The Birther thingy was started in 2008 by supporters of Hillary over Obama. It grew from there.
I don't even remember. I'm not even sure I paid much attention to it at the time. It wouldn't surprise me, given what the Clinton Camp and the DNC did to Bernie.
I just want to see if the media has the balls to fact check. Hooefully some of the mods learned from Matt Lauers public shaming and humiliation.
I actually still need to watch that. I probably should have done that a while ago...
I just don't get it. Does Chris Wallace think saying he won't fact check Hillary will go over well with the Fox News viewers? Did CNN and MSNBC see how Lauer got destroyed? I mean just forgetting the journalistic integrity aspect, people aren't gonna watch these channels because they're pissed.
Personally, I was very uncomfortable w/Lauer's questioning of Trump. I despise Trump, but I thought Lauer's tone was confrontational and he was not allowing Trump to expound.
The next day I start reading articles about the debate and Lauer got drilled for not being tough enough. LOL......
I did not watch the other interviews so I can't comment on those.
All I know is that I don't like that uppity-sneering-confrontational line of questioning. It gets in the way of the message. I wanna hear the message and do my own fact checking.
The last thing I want to hear is how the moderator is the star of the freaking show.
I get that is a minority opinion and that is why I have kept it to myself for so long.
It's like watching sports. I don't wanna hear talk of Kap, steroid use, suspensions, etc DOMINATE each and every show. I want to watch, talk, and listen to freaking sports.
I am not saying that they should not report those things, but they tend to dominate the conversation and the real reasons why I watch sports are put on the back burner.
I think there should be a set of questions and let the candidates talk. Again, I am smart enough to do the fact-checking on my own. I don't need some geek to tell me what to think. Get the f......out of the way and let the candidates talk!!!
I think there should be a set of questions and let the candidates talk. Again, I am smart enough to do the fact-checking on my own. I don't need some geek to tell me what to think. Get the f......out of the way and let the candidates talk!!!
The problem is that you're not like most people. Most people are lazy and it's why ads do have an affect.
Well, he's run this 'birther scam' for as long as it served his purposes, and now he's dropping it the instant it no longer serves his purpose. That in and of itself should show everyone, including his most ardent 'birther' followers that he was never really sincere about this garbage in the first place.
I've watched him play the PT Barnum game since the mid-80's. It's why I've never liked him, it's why I've never trusted him, and watching him run this confidence game on a national stage has made me ill.
It's one thing to bilk common citizens out of their life savings, but to run the same scam in a bid to become the most influential human being on the planet is simply inexcusable. Some might even call it- deplorable.
I believe this entire campaign of his has been an exercise in self-fellatio for his own ego's sake, and nothing more. I believe he's too shallow and intellectually lazy to ever be able to handle the pressures of the office of POTUS... and I believe in my core that he's not only a terrible option- he's an absolute danger to international politics.
His track record as a human being is the very embodiment of every personal trait My Parents taught me to loathe, and I wish that anyone short of David Duke or Tom Metzger were running as the GOP candidate.
This man's candidacy has been a personal nightmare for me, and I'll never forgive the GOP for running such weak options in the primary season.
To call this man a horse's ass is an insult to equine rectums everywhere.
Hillary's people started the Birther movement and Obama stoked the fires when he couldn't or wouldn't produce his Birth Certificate for something like 6 months. Most of us could produce a Birth Certificate in 6 minutes.
Obama, alias Barry Soetoro already had everyone suspicious with the two identities and this also gave life to who this guy really was.
So, the "Clinton started the birther movement" is complete bull.
Here's the sad part: either way you slice it, conservatives look gullible as all hell.
Let's say in some fantasy world(where conservatives love to dwell) Clinton started it.
Instead of doing their own fact checking, conservatives decided to believe it to the core and completely ran with a hoax.
In the real world, where Clinton never said such a thing, conservatives STILL ran with the birther movement, and then when they got caught believing horse crap, then try to spin it to say that Clinton started it.
