They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[ohsherrie]

I LOVE that, can I use it?

[ohsherrie]

This post represents the hypocrisy of all the outrage being spouted by the Democrats In Hollywood and Washington and you know it.

Supporting Trumps policies and Trumps behavior are not the same. I imagine that many of my Democrat friends who support Hillary's policies abhor her support of Weinstein, Bill Clinton and probably others.

Trump is a pig as it relates to his statements and actions regarding the treatment of women over the years. So is/were Bill Clinton, JFK, Bob Packwood, Gary Hart, and hundreds of other political figures over the years. Reagan worked in Hollywood during the 40s and 50s. Does anyone think that he was completely virtuous? GHW Bush, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Wilson, Harding, Taft... Various presidents all the way back to Jefferson all were rumored or have been shown to have had mistresses over the years. Some while in the White House, others before/after.

They are men. Men are often pigs. Until two weeks ago, it was known and accepted in Hollywood. Until Trump, it was known and mostly accepted among politicians (as long as you were the right party). In the few cases where it became known and an issue, it was either defended by the media/hollywood (JFK, Clinton) because the person was "too important" to fail, or their careers were ruined (Packwood, Hart).

Turn on any TV show, broadcast or cable, and there is sex either graphically shown (HBO,Showtime), discussed or insinuated. Commercials for Beer, cars, hamburgers (Carl's Jr) all use sex to sell. Most of these ads have been historically targeted to men. Even the ones which are not, usually are targeted to women to make them sexier to men. Because men are often pigs who think with their penis rather than their head.

Most often, when people attain a role of power they think that the rules don't always apply to them. People get treated like crap by them, but keep quiet and perpetuate it because if furthers their personal interest to do so (casting couch gets the role/sex with the boss gets the promotion). Or if they try to bring it to light, they are shamed and vilified by the supporters of the accused (see Clinton accusers as example), or paid to go away.

Even in the Bible, King David saw Bathsheba naked taking a bath and had her brought to him to have sex with him. He then went so far as to have her husband sent to the front lines in battle, then the rest of the army pulled back so that he was killed in battle in an effort to try and cover up the love child conceived between David and Bathsheba. And David was a guy with hundreds of wives and concubines already, but he just HAD to have one more. A pig.

And yet the Bible says that David was a man after God's own heart. It comes back to the fact that he was a man, and men are often pigs.

A hashtag of #me too is nice, almost cute, but won't solve the problem. Cartoons showing the hypocrisy of one side's outrage may be witty, but won't solve it either. In the political realm, it just cranks up the noise.

For what other reason do we express our opinions on this forum than to "make noise" to each other?

I adored Bill Clinton and didn't give a damn about what he did with willing women, I feel the sam way about Trump. I don't believe either of them assaulted any unwilling women.

You're right that men have historically used women and thought of them as creatures put here for their purposes and some vestiges of that attitude still exist. But "we've come a long way baby" and when it comes to "objectifying comments" women can be just as guilty of that as men.

[ohsherrie]

Not a deflection. I said months ago that Republicans no longer have any moral high ground. They spent decades building themselves up as the party of morals and family values, even courting Christian fundamentalists. When the Republicans NOMINATED Trump, they became hypocrites and lost any high ground that they had. Hearing Billy Graham's son try to explain how he could still endorse Trump after the "Access Hollywood" tape came out was disgraceful. Billy Bush gets fired over it, and Trump gets elected President...how is that for hypocrisy?

Until you clean up your own President and vote according to how you preach, you are a hypocrite - at best - when you post such cartoons critiquing other people (ANYBODY, not just Democrats) moral character. Clean up your own house before you complain about somebody else.

Hardly anybody in politics has any moral high ground regarding sexual antics but those are the least of my worries. They just detract from the real problems, as does all of this BS about Russia helping Trump steal the election. I'm more interested in what Obama and Clinton did with the Russians and uranium.

[Boomchild]

I LOVE that, can I use it?

