Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[348GTS]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Nice try.  What I did was point out the absurdity of stating that balanced reporting requires 50% positive and 50% negative coverage, and that by that absurd definition Fox is far from balanced.

 

Why are you pointing it out to me? Go and point it out to Harvard who did the study or The Chicago Tribune who reported those findings. As I said in an earlier post, your inability to come to grips with this issue is that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the term "balanced" means, and you have said nothing to disprove that assertion. I did say that 50-50 would imply something perfectly balanced in that context (why is this so hard to understand....), and Fox was rated in that study as 52-48 yet you state "by that absurd definition Fox is far from balanced". Huh ?? So 52-48 is "far" from balanced? So what is 93-07 then ???

 

So you're essentially saying that you are correct because you don't agree with what Harvard's claims are or their definition of what the term balanced implies. Got it.

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

What you could or couldn't care less about is irrelevant. I couldn't care even less that you couldn't care less about what I watch or not. It is not "obvious" I am anything of the sort. The irony in your comments is that you spout about rational arguments and facts yet use none in your own arguments. Most / all anti Trump rhetoric is based in the denial to accept reality that your side lost the election to a man that you don't like personally or whose politics you disagree with. So you will do anything you can to remove him from power, regardless of how bad that will be for the country. You wax lyrical about Trump and his "disgusting perverted movement" while glossing over the reality that had he lost the election the alternative would have been a lot worse. Apart from the fact that you would have the most corrupt person to ever run for office as president, someone how has actually broken several federal laws already, but you would have an actual "pervert" in the White House as her husband. You people crack me up. Wait till the investigations are done into the corruption of the Obama FBI and the Uranium One scandal. Trump will come out looking like a choirboy in comparison.

You think having someone knowledgeable and qualified in the Oval Office would be worse than Trump?  That says all we need to know about you.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Why are you pointing it out to me? Go and point it out to Harvard who did the study or The Chicago Tribune who reported those findings. As I said in an earlier post, your inability to come to grips with this issue is that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the term "balanced" means, and you have said nothing to disprove that assertion. I did say that 50-50 would imply something perfectly balanced in that context (why is this so hard to understand....), and Fox was rated in that study as 52-48 yet you state "by that absurd definition Fox is far from balanced". Huh ?? So 52-48 is "far" from balanced? So what is 93-07 then ???

 

So you're essentially saying that you are correct because you don't agree with what Harvard's claims are or their definition of what the term balanced implies. Got it.

I understand what "balanced" means.  Do you know what "news" is?

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I understand what "balanced" means.  Do you know what "news" is?

 

Take it up with Harvard. It is them you disagree with. I didn't write the article or do the research. It is not my problem that you find the results so triggering.

[348GTS]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think having someone knowledgeable and qualified in the Oval Office would be worse than Trump?  That says all we need to know about you.

 

The fact that you are implying that Clinton is either of those things is very worrying and evidence of a disconnect with reality. Anyway, I think we're done here

[Jingthing]

Just now, 348GTS said:

 

...
Anyway, I think we're done here

Oh, good!

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Oh, good!

 

Yeah damn straight. You may retreat back to your safe space where you won't have to deal with all those pesky facts and differing views!

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Yeah damn straight. You may retreat back to your safe space where you won't have to deal with all those pesky facts and differing views!

Dude, I'm overexposed to differing views. I even watch Fox "News" to see how the hard core trumpists are having their delusions fed. I've already made it clear. We don't beat the evil that trump is by even engaging with hard core trump supporters and those that think it is just another normal president with different policies. To me, this is a national emergency and decent Americans (anti-trumpists) need to be smart about tactics going forward. Spending time engaging with trumpists is not going to help. Deal with it, dude. Not engaging is a right the same as not voting. 

To be clear, not everyone that voted for trump is a hard core trumpist. But anyone that is still one after one year, forget about them. Total waste of time. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Take it up with Harvard. It is them you disagree with. I didn't write the article or do the research. It is not my problem that you find the results so triggering.

The Harvard study you are so preoccupied with only points out the obvious, insignificant fact that Fox News does more positive reporting about Trump than the real news networks.  The only interesting thing about the study is that Fox does less than 100% positive reporting on Trump.

[Ron19]

An abusive flame post has been removed.

