Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Is Trump at it again, or is the left wing media lying...(see details)?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (18055points) 1 week ago

This time right out in the open, he got away with it once might as well keep going right?
https://youtu.be/AkbfYZzU4JU

For those that love the guy tell us how this is a lie?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

49 Answers

SQUEEKY2's avatar

How are his sheep going to spin this one?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

He did nothing wrong the first time so what’s to spin? It’s the same thing the.2nd time. Still not wrong.

Yellowdog's avatar

By now, I’d think you’d accept the reality that you don’t have anything on Trump.

No one could get away with even fifteen percent of what you have said Trump did (except a democrat). Yet here you go again…

cheebdragon's avatar

She said “lawsuits against him and his administration”....is that part of the tweet invisible?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

The tweet said it had to drop all law suits, what more do you want?^
He is just as pure as the driven snow aint he?
He talks like a mob boss, acts like a mob boss, goes nuts on revenge like a mob boss and he can do no wrong?

cheebdragon's avatar

“[Cuomo] must understand that National Security far exceeds politics. New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo!”
Where exactly does he mention lawsuits against himself & his administration? Are you reading it in another language?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

I WAS RIGHT!!! That’s exactly what @Yellowdog did!

kritiper's avatar

If one need ask if Trump is at it again, then one is on the verge of buying into his bullshit, if one isn’t there already.
If one need ask in the left wing media is lying, then one is on the way to believing that Trump’s bullshit is true, if one isn’t believing it already.

KNOWITALL's avatar

So after reading a few different sources, it boils down to a disagreement about security limits in NY. Whether security trumps privacy rights was out the door with the Pariot Act, bipartisan by the way.

https://www.amny.com/politics/trump-had-productive-meeting-with-cuomo-over-ny-immigrant-policies-official/

gondwanalon's avatar

Do you feel lucky punk?
Go ahead and impeach me again and make my day! HA!

seawulf575's avatar

I’m with @cheebdragon on this one. What we have here is more propaganda trying to spin something that isn’t there. Trump was talking about national security as it applies to illegal immigrants. NY has filed numerous lawsuits against ICE, against CBP, and has harrassed ICE in their efforts to do their job of keeping our borders and citizenry safe. I’m thinking THESE are the lawsuits and harassment to which President Trump was referring. But, of course, the only thing the loony left can see is a chance to smear Trump some more.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Right @gondwanalon? He believes he is above the law. This year will tell us if it’s true or not.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Good grief. Half a dozen people putting their own spin to what people say.
Look at them. They are all hyperventilating.
I swear, the people feeding Democrats their own ration of bs, and everybody so in panic. I think they were all taken off the breast to early. They are all in desperate need of a warm nipple.
THE SKY IS FALLING!
Somebody suckle them and get them a clean dipey.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sorta the same feeling the republicans had when Obama spent a dime on anything other than the military or tax cuts for the wealthy?

Dutchess_lll's avatar

The sky is fucking falling.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Lightly patting arm
It’s going to be okay.

ucme's avatar

You ask so many questions about Trump, I think you go hard for him & this is all a cry for help.

Hey…they have cream for that!

SEKA's avatar

Seems to me that it’s both. Yes, the left is going to spin everything trump does in the worst possible light. At the same time, the right is going to defend everything he does whether he is right or wrong. All of that is enhanced by the fact that yes, he’s at it again and he’s not going to stop until he implodes

I don’t cae what th left has to say. I don’t care what the right has to say. I just pray that he implodes sooner than later

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Nice answer there @SEKA ^^ totally agree.

SEKA's avatar

^ Thank you. GQ btw

Patty_Melt's avatar

Conservatives and centers here have all said there are things we don’t agree with. Lefties are pointing a wrong finger when claiming we will defend Trump in all things. Myself, I simply point out those things which have either not been proven, or have been proven false.
I agree that he tweets too much, but I would also like to point out that the first president to have access to tweeting was Obama, and he didnt know how. There have been presidents in past who were media hounds, and that was their closest thing to tweeting.
Most younger folks I know roll their eyes about low tech parents and grandparents. Here is an old guy who knows how. I applaud that. It is proof he’s not as dumb as Dems would say.

