USA Today Torches Trump

[Top Cat]

No more of a monster than Obama, maybe less so.

Feel free to post comments made by Obama that were anything remotely close to what your brainless Emperor has spewed.

I'll wait.

 

[Top Cat]

Here is the Trump tweet:

Democrats say Trump's tweets about Sen. Gillibrand are sexist, crude - Chicago Tribune

Does anyone see the word "whore" (slut, prostitute, etc.) anywhere in that tweet?

I'm certain I've seen that kind of language used before against people of all political persuasions by opponents labeling anyone who will do anything to get their agenda accomplished.

Of course, leave it to the anti-Trump elements to push the "sexist" angle...since the "collusion" angle isn't going all that well.

The "impeach him by any means necessary" activism is in full swing. :coffeepap:

So either your emperor is too stupid to know how his comments would be construed or he's a sexist bullying pig.

Take your pick.

 

[reinoe]

Yes, true. He was a giant screw-up, but Trump has put me in the mind-set that W. wasn't so bad. I know, I know - it's not true, and W. was pretty bad, but compared to Trump? Nah, not such a nightmare anymore. :lol:

Has Trump started any wars in the middle east for ****s and giggles? What about ramping up warrantless wiretapping on the entire country? This sort of short-sighted recency bias is why liberals have no credibility in their criticism. Before you wax poetically on how much you realize you just loved Dubya's presidency I think you should hit up some history books and re-familiarize yourself with the cataclysmic failures that epitomized his executive office.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The Loony-Tune, left-wing USA Today ALWAYS torches Trump. So what's new?

Just another day with the liberal snowflakes and their like-minded cohorts getting their panties in a bunch.

All of which has nothing to do with what was said in the editorial, and everything to do with your imagination.

WHAT a surprise!

 

[Top Cat]

W had a good heart.
He was just dumber than a sledload of ****.

I think it's safe to say as bad as Dubya was, he's light years better than Emperor Tweeto.

 

[bearpoker]

When did Trump call Gilllibrand a "whore"? I don't see what your point is unless it is that another liberal leaning media outlet is anti Trump.

Trump didn't a whore call her directly, but implied it when he said she would do anything for money.

 

[bearpoker]

Has Trump started any wars in the middle east for ****s and giggles? What about ramping up warrantless wiretapping on the entire country? This sort of short-sighted recency bias is why liberals have no credibility in their criticism. Before you wax poetically on how much you realize you just loved Dubya's presidency I think you should hit up some history books and re-familiarize yourself with the cataclysmic failures that epitomized his executive office.

I agree that W owns the Iraq war and all it's consequences as well as a large part of the economic melt down. However, I also think that he was and is personally honorable and far preferable to Trump. Trump is only one year into his presidency. He still has plenty of time to wreck the country.

 

[Superfly]

Has Trump started any wars in the middle east for ****s and giggles? What about ramping up warrantless wiretapping on the entire country? This sort of short-sighted recency bias is why liberals have no credibility in their criticism. Before you wax poetically on how much you realize you just loved Dubya's presidency I think you should hit up some history books and re-familiarize yourself with the cataclysmic failures that epitomized his executive office.

No, Trump is trying to get us into war with Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, for piss sakes. :lol: Secondly, I never said I loved him. It just took having a really, really ****ty president to see Bush differently.

Oh -- and you'll excuse me if I am not all broken up because you find no credibiity in my criticism. I might not get over it. *looks for fainting couch*

 

[SMTA]

I think it's safe to say as bad as Dubya was, he's light years better than Emperor Tweeto.

Charles Manson would have been an improvement over Cheeto boy.

 

[MSgt]

No, people with a clear political bias will see what they want to see.

To include being very obtuse. Let's take a look...


1) Megyn Kelly said, “You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” Days later, Trump declared that “there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

2) He is recorded bragging and celebrating adultery and moving on women "like a bitch" and "grabbing *****" as he pleases.

3) A constant need to bash Hillary Clinton well even beyond the campaign.

4) Arbitrarily commenting and insulting Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" at what was supposed to be a solemn occasion to honor WWII Marine vets of the Pacific.

5) Attacks Great Britain's Theresa May for criticizing his promotion of an extremist organization. May wasn't the only one to condemn his behavior.

6) Now he declares that Kirsten Gillibrand would come to his office “begging” for campaign contributions (and would do anything for them). He purposefully used parentheses to emphasize the last part of the comment. Or do you think he meant that she would juggle for the contribution?

It is not political bias to see the obvious trend. He obviously has a great chip on his shoulder where women are concerned. Tearing women down when one threatens his frail ego seems to do something for him. What a small minded and insecure man this is that he would seek to define his manhood by attacking women over and over and over again. Of course, we could just all play the obtuse game, pass it off as just being skeptical, and pretend that seeing this obvious trend is just a matter of political bias. The man screams out to be criticized.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

What's with the W. love? That dude was a monster.

I would take 20 more years of a W. presidency if it would get me out of 4 years of Trump.

 

[Fearandloathing]

No, people with a clear political bias will see what they want to see.

I see a standard political slam that has been around in one form or another since I was a kid, used against both male and female politicians.

Not something that is especially "sexist" when used against a woman. :shrug:

How many of us have said much the same thing about various government officials (and brown-nosing co-workers) over the years? :coffeepap:

P.S.:

I am amazed by the hypocritical outrage displayed by people (some in this Forum) who have no problem calling political opponents every dirty name in the book in blatant ad hominin attacks; but claim the moral high ground at the slightest use of such tactics...targeting their "allies." :roll:

What was Trump's first ever controversy? Marla Maples?