Again, believing anything they hear. Or what Haus likes to call 'confirmation bias', right Haus?
Congrats conservatives. Either way you slice it, you guys got caught with your pants down like a bunch of oblivious fools.
What's worse? Your presidential candidate still couldn't let it go until now.
Absolutely pathetic.
Congrats on looking like a bunch of sheep. I thought y'all was better than that.
Last edited by Swish; 09/16/1608:09 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I'd imagine the president of the United States doesn't just have a birth certificate laying around in some filing cabinet. However, you're right in that it took too long. It was obviously a crap rumor, but Obama didn't exactly keep the flames down.
Stop it. For the longest you and others claimed Clinton herself started it.
You got caught believing a glorified chain email.
Own it. Give it up already. The longer you go with denial, the worse you look.
Last edited by Swish; 09/16/1608:14 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
On Friday morning, amid criticism from his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and even some Republicans, Trump finally answered the question, adding that he was ready to move on. “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period,” the GOP nominee declared. “Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You think Hillary was involved in the brother movement?
Well since we're still saying ridiculous things, Bush did 9/11.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The Birther thingy was started in 2008 by supporters of Hillary over Obama. It grew from there.
Actually, that is not accurate. NPR just ran a story on this tonight and I listened to it on my way home from work. Clinton questioned in 2007 whether his years in Hawaii and Indonesia made him "out of touch" with the majority of Americans. She decided not to push it during the campaign.
Trump then started hammering on about the fact he was born in Kenya and questioning his citizenship and if he was legally able to be the President. It was also Trump who took to social media and tv shows such as "The View" spouting his own assumptions about Obama's citizenship and spreading rumors that the certificate he did produce in front of cameras (2011) possibly wasn't truthful.
All I know is that I don't like that uppity-sneering-confrontational line of questioning. It gets in the way of the message. I wanna hear the message and do my own fact checking.
That's interesting. Yet, you are quick to be confrontational, insulting and, at times, downright rude to folks on here.
Yet if I was to point out all the trump supporters calling Obama a Muslim, your first response would be "but trump didn't say it so it doesn't matter"
Last edited by Swish; 09/16/1608:47 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
There are a ton of inaccurate things being posted on these presidential threads.
Those of us who are more neutral and trying to be fair already know who is going to say what.
LMAO man..........it's annoying in a way, but it is also extremely comical. Both sides are so full of crap that it makes my side hurt from laughing at you guys so much.
Do any of you really believe you are fooling anyone?
Y'all are not about learning and expanding your horizons. Y'all are about hammering your narrow-minded, hateful, shallow opinions on the other side.
Do any of you really believe you are fooling anyone?
No, but you certainly think you are.
More neutral. Lol.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You pointed out something that 40 said wasn't accurate. So, why can't I point out things that both sides are saying are inaccurate?
Here's my thing........most of us already know exactly what you will say. What Swish will say. What 40 will say. What candy will say. What Fish will say. What Rocket will say. What OCD will say. What arch will say and on and on and on.
None of you guys are fair or balanced. It's all about how "terrible" the other side is.
You support Gary Johnson. So you're on the libertarian side, at least this election cycle.
That was a ridiculously easy question, especially since you don't miss a chance to tell people about it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I agree w/you, Clem. Now, what do you think of Hillary?
I've talked about her many times before.
I think she's been an ambitious 'career politician' since her days at Wellesley and Yale. I believe she's engaged in the same 'inside the beltway' brand of closed- and open-door politics as folks like Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. I think she's been a ruthless street fighter in electoral races, and will walk all over the opposition if given the chance. She's the kind of campaigner who isn't above using dirty tricks to win an election, and is also the same person who will sit down across the table from you afterward, and try to get something done.
When it comes to her competence and fitness to hold office, I listen less to what news pundits say about her, and more to what her colleagues do. For 20+ years, there has been