-
It's directed at the same lame-o tsk-tsk fashion criticisms, always pearl clutching and moaning about style over substance, ooooh it's so un-presidential, ooooh, and never giving any credit for any degree of successes. You'd think people who swore Wall Street was gonna collapse might walk it back a little and admit, okay, mea culpa, it didn't collapse; you'd like to think, y'know, okay, there aren't any death camps, maybe he's not really Adolf.. You'd like to believe but, alas... Trump Derangement Syndrome.
-
This is starting to get good, and it has very little to do with fashion faux pas...
Hillary Clinton’s Russian Ghost Stories
[...]
For a decade, the FBI ran an operation called Ghost Stories to monitor and rip apart a deep-cover Russian agent network. Ghost Stories tracked a ring of Russian spies who lived between Boston and Washington, D.C., under false identities. It was one of the FBI’s most elaborate and successful counterintelligence operations in history.
After the FBI arrested 10 of the spies in June, 2010, Secretary of State Clinton worked feverishly to return the Russian agents to Moscow in a hastily arranged, lopsided deal with Putin.
For the Clintons, the FBI’s biggest counterintelligence bust in history couldn’t have come at a worse time.
[...]
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hillary-clintons-russian-ghost-stories/
-
@salacious-crumb said in US Politics:
It's directed at the same lame-o tsk-tsk fashion criticisms, always pearl clutching and moaning about style over substance, ooooh it's so un-presidential, ooooh, and never giving any credit for any degree of successes. You'd think people who swore Wall Street was gonna collapse might walk it back a little and admit, okay, mea culpa, it didn't collapse; you'd like to think, y'know, okay, there aren't any death camps, maybe he's not really Adolf.. You'd like to believe but, alas... Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So what on earth does that have to do with my post?
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
I am trying to dampen my enthusiasm for this embryonic scandal, lest we just turn it into the same sort of nonsense that the Trump Russian collusion is.
However already the evidence seems to be a lot more concrete than anything about Trump and Russia.Over half the people/organisations that made donations to the Clinton foundation ended up getting one on one meeting s with Clinton whilst she was secretary of state. Kinda a side issue and proves nothing more than Clinton was neck deep in cash for access.
Lobbyists for the Russians who wanted to purchase the Uranium rights paid 150 million dollars to the Clinton foundation. The deal then got approved by Clintons state department.
Questions were asked by concerned congressman at the time.. but were stonewalled.
The FBI had an investigation into bribery and corruption over the whole deal before it was completed, including an informer who was ready to testify.
The FBI dragged it feet and ultimately did nothing except make the informer sign a non disclosure agreement. Effectively not only stopping the investigation but limiting anyone else from investigating by gagging a key witness.
Muller and Comey were in charge during this time.
When this witness came forward again, he got threatened with jail time by the FBI, despite the FBI never letting him have a copy fo the NDA he signed, and still refusing to. Just telling him that if he talks to anyone including lawmakers and law enforcement he would be jailed. Nobody has EVER heard of jail time being a threat over and NDA. It is incredibly unusual, the FBI did not claim there was any classified material, just did not let him speak.The chairman of the Russian company that bought the uranium rights.. also on the board of the Clinton foundation.
I will be interested to see where this goes, but compared to the complete nothing they have over Trump and Russia, this seems a lot more significant.
Can you imagine the furore if Trump had received 150 million form Russia?MSM are a sad joke.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that around the Clintons (if I take what you say as fact)
I do question the claim that the FBI have nothing over Trump and Russia. We simply do not know.
IF they were to prosecute Trump with a similar level of evidence that they chose to dismiss in the Clinton/Obama case then that would certainly raise big questions.
As yet that hasn't happened though (to our knowledge).The FBI dont have any active investigations on Trump. A Special investigation led by Mueller has taken over, and that is where it gets murky with Mueller and his appointees looking increasingly compromised.
These investigations always find something, there has never been one that did not. Often miles away from the original cause. Of course they will find something. They are desperate to. -
@crucial said in US Politics:
The recent storm in a teacup over Trump and the families of dead soldiers is an example of how Trump behaves in a nutshell (and why many think he is unfit for the office he holds).
There was absolutely no need for him to try and claim he is better than his predecessors when asked a question. Once again he made a grand claim that he couldn't support and gave the media yet another opening to have a crack at him so he could then claim that the media are out to undermine him. His staff then waste valuable time working on a petty issue that didn't even need to happen rather than actually working on the big things. At this rate he will spend his entire time in the WH picking scraps with everybody then claiming that it is their fault that he cant get things done.
FFS man, you undermine yourself all the time with stupid grand claims because you can't stand not looking like the biggest man in the room.
Maybe it is all done on purpose as a diversion tactic, I don't know, but weight of evidence points to it simply being an ego issue.Except yet again this has been spun, he did have support for his claim, he said it because Kelly, his chief of staff, who lost a son in combat, did not get a call from Obama.
Remember when Obama got all that grief for not calling one of his generals when he lost a son in combat? Nah me neither.
Trump was responding to criticism that he hadn't called the families within a few days. He rightly pointed out that Obama NEVER called some of the families of killed soldiers. And in fact Trump has called all of them so far.
Yet this was spun and Kelly who actually los a son, got rightly pissed off at the medias double standards and polticking.
Why the fuck did it even come up when and how Trump called families? Oh yeah... the left wing media looked yet again for a scandal.
Where the fuck where they when Obama didnt call? Up his ass lauding his Nobel peace prize. -
@crucial said in US Politics:
@salacious-crumb said in US Politics:
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Haters gotta hate.
It's been a very long time now . . . Almost a year . . .
Remember how Trump had "no chance" and "zero path" to 270?
(The media and experts swore to you that this was true.)
Remember how Trump was going to quit before the election?
(Mika & Joe insisted.)
Remember how Trump colluded with the evil Rooskies and "stole" the election?
("The Resistance.")
Remember how on election night all the lib media could talk about was the DOW tanking 600 points and how disastrous a Trump presidency was to Wall Street?
(Oh, noes, clutch the pearls!!!)
Remember how winning an election ipso-facto made Trump the new Adolf and his white supremacist MAGA America immediately became the Fourth Reich?
(Sieg Heil!)
Remember how he was gonna get impeached "any day now"...?
(Tick-tock, tick-tock...)
Remember all that...?
'Cos if you actually remember any of that, then maybe -- just maybe, if you have any sense of fairness -- you'll recognise Trump has every justification to stick his middle finger in the hater's faces and tell them to take a flying f#ck at a rolling donut. The manufactured outrage is only going to look more hilarious.
What on earth is that all about and why is it directed at me?
The continued overuse of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' to explain away every criticism of him has headed into its own area of derangement if that post is any indication.
It is used alot, because it is happening alot. I dont think anyone here really suffer from it, but the media and left most certainly do. People will keep using the phrase until the media stop being far left activists.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
@salacious-crumb said in US Politics:
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Haters gotta hate.
It's been a very long time now . . . Almost a year . . .
Remember how Trump had "no chance" and "zero path" to 270?
(The media and experts swore to you that this was true.)
Remember how Trump was going to quit before the election?
(Mika & Joe insisted.)
Remember how Trump colluded with the evil Rooskies and "stole" the election?
("The Resistance.")
Remember how on election night all the lib media could talk about was the DOW tanking 600 points and how disastrous a Trump presidency was to Wall Street?
(Oh, noes, clutch the pearls!!!)
Remember how winning an election ipso-facto made Trump the new Adolf and his white supremacist MAGA America immediately became the Fourth Reich?
(Sieg Heil!)
Remember how he was gonna get impeached "any day now"...?
(Tick-tock, tick-tock...)
Remember all that...?
'Cos if you actually remember any of that, then maybe -- just maybe, if you have any sense of fairness -- you'll recognise Trump has every justification to stick his middle finger in the hater's faces and tell them to take a flying f#ck at a rolling donut. The manufactured outrage is only going to look more hilarious.
What on earth is that all about and why is it directed at me?
The continued overuse of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' to explain away every criticism of him has headed into its own area of derangement if that post is any indication.
It is used alot, because it is happening alot. I dont think anyone here really suffer from it, but the media and left most certainly do. People will keep using the phrase until the media stop being far left activists.
The comment was directed toward that unhinged post and equally applies to its follow up.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The recent storm in a teacup over Trump and the families of dead soldiers is an example of how Trump behaves in a nutshell (and why many think he is unfit for the office he holds).
There was absolutely no need for him to try and claim he is better than his predecessors when asked a question. Once again he made a grand claim that he couldn't support and gave the media yet another opening to have a crack at him so he could then claim that the media are out to undermine him. His staff then waste valuable time working on a petty issue that didn't even need to happen rather than actually working on the big things. At this rate he will spend his entire time in the WH picking scraps with everybody then claiming that it is their fault that he cant get things done.
FFS man, you undermine yourself all the time with stupid grand claims because you can't stand not looking like the biggest man in the room.
Maybe it is all done on purpose as a diversion tactic, I don't know, but weight of evidence points to it simply being an ego issue.Except yet again this has been spun, he did have support for his claim, he said it because Kelly, his chief of staff, who lost a son in combat, did not get a call from Obama.
