Trump Presidency

[madhatter]

keep me posted on that blue wave thing....also please post updates on russia collusion, omarosa, stormy daniels, number of scoops of ice cream and what ever else is of the utmost importance to you idiots...

Sure, or you could just read like the New York Times or something.the NYT that had Hillary as a 90+% of a landslide victory? why would I do that?

no wonder yer so uninformed....

FYI the anonymous source and woodward's drivel are both opinion and hearsay...their opinions, while not nearly as imbecilic as yours, are still nothing that matters to me...

BTW did you hear that Trump's personal lawyer was indicted and is going to jail over the Stormy Daniels thing? Yeah, real news, man. That and your hero Trump lied about the whole thing! And the Russian Collusion investigation? Believe it or not, that's actually still ongoing, after like a dozen or so indictments. Stay tuned, bro, it's history in action.let me know when that great pumpkin rises there linus ...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... tions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

man, if only I wasn't so dumb I could be a miserable whiny sore-loser like you....

[madhatter]

P.S. Woodward is not an anonymous source.

so what? that makes him credible?

Actually, he's one of the most accomplished journalists of our time, so yeah, he's pretty credible.

Robert Upshur Woodward (born March 26, 1943) is an American investigative journalist. He has worked for The Washington Post since 1971 as a reporter and is now an associate editor there.[1]

While a young reporter for The Washington Post in 1972, Woodward teamed up with Carl Bernstein; the two did much of the original news reporting on the Watergate scandal. These scandals led to numerous government investigations and the eventual resignation of President Richard Nixon. The work of Woodward and Bernstein was called "maybe the single greatest reporting effort of all time" by longtime journalism figure Gene Roberts.[2]

Woodward continued to work for The Washington Post after his reporting on Watergate. He has since written 18 books on American politics, 12 of which topped best-seller lists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so he's a tabloid writer? hahahah who the fvck cares? he broke a story nearly 50 years ago so his opinion today must be valid......I suppose in your demented head woodward is gonna spearhead the trump fantasy impeachment too huh? I mean he wrote about nixon and it happened so it must be about to happen again right? it's the only logical conclusion...

[MarieM]

What's amusing about him discrediting an anonymous source is virtually the entire ZH brand is built on anonymous sources.

It's easy to dismiss a single anonymous source. That's not what we have here. There have been a whole bunch of articles and former staffers who have all been saying the same thing as Woodward's book and this anonymous source.

As to the Dems shift leftward, I think that's a bad sign and not likely to help them. But as to being critical of Trump, well he's not popular right now. 43% approval rating last time I checked? I think anti-Trump sentiment is rising and likely to be helpful to Dems at this point. I could be wrong, but that's the feel of it to me. Dems shifting leftward though could be shooting themselves in the foot.

A shift left will help rather than hurt in the liberal bastions of the coastal urban areas but be deadly elsewhere, with the possible exception of Chicago. The House will be won or lost in the suburbs where Trump's unpopularity can only be offset if the Dems go too far left.

And if the Dems (God forbid) nominate Elizabeth Warren, we can save all the money we'd spend on an election. Just hand the keys to the WH to the Republican nominee.

[madhatter]

What's amusing about him discrediting an anonymous source is virtually the entire ZH brand is built on anonymous sources.

It's easy to dismiss a single anonymous source. That's not what we have here. There have been a whole bunch of articles and former staffers who have all been saying the same thing as Woodward's book and this anonymous source.

As to the Dems shift leftward, I think that's a bad sign and not likely to help them. But as to being critical of Trump, well he's not popular right now. 43% approval rating last time I checked? I think anti-Trump sentiment is rising and likely to be helpful to Dems at this point. I could be wrong, but that's the feel of it to me. Dems shifting leftward though could be shooting themselves in the foot.

A shift left will help rather than hurt in the liberal bastions of the coastal urban areas but be deadly elsewhere, with the possible exception of Chicago. The House will be won or lost in the suburbs where Trump's unpopularity can only be offset if the Dems go too far left.

And if the Dems (God forbid) nominate Elizabeth Warren, we can save all the money we'd spend on an election. Just hand the keys to the WH to the Republican nominee.It's cute that you imagine there will be a republican "nominee", hillaryous really...let me spare you the agony of suspense; its gonna be this guy:

Elizabeth Warren is seen as ‘front-runner.’ But is it too early?



https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;






I'm madhatter and I approve this message....hahahahha actually I'm laughing my @ss off princess liawatha the hero of the "you didnt build this" left is already being shunned by her subjects who cna already smell the "loser" on her......but wait maybe harris /booker or booker/harris can do the trick...