I think if Teddy R. had twitter, he would have been brag tweeting a lot. Lots of them would have.

Patty_Melt's avatar

I would add that all who follow should see how tweeting too quick could be a problem, so he has been a heads up for all. Nobody after him should have any excuse.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course he’s at it again. He will always place his gangster foot in the middle of whatever is sleazy or underhanded. Depend on it.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

We don’t have to “spin” anything. We just report on what he does and says. He makes himself look a moron with no help from anyone.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And because the news is ALWAYS negative and unflattering the cry goes up about biased reporting

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Yeah, what is positive to report about the Don Father?
UH let me guess,NOTHING!

seawulf575's avatar

It is amazing, isn’t it @cheebdragon?

stanleybmanly's avatar

How long can it continue?

SEKA's avatar

I’m praying that Nov wil be the end of it

seawulf575's avatar

^November? Hhhmmmm…..seems unlikely. Thanks to the Dems’ efforts, Trumps approval rating is going up and theirs is going down. The economy is going great. Unemployment is way down. Their major candidates are all pushing socialist ideas that would destroy the economy. It seems unlikely that Trump would lose in November.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Things are going so great that the courts, Democrats, press and anyone of integrity should ignore the fact that it’s a turd and vulgar criminal. It will remain a criminal turd between now and November, and is certain to continue with its full fledged demonstration of that fact. With luck, his criminality will catch up with him, and he’ll be on his way to disgrace by November.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly, @stanleybmanly, @stanleybmanly…you are like an old album with a skip. You keep playing the same stuff over and over and over. Question: Why is President Trump still in office and not in jail? You have sworn up and down for 3 years now that he is a criminal and is just about to be out of office. Yet he remains. How many times do you have to be wrong before you realize your album is skipping?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Just pay attention pal. The cowardice defining the Republican Senate and dull wittted denial of cud chewing red hats will not deter the ongoing grinding of stinky in the slow moving gears of justice. When is the NEXT impeachment?

seawulf575's avatar

Oh I’m quite certain the Dems will continue to try weaponizing impeachment. They are that dumb. Just pay attention pal. The last one hurt them immeasurably. It was all allegation, no substance. They refused to let Republicans call witnesses in the inquiry. They cited charges that weren’t even crimes. Yeah…good job Dems. America saw how corrupt, obsessed, and deranged they are. AND they saw how stupid the Dems believe Americans really are. They won’t stop until they no longer have a party.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The dems didn’t weaponize impeachment. The Constitution provides it as the sole weapon to keep an aberrant President in check. And when it comes to aberrations, this President has a bounty unmatched in the country’s history.

seawulf575's avatar

Yep, the Constitution provides impeachment as Congress’ tool for unseating a crooked POTUS. But the intent, of course, is to have a crime committed first. Remember, the Constitution specifies High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Neither Abuse of Power OR Contempt of Congress are actual crimes at all. Nor misdemeanors. They are nothing but smear words. So to impeach on those “charges” means there was no crime actually committed. And for the Dems to block any testimony or witnesses during the inquiry that might have given any other narrative other than their own shows it was entirely partisan. So what you have is an opposing political party using impeachment for the sole purpose of smearing their political opponents, otherwise known as weaponizing the impeachment process. And despite your protestations, you know it is true. As do most Americans. Which is why Trump’s approval ratings have gone up and the Dems have gone down. I also notice that is a fact you purposely try to avoid. How come? It blows a hole in your fantasy?

