Soon, Republicasns will stop Trump

[RealDave]

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

The MSM just plain lies. They don't even bother any longer trying to convince anyone they are honest or impartial

I am sorry, but a Trump supporter has no ground to complain about anyone else lying.

You voted for the liar-in-chief.

So STFU asshole.

we did? what lie?

Funny chit. Trump lies every day.

"I know more about ISIS than the Generals"

 

[MaryAnne11]

The problem is it doesn't matter what's in the dossier, the problem is that it was falsely used to obtain a FISA warrant. It doesn't matter if it was 10% or 100% correct. Yes, the FBI can use it, but they can't legally get a surveillance warrant using it. It was not verified or checked out.

I'm waiting for the investigation into the FISA application. I want to see where they informed the judge that this was unverified opposition research and not investigative research. I want to see if they informed the judge that Hillary and the DNC paid for it. Because I can't believe any judge would issue a surveillance warrant on a political adversary of a presidential candidate. It just doesn't add up.

Do you know anything about FISA warrants and how difficult it is to obtain them? Study up

No matter what Devin Nunes's memo says, getting a FISA warrant is actually pretty hard

Your FISA talking point is rejected. The warrants were all issued by Republican appointed judges - Five DIFFERENT judges

Why do you Trumplings hate Republicans so much all of a sudden?

You don't even realize it, but you just advanced my point. FISA information does have to be convincing to get a FISA warrant. So how is it they got that warrant using willy-nilly information from a foreign agent who obtained some of his information from the Russian government????

Not to mention the fact those warrants were approved 3 times by different judges.

 

[DrLove]

The problem is it doesn't matter what's in the dossier, the problem is that it was falsely used to obtain a FISA warrant. It doesn't matter if it was 10% or 100% correct. Yes, the FBI can use it, but they can't legally get a surveillance warrant using it. It was not verified or checked out.

I'm waiting for the investigation into the FISA application. I want to see where they informed the judge that this was unverified opposition research and not investigative research. I want to see if they informed the judge that Hillary and the DNC paid for it. Because I can't believe any judge would issue a surveillance warrant on a political adversary of a presidential candidate. It just doesn't add up.

Do you know anything about FISA warrants and how difficult it is to obtain them? Study up

No matter what Devin Nunes's memo says, getting a FISA warrant is actually pretty hard

Your FISA talking point is rejected. The warrants were all issued by Republican appointed judges - Five DIFFERENT judges

Why do you Trumplings hate Republicans so much all of a sudden?

You don't even realize it, but you just advanced my point. FISA information does have to be convincing to get a FISA warrant. So how is it they got that warrant using willy-nilly information from a foreign agent who obtained some of his information from the Russian government????

Not to mention the fact those warrants were approved 3 times by different judges.

FIVE judges total to be exact - ALL appointed by Republicans

 

[MaryAnne11]

Na, Why aren’t you rich then? You’re all talk and no action you silly little fucker

It doesn’t really matter does it? He’s had a handful of of bankruptcies out of hundreds of businesses. How many great businessman have been bankrupt at one or more times in their life? Some of the greatest have been bankrupt then went on to be great. Trump is what he is, I’m not saying he’s a saint at all but he didn’t kick the shit out of Clinton along with many others to become President.
At least he is not a career politician, there is no lower life form.
What it comes to one little thing or big thing if you want to call it that you silly little fucker… There would be no trump if there was no Obama. Karma is a bitch

Trump isnt a product of Obama, he's a product of our media spoon-feeding us opinions rather than facts. He's a product of Russian Propaganda distributed in our country.

Na, Hes a direct result of progressives voting for shit stain that is Obama

That is a Democratic word used to describe Trump.

Are you running out of your own?

 

[MaryAnne11]

The problem is it doesn't matter what's in the dossier, the problem is that it was falsely used to obtain a FISA warrant. It doesn't matter if it was 10% or 100% correct. Yes, the FBI can use it, but they can't legally get a surveillance warrant using it. It was not verified or checked out.

I'm waiting for the investigation into the FISA application. I want to see where they informed the judge that this was unverified opposition research and not investigative research. I want to see if they informed the judge that Hillary and the DNC paid for it. Because I can't believe any judge would issue a surveillance warrant on a political adversary of a presidential candidate. It just doesn't add up.