[Kpdemello]

FYI the anonymous source and woodward's drivel are both opinion and hearsay...their opinions, while not nearly as imbecilic as yours, are still nothing that matters to me...

You may want to look up the definition of hearsay and opinion. The anonymous source claims to be an eye witness to things he/she has seen and heard, and so his/her observations are neither hearsay nor opinion. Woodward's book, while technically hearsay, is certainly not opinion. But then again, all journalism is hearsay, technically, and so is anything written in any history book. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate and verifiable.

But then, how would you know, since you claim you never read either source?

[madhatter]

FYI the anonymous source and woodward's drivel are both opinion and hearsay...their opinions, while not nearly as imbecilic as yours, are still nothing that matters to me...

You may want to look up the definition of hearsay and opinion. The anonymous source claims so a source whose credibility and in fact whose mere existence can not be verified is to be considered neither hearsay or opinion buw what? pure BS? I'll go w that...sorry you got NOTHING here...to be an eye witness to things he/she has seen and heard, and so his/her observations are neither hearsay nor opinion. this is about the stupidest thing you've ever posted, well close anyway...Woodward's book, while technically hearsay, is certainly not opinion. yeah no way the editor of WaPo let any bias color his hearsay....are you really this dumb? But then again, all journalism is hearsay, technically, no it's not, but the journalism you cite almost always is...ya gotta do what they told ya...and so is anything written in any history book. That doesn't mean they aren't accurate and verifiable.

hear·say
ˈhirˌsā/Submit
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"

ok I guess you are that dumb...

But then, how would you know, since you claim you never read either source?

[Bubba]

The US would be in a bigger mess under Clinton than it is under Trump, historian Niall Ferguson says - CNBC
https://apple.news/AgKS2NM5nRDyaEGcQNceNWQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[daytripper]

The US would be in a bigger mess under Clinton than it is under Trump, historian Niall Ferguson says - CNBC
https://apple.news/AgKS2NM5nRDyaEGcQNceNWQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I dont think Trump is the answer he is way better than Clinton in my book. No way in hell I would have voted for her.

[Kpdemello]

hear·say
ˈhirˌsā
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
"according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
synonyms: rumor, gossip, tittle-tattle, idle talk; More
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"

This is the definition I was referring to. The other is merely colloquial. But why bother explaining this to you, as you won't even bother to try to understand. You will believe what you want in spite of the facts. Hell, you won't even read other sources besides your silly blogs! Good luck to you, sir.

[Kpdemello]

While I dont think Trump is the answer he is way better than Clinton in my book. No way in hell I would have voted for her.

I did not vote for Hillary as I don't like her politics. But knowing what I know now, I'm still not sure. Would Clinton really be worse than this sh*t show? The damage here could be substantial and long-lasting.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The US would be in a bigger mess under Clinton than it is under Trump, historian Niall Ferguson says - CNBC
https://apple.news/AgKS2NM5nRDyaEGcQNceNWQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I dont think Trump is the answer he is way better than Clinton in my book. No way in hell I would have voted for her.

Trump can only hope the Dems put forward a candidate that is disliked as much, or more, than Hillary. Otherwise, it will be tough to win.

[MarieM]

I'm madhatter and I approve this message....hahahahha actually I'm laughing my @ss off princess liawatha the hero of the "you didnt build this" left is already being shunned by her subjects who cna already smell the "loser" on her......but wait maybe harris /booker or booker/harris can do the trick...

So now you read minds and assume I'm bailing on her because I "smell the 'loser' on her?" You're assumptions are interesting.

[madhatter]

I'm madhatter and I approve this message....hahahahha actually I'm laughing my @ss off princess liawatha the hero of the "you didnt build this" left is already being shunned by her subjects who can already smell the "loser" on her......but wait maybe harris /booker or booker/harris can do the trick...

So now you read minds and assume I'm bailing on her because I "smell the 'loser' on her?" You're YOURassumptions are interesting.

And if the Dems (God forbid) nominate Elizabeth Warren, we can save all the money we'd spend on an election. Just hand the keys to the WH to the Republican Donald J. Trump nominee.

really? so that quote was supposed to be an endorsement? a kreskin like prediction of a win? cuz i read it as "if warren is the candidate we're gonna lose and might as well just quit now"...so if that's not what you meant, then by all means interpret from your language to english so I can correct my assumptions...Since you responded the way you did I guess you consider yourself one of her subjects... so we can agree there, ya gotta do what they tell you....

serious question are any of you leftists NOT idiots who argue for the sake of arguing, selling a pile of crap you'd never buy yourselves?

[Highway Star]

[Kpdemello]

As of this date, given the current administration, that graphic is amazingly accurate.