[Skywalker69]

54 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I couldn't care less whether you watch or like Real Time or not. It's obvious you're a hard core pro-trumpist, and no rational argument of facts in the world could ever move you. That's the point. We CAN beat trump and his disgusting perverted movement if we motivate the majority of Americans. We can't win wasting time debating with true believer trumpists like you. Almost none of your type will change their views on him. Also probably engaging the trumpist hard core might even motivate them more to show up. I think it's best to not even engage. They represent about ONE THIRD of Americans. Don't bother! Just get the vast majority involved. That's the only reason that clown won last time. Too many decent Americans stayed home. 

 

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

 Anyway, I think we're done here

Best thing I've heard all day. LOL

[348GTS]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Best thing I've heard all day. LOL

 

With rumours of Trump's impending impeachment greatly exaggerated,  we'll allow you this small victory okay?

[mogandave]

 
With rumours of Trump's impending impeachment greatly exaggerated,  we'll allow you this small victory okay?

It is just a matter or time, short-time or long-time, either way you get ...ked

Impeach 45!!!!!

The orange buffoon must go!!!

[nasanews]

Trump is not the problem he is just exposing American rednecks and skin heads, and this is what trouble us as civilized human being living in diversity excepting others.

Shame on you Trump supporters, your hearts are full of hate.

[mogandave]

Trump is not the problem he is just exposing American rednecks and skin heads, and this is what trouble us as civilized human being living in diversity excepting others.
Shame on you Trump supporters, your hearts are full of hate.

Exactly

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, 348GTS said:

 

Real Time should just change it's name to The Trump Derangement Hour and get it over with. Bill Maher and his stacked panel of anti Trumpers lost their credibility a long time ago. Sad thing is that it used to be an entertaining show. Maher is a funny guy mostly, but the constant Trump bashing, fat Christie quips and inappropriate Ivanka comments are just sad and pathetic now. I still watch it, but I gave up taking it seriously a long time ago.

 

Inappropriate as in pointing at your 16 year old on stage during a live broadcast and saying, “don’t you think she’s hot? She’s hot, right?”

 

Or inappropriate as With adult Ivanka sitting right next to him, on live TV, saying, “if she weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

 

Or inappropriate as in agreeing with a radio show host that it’s Ok to describe Ivanka as “a piece of ass”

 

Is that the kind of inappropriate you mean?

[348GTS]

6 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Inappropriate as in pointing at your 16 year old on stage during a live broadcast and saying, “don’t you think she’s hot? She’s hot, right?”

 

Or inappropriate as With adult Ivanka sitting right next to him, on live TV, saying, “if she weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

 

Or inappropriate as in agreeing with a radio show host that it’s Ok to describe Ivanka as “a piece of ass”

 

Is that the kind of inappropriate you mean?

 

Spare me the faux outrage at the deliberately misconstrued comments. If you think that repeatedly making references or "jokes" made on national TV about a sitting president having a sexual relationship with his daughter is appropriate, then there really is no hope for you. Can you imagine the outcry if similar things were said about Bill Clinton and his daughter or heaven forbid Obama and his ??  Remove the Trump Derangement blinkers. Those types of comments cross a line, don't try to justify it just because you have a personal dislike of the man who is the subject of them.

[Slip]

2 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Spare me the faux outrage at the deliberately misconstrued comments. If you think that repeatedly making references or "jokes" made on national TV about a sitting president having a sexual relationship with his daughter is appropriate, then there really is no hope for you. Can you imagine the outcry if similar things were said about Bill Clinton and his daughter or heaven forbid Obama and his ??  Remove the Trump Derangement blinkers. Those types of comments cross a line, don't try to justify it just because you have a personal dislike of the man who is the subject of them.

Can you explain how his comments have been misconstrued?  They sound pretty clear and down the line to me.  While you are at it you can try to explain why Trump's 'grab them by the pussy' comments and Moore's sexual assault of a minor are ok too.

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

14 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Inappropriate as in pointing at your 16 year old on stage during a live broadcast and saying, “don’t you think she’s hot? She’s hot, right?”

 

Or inappropriate as With adult Ivanka sitting right next to him, on live TV, saying, “if she weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

 

Or inappropriate as in agreeing with a radio show host that it’s Ok to describe Ivanka as “a piece of ass”

 

Is that the kind of inappropriate you mean?

 

Spare me the faux outrage at the deliberately misconstrued comments. If you think that repeatedly making references or "jokes" made on national TV about a sitting president having a sexual relationship with his daughter is appropriate, then there really is no hope for you. Can you imagine the outcry if similar things were said about Bill Clinton and his daughter or heaven forbid Obama and his ??  Remove the Trump Derangement blinkers. Those types of comments cross a line, don't try to justify it just because you have a personal dislike of the man who is the subject of them.