Remember when Obama got all that grief for not calling one of his generals when he lost a son in combat? Nah me neither.
Trump was responding to criticism that he hadn't called the families within a few days. He rightly pointed out that Obama NEVER called some of the families of killed soldiers. And in fact Trump has called all of them so far.
Yet this was spun and Kelly who actually los a son, got rightly pissed off at the medias double standards and polticking.
Why the fuck did it even come up when and how Trump called families? Oh yeah... the left wing media looked yet again for a scandal.
Where the fuck where they when Obama didnt call? Up his ass lauding his Nobel peace prize.Tump was not criticised for failing to call the families the question asked was
"Why haven't we heard anything from you so far about soldiers that were killed in Niger? And what do you have to say about that?"Pretty fair question since in the 12 days he had tweeted about everything else under the sun.
Trump then brought up Gold Star Families and that he was going to send them letters and phone calls. He then made this statement
"So, the traditional way - if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls, a lot didn't make calls. I like to call when its appropriate, when I think I'm able to do it. They have made the ultimate sacrifice"
That's pretty clear that he is stating that most previous presidents didn't make calls not at all. Not just Obama but Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan.
He backed down a bit when challenged and what's he making this pretty scathing criticism of all past president assumption on - one Gold Star Parent of what must be several hundred. Kelly must have also forgotten to mention that while Obama didn't call he did go to lunch at the Whitehouse with other Goldstar families.
Yes we didn't hear about Obama not calling Kelly at the time because he never talked about what a shitty job Bush did regarding gold star families or claimed to have call all Goldstar families.
-
@gary said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The recent storm in a teacup over Trump and the families of dead soldiers is an example of how Trump behaves in a nutshell (and why many think he is unfit for the office he holds).
There was absolutely no need for him to try and claim he is better than his predecessors when asked a question. Once again he made a grand claim that he couldn't support and gave the media yet another opening to have a crack at him so he could then claim that the media are out to undermine him. His staff then waste valuable time working on a petty issue that didn't even need to happen rather than actually working on the big things. At this rate he will spend his entire time in the WH picking scraps with everybody then claiming that it is their fault that he cant get things done.
FFS man, you undermine yourself all the time with stupid grand claims because you can't stand not looking like the biggest man in the room.
Maybe it is all done on purpose as a diversion tactic, I don't know, but weight of evidence points to it simply being an ego issue.Except yet again this has been spun, he did have support for his claim, he said it because Kelly, his chief of staff, who lost a son in combat, did not get a call from Obama.
Remember when Obama got all that grief for not calling one of his generals when he lost a son in combat? Nah me neither.
Trump was responding to criticism that he hadn't called the families within a few days. He rightly pointed out that Obama NEVER called some of the families of killed soldiers. And in fact Trump has called all of them so far.
Yet this was spun and Kelly who actually los a son, got rightly pissed off at the medias double standards and polticking.
Why the fuck did it even come up when and how Trump called families? Oh yeah... the left wing media looked yet again for a scandal.
Where the fuck where they when Obama didnt call? Up his ass lauding his Nobel peace prize.Tump was not criticised for failing to call the families the question asked was
"Why haven't we heard anything from you so far about soldiers that were killed in Niger? And what do you have to say about that?"Pretty fair question since in the 12 days he had tweeted about everything else under the sun.
Trump then brought up Gold Star Families and that he was going to send them letters and phone calls. He then made this statement
"So, the traditional way - if you look at President Obama and other presidents, most of them didn't make calls, a lot didn't make calls. I like to call when its appropriate, when I think I'm able to do it. They have made the ultimate sacrifice"
That's pretty clear that he is stating that most previous presidents didn't make calls not at all. Not just Obama but Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan.
He backed down a bit when challenged and what's he making this pretty scathing criticism of all past president assumption on - one Gold Star Parent of what must be several hundred. Kelly must have also forgotten to mention that while Obama didn't call he did go to lunch at the Whitehouse with other Goldstar families.
Yes we didn't hear about Obama not calling Kelly at the time because he never talked about what a shitty job Bush did regarding gold star families or claimed to have call all Goldstar families.
That is your (and the left wing media) interpretation of the quote, I don't take it as Obama never called. I take it as Obama didn't call. He didn't call Kelly did he? Therefore Obama didn't call.
And families did complain abut Obama not calling. Just got very little coverage in the media.
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/military/2010/12/30/his-name-was-sean-and-he-died-for-his-country/
-
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
-
Well, beyond Trump being Trump, I am intrigued to learn that Obana didn’t call a four star general who lost a son. That doesn’t sound right at all, so there are definitely some questions I’d like answered by Obama.
