Trump

[WuDrWu]

I'm going to ask a few questions that I really don't expect answers on, but I'm simply bored and thinking. This whole fiasco is so ridiculous.........

1. If you're going to impeach someone (in this case Trump on collusion) don't those "high crimes and misdemeanors have to occur while you're President? Can they go back forever to find something?

2. Even if there was so called "collusion" didn't he just uncover the truth about the Dems and Hillary? And isn't that the definition of draining the swamp? "I'll do whatever I can to uncover the nonsense and expose these people, even if it means collusion." I mean, what's the crime, even if he did it?

3. Is there a chance that President Trump has somebody running his twitter account, with the express goal of trolling the swamp with the most outrageous things they can possibly come up with for the express purpose of getting people off what he's really trying to accomplish? It wouldn't surprise me, outside of his narcissism, if he barely knew what Twitter was.

[ShockCrazy]

I'm going to ask a few questions that I really don't expect answers on, but I'm simply bored and thinking. This whole fiasco is so ridiculous.........

1. If you're going to impeach someone (in this case Trump on collusion) don't those "high crimes and misdemeanors have to occur while you're President? Can they go back forever to find something?

2. Even if there was so called "collusion" didn't he just uncover the truth about the Dems and Hillary? And isn't that the definition of draining the swamp? "I'll do whatever I can to uncover the nonsense and expose these people, even if it means collusion." I mean, what's the crime, even if he did it?

3. Is there a chance that President Trump has somebody running his twitter account, with the express goal of trolling the swamp with the most outrageous things they can possibly come up with for the express purpose of getting people off what he's really trying to accomplish? It wouldn't surprise me, outside of his narcissism, if he barely knew what Twitter was.

Yeah I'm sure he hired someone to tweet covfefe at midnight and then they never corrected it until the morning....

[wufan]

I'm going to ask a few questions that I really don't expect answers on, but I'm simply bored and thinking. This whole fiasco is so ridiculous.........

1. If you're going to impeach someone (in this case Trump on collusion) don't those "high crimes and misdemeanors have to occur while you're President? Can they go back forever to find something?

2. Even if there was so called "collusion" didn't he just uncover the truth about the Dems and Hillary? And isn't that the definition of draining the swamp? "I'll do whatever I can to uncover the nonsense and expose these people, even if it means collusion." I mean, what's the crime, even if he did it?

3. Is there a chance that President Trump has somebody running his twitter account, with the express goal of trolling the swamp with the most outrageous things they can possibly come up with for the express purpose of getting people off what he's really trying to accomplish? It wouldn't surprise me, outside of his narcissism, if he barely knew what Twitter was.

Great questions! Jrs actions are not what I want in a politician. Hillary's team is not what I want in a politician. This is, however, what I expect in a politician. If impeachment brings us back from this, then I'm all for it! I don't think it will, so I won't endorse it until it's objectives are more clearly aligned with constitutionalism rather than politicism.

[jdmee]

Since CNN is the big boogeyman of the "mainstream" media, let's see what they did for Obama's scandals.

Fast and Furious:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/politics/obama-administration-turns-over-fast-and-furious-documents/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/fast-furious-qa/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/politics/btn-fast-and-furious/index.html

IRS targeting conservatives:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/lois-lerner-irs-missing-emails-watchdog/index.html

Iran "ransom:"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/iran-400-million-kerry-rejects-ransom/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/iran-cash-payments-congress-hearing/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/us-iran-prisoners-400-million-leverage/index.html

Green energy backing:

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/obama-no-regrets-over-solyndra/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/03/news/economy/green-stimulus/index.html

VA mishandling:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/obama.veterans/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/10/us/obama-veterans/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/va-waste/index.html

Is that really a love affair? And this wasn't exactly exhaustive, these were 10 second Google searches.

The better question is: "Why do stories on Trump sell, while stories on Obama didn't?" CNN will blow up any story that gets them ratings, covering it wall to wall for weeks at a time no matter its relevance or truth. And the answers to that question are rather simple.

1. Trump is usually directly involved with the scandal
2. Trump's stories build on each other (Russia 1.0 > Russia 2.0 vs unrelated stories about Iran and the IRS)
3. Trump himself works to sensationalize and draw attention to stories about him (wittingly or not) through tweeting and name-dropping
4. The content of the stories is more sensationalist to begin with

You are stretching it pretty far if you are using those article as ones that were critical of President Obama.

[jdshock]

I'm going to ask a few questions that I really don't expect answers on, but I'm simply bored and thinking. This whole fiasco is so ridiculous.........

1. If you're going to impeach someone (in this case Trump on collusion) don't those "high crimes and misdemeanors have to occur while you're President? Can they go back forever to find something?

Congress has full authority over impeachment proceedings. Basically nothing could be done if Congress decided to impeach a president for something prior to becoming president.

2. Even if there was so called "collusion" didn't he just uncover the truth about the Dems and Hillary? And isn't that the definition of draining the swamp? "I'll do whatever I can to uncover the nonsense and expose these people, even if it means collusion." I mean, what's the crime, even if he did it?

This is the DNC emails argument ("who cares how the info got out there? It's truthful information!). But since he's president now, I hope you'd agree that there's a line, right? Hypothetically, let's say Trump killed someone to get the information. You don't just get to respond to that by saying "yeah, but he got the truth!" Someone whose bar for the morality of the president is whether or not it is legal should hang back until a legal decision is reached. In the meantime, I think it's interesting to talk about whether or not, aside from the legality, Trump's actions are the sort that we as a society should be okay with.

3. Is there a chance that President Trump has somebody running his twitter account, with the express goal of trolling the swamp with the most outrageous things they can possibly come up with for the express purpose of getting people off what he's really trying to accomplish? It wouldn't surprise me, outside of his narcissism, if he barely knew what Twitter was.

No way. Present day tweeting is identical to his tweeting from years ago.

[MoValley John]

Am I the only guy that doesn't follow Trump on Twitter and has never read one of his posts? Not recently or way back, never.

And I haven't watched one episode of Game of Thrones, either.

[MoValley John]

I must be missing something.

[MoValley John]

Oh, that's right, I don't do the Twitter thing.

[MoValley John]

.

[wufan]

Oh, that's right, I don't do the Twitter thing.

Actually, only about 50 million are on Twitter, so 5 out of 6 US citizens don't do Twitter.

[MoValley John]

Actually, only about 50 million are on Twitter, so 5 out of 6 US citizens don't do Twitter.

Reggie Jackson Twitters.

[WstateU]

Actually, only about 50 million are on Twitter, so 5 out of 6 US citizens don't do Twitter.

Reggie Jackson Twitters.

So does the 'Juice'...

https://twitter.com/oj_simpson32?lang=en

[CBB_Fan]

Harvard did a study on the negative coverage of Trump. Harvard is hardly a conservative bastion (quite the opposite). I couldn't find any similar studies about Obama's coverage. Just because you find some stories (over an 8 year Presidential period) misses the point and high lights your highly partisan nature. While I don't like it when Trump acts like a bore, and I criticize him, almost all democrats (you included), refuse to acknowledge that Obama (although crafty about it) lied a lot. The media largely ignored it too, and here is a story that outlines the slanted coverage. They don't even try to be balanced anymore than the democrats in Congress.

Under the lead of former NBC head Jeff Zucker, CNN has become a far-left network that harangues the right and praises the left, almost nonstop. “News” is secondary. Now it’s all about pushing an agenda and toeing the line for the liberal overlords.

Case in point: Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.

To start off with, I'm not a democrat and I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. Secondly, you literally said the media did not spend any media time Obama's scandals. The point of the post is that they did, as a simple matter of fact. It was not exhaustive, it was not meant to pull up every hard-hitting attack on Obama, it was simply saying "they did talk about it."

And for reference, the same studies have been done on other Presidents, including Obama. Obama received 46% positive, 54% negative coverage but was by and large an exception to the rule. Regardless of political party, coverage is usually overwhelmingly negative. Reagan had a 22/78 split in 1981 (during the recession), Clinton 28/72 in 1993, W Bush 23/77 in 2001.

Trump's coverage by the media is just slightly more negative than the other Presidents. And I simply disagree with the idea that "fair" coverage would put him anywhere close to 50/50, especially with that context.

[shockmonster]

To start off with, I'm not a democrat and I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. Secondly, you literally said the media did not spend any media time Obama's scandals. The point of the post is that they did, as a simple matter of fact. It was not exhaustive, it was not meant to pull up every hard-hitting attack on Obama, it was simply saying "they did talk about it."

And for reference, the same studies have been done on other Presidents, including Obama. Obama received 46% positive, 54% negative coverage but was by and large an exception to the rule. Regardless of political party, coverage is usually overwhelmingly negative. Reagan had a 22/78 split in 1981 (during the recession), Clinton 28/72 in 1993, W Bush 23/77 in 2001.

Trump's coverage by the media is just slightly more negative than the other Presidents. And I simply disagree with the idea that "fair" coverage would put him anywhere close to 50/50, especially with that context.

Fairness? 50%? Not even close. 93% is an Obsession.

I apologize that I categorized you as a Democrat. As I have said before, I'm not an admirer of Trump. With your statements I would have pegged you in the Democrat quadrant as a Trump hater. However, there are some Trump haters in the Conservative area also to the point that they lose perspective.

[CBB_Fan]

You are stretching it pretty far if you are using those article as ones that were critical of President Obama.

No, those were the first four articles I found for each case with a 10s Google search, as I mentioned. The original post I replied to said, and I quote: "You allowed the media to continue their "love affair" with Obama, and not spending any media time on his scandals digging up wrong doing."

In each case, they DID put out a story on each scandal, often with more accurate information than conservative media.

For instance, the Iran "ransom" was badly reported by the conservative media. To put it simply, the money was not given to Iran, it was returned to Iran. Before 1979, Iran sent that money to the US as part of a deal to buy fighter jets. When the Iranian hostage crisis struck in 1979, the money was frozen in US banks even though Iran never received the jets, and it stayed frozen for almost 40 years.

Furthermore, the money issue was negotiated by an entirely separate team of negotiators. In fact, an international court (Iran–United States Claims Tribunal) was set up years before hostage negotiations, and if the US did not resolve the $400M settlement they could have been forced to pay the full $10B Iran was seeking from the tribunal.

But that just wasn't covered by conservative media. Instead, it was reported very simply: Obama gave $400M in taxpayer money as a ransom.

And in response to another criticism (that mainstream news buried or delayed these types of Obama-era scandals), they usually were the first to report such instances. The Iran scandal was first reported by Wall Street Journal.

But anyway, the point was just that the mainstream media did cover scandals, even if people weren't aware of it.