 

Firstly, th Trump quotes I mention are not taken out of context. You can look them up yourself.

 

Secondly, I agree they are inappropriate, whether the person saying such things is Bill Maher or Donald Trump. The difference is, one is a crude comedian, the other is the actual father. You seem only to have a problem with the former, not the latter.

[Skywalker69]

Forbes Receives Trump-Like Voicemail After Dropping Him 92 Spots On Richest List

 

While the American public may have grown accustomed to the president’s Twitter tantrums (and isn’t that a frightening thought?), Trump has another less publicly well-known method of expressing his anger to outlets who cover him negatively, one that came to light during the 2016 presidential campaigns.
 

Forbes received a rather mysteriously familiar-sounding voice message on Wednesday night in response to the list they published, as reported by GQ magazine:

 

http://www.usatimes24.com/2017/10/19/forbes-receives-trump-like-voicemail-dropping-92-spots-richest-list/

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

 

Firstly, th Trump quotes I mention are not taken out of context. You can look them up yourself.

 

Secondly, I agree they are inappropriate, whether the person saying such things is Bill Maher or Donald Trump. The difference is, one is a crude comedian, the other is the actual father. You seem only to have a problem with the former, not the latter.

 

I don't need to look them up. Whether or not he said those things is not in question, but the context is. And there is a huge difference between what Trump said in relation to his daughter and someone disrespecting the president and his daughter by repeatedly making inferences that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. It is extremely inappropriate and in poor taste. Regardless of whether the "jokes" are crass or "crude", they cross a line that most civil human beings would agree should not be crossed. This comes down to the simple fact that people on the left think they have the moral high ground to say and do whatever they like because they disagree with the president's policies and/or don't like him personally.

 

I am not getting in to this any further, than this but I will make this final point -  some of the posters on here feigning outrage and indignation at Trump's comments on the Stern show for example, show a cringing lack of awareness as to the context in which they were said. You sound like Tipper Gore bleating about Twisted Sister lyrics at a PMRC meeting. Trump was not a politician before, and for the most part he played a character when he was in the spotlight, in some ways a caricature of himself depending on the situation. He would not talk to Stern in the same way as he would on 60 min for example. Getting all worked up about what he said in a Stern interview is like saying that Reagan was a bad choice for president because he shot a bunch of people when he was a cowboy. Or that Arnold shouldnt have run for governer of California because he once fired a missile into a building with someone hanging on to it. Ludicrous.

[Slip]

2 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

I don't need to look them up. Whether or not he said those things is not in question, but the context is. And there is a huge difference between what Trump said in relation to his daughter and someone disrespecting the president and his daughter by repeatedly making inferences that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. It is extremely inappropriate and in poor taste. Regardless of whether the "jokes" are crass or "crude", they cross a line that most civil human beings would agree should not be crossed. This comes down to the simple fact that people on the left think they have the moral high ground to say and do whatever they like because they disagree with the president's policies and/or don't like him personally.

 

I am not getting in to this any further, than this but I will make this final point -  some of the posters on here feigning outrage and indignation at Trump's comments on the Stern show for example, show a cringing lack of awareness as to the context in which they were said. You sound like Tipper Gore bleating about Twisted Sister lyrics at a PMRC meeting. Trump was not a politician before, and for the most part he played a character when he was in the spotlight, in some ways a caricature of himself depending on the situation. He would not talk to Stern in the same way as he would on 60 min for example. Getting all worked up about what he said in a Stern interview is like saying that Reagan was a bad choice for president because he shot a bunch of people when he was a cowboy. Or that Arnold shouldnt have run for governer of California because he once fired a missile into a building with someone hanging on to it. Ludicrous.

Yeah you should definitely rant on about Tipper Gore, Schwarzennegger and Reagan a bit more.  In no way does it make you look ridiculous.

[Skywalker69]

Juan Williams: Trump is becoming a failed president

 

An old proverb says a leader with no followers is “only taking a walk.”

 

If that’s the case, then the strutting President Trump has turned his presidency into a very lonely walk.

 

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/355569-juan-williams-trump-is-becoming-a-failed-president

 

- Juan Williams is a  journalist and political analyst for Fox News Channel.

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

Yeah you should definitely rant on about Tipper Gore, Schwarzennegger and Reagan a bit more.  In no way does it make you look ridiculous.

 

No more so than deliberately avoiding the point and diverting attention to the analogy instead of the scenario it was illustrating.