I don’t Kelly did himself much good by standing up to make unsubstantiated claims about the Dem congress women either. His claims about her speech were miles away, which was a bit of a sad surprise.
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Well, beyond Trump being Trump, I am intrigued to learn that Obana didn’t call a four star general who lost a son. That doesn’t sound right at all, so there are definitely some questions I’d like answered by Obama.
I don’t Kelly did himself much good by standing up to make unsubstantiated claims about the Dem congress women either. His claims about her speech were miles away, which was a bit of a sad surprise.
How do you know they were miles away? I haven't seen anything to counter his claim. There is a video pf part of her interaction, but that isnt proof she didnt say what he said at other times during the day? But either way, I dont think Kelly should have gone that far anyway, and should have been more sure of his ground. I am guessing his emotions got the better of him, understandable on this topic, it is very personal.
I am amused that calling someone an empty barrel is now racist.
-
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up. -
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Well, beyond Trump being Trump, I am intrigued to learn that Obana didn’t call a four star general who lost a son. That doesn’t sound right at all, so there are definitely some questions I’d like answered by Obama.
I don’t Kelly did himself much good by standing up to make unsubstantiated claims about the Dem congress women either. His claims about her speech were miles away, which was a bit of a sad surprise.
> How do you know they were miles away? I haven't seen anything to counter his claim. There is a video pf part of her interaction, but that 2* isnt proof she didnt say what he said at other times during the day? But either way, I dont think Kelly should have gone that far anyway, and should have been more sure of his ground. I am guessing his emotions got the better of him, understandable on this topic, it is very personal.
I am amused that calling someone an empty barrel is now racist.
From watching the video of the speech and comparing his claims to her words. She seems to take credit for getting the building named, but there is nothing in there about her claiming credit for getting funding. In fact, as we now know, she wasn't even elected at the time it was funded.
I totally agree that her reaction to his speech - going to the racism card - is ridiculous. However, what pisses me off about the Kelly speech is that I agree with almost every word of it, until he makes a false claim about Wilson. I don't get why he doesn't just leave the speech at "the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred"
If he had, I don't think anyone couldn't consider and agree with his point. It's a good one.
Regarding, 2 isnt proof she didnt say what he said at other times during the day?
That's very Sarah Huckabee Sanders of you. An excellent goal post shift.
-
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up.come on. this is such shit,
Because I have seen just as much (in fact more) bullshit and outright dishonesty from the long term Trump Derangement sufferers on the left and in the media. -
This post is deleted!
-
The Obama Administration’s Uranium One Scandal
Let's put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.
[...] -
This post is deleted!
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@reprobate said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@crucial said in US Politics:
The point was more about how Trump says things and his ability to constantly feed the media ammo to fire back at him.
Most of the time the things are minor and there is no reason for them to even be said except for big noting himself.
You are right in saying that the media then swarm all over it (hence my comment of 'storm in a teacup')
Kelly made the comment in a clear and correct way, saying exactly what was meant but Trump has to make it sound like he is the best, the only, the greatest....feeding the media just what they want.Even CNNs coverage on this incident is quite even handed, giving good air to both sides of the argument, They even comment that it was all unnecessary.
I was highlighting it as an example of the whole dynamic. You simply cannot argue with a straight face that he is a totally innocent party in the daily rubbish he deals with (and gets distracted by).
One recent article pointed out how in his interview with Hannity he made such a large number of exaggerated claims or claims not backed by fact that even if you dismiss half of then as being picky the remainder provide a weeks worth of ammo to write about.
What surprises me is that those that argue in his defence can't even acknowledge how his own behaviour helps fuel the very stuff they complain about.
Just to be clear I would not argue that he is a totally innocent party in the rubbish he has to deal with. Or that he is distracted to easily by the mud.
As for the Hannity interview and half the things being wrong.. yeah nah. Who exactly judges that? The supposed fact checking organisations are proven to have a left bias. The media has a bias, obviously Trump supporters have a bias, as do the left wing opposition.
I discount pretty much any claim like the amount of lies in the Hannity interview as bullshit.come on. this is such shit, it is the whole trump argument in a nutshell - discredit everyone and pretend everyone is equally unreliable so nobody knows what to believe and trump's nonsense is just as credible as anything else.
there is bias everywhere, yes. but there is a hell of a big range running from 'showing some bias' to 'blatant falsehood'. facts do still exist, and trump lets his mouth run away from him and flat out makes shit up.come on. this is such shit,
Because I have seen just as much (in fact more) bullshit and outright dishonesty from the long term Trump Derangement sufferers on the left and in the media.yes, i'm sure that no person in history has seen as much bullshit. the greatest at seeing bullshit. never before etc etc.
US Politics