He probably won't IF we lay off and let him run his country. I doubt he wants to die but if he sees it as preeminent, I promise he'll take as many as possible with him. Everything in this world is contingent upon others actions and the US is becoming awful pro-deterrent, which can lead to definite retaliatory actions.
wow, that is pretty bad; I never knew it was Trump's country
I guess there are about 323 million folks that need exit visas now; when are you leaving Poncho?
Oh BS, For the last 40 years Trump has been a flamboyant celebrity millionaire. He has super deep pockets, a public reputation to worry about and no real power outside his own company. This make him the perfect easy target for sexual assault/harassment lawsuits. Yet prior to him running for President as a Republican there was never the slightest hint of any of complaints mad against him.
It was an obvious lie from a habitual liar who is known for his conspiracy theories. Trump has a long history of defaming Obama to rile up his base. This is a distraction because he knows his supporters are so poorly educated that they'll accept anything he tweets, no questions asked, no evidence required. This is what happens when you let a country's education system crumble into disrepair. SAD.
And where did he say the opinion he expressed was 'news?'
That is a beautiful purse.
The Russia scandal has had a slow drip of evidence over months, alongside reports from over a dozen intelligence agencies. Multiple people from the Trump campaign have had to resign or recuse themselves for contacts with Russia. It's absolutely not proven yet, but to claim it's the same as Trump pulling a conspiracy theory out of his ass with exactly zero evidence of any kind, even circumstantial, is silly. An equivalent situation would be if the only source of the Trump-Russia connection was Barack Obama's twitter account.
There is a .0000000000000000001% chance that Trump has a legitimate source for his claim. However, seeing as the White House has gone into shut-down mode and let Fox and Friends fight it out for him, even that percentage is extremely generous. But so long as even that .0000000000000000001% exists, then "appears to" is the reasonably honest way to phrase it.
But since you don't like that kind of talk and prefer Wrestlemania-absolutes instead, I will communicate in your language just for you: yes, it is wholesale libel. Happy?
You wish, seems to me the White House is full steam ahead. And now your statement that Trump is wholesale libel, shows you continue to make wrong assumptions and predictions as always.
Would you like to make another post, this time with some substance involved?
I'm very well versed on the Crowdstrike information.
I'll ask you this and thus far, no one has been able to give me a good answer.
Why was the DNC allowed to decline the FBI doing forensics on the DNC's server?
If this is supposed to be an issue of national security, why was it even allowed?
We usually don't let potentially biased third parties conduct the investigations of crimes, why was it allowed now?
There are other things that undermine the credibility of this report, but this is the most glaring.
The primary military threats to the US are China and Russia.
Thus far, I've yet to see any serious saber rattling towards either.
It's in the title.
Fox News fair and balanced. We report. You decide.
It's straightforward.
I'm a fan. I like shep. I just don't like it when he distracts from the news with his personal opinions. I'm sure someone likes it but I was just trying to listen to the news.
Simple.
Wrong, there is no evidence. If there was, it would be brought to bear to bring down Trump.
I don't have the answers to why the DNC did what it did. I do not trust them any more than you. I am not a Democrat and last year's primary was the first time I ever voted for a Democrat (Bernie Sanders). I know you would probably like to go along with Trump's claim that there may not have been any hack at all, but why leak all the emails relating to debate questions and how to undermine the Sanders Campaign? That seems pretty counterproductive. Anyways, I don't trust people like Clapper, but I trust Trump and his minions even less.
"the attribution of the DNC hack to Russia has been extensively vetted by multiple agencies within the US intelligence community as well as the civilian infosec community. Even given healthy skepticism, the overall consensus from both groups is that Russia orchestrated and executed the hacking campaigns."
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fbi-says-democratic-party-wouldnt-let-agents-see-hacked-email-servers/
Trump has done plenty of saber-rattling towards China with talks of currency-manipulation. However, I do not see him going after China too hard because of the money he owes to Chinese banks. He won't attack Russia because he admires autocrats like Putin and he has many investments in the country (whether he is being blackmailed by the Kremlin is a matter of speculation but there is some evidence pointing in that direction).
MSM has been transitioning away from actual news to opinionated bloviating since Reagan deregulated it in the 80s. But Shep, imo, works differently than Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. When he goes on these rants it is not some partisan left/right hackery talking points. Instead, he tends to stand up against what is false and defends the truth. He doesn't seem to care whether that truth hurts one side or the other. And while I'm aware that he and I would probably disagree on a lot of issues, I have tremendous respect for anyone who defends the truth no matter what.
The 1,500 lawsuits filed against him would say otherwise...
Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?