I didn't create it. Just found it and shared it. I think it would make a great t-shirt. If I had the money I would buy billboard space in Hollywood to display this.

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

Hey Boomchild, I'm with you now on Sessions, although when asked yesterday about a investigation into the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, the FBI, Russia,ect, he said,"I don't comment on on going investigations". Could be he's like Trump and keeps his mouth shut until it's time. But I'd sure like to see some HARD FACTS about them being indited coming forth.

That seems to contradict reports that said Sessions said he was not going to have additional investigating into Hillary. I believe that was concerning the private email server case. Nothing has really changed in the FBI and justice department to make me think much has changed. It seems to me there is still a practice to protect people. We know Sessions is not looking to purse the IRS scandal. For me that is criminal in it self. In my opinion, a former politician should NEVER be appointed head of the justice system. Especially some with Sessions' tenure.

[tj]

For what other reason do we express our opinions on this forum than to "make noise" to each other?

I adored Bill Clinton and didn't give a damn about what he did with willing women, I feel the sam way about Trump. I don't believe either of them assaulted any unwilling women.

You're right that men have historically used women and thought of them as creatures put here for their purposes and some vestiges of that attitude still exist. But "we've come a long way baby" and when it comes to "objectifying comments" women can be just as guilty of that as men.

I agree that this whole thread is about making noise with each other. No problem there. No one should come here expecting to change anyone else's mind. Sort of like sports team fans trash talking each other.

So are you saying that Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, etc. are not a problem if they use the power of their position to "get some"? If the women "give it up" because they believe this is how they can advance/hang on to their careers it is OK and the women have no right to complain? Not judging, just trying to clarify.

Also agree that women can and often are as guilty as men.

[tj]

More Demnocratic Bullshit and out and out lies exposed. Great Presser. I wonder how many sparkle cowboy clown hats that bitch owns?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps5ttDzWBaY

I think that her cowboy hats are her version of Trumps orange hair. They look ridiculous on both of them. I think that we should go back to wearing powdered wigs. If it was good enough for the founding fathers...

[tj]

Hey Boomie, Lynch was drug before a Senate Committee for questioning this morning. She didn't look very happy about being questioned about Uranium One. We'll see what happens.

Something like 8 agencies signed off on the deal, so it will be very difficult, IMO, to pin this on Hilary though I think it was absolutely a quid pro quo. Just like the email server, she was very focused on attempting to keep things out of sight and/or muddied the water enough so that if it became known, she could claim that it was not the best decision in hindsight.

If Nixon did one thing right (or wrong), it was to show that you better have multiple layers of plausible deniability for everything that might be perceived as illegal. Hilary, Barry, and Bill learned that lesson well.

[Boomchild]

Hey Boomie, Lynch was drug before a Senate Committee for questioning this morning. She didn't look very happy about being questioned about Uranium One. We'll see what happens.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10 ... inton.html

Haven't been watching. Did she give any meaningful answers to anything? If I were to guess, I would say no. With all these "special committees" that have happened, we haven't seen anything really getting done.

[Boomchild]

They have enough to nail Hillary's ass to the cross. Seems no one wants too......yet.

And if anything would connect to Obama being involved, you can surely bet they aren't going to pursue prosecution.

[ohsherrie]

For what other reason do we express our opinions on this forum than to "make noise" to each other?

I adored Bill Clinton and didn't give a damn about what he did with willing women, I feel the sam way about Trump. I don't believe either of them assaulted any unwilling women.

You're right that men have historically used women and thought of them as creatures put here for their purposes and some vestiges of that attitude still exist. But "we've come a long way baby" and when it comes to "objectifying comments" women can be just as guilty of that as men.

I agree that this whole thread is about making noise with each other. No problem there. No one should come here expecting to change anyone else's mind. Sort of like sports team fans trash talking each other.

So are you saying that Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, etc. are not a problem if they use the power of their position to "get some"? If the women "give it up" because they believe this is how they can advance/hang on to their careers it is OK and the women have no right to complain? Not judging, just trying to clarify.