[Thakkar]

21 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

I don't need to look them up. Whether or not he said those things is not in question, but the context is. And there is a huge difference between what Trump said in relation to his daughter and someone disrespecting the president and his daughter by repeatedly making inferences that they are engaged in a sexual relationship. It is extremely inappropriate and in poor taste. Regardless of whether the "jokes" are crass or "crude", they cross a line that most civil human beings would agree should not be crossed. This comes down to the simple fact that people on the left think they have the moral high ground to say and do whatever they like because they disagree with the president's policies and/or don't like him personally.

 

I am not getting in to this any further, than this but I will make this final point -  some of the posters on here feigning outrage and indignation at Trump's comments on the Stern show for example, show a cringing lack of awareness as to the context in which they were said. You sound like Tipper Gore bleating about Twisted Sister lyrics at a PMRC meeting. Trump was not a politician before, and for the most part he played a character when he was in the spotlight, in some ways a caricature of himself depending on the situation. He would not talk to Stern in the same way as he would on 60 min for example. Getting all worked up about what he said in a Stern interview is like saying that Reagan was a bad choice for president because he shot a bunch of people when he was a cowboy. Or that Arnold shouldnt have run for governer of California because he once fired a missile into a building with someone hanging on to it. Ludicrous.

Only one of my examples was on The Howard Stern Show. Another was a family show, a Teen beauty Pageant. The third example was from a daytime TV show. 

 

You say Trump was playing a character. What character is that—creepy, incestous dad? Do you think that’s appropriate, even when he wasn’t president?

 

You mention context. In each example, the context was simple: he was referring to his own daughter as a potential sex partner. You are able to see how Bill Maher’s jokes cross the line but are somehow unable to see how Trump’s comments also cross the line. 

 

Nobody on the left is getting worked up about Trump’s inappropriate comments about his daughter; they are making jokes based on those comments. Trump supporters are getting worked up about the jokes, but not about the Trump comments underlying those jokes.

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, 348GTS said:

You wax lyrical about Trump and his "disgusting perverted movement" while glossing over the reality that had he lost the election the alternative would have been a lot worse.

I am not American, Republican or Democrat, I am right of centre. Please help me (and I am sure others) understand just how the situation would have been worse under HRC. Seriously, give examples of how it could be worse.

[Andaman Al]

56 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

Can you imagine the outcry if similar things were said about Bill Clinton and his daughter or heaven forbid Obama and his ?? 

And just when would Obama or Clinton have sat on stage with their daughters and said, "don't you think she's hot"? "“if she weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” or how about :

 

Interviewer: 'Name one thing you both have in common' (Trump and Ivanka)

Trump: 'well I was going to say sex'.

 

Just what is normal about that? I am quite sure Trump peruses all the 'Daddy does Daughter' sites on the web.

[348GTS]

8 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I am not American, Republican or Democrat, I am right of centre. Please help me (and I am sure others) understand just how the situation would have been worse under HRC. Seriously, give examples of how it could be worse.

 

Firstly there would be no point in educating you about the realities of a Clinton presidency on this forum because based on previous posts, your symptoms of TDS are visible to all so it would be a total waste of energy and bandwidth. Secondly, if I were to go into any list detailing the numerous reasons why she would be a total disaster for the country, my post would almost certainly be deleted and me be suspended again for going "off topic" (ahem...). Thirdly, I too "am not American, Republican or Democrat, I am right of centre", and I managed to inform and educate myself on this topic, so there is no reason you can't too. For starters, avoid CNN and the BBC and you're half way there, and read (or watch the movie) Clinton Cash, it may open your eyes somewhat if you are indeed actually interested in having them opened. Am not holding my breath, but who knows, you may surprise us all.

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, 348GTS said:

 

Firstly there would be no point in educating you about the realities of a Clinton presidency on this forum because based on previous posts, your symptoms of TDS are visible to all so it would be a total waste of energy and bandwidth. Secondly, if I were to go into any list detailing the numerous reasons why she would be a total disaster for the country, my post would almost certainly be deleted and me be suspended again for going "off topic" (ahem...). Thirdly, I too "am not American, Republican or Democrat, I am right of centre", and I managed to inform and educate myself on this topic, so there is no reason you can't too. For starters, avoid CNN and the BBC and you're half way there, and read (or watch the movie) Clinton Cash, it may open your eyes somewhat if you are indeed actually interested in having them opened. Am not holding my breath, but who knows, you may surprise us all.

That is a lot of rambling and words when you could just as easily written "Sorry I can't, I have no idea".

 

By the way, If you think "Clinton Cash" is serious then I have another video you may like to watch. It's totally real also. Apparently the clintons are reptilians also.