What did Trump boast about when he thought the mikes were off? Grabbing women's "******s"

Now lest look at the ferocity of the attack. This is mean ****, surprising actually, more like the stuff of a deadbeat, trailer trash looser.

Sum up what else could he be referencing? With that background what's the first reasonable conclusion? The she volunteered to shine his shoes.

I am amazed by the hypocritical outrage displayed by people (some in this Forum) who have no problem calling political opponents every dirty name in the book in blatant ad hominin attacks; but claim the moral high ground at the slightest use of such tactics...targeting their "allies."

Wow. Now let's talk about hypocrisy. Let's start with "lock her up!". From there we will not pass go and land on "grabbing ******s",,,and YOU are lecturing about hypocrisy?

Trump's insane. That is not an insult or name calling it is quoting psychiatrists and psychologists interviewed for the Rolling Stone Issue 1297 October 5. 2017. Has anyone on the right refuted that? No, you name call, as Trump has done to every reporter and now claims every newspaper and tv outlet is running "fake news" while insisting his was the greatest inauguration in history...actions that are insane..

And yet all you and the rest of the conservative crew can do is use the very same tactics you so bitterly complained about when used by democrats and YOU lecture about hypocrisy!

Tell you what...take a poll. Ask people exactly what they think Trump meant when he said "do anything" after using the word "begging". If you can find one in twenty that say something other than "blow job" or "sex" you have a point.

But save the ****ing lectures about hypocrisy unless you're looking in a mirror

 

[Captain Adverse]

What was Trump's first ever controversy? Marla Maples?

What did Trump boast about when he thought the mikes were off? Grabbing women's "******s"

Now lest look at the ferocity of the attack. This is mean ****, surprising actually, more like the stuff of a deadbeat, trailer trash looser.

Sum up what else could he be referencing? With that background what's the first reasonable conclusion? The she volunteered to shine his shoes.



Wow. Now let's talk about hypocrisy. Let's start with "lock her up!". From there we will not pass go and land on "grabbing ******s",,,and YOU are lecturing about hypocrisy?

Trump's insane. That is not an insult or name calling it is quoting psychiatrists and psychologists interviewed for the Rolling Stone Issue 1297 October 5. 2017. Has anyone on the right refuted that? No, you name call, as Trump has done to every reporter and now claims every newspaper and tv outlet is running "fake news" while insisting his was the greatest inauguration in history...actions that are insane..

And yet all you and the rest of the conservative crew can do is use the very same tactics you so bitterly complained about when used by democrats and YOU lecture about hypocrisy!

Tell you what...take a poll. Ask people exactly what they think Trump meant when he said "do anything" after using the word "begging". If you can find one in twenty that say something other than "blow job" or "sex" you have a point.

But save the ****ing lectures about hypocrisy unless you're looking in a mirror

...Aaaannd that entire rant (which had nothing to do with what I posted) proved my point. :coffeepap:

 

[Praxas]

Liberals and neverTrumpers are willing to side with devils, monsters, and all sorts of sub-humans. All of a sudden liberals have discovered a new found love for Bush, Reagan, and the entire neo-con agenda. It makes me think their outrage during Dubya's presidency was nothing more than a show.

There is no new found love of Bush and past Republican presidents. There is a president currently in office that is SOO bad, that it literally makes the other Republicans look good by comparison. That's what you fail to understand.

 

[ataraxia]

What's with the W. love? That dude was a monster.

At this point, he looks like a freaking genius and saint!



Yes, George! Yes! We miss you! Please come back!

 

[Fearandloathing]

...Aaaannd that entire rant (which had nothing to do with what I posted) proved my point. :coffeepap:

Whatever lie you have to tell yourself that gets you through. It's not like you have any credibility

 

[NonoBadDog]

Trump didn't a whore call her directly, but implied it when he said she would do anything for money.

So their piece doesn't actually show that he called her a whore and was based on the opinion of a biased reporter. Hmm.

 

[Mach]

We get it, the media hates Trump. Is this just going to continue to be the "Media Hate Trump Olympics" where they compete to show how much blatant bias they have?

You do not think the media should weigh in on the President implying a senator is a whore for effect? He tweeted it, where is the bias in that...he wrote it, we all saw what he wrote.
He chose to write it, they are simply commenting on it.

You think it was appropriate? Do tell.

If you want the Trump hate to stop, take him out of office, simple as that.

 

[Fearandloathing]

At this point, he looks like a freaking genius and saint!

View attachment 67226069View attachment 67226068

Yes, George! Yes! We miss you! Please come back!

In fact, and I never thought I would ever say this, at this point Obama is looking like a "great president" and it is now clear that Hilary would have done a better job

And you have to know it almost makes me puke to have to say that. But testimony to what your great system has delivered.

 

[bearpoker]

So their piece doesn't actually show that he called her a whore and was based on the opinion of a biased reporter. Hmm.

No it was based on common usage of the English language.

 

[GDViking]

I don't know the guy, but he owns the Iraq war. Being dumb just isn't enough of an excuse to me.

That wasn't him that was Cheney making halaberten (sp) 100s of billions.

 

[MrPeanut]

That wasn't him that was Cheney making halaberten (sp) 100s of billions.

Bush was a big boy. He didn't have to do it.

 

[Fraggle Rock]

Not so quick USA today and Murdoch....I was here before you. If the previous actions of this pile of crap did not cause you to write such a column....Can I ask you where the hell have you been?

 

[GDViking]

Charles Manson would have been an improvement over Cheeto boy.

Yes his cult following was far smaller and not as crazy..
However I would .not be even a little surprised if someone peeled back that died coon pelt on his head there is a swastika tattoo.

 

[Fishking]

Obama did some bad things, but Bush will always have the Iraq war.

Obama has ISIS and Libya, for starters, so Obama loses that one.