Trump’s Four-Pinocchio ratings all in one place

I never said you called him a clown, I called him one. I liked a lot of what Sanders had to say, I like a lot of what Trump has to say. I also don't like a lot of what he says lol. Its amazing to me how the left is reacting to him. Its almost the exact same why the right reacted to Obama..Interesting. A lot of my vote is an middle finger to established politics, might be why I like Sanders so much?

 

Fair enough.

 

The media has only been doing Donald Trump a favor, and they aren't that hard on him. Trump has a creepy obsession with Megyn Kelly because she's one of the few people who really goes after him. The media gives a lot of coverage to Trump for ratings. On Fox News, an analyst found that CNN, Fox, and MSNBC give Trump way more coverage than any other candidate. I don't like Ted Cruz, but I agree with his assessment of this whole circus. Trump is getting millions of dollars of free advertisement. They cover his full speeches live more than any other candidate. It's not fair to the other candidates.

Liberals do not want Trump to be president, but they want him to be the nominee. They know that the more attention they give him, the more his chances of winning the nomination go up. They see him as the easiest "Republican" candidate to beat.

 

"Everyone" was hyperbole; the other night, I told my wife about our son, "I'm gonna kill that kid" when he didn't do something he was supposed to do. I didn't actually want to, nor did I, end his life. When I say "This shift is never going to end", I don't actually believe that I'll be working for the rest of my life.

As for every other "major party nominee" not supporting Trump, that's a huge part of his appeal. When you say "within his own party", are you referring to RINO sell-outs like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and the rest of the good old boys? Again, a HUGE part of his appeal. The GOP just can't seem to grasp that the voters are sick and tired of their appeasement, go along-get along bullshit. They're compounding this problem of their own making by actively trying to take down the most popular member of their own party, and to steal the nomination at a brokered convention. That would effectively put a bullet in the head of the Republican party.

The Democrats are no better; through "super delegates", they rigged the election from the jump by making it impossible for anyone except Hillary Clinton to win the nomination.. It's this kind of crap from BOTH parties, "Oh, you poor slobs don't know what's best at the ballot box, so we'll decide for you" is a huge reason why people are flocking to Trump. He's not a politician, he says what's on his mind, doesn't worry about political correctness, and he can't be bought off by special interests. That's what's going to carry him in November.

The guy who was accurately described by John McCormack in the 1962 Senate election as "If your name was Edward Moore, your candidacy would be a joke"? The guy who was the beneficiary of another rigged election when he wasn't old enough to be a senator, so the good old boys bent the rules specifically for him? The guy who cowardly left a young woman to die a slow, torturous death in a dark sinking car?

That guy?

Again, the good old boys in the Democrat party loved him, as did the old ladies who would have voted for Charles Manson if he was named Charles Kennedy, but *ALMOST* (happy?) everyone I talked to considered him an embarrassment to Massachusetts. As I said, I have no idea how he got re-elected all those times, because finding someone who would admit to voting for him was like finding a white tiger.

 

Your civil war, not mine. The GOP is consuming itself over this, and it's going to crush them down-ticket.

Your anecdote--that you do not support beyond your own observations--vs. one election after another where he crushed the opposition by 30 points or more. This in a state that's shown a willingness to back the occasional Republican (Romney, Brooke, that guy who went to New Hampshire to lose, etc.). He was also well-respected by his Republican colleagues in the Senate. He did some tawdry things in his personal life, no doubt (some real, some exaggerated), but he was a statesman in the Senate.

Your assessments are yours. But your facts are not.

 

Not mine, either. I'm unenrolled, which in MA means I don't belong to any political party. It used to be known as independent, until an actual Independent Party was recognized.

Perhaps I'm old school, but I believe that if you're a reprehensible human being in your personal life, what you do in your professional life is automatically tainted. Bill Clinton was an effective President, but he'll forever be known as the guy who got blowjobs in the Oval Office, lied about it under oath, and was the second President to ever be impeached.

Obviously my assessments are mine, I don't pretend otherwise.

 

Meaningless. Both impeachments were driven politically and they failed. In both cases, Presidents Johnson and Clinton were acquitted.

 

So, Obama has integrity, honesty and competence?!? Obama is one of the worst presidents EVER!

 

I think time has to pass before history can do a fair assessment of an administration
Richard Nixon had the Watergate scandal, but was actually a decent president
He's too progressive for today's Republican Party. He oversaw the creation of the EPA. Reagan would have trouble being reelected after signing off on amnesty. My guess is that Obama and Bush will be seen as mediocre despite the disasters in the Middle East. Johnson has some balance with the Civil Rights Act even though he created the disaster in Vietnam. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but he did many other great things that cause people to ignore his faults.

I think one of the worst presidents is Andrew Jackson. John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which basically took away free speech. Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government. He was one of the most racist presidents in history. FDR wanted to pack the Supreme Court with his justice selection since there is no limit just so that the laws he wanted would be ruled as constitutional. The Japanese internment camps also happened under his administration


In the moment, people are in their feelings and exaggerate things.

 

The impeachments (indictments /subsequent trials) are considered meaningless to you Rich purely because both Johnson and Clinton were democrats (the alpha and omega premising your own politically driven dismissive deductions)...

Neither more nor any deeper than that…

 

Your opinion. But the facts--and they are legion--say otherwise.

 

You can assert that, but it doesn't make it so. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

(Note how it got personal. An empty vessel makes the loudest rattle.)

 

I've had a few criminals that were acquitted at trial.

That doesn't mean they didn't do the crime, not by a long shot, and you're naive if you think otherwise.

 

You’re correct … my assertion; however, not totally subjective in that I do base it (assertion) on a lot of years in recognizing your adamant bias toward the Democratic Party. And that’s acceptable; however, due to your politics … your proclivity to so easily dismiss the two impeachments was easily predictable.

Your additional theatrical jab was assuredly foreseeable re your anticipated behavior/s being yet again, founded on a lot of observation years. While not my intent ... it is so elementary to get a rise out of you.

 

In that both presidential impeachments were democrats Bruce … that’s all that matters to Rich. He doesn’t care about guilt or innocence as long as they’re from his political Party. Just another apologist...

 

Okay, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were Democratic president impeached by Republican Congresses. But what about this guy named Nixon? He was a Republican president who had a Democratic Congress to deal with. I was a mere boy 10 years of age at the time when Nixon was prez. But I remember following all these articles about Watergate in Time, Newsweek, and US News. Did the House of Representatives file impeachment charges against him before the end came? I remember that Nixon resigned before he otherwise would have been tried by the Senate?

 

I love how you put conclusions in other people's mouths and then refute them. With a lame insult, no less.

Of course people who did it go free sometimes. Our judicial system is designed to protect against Type I errors. That's why the standard is so high. It's extremely high in impeachment proceedings. It prevents the kind of partisan witch hunt conducted in those two cases from succeeding.

 

Nixon met with GOP Congressional leaders who informed him that impeachment proceedings were inevitable, and that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him. He resigned the next day.

Two Democrats impeached for political reasons: both acquitted.
One Republican threatened with impeachment and facing a bi-partisan conviction: resigned.

And still no hint of scandal from the Obama administration. Nice.

 

You turn a discussion that is a civil disagreement--mostly about checking and fixing purported facts--and do this.

Why don't you ask a question instead of offering yet another jerky assertion? Or, better yet, leave your personal attack out of it all together.