Also agree that women can and often are as guilty as men.

Unless the women were forced or coerced in some way allowing it to happen equates to consent IMO . If your virtue, ethics or what ever you want to call it is so outraged that you don't either speak up when it happens or get out of the environment in which it happens, with some exceptions, you've given up your right to complain later.

If a woman is drugged, physically overpowered, a family member is threatened, etc, those are different situations but I haven't heard any accusations of that.

This doesn't mean that I think using executive power is acceptable, but it isn't force or coercion. I think the men are scumsuckers but no crime has been committed. Therefore unless a woman refuses she is technically consenting.

As far as I know President Trump has done none of the above.

[Monker]

For what other reason do we express our opinions on this forum than to "make noise" to each other?

I adored Bill Clinton and didn't give a damn about what he did with willing women, I feel the sam way about Trump. I don't believe either of them assaulted any unwilling women.

You're right that men have historically used women and thought of them as creatures put here for their purposes and some vestiges of that attitude still exist. But "we've come a long way baby" and when it comes to "objectifying comments" women can be just as guilty of that as men.

I agree that this whole thread is about making noise with each other. No problem there. No one should come here expecting to change anyone else's mind. Sort of like sports team fans trash talking each other.

So are you saying that Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, etc. are not a problem if they use the power of their position to "get some"? If the women "give it up" because they believe this is how they can advance/hang on to their careers it is OK and the women have no right to complain? Not judging, just trying to clarify.

Also agree that women can and often are as guilty as men.

Unless the women were forced or coerced in some way allowing it to happen equates to consent IMO . If your virtue, ethics or what ever you want to call it is so outraged that you don't either speak up when it happens or get out of the environment in which it happens, with some exceptions, you've given up your right to complain later.

If a woman is drugged, physically overpowered, a family member is threatened, etc, those are different situations but I haven't heard any accusations of that.

This doesn't mean that I think using executive power is acceptable, but it isn't force or coercion. I think the men are scumsuckers but no crime has been committed. Therefore unless a woman refuses she is technically consenting.

As far as I know President Trump has done none of the above.

Trump has had all o these accusations made towards him, including Ivana accusing him of rape during their divorce. Sitting beside women in clubs so he could put his hand up her skirt and fondle them. Having a stewardess seat him so he could fondle constantly hit on and eventually fondle her. It's not about consent, it's about power and who has it. There is a great line in Disclosure (the book, not sure about the movie, "“Harassment is about power---the undue exercise of power by a superior over a subordinate.” Or, "“You have to realize, all these decisions are about power. Sexual harassment is about power, and so is the company’s resistance to dealing with it.”

I don't care what you believe, the fact is at no time did any of these women have the power to say 'no'. There is a tape of Weinstein trying to get a woman alone. At no time does he allow 'no' for an answer. At no time does he give up his power over her. At no time were they ever equals. That alone is harassment. When Trump puts his hand up a woman's skirt, without any warning or sign that it was OK, he is committing sexual assault. He did not even give the woman the opportunity to say no. If Trump rolled his fat ass on top of Ivana in the middle of the night and had his way with her, without giving her the chance to say 'yes' or 'no', that is called RAPE. Every man out there should KNOW this...because I bet many, many men have committed assault or rape and do not even realize it.

[Monker]

Hey Boomie, Lynch was drug before a Senate Committee for questioning this morning. She didn't look very happy about being questioned about Uranium One. We'll see what happens.

Something like 8 agencies signed off on the deal, so it will be very difficult, IMO, to pin this on Hilary though I think it was absolutely a quid pro quo. Just like the email server, she was very focused on attempting to keep things out of sight and/or muddied the water enough so that if it became known, she could claim that it was not the best decision in hindsight.

If Nixon did one thing right (or wrong), it was to show that you better have multiple layers of plausible deniability for everything that might be perceived as illegal. Hilary, Barry, and Bill learned that lesson well.

You are correct about the multiple agencies having to sign off on the deal. To prove Clinton was responsible, you will need PROOF that she pandered to the other agencies to get their vote. As far as I know, that never happened. The deal also happened when the "reset" policy was in effect. So, there was a general desire to show good will towards Russia. Finally, Russia wanted the deal not for our uranium...because to use it they would need a special export license - which they do not have, so they can't even use it. They wanted it for rights in Ukraine, to monopolize the market in their own country.

The entire subject is made up bullshit.

[Monker]

No Monker, it's not. Your post is whats bullshit. Of course the only news source that you'd watch that covered anything was CNN, they gave it 19 seconds this week. The others are blacking it outexcept Fox of course. Bribes, COLLUSION, payoffs, Obama forcing silence with threats. It's coming out. It's out, and the Clintons sold us out for personal gain. They can be on their way to prison now with whats been exposed. The question is, why aren't they? At least now it's being looked at. My guess is the Deep State on both sides is delaying and covering.

No, it's conspiracy theory BULLSHIT. In order for Clinton to have any real influence over Uranium One's approval she would have to have influenced 8 different agencies to ALSO approve it....NOT JUST THE STATE DEPARTMENT. YES, it had her support. Was that so surprising in a time when the administration (and especially Hillary) supporting a "reset" in relations with Russia? It's not. YES, the Clinton Foundation received donations from Russians. But, that alone does not equate to quid pro quo...what did they receive? ONE VOTE to approve the sale? That's not enough to prove any type of wrong doing.

My source is not CNN. It is ANY fact checking site out there...and I checked several beyond just Snopes. What you are spreading here is a lie and fake news. It's wrong and needs to be called out for what it is.

The "Deep State" is a fantasy and made up bullshit to blame invisible enemies that do not exist. That is also bullshit. It's like insane people hearing voices in their head and blaming them for their actions. The "Deep State" is not putting forth influence to stop investigations and such...it doesn't exist. The DOJ is just not hearing the same insanity in their ears that you do.

[verslibre]

https://twitter.com/JaimsVanDerBeek/status/921175367854866432

[Boomchild]

Of course she can prove this with evidence and facts, right????

‘Cold creepiness’ – Assange on Clinton after she calls WikiLeaks ‘Russian intelligence subsidiary’

Hillary Clinton claimed in an interview with the ABC’s Four Corners program that Assange colluded with the Russian government in the lead-up to the 2016 US presidential election.

“Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” she said.

“WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence.”

Clinton claimed that in a bid to disrupt the election and derail her presidential campaign, Assange teamed up with none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I think that their intention, coming from the very top with Putin, was to hurt me and to help [then-presidential hopeful Donald] Trump,” she said.

https://www.rt.com/news/406797-assange- ... wikileaks/

[Boomchild]

Hey Boomer, I don't think this is going to go away.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bann ... tant-cover

While I'm here, I have to admit I never thought I'd ever like anything that came out of Carters mouth, but yesterday I learned there can be a first for everything. Carter said, "We didn't vote for Clinton. We voted for Sanders". So the Carters got screwed too.

"The Media is too hard on Trump".

"People should stand for the National Anthem".

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/jimmy ... w-2017-10/

In my opinion, had the collusion between Hillary's campaign and those in power at the DNC, Bernie most likely would have pulled off the Democratic primary. Of course the MSM propaganda outlets aren't going to be talking about the uranium scandal. I highly doubt that anyone will go after Obama. Being that he is the first African American POTUS, no one is going to be charging him or dragging him into court. If by some chance that happens, brace yourself for a race war.

[slucero]

Flippin hilarious that this over a year-long series of 3 investigations into Trump-Russia is now morphing into an investigation into Clinton-Russia bribery...

[Boomchild]

Monker said,"The whole situation is bullshit". No Monker, bullshit is what you are feeding. Laid out nicely as usual with THE FACTS. Hey Monker, what if everybody that signed off was paid off?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/562307477200 ... show-clips

Boomer, this time it isn't going away. Even NBC had a story about Meuller today investigating Podesta's brother.

I'm really not looking to get into a debate on it. Everyone has their thoughts and positions. Sure this could go on and on. The political talking heads can comment and analyze it, Congressional committees could be formed etc. As far as Meuller, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. Do you? As far as Obama being indicted or charged with a crime, I'll believe it when I see it. When thinking about this stuff may I suggest you consider the following. At the tail end of the election campaign, Trump specifically stated that if elected he was "going to recommend a special prosecutor be assigned to investigate Hillary". When he was asked about this a few months after being in office he said he wasn't going to do so and used the excuse " we all need to come together now as a nation". This is a complete reversal. So it should be no surprise about AG Sessions' lack of action when it comes to Hillary. From me these actions do not give me the impression that anyone is looking for the truth or more importantly justice.

[Boomchild]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-illegals-jump-border-fence-msnbc-reports-trump-wall/
The Wall, by MSNBC.

Nothing new. There have been plenty of times this type of thing has happened on camera. If I'm correct the same thing happened when McCain paid a taped visit to the border. I know, you know, the country knows the boarder fencing is inadequate.

[Monker]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-illegals-jump-border-fence-msnbc-reports-trump-wall/
The Wall, by MSNBC.

Yeah, well, what was it Trump himself said about his wall? Something like:
We are going to have ourselves a big 30ft wall on the border. Good luck getting over that. Well, unless you have a 30ft ladder. But, it's 30ft up, with no way to get down. Unless you brought a rope.

Fucking morons, all of you. If you notice, they jump the fence and go right over to border patrol to turn themselves in. They WANT to be caught...at least these few did. A wall isn't going to stop that...they are desperate enough to find away.

[Monker]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-illegals-jump-border-fence-msnbc-reports-trump-wall/
The Wall, by MSNBC.

Fuck Hannity. He and Trump are lunch buddies. What do you expect him to say? I wonder how many times he had to give Trump HIS loyalty pledge?

[Monker]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-illegals-jump-border-fence-msnbc-reports-trump-wall/
The Wall, by MSNBC.

Fuck Hannity. He and Trump are lunch buddies. What do you expect him to say? I wonder how many times he had to give Trump HIS loyalty pledge?

Ya dodge the source, don't deal with the facts. The story is getting out. Keep your head in the sand. You'll get run over. You sure as hell won't hear about it with your sources. Although you also ignored the post from MSNBC in your hurry to go,"Hannity......" I really don't care if you listen to it or not. It's on here to show everyone else that you haven't a clue and you're posting lies.Russia is falling on your side,HARD. THE BIGGEST SCANDLE IN HISTORY is about to drop on democrats. The sellout of America by the Clintons and Obama's team.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... ign=buffer

It's the biggest fake news story in history. EVEN Hannitty said they sold yellow cake uranium to Canada, which is illegal because they do not have the proper license. HANNITY said that. Russia can not do ANYTHING with the uranium because they do not have an export license. They KNEW this. Hannity is LYING when he said Russia wanted our uranium. Why the fuck would they want uranium that they can not move out of the US? It's just fucking stupid. Uranium One was/is an international company that controls mines in multiple countries...only a small part of it is in the US. Hannity is also lying when he starts ranting about the big bad Russia that everybody hates so why did she vote for the deal? She voted that way because she was in favor of the Russian "reset" at that time. It's as simple as that.

NONE of the rest of this story is new. The "news" about donations goes back YEARS. If you want to prove something illegal you have to prove the Clinton's put pressure or some type of influence on the other agencies that had to sign off on the deal. They simply didn't. Therefore, there is NOTHING wrong here.

[Monker]

Hey, look what Trump did in a few months that Obama/Clinton couldn't do in what, six years? WINNING!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... of-cruelty

Like the four Green Berets killed in Niger - can you say Benghazi? Hypocrites.

You mean the Green Berets Obama sent over last year to train Niger Army troops to fight ISIS?