Do you know anything about FISA warrants and how difficult it is to obtain them? Study up

No matter what Devin Nunes's memo says, getting a FISA warrant is actually pretty hard

Your FISA talking point is rejected. The warrants were all issued by Republican appointed judges - Five DIFFERENT judges

Why do you Trumplings hate Republicans so much all of a sudden?

You don't even realize it, but you just advanced my point. FISA information does have to be convincing to get a FISA warrant. So how is it they got that warrant using willy-nilly information from a foreign agent who obtained some of his information from the Russian government????

Not to mention the fact those warrants were approved 3 times by different judges.

FIVE judges total to be exact - ALL appointed by Republicans

Thank you.

 

[MaryAnne11]

He was one hell of a gun salesman though

You freaks sure are quick to give Obama credit for your hard work! You obstruct him, then give him credit for not getting much done. You freakishly create gun grabbing paranoia, then give obama the credit for gun sales. I don't get it! Take credit for your slimy little efforts, freak!

Yes, well, you are highly confused. But amusing.

We, retards (like you) are pretty much amused by everything.

You might want to reread your sentence there!

 

[DrLove]

The problem is it doesn't matter what's in the dossier, the problem is that it was falsely used to obtain a FISA warrant. It doesn't matter if it was 10% or 100% correct. Yes, the FBI can use it, but they can't legally get a surveillance warrant using it. It was not verified or checked out.

I'm waiting for the investigation into the FISA application. I want to see where they informed the judge that this was unverified opposition research and not investigative research. I want to see if they informed the judge that Hillary and the DNC paid for it. Because I can't believe any judge would issue a surveillance warrant on a political adversary of a presidential candidate. It just doesn't add up.

Do you know anything about FISA warrants and how difficult it is to obtain them? Study up

No matter what Devin Nunes's memo says, getting a FISA warrant is actually pretty hard

Your FISA talking point is rejected. The warrants were all issued by Republican appointed judges - Five DIFFERENT judges

Why do you Trumplings hate Republicans so much all of a sudden?

You don't even realize it, but you just advanced my point. FISA information does have to be convincing to get a FISA warrant. So how is it they got that warrant using willy-nilly information from a foreign agent who obtained some of his information from the Russian government????

Not to mention the fact those warrants were approved 3 times by different judges.

FIVE judges total to be exact - ALL appointed by Republicans

Thank you.

Pretty sure I know you from another forum - enable conversations and PM me.

 

[MaryAnne11]

Trump just hired Joe DeGenova! Crazy old Lon for Fox that was suspended for lying.

His wife is just as bad. Conspiracy nuts.

 

[toobfreak]

Soon, Republicasns will stop Trump

They'll have to since obviously the democrats can't get the job done.

If they don't, the voters will this Fall.

That'll stop Trump?

Trump is making a joke of the Executive branch of our country. He is destroying relationships with other countries. He is starting trace warts that will plunge us into a recession.

You mean like Obama made a joke of the Executive Branch? And how many relationships did he ruin with other countries? How many days did it take that boob Obama to offend Britain by sending their bust of Churchill back to them? And I really HATE IT when presidents start trace warts. I really hope Trump does start any more trace warts soon again.

 

[miketx]

It has to be just a matter of time before Republicans in Congress act to stop Trump.

If they don't, the voters will this Fall.

Trump is making a joke of the Executive branch of our country. He is destroying relationships with other countries. He is starting trace warts that will plunge us into a recession. He is afraid to take on Putin. He is using his office for personal gains.

His personal life can no longer be ignored. Porn Stars, Ex Bunnies, accusations of sexual abuse. His constant lying. His stupid floods of tweets.

they must start to counter Trump. Reverse the Tariffs. DACA, Refuse to fund the wall. Act on school shootings with REAL action. And, if necessary, condemn the tweets, lies coming out of the White House. Demand the ouster of Kusher & Ivanka. Rework the tax cuts. On & On.

Soon there will be another thread about Trump being stopped soon.

 

[bripat9643]

That is the problem. You say what you want to believe and what you are told to believe. And you are told that the "mainstream Media" produces "fake news". So, lets see a piece of fake news, me boy, from some mainstream media outlet.
Or would you rather just keep saying what you are told to believe, and what to say?

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Great. So why don't you post a left-wing source that challenges that?

The truth of the matter is only right sources will inform people of the truth. The left-wing is not going to do a study on what they are getting away with. And you really don't need a study to prove anything. Just turn on any other outlet outside of Fox and tell us how much positive reporting they did on Trump.

The MSM tells the truth. Okay, but how much time do they dedicate their so-called truth about Trump??? As much time as they do with Hillary, Comey, the FISA warrants and applications?

Let me ask, is a Harvard study up to your expectations?

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How about NPR and Pew? Too right-wing for you?

Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents

The MSM just plain lies. They don't even bother any longer trying to convince anyone they are honest or impartial

I am sorry, but a Trump supporter has no ground to complain about anyone else lying.

You voted for the liar-in-chief.

So STFU asshole.

The MSM has been caught lying time after time. You don't want to defend that, so you attack Trump. Typical douchebag behavior.

 

[bripat9643]

No, I don't "say" what I want to believe. I point out FACTS!

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

So you see, it's much more than just an opinion; it's a study.

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

http://theswash.com/RmNXZ/liberty/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

Walter Annenberg was a Republican, but he died. His family took over the foundation and they are a bunch of card carrying communists. They turned the foundation into a leftwing propaganda mill.

Bill Ayers is a fucking terrorist.

 

[Rustic]

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

http://theswash.com/RmNXZ/liberty/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

Walter Annenberg was a Republican, but he died. His family took over the foundation and they are a bunch of card carrying communists. They turned the foundation into a leftwing propaganda mill.

Bill Ayers is a fucking terrorist.

Dave is lost...

 

[bripat9643]

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

Save BIG with $9.99 .COMs from GoDaddy!

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

Walter Annenberg was a Republican, but he died. His family took over the foundation and they are a bunch of card carrying communists. They turned the foundation into a leftwing propaganda mill.

Bill Ayers is a fucking terrorist.

Dave is lost...

It looks like he ran away.

 

[Rustic]

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

Save BIG with $9.99 .COMs from GoDaddy!

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

Walter Annenberg was a Republican, but he died. His family took over the foundation and they are a bunch of card carrying communists. They turned the foundation into a leftwing propaganda mill.

Bill Ayers is a fucking terrorist.

Dave is lost...

It looks like he ran away.

Did he fall down Timmy’s well?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.
So, let me help you a bit, me poor ignorant con troll. It is not your fault entirely that you are ignorant. Or that you are stupid. Let me give you some facts.
: 1. Journalistic proceedures will alway require that you use impartial sources. As I did with FactCheck.org. Because the source is known to be impartial, that makes it a likely source for TRUTH. This study was printed in the Washington Post. So, on the face of it, that is a good source.
However, STRIKE !:
The study was conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, a right wing web site with a history of being far from impartial. Or, put another way, they are a nut case right wing web site.

Then, It is important to determine what a study proves. And that you are honest with what that is.
Strike 2: The study does not suggest, as you do, that the publications were untrue in saying what they did about Trump. What they said, as far as can be understood, is absolutely true.

Then, you need to be honest about the intent of a study's.
Strike 3. You suggested the articles looked at by the study were slanted toward making Trump look bad. There was no indication that any intent was there to slant the news. It appears that the articles simply stated what the truth was and what happened.

So, there you go. Your mistake in using a very slanted source and making it appear that the studies were unfair to poor Donald Trump and therefor their findings are unfounded. They simply looked at very unpopular actions, outright lies, and actions that actual citizens did not support. Sorry you did not like the fact that those doing articles about Trump told the truth. Now, if you have found areas where they lied, then let us know. Otherwise, you have again just agreed with a nut case right wing source of info.

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

http://theswash.com/RmNXZ/liberty/who-fact-checks-factcheck-org

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

Walter Annenberg was a Republican, but he died. His family took over the foundation and they are a bunch of card carrying communists. They turned the foundation into a leftwing propaganda mill.

Bill Ayers is a fucking terrorist.

Damn dude...everyone who doesn't agree with your embarrassing nonsense is a communist ... What a freak you are...

 

[sealybobo]

Only brainwashed snowflake morons believe factcheck.org is impartial. In reality it's just another fake news outlet.

Best thing out there. Covers all the details.

And you are encouraged to find and give us an example of something the said that wasn’t true. All the facts are laid out for you moron

You might as well have The Daily Worker check your facts. The Annenberg Foundation Funds factcheck.org. It has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. It's a leftwing propaganda organ with even less credibility than CNN.

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group

Save BIG with $9.99 .COMs from GoDaddy!

The Annenbergs are Republicans.

I klnow how much you hate Bill Ayers but he is a well renowned education professor with a university whose standards you wouldn't pass.

You assholes have moved so far right that George HW Bush is a left wing radical.

Walter Annenberg was a Republican, but he died. His family took over the foundation and they are a bunch of card carrying communists. They turned the foundation into a leftwing propaganda mill.

Bill Ayers is a fucking terrorist.

Damn dude...everyone who doesn't agree with your embarrassing nonsense is a communist ... What a freak you are...

He’s ruining the word. It now means nothing other than anyone who’s not a card carrying republican.

Oh yea trump says he supports social security. That means he’s a community too

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem is it doesn't matter what's in the dossier, the problem is that it was falsely used to obtain a FISA warrant. It doesn't matter if it was 10% or 100% correct. Yes, the FBI can use it, but they can't legally get a surveillance warrant using it. It was not verified or checked out.

I'm waiting for the investigation into the FISA application. I want to see where they informed the judge that this was unverified opposition research and not investigative research. I want to see if they informed the judge that Hillary and the DNC paid for it. Because I can't believe any judge would issue a surveillance warrant on a political adversary of a presidential candidate. It just doesn't add up.

Do you know anything about FISA warrants and how difficult it is to obtain them? Study up

No matter what Devin Nunes's memo says, getting a FISA warrant is actually pretty hard

Your FISA talking point is rejected. The warrants were all issued by Republican appointed judges - Five DIFFERENT judges

Why do you Trumplings hate Republicans so much all of a sudden?

You don't even realize it, but you just advanced my point. FISA information does have to be convincing to get a FISA warrant. So how is it they got that warrant using willy-nilly information from a foreign agent who obtained some of his information from the Russian government????

Not to mention the fact those warrants were approved 3 times by different judges.

Exactly. So I'm not suspicious of the judges, just what the information they were given. That's what needs to be investigated.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's what needs to be investigated.

haha, it cracks me up whenever one of you pseudo con cacklers says something like this. And when the investigation comes back with nothing, you will just say the fix is in and stomp your feet and throw a hissy. Rinse, repeat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump needs to take a tip from Reagan. When he campaigns for the Republicans, he should ask Americans if they are doing better today than they were two years ago?

If the Democrats gain any seats yet alone leadership, we are in real trouble. It would show how ignorant the American voter actually is. The country is doing fantastic. More people bringing home more net pay, taxes for this year going way down (according to my tax specialist). Hundreds of thousands receiving raises, bonuses or both, and we no longer have the highest corporation taxes in the world.

The stock market is doing fine, consumer confidence never been better, and the same goes for corporate confidence. Kim Dong shaking in his little pants, and ISIS is out of Iraq.

If Americans think we need a change from this, our country is doomed.

I have to admit republicans should be winning but people don’t like what they are seeing. I’d take obama back in a heartbeat. The crumbs people got aren’t worth it.

I like my crumbs. I'd rather get a few crumbs than have a few taken away from me which is what happened with DumBama. He cost me thousands and thousands of dollars..

It's difficult for Republicans to win until things get bad enough that Americans try to do something a little better. If you don't like Trump personally, that's understandable. But who in the world would elect a leader based on that? That's why I said we could be in real trouble in this country if we elect people based on personal opinion instead of the job they are doing.

Brainwashing is a huge problem in our country. Along with freedom of the press, they use that power to control the minds of people unfortunately.

Opinion | Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative

We were doing fine before trump. I told you I got a raise based on my 2015 and 2016 success. Unemployment was low. You guys said those were phony numbers.

Are those crumbs worth what trumps doing to our government? Maybe if you like nazis

So what's he doing to our government? That's right, he got rid of a bunch of regulations on business. We have the lowest unemployment rate in 49 years.

DumBama's numbers were phony because when unemployment decreased, the labor participation rate decreased as well. The real numbers didn't start happening until the end of his second term when the labor participation rate froze and then started to increase. That was mostly due to lower fuel prices which nearly everybody in the country took advantage of.

DumBama's numbers were phony because when unemployment decreased, the labor participation rate decreased as well.

That's not true at all. Show us where the adjustment was made when Trump came in.
The numbers are exactly the same now, dope.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

You're not very good at this, are you dope?

See how when Dumbama got in, the decline in the labor participation rate? It didn't stop until 2016--seven years after Hussein took office.