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s a pile of crap. Trump’s impeachment was a direct test as to whether or not his obstruction of Congress or the abuse of his oath rose to levels of criminality worthy of his facing formal charges and a trial. The evidence was ruled sufficient for trial at which point the Senate to its eternal shame refused to conduct a proper trial and instead skimped by on a verdict barely disguised as “not guilty enough”. The Republican Senate embarrassed itself, and will be compelled to attempt the repetition of the the process soon. And every vote of “no it is not a turd” marks indelibly for his or her legacy the cowardice of the spineless voter behind it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So @seawulf575 You believe Col.Vindman was lying his ass off when he testified to what he heard on the call?
And other witnesses that weren’t democrats were lying as well?
As for The Don Father why even bring Biden’s name up?
You believe that the Trump is innocent, and I will keep believing it is a huge cover up to protect their crooked leader.
If it wasn’t then why squash the call for more witnesses ? and please not again to keep costs down, if they were indeed concerned about costs they would bring up that Trump is ripping the country off by charging the secret service over $600 a night per room at his resorts when he jets off for one of his many golf weekends.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Do you actually hear yourself? “The evidence was ruled sufficient for trial” By who? Oh yeah…Dems that didn’t want to hear any other narrative. I know, if you don’t actually address all the facts, you can continue with your fantasy. And you go on to ignore that the House did a partisan, half-assed job in the first place and cry about sour grapes that the Senate didn’t do their job for them. Think about what you are saying. The House created articles of impeachment that cited absolutely no crimes. They used innuendo, allegation, hearsay, and opinion as their “facts”. And they pass that over to the Senate and expect it to be taken seriously? I think the Senate did more than they should have. They should have called it the piece of garbage it was to start with and acknowledge it wasn’t worth their time to hear.

Patty_Melt's avatar

One of you two (wulf or Stanley) must change his account name to Punch, and the other must become Judy.
Lol

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 If you go back to Vindman’s testimony, you will find that what he didn’t like was Trump’s foreign policy. He really didn’t have anything specific to slam Trump with. Again…opinion. He didn’t really dispute the transcript other than a couple meaningless wordings. And that is how the transcript is done. Three people listen and then write down what they heard. His was an outlier of what the other two heard. So he is claiming he is right and everyone else is wrong. Does he believe what he is saying? Sure.
And look at what the other witnesses said. Yovanovich….never heard anything on the phone call (and was gone before it was made), never met President Trump, but didn’t agree with his policies. George Kent….had no first hand knowledge of anything…just what he had heard. Didn’t even say how far removed his “heard” was from first hand knowledge. Sondland…stated there was a quid pro quo and then repeatedly stated there wasn’t a quid pro quo. Yeah, there’s a witness. The list goes on. Yet they ignored the whistleblower…the one that actually started the entire thing. They tried saying it was because his complaint was hearsay and they had the actual transcript, yet they accepted nothing but hearsay after that. Why exclude him? He was the one that started everything. Oh yeah! It came out that he contacted Schiff’s staff just prior to writing his complaint. That’s right…it would implicate Schiff if it came out his staff helped write the stupid thing.
Having the Senate call more witnesses is a foolish statement. When a person goes to trial, the prosecutor has done the investigation and is ready for the evidence to prove the guilt. You don’t start a trial with the argument that you need do the investigation. If the House felt more witnesses were needed, they should have taken the time to get them to testify before rushing to declare an impeachment.

stanleybmanly's avatar

So this question “is Trump at it again?” or it’s companion “is Trump off the hot seat?” I will state emphatically that the turd will never escape the hot seat and of course he’s at it again. It’s all he knows. You cannot keep him out of it. His fat ass is glued to that seat and the blowtorch fires it up round-the-clock. The epic turd show moves inexorably, disgustingly onward marching into history. These are the years which will be remembered as definitive in our country regarding graft snd governmental corruption.

Yellowdog's avatar

These will be remembered as the first year impeachment was attempted as a weapon of one party, The first time one campaign spied on an opposing political party, and a time of the biggest political blunder in U.S. history—the impeachment effort.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And the second impeachment?

Yellowdog's avatar

It is unlikely the voters will give you that opportunity.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Yellowdog are you implying that they might just kick the Don Father to the curb this November?

stanleybmanly's avatar

He might not make it to November.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

One can hope, but I fear he will be there for your next election, but the Democrats have to geta person place, and if it’s Bernie I just wish he would stop calling himself a democratic -socialist because the fright wingers are going to run a vote for Bernie is a vote for communism not true I know but the fright wingers are that sleazy.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther