Showing posts with label Trump Bashing lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump Bashing lies. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Horse Crappery




 





"Ann Coulter Is Worried The ‘Trump-Haters Were Right’" is Horse Crappery


Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trumpism. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?

We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It’s not like I’m out yet, but boy, things don’t look good. I’ve said to other people, it’s as if we’re in Chicago and Trump tells us he’s going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I’m a little nervous.




I actually agree with everything Ann says in the Drudge hyped "Coulter Worried 'Trump-Haters Were Right'... ."


"I do, of course, blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers."

"The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him."

"I have from the beginning been opposed to Trump hiring any of his relatives. Americans don’t like that, I don’t like that. That’s the one fascist thing he’s done. Hiring his kids."

But I do not agree with her continued support of  "..if there is no wall it’s the end of America. " If indeed she still believes it's the paramount issue, the Daily Caller's hype not withstanding.

The fate of the United States hinged, not on the "Wall," but the "LAW!. Had Trump lost, the SCOTUS would have been packed with  Elena Kagans.  End of argument.  End of the Republic.  The immigration problem can be solved by resurrection of the rule of law.

Thursday, November 03, 2016

Trump Groped Me!




Tom L Smith

Friday, October 14, 2016

Liar, Liers





... on top of a telephone wire
I'm surely not the only person who's noticed the "coming out" of publications that were generally reliably conservative that now,  in the matter of Trump, are dancing with the New York Times.  One is the Washington Examiner. Example:

Carney: The death of Republican outrage?

It's well and good to point out the inconsistency of liberals who defended Bill Clinton in the 1990s and are attacking Donald Trump now. But sometimes inconsistency means moving from error to correct opinion. The Clinton-defenders-turned-Trump-attackers might be partisan hacks, and they might be insincere in their concern for women, but this time around they are correct. The important thing is, we conservatives were right back then. And we should have the same standards today.

THEIR ERRORS DO NOT MITIGATE TRUMP'S SINS

This is freaking bizarre.  The below mentioned WaPost's "no, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms Clinton's chief opponent is dreadful" reasoning is typical. No argument advanced that delves into Trump's inadequacy as a leader of men, failed business acumen, lack of success, or any other reasonable measure executive ability.  Instead we get feigned outrage over locker room "grab'em by the pussy" talkthat every man in the world has engaged inand used as a disqualifier.  In the next breath we are told that Hillary history isn't worthy of discussion. Why? Ask.

Friday, October 07, 2016

Someone is pathological










In a deposition, Trump’s lawyer was asked why the lawyer’s policy was to always have two lawyers meet with Trump.
The reason: “We tried to do it with Donald always if we could because Donald says certain things and then has a lack of memory.”
Or he’s just an habitual, pathological liar.
Oh my. But then I looked to see who posted it.  Using the pecuiar logic of that ilk. 

  By   |  October 6, 2016, 02:20pm

Talk about pathological

Monday, September 12, 2016

Lindsey Graham said what?


                                     
                                





Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., had trouble absolving Donald Trump's supporters of racism when he was asked to explain the real estate mogul's success in the Republican primary season.

Graham denounced Trump for race-baiting during an appearance on "The Daily Show," but the comedy host turned the question around on him. "If you say Donald Trump is not a Republican, why does it seem like the Republican base fits him like a glove?" Trevor Noah asked Wednesday night. "Have you maybe given them an impression that this is a party that supports xenophobia and bigotry, all of those things you listed? Is that possible?"

The audience cheered as Graham shrugged. "Thirty-five percent of my party believes that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya; [Trump] has locked that crowd down," he replied. "Now, sixty-five percent of us just think he's a bad president." [Full]

My rejoinder:
Please explain how "Thirty-five percent of my party believes that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya," earns the lede "Lindsey Graham: 35 percent of GOP is racist?"

The real story here, for me, is this.  The (source) Washington Examiner is now just another web presence I once found a good source for conservative news & viewpoints, that are now among the GOP elite that's more hostile to Donald Trump than to Hillary Clinton.   

I suspect the cause is those "journalists" depend on core GOP elitists for the insider information, the manna that make them a worth a paycheck.  Trump's ascension to the throne  scares the crap out of  their old bull congressional clients, so they respond like traditional leftist media do; they let
suckup trump truth.  Fkm. All.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Doing the Hoky Cokie




UNHINGED                        






We’re way beyond media bias. They are all-in. The media is the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. There’s not even a pretense of objectivity. It’s so bad, the New York Times had to write a front-page story last weekend talking about how painful it is for real journalists for the first time in their careers out of a sense of duty to adopt an oppositional stance to a candidate. They’ve never done that before, and since they’ve had to do it with Trump, it also looks like they’re pro-Hillary, and they’re so uncomfortable with this!  (Rush Limbaugh 8/15/2016)



I really am (almost) at a loss for words.  It's almost as if Rudy Giuliani was running to be 'Made' in the Genovese crime family, and what that would portend for the current membership.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

More Media Frenzy



                         









Even having predicted that the media's attacks on Trump would be unprecedented, I'm still amazed. Every single news outlet is dedicated to hysterically denouncing Trump, every minute of every day, while cooing at Hillary.



The main story this week: The media's psychotic claim that Trump called for Hillary's assassination.


Trump said: "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."


Trump is supposed to be joined at the hip to David Duke based on not "disavowing" him with sufficient ferocity the 17th time he was asked about this person he's never met, never mentioned and didn't invite to speak at his convention.

Hillary invited the mother of violent cop-hating criminal Mike Brown to speak at her convention, and the Democratic platform expressly endorses the anti-police Black Lives Matter -- even as these celebrated cop haters inspire the mass slaughter of police officers across the country, in New York City, Dallas and Baton Rouge.
Hmmm. What could Second Amendment people "do"? One thing they could do is what they did do -- in 1994. That was the year gun rights supporters voted out dozens of Democrats who voted wrong on guns, ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years.


It's been nearly a quarter century, and the Democrats are still so traumatized by their sweeping losses in 1994, that, even after Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, even after the Aurora movie theater shooting, even after the Sandy Hook massacre, Democrats refused to take up a gun bill in the U.S. Senate.


Apparently, the only news you'll be getting from now until the election is the media's own insane interpretation of every little thing Trump says or does. Anyone remember the week-long scandal about a star on a Trump retweet?


No one, not even Joe McCarthy, has ever faced this level of obsessive hatred from our constitutionally protected guardians of liberty in the press. Anyone else would be chewed up and spit out after one minute of such relentless attacks.


But sissy conservatives who have never faced one minute of press hostility blame the victim, saying it's Trump's fault for giving the media openings to twist his words.

[FULL COULTER]

Here's Rush yesterday on the same topic:



And, here's the erstwhile conservative (now bunkered K Street 'crats) National Review

Thank Goodness Trump Is a Compulsive Liar


Wednesday, August 03, 2016

...getting your political news from The New York Times








.




NY Times Public Editor (dumbed-down name for an ombudsman) Calls Out The Paper Over Hillary Clinton Cover-Up

As the general election unfolds, it’s essential that whatever doubts linger about the candidates, these voters believe that The Times will give them the information they need to answer those questions. [and they haven't] -Liz Spayd, Public Editor, NYT



Hillary Clinton, in a rare interview on Fox News last Sunday, claimed that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey Jr., had called her statements about her private email servers “truthful” and said she has been consistent with the American people in her accounts about the controversy. As it turns out, Clinton’s contentions in the interview were misleading, bordering on false.

The New York Times is just one outlet, but this is going on across the media landscape. Hillary is getting away with murder while Donald Trump gets raked over the coals for stupid stuff like the Khan spat and jokes about Russian espionage. Credit where credit is due: It’s good that this even appeared in the Times, but shame on them for allegedly trying to bury it by not sharing it on their social accounts.
If you’re getting all your political news from The New York Times, this may be the first time you’re hearing this. Clinton’s remarks were covered by several major news organizations, several of which pointedly challenged the Democratic nominee’s candor. But nothing on the interview ever appeared in The Times, either online or in print.

In the Fox appearance, Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace, the anchor, about previous statements she’s made when questioned on the email controversy, while he played tapes of her past remarks to the public.

“After a long investigation, F.B.I. Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said.

Clinton pushed back. “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people: that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails,” she said.

The Washington Post, NPR, NBC News and PolitiFact all challenged Clinton’s claims, saying they appeared to be based on a selective and misleading interpretation of Comey’s remarks. The Post warded her “Four Pinocchios,” the worst truth-telling rating it gives, for statements it classifies as “Whoppers.”…

I asked Carolyn Ryan, The Times’s political editor, about the decision not to cover Clinton’s remarks about the email controversy. Here’s how she responded: “It is a subject we have covered aggressively — especially how her comments compare to what the F.B.I. found — and will continue to do so.”…  [Full report]

La-La--La-La-La-La-La-La-La-La ....

Friday, June 17, 2016

A bit of fresh hair ...

DID ANYONE TALKING ABOUT TRUMP'S SPEECH ACTUALLY HEAR IT?


Thursday, June 16, 2016

Moonbats v Young Trump Supporters

Moonbats v Young Trumpers

Sunday, June 12, 2016

RE: Pocahontis Warren

Stageringly Stupid People    
So how is Trump's Pocahontas remark racist?




Odd what catches my eye. This vanity post on Free Repubic yesterday, did.

So how is Trump's Pocahontas remark racist? (vanity)
6/11/2016 | Myself
Posted on 6/11/2016, 12:18:08 PM by Crucial

Donald Trump continues to call Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" and is being called a racist for doing so. So let's go through this charge in a straightforward and logical way, a way which escapes too many Americans, particularly liberals.

Elizabeth Warren lied on her college admission aplications that she was native American even though she has no Native American ancestry. Elizabeth Warren is Lilly white. Warren claims one side of her family has Indian descendents and then flip flops and says the other side has them. Elizabeth Warren will not release genealogical records.

It's obvious Warren is a fraud. It's also obvious that the fraud perpetrated was racist in nature.

So how did Trump come to be called racist? Trump called a white women a famous Indian name to shame her for perpetuating a clearly racist fraud. Trump did not disparage Pocahontas in the least. Trump disparaged Elizabeth Warren, the lilly white fraud.

So how is Trump racist again? How stupid and cowardly are the people calling him racist?

I think the answer is obvious and that the press and the political class are perpetuating fraud.

The "If the Republicans disarm.." pic is based on a meme that's flying about.  The quote is Joseph Stalins; embraced by Pocahontas.