[/url]Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump





So many people at the higher ends of intelligence loved my press conference performance in Helsinki. Putin and I discussed many important subjects at our earlier meeting. We got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match. Big results will come!
5:53 AM - Jul 18, 2018

• 
  67.2K
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1019520574371123200]56.2K people are talking about this
  

Twitter Ads info and privacy



At that Helsinki press conference following his meeting with Putin on Monday, Trump was asked if he had confronted Putin about Russia's interference in the 2016 election. In response, Trump said that his "people came to me," and said "they think it's Russia." As Putin looked on beside him, Trump said, "I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be."

On Wednesday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham pointed to "a big discrepancy" between Trump's latest statement and Coates' warning.

"It's imperative we get to the bottom of what is going on so we can be prepared to protect ourselves in advance of the 2018 elections," Graham said.

On Tuesday, Trump read from a printed statement, and said he had misspoken.
"The sentence should have been, 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia,' sort of a double negative," Trump said. "So you can put that in, and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good."

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 02:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: How objectifying of you.  Clearly you understand the finer points of the conversation at hand.  

What if he just commented on her arms?

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 04:41 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What if he just commented on her arms?

Surely he respects women too much to comment on their looks!  

[GMDino]

https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/editorial-a-punishable-disgrace

Quote:Editorial: A Punishable Disgrace

• THE EDITORS

July 17, 2018 at 5:54 AM
A new new low.
THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s editors do not hold identical opinions on the frequently baffling and always changing phenomenon known as President Donald Trump. It’s fair to say that none of us is a fan of the president, but some of us are more critical, some more sympathetic. All of us, however, were appalled and saddened by Trump’s behavior in Helsinki, Finland on Monday.

Trump has of course long refused to concede what’s patently obvious to everybody else: that operatives of the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The president has long been unwilling to admit this reality, feeling as he does that the media likes to talk about it mainly in order to suggest that he only won the election against Hillary Clinton with the aid of Russian troublemakers.

It is, perhaps, understandable that a narcissist like Trump would feel some inner conflict about dealing with this subject.
The trouble is that he does not and evidently cannot distinguish between (a) the now well documented verdict that Russian operatives interfered with the U.S. election and (b) the as yet unproven accusation that the Trump campaign actively participated with the Russians in their efforts. So offended is he by even the mention of the latter that he is willing to deny the former—even to the point of publicly taking the word of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin against his own intelligence personnel on the question of Russian meddling. Trump has chosen, in public, not to grasp the difference between the two.

Asked whether Trump credits American intelligence officials’ conclusion that the Russian government was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s server, Trump could have declined to answer or answered vaguely. Instead the president complained again that the FBI didn’t confiscate his 2016 opponent’s email server, and then took Putin’s side: “My people came to me, [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats and some others, they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be [Russia].”

It got worse. When Putin—not Trump but Putin—was asked why Americans should believe that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election, Trump jumped in to defend his friend. The president interjected: “The whole concept of that came up perhaps a little bit before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election, which frankly they should have been able to win, because the Electoral College is more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans. . . . We ran a brilliant campaign, and that’s why I’m president.”

That Trump said all this on foreign soil, and in the presence of this nation’s chief adversary, only adds to the outrage.

The president’s defenders, incapable as ever of criticizing the man for any reason, are now comparing the president’s remarks to Barack Obama’s 2012 open-mic remarks to Russian foreign minister Dmitry Medvedev that “I’ll have a lot more flexibility after I win the election in 2012.” That was a deplorable moment in presidential history, to be sure, but it doesn’t compare to what Trump did in openly crediting a foreign dictator’s assessment over that of American intelligence officials—particularly when the dictator’s assessment is so obviously a lie. In any case, we are fully confident that if Barack Obama had expressed himself as Donald Trump did today, the latter’s defenders would have condemned Obama as the stooge of a foreign government. And they would have been right to do so.

If we judge the administration by its policies rather than the president by his words, Trump doesn’t appear a stooge. But words have consequences—especially words spoken by the leader of one superpower about the leader of another at an open diplomatic forum. His words on Monday encouraged the nation’s enemies, insulted its intelligence officers, made the president himself look like a fool, and thus brought disgrace on the presidency.

Already some Republicans, and not just his usual critics, have either distanced themselves from Trump’s remarks or straightforwardly rebuked the president—House Speaker Paul Ryan, Rep. Liz Cheney, Rep. Peter Roskam, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Lindsey Graham, among others. Only one president in history, Andrew Jackson, has ever been censured by Congress, but Republicans on the Hill would not be out of line in seeking a formal censure of Donald Trump. We understand that such a measure would be largely symbolic. But symbols matter. It would be no small thing for congressional Republicans to declare, in a formal manner, that a president who coddles and defends an anti-American despot doesn’t deserve their support. It’s hardly a far-fetched idea: Many Congressional Democrats, remember, advocated the censure rather than the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998. Passage of a censure resolution by the House or Senate would bring no concrete consequences, but it would be a powerful statement from the GOP that the party’s leaders will not simply ignore or excuse a sitting U.S. president of either party openly crediting America’s enemies at the expense of its public servants—and of the truth.

Left without comment.

(I figure Matt will want to give a long dissertation on censuring the POTUS.   )

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 04:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/editorial-a-punishable-disgrace



Left without comment.

(I figure Matt will want to give a long dissertation on censuring the POTUS.   )

I agree with one of Dino’s stories!!! That flexibility comment by Obama was deplorable.

[Vas Deferens]

Daddy is going to let Granddaddy come over and interrogate US citizens.

Total power bottom move.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2018, 04:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/editorial-a-punishable-disgrace

Left without comment.

(I figure Matt will want to give a long dissertation on censuring the POTUS.   )

No long dissertation, just that I feel censure is a completely appropriate response to this shit show.