No, he means this:

From Dan Rather re: Niger:
"While everyone is so busy talking about Trump's #fakepresident handling of his call to the widow of the soldier killed in Niger, you're all missing the important part of that story -- the part about what happened that night in Niger.
Here's what we know so far:
These soldiers went to a meeting in an area near the border with Mali. This is a well known hot spot for ISIS activity.
Our soldiers were not backed up by US Military air support. No, they were backed up by the French, who were not authorized to intervene or even fire a shot.
Our soldiers did not have armored vehicles. They traveled in pickup trucks.
Our soldiers were given faulty intel that said "it was unlikely that they would meet any hostile forces." Of course, they walked into an ISIS ambush. It was chaotic and they took three casualties.
It took the French 30 minutes to arrive. When they did, they were not authorized to help. So, a dozen of our Green Berets fought a battle with more than 50 ISIS fighters, without help, for 30 minutes.
Finally, a rescue helicopter arrived, but it was not a US military helicopter. No, we apparently outsourced that job to “private contractors.” So, these contractors landed and loaded the remaining troops, the injured and the dead.
Here's where this gets really bad ....
Because they were not military, they never did a head count. That is how Sgt. La David Johnson was left behind.
That's right .... they left him behind.
According to the Pentagon, his locator beacon was activated on the battlefield, which indicates that he was alive when they left him there.
They recovered his body 48 hours later, but are refusing to say where. According to his widow, she was told that she could not have an open casket funeral. This indicates that he was mutilated after being left behind on the battlefield.
This is what led to the nonsense we're obsessing over. This is the real story. As usual, you're allowing it to be about Trump's distraction.
The Trump Pentagon gave these men bad intel, no support, outsourced rescue people and then tried for more than a week to pretend it never happened.
In that time, Trump spoke on many occasions and never mentioned it. He tweeted attacks on many but never mentioned these men.
Only after pressure from the media has he bothered to even acknowledge these men and their service."

[The_Noble_Cause]

Flippin hilarious that this over a year-long series of 3 investigations into Trump-Russia is now morphing into an investigation into Clinton-Russia bribery...

Agreed.

[The_Noble_Cause]

No, it's conspiracy theory BULLSHIT. In order for Clinton to have any real influence over Uranium One's approval she would have to have influenced 8 different agencies to ALSO approve it....NOT JUST THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

WRONG. It was actually one committee of representatives from various government agencies. Sounds like you are just brainlessly repeating talking points again - similar to the "17 agencies" lie. Name all 8 agencies.

[Boomchild]

[Monker]

No, it's conspiracy theory BULLSHIT. In order for Clinton to have any real influence over Uranium One's approval she would have to have influenced 8 different agencies to ALSO approve it....NOT JUST THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

WRONG. It was actually one committee of representatives from various government agencies. Sounds like you are just brainlessly repeating talking points again - similar to the "17 agencies" lie. Name all 8 agencies.

What he did was parrot Hillary. We all know she'd never lie.

What I did was repeat what *I* said about a year and a half ago when you people brought this up the first time. NOTHING has really changed. Nothing came out of it then, nothing will come out of it now. There is STILL no evidence to prove Clinton did anything wrong. Period.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... and-urani/

Of course Republicans are going to 'investigate'...it's just to distract from what Muehler is doing. It is how Trump has ran his presidency from the start. It's how he ran his campaign from the start. When he is faced with an issue, he creates another issue to move the discussion on...and nothing is ever resolved because of it. The problem for him is, Muehler is not 'discussing' this, he is investigating...and the latest BS distraction is irrelevant.

[Memorex]

A YEAR of Clinton lies about the 'golden showers' dossier exposed as Hillary's lawyer is under fire for falsely denying paying for it

It's claimed that Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias and other Democrats falsely denied to reporters their involvement in the 'dirty dossier'

Two New York Times journalists say they were lied to at every turn

It's now established that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias arranged for the campaign and the Democratic Party to pay a dirt-digging firm to produce the dossier

'Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,' Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4wXRosnxw

Isn't everything her and her team does with sanctimony?

Single. Most. Corrupt. Politician. On. The. Planet. Period.