Trump endorses the Presidency for life!

[Terraceth]

Given the headlines get worse everyday, it would be hard to see how Trump's not going to go down.

Here's a bunch from today:
-Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg called before grand jury, says he will refuse to go
-Trump dossier author reportedly told Mueller that Russia asked Trump not to appoint Romney as Secretary of State
-Jane Mayer: Trump Team Was in Routine Communication With Moscow in 2016
-Former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg tells MSNBC's Katy Tur: 'Trump very well may have done something during the election'
-Russia takes credit for getting Trump to reject Mitt Romney as secretary of state
-Police enter lobby of Trump Hotel in Panama, attempt to evict Trump staff
-British intelligence reportedly told the CIA months before the election that Trump's campaign had illicit contacts with Russia
(can't be bothered putting in all the links, if you want to read the articles, copy and paste those headlines into google)

Those are from a single day (or possibly yesterday for some of them). And that's getting to be a typical amount of Trump scandals per day, and it's been gradually getting worse not better.

Saying they're "from a single day" doesn't mean all that much when you consider how many of them are nothing more than a repeat of something from months ago (i.e. not anything new), or even repeats of one another. Something being a repeat of a story from months ago doesn't make it incorrect, of course, but it means it isn't anything new and thus trying to point to it as if it's something that developed today isn't correct.

One of the newer ones is about Sam Nunberg, so let's look at "Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg called before grand jury, says he will refuse to go." That sure sounds incriminating, like he knows all sorts of secrets about collusion he won't share. Until you find out that Sam Nunberg was fired by the Trump campaign way back in mid-2015, which I believe is before the supposed collusion even took place. And the fact that Nunberg has no reason to be loyal to Trump considering not only was he fired, Trump later sued him. Let's not also forget the main reason we even know the guy refused was because he contacted various news outlets to tell them he was refusing to do it. Note also how, after he got his media spree of interviews, he backtracked and said he'd accept the subpoena. It's blatantly obvious that Nunberg's refusal was really about just getting himself back in the spotlight for a while, not because of any dark secrets he knew about Trump he was concealing.

"Police enter lobby of Trump Hotel in Panama, attempt to evict Trump staff" meanwhile, is completely irrelevant to the Mueller investigation. It's about a property dispute involving the Trump Organization (not Trump). Even if you think Trump himself bears criticism for this business conflict involving the business he no longer runs, it doesn't have anything to do with Russia or Trump's presidency.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't watch CNN or MSNBC either.

So why are trying to defend those hacks?

As for Brietbart, I'm convinced they are a parody site of conservatism at this point.

Not any worse than Slate or Mother Jones.

[Sea of red]

So why are trying to defend those hacks?

Maybe because I'm not? I simply stated, as an opinion, that I still find their reporting to be more fact based than FOX, which has been moving into InfoWars territory of crediblity.

Not any worse than Slate or Mother Jones.

I can honestly say I've never read a single article from those sites.

[Sea of red]

There is a reason that CNN is known, even among many of those that like it, as the Clinton News Network.

Funny, Andy Levy, who used to work at FOX for years and is a staunch conservative, stated not too long ago that FOX has become Trump State News. .

[demi-conservative]

Saying they're "from a single day" doesn't mean all that much when you consider how many of them are nothing more than a repeat of something from months ago (i.e. not anything new), or even repeats of one another. Something being a repeat of a story from months ago doesn't make it incorrect, of course, but it means it isn't anything new and thus trying to point to it as if it's something that developed today isn't correct.

One of the newer ones is about Sam Nunberg, so let's look at "Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg called before grand jury, says he will refuse to go." That sure sounds incriminating, like he knows all sorts of secrets about collusion he won't share. Until you find out that Sam Nunberg was fired by the Trump campaign way back in mid-2015, which I believe is before the supposed collusion even took place. And the fact that Nunberg has no reason to be loyal to Trump considering not only was he fired, Trump later sued him. Let's not also forget the main reason we even know the guy refused was because he contacted various news outlets to tell them he was refusing to do it. Note also how, after he got his media spree of interviews, he backtracked and said he'd accept the subpoena. It's blatantly obvious that Nunberg's refusal was really about just getting himself back in the spotlight for a while, not because of any dark secrets he knew about Trump he was concealing.

"Police enter lobby of Trump Hotel in Panama, attempt to evict Trump staff" meanwhile, is completely irrelevant to the Mueller investigation. It's about a property dispute involving the Trump Organization (not Trump). Even if you think Trump himself bears criticism for this business conflict involving the business he no longer runs, it doesn't have anything to do with Russia or Trump's presidency.

Facts don't move Starlight, only headlines from Fake News, also latest survey that '70% of people from around world dislike Trump!!!'

[Mountain Man]

Still better than FOX or Brietbart by miles.

They're in your head.

[RumTumTugger]

For Starlight incase he purposely missed this reasonable post with the facts about who is really responsible for the shootings.

Whats' the matter Starlight you don't have a reasonable response to the truth?

[Roy]

For Starlight incase he purposely missed this reasonable post...

'Reasonable' posts do not start with insults.

[Zymologist]

You moron, 'Reasonable' posts do not start with insults.

fify

[Mountain Man]

'Reasonable' posts do not start with insults.

Begging the question.

[RumTumTugger]

'Reasonable' posts do not start with insults.

I'm calling on Starlight to look at all the facts before he comes up with his assertions about America our history and certain groups of Americans. Starlight needs to either make sure he has all the facts or admit he is pretending to know more then he does and pretending he is interested in getting to the truth about those whose views he disagrees. Lil pixies post is full of the facts that Starlight must deal with before he continues asserting that those of us who are working towards protecting the lives and rights of all American citizens are the problem not the lack of enforce ment of laws already on the books. If he refuses to then he is being intellectually dishonest to say he knows more about America and Americans then we ourselves do.

[lilpixieofterror]

'Reasonable' posts do not start with insults.

[lilpixieofterror]

Begging the question.

Just another day of Roy seeking excuses for Starlight. Nothing new.

[lilpixieofterror]

Maybe because I'm not? I simply stated, as an opinion, that I still find their reporting to be more fact based than FOX, which has been moving into InfoWars territory of credibility.

I can honestly say I've never read a single article from those sites.

They are pretty much the infowars of the liberal side.

[Starlight]

I'm calling on Starlight to look at all the facts before he comes up with his assertions about America our history and certain groups of Americans.

There are an infinite number of facts in the world. Nobody can know all of them.

There are numerous international studies on the effects on gun control across nations. There are numerous studies within the US on the effects of gun control among different states. Those many and various studies indicate that gun control reduces gun deaths.

A stupid person would deny that obvious fact. A stupid person would claim it isn't the guns and it's the people / particular zones / particular police officers / the time of day / the phase of the moon. Stupid idiots do tend to love denying the science on all sorts of issues from whether the earth is flat, to whether climate change is real, to whether gun control reduces gun deaths, to whether evolution occurred. I generally roll my eyes at them.

I usually have LPOT on ignore. Periodically I take her off to give her another chance. She generally blows and goes back on ignore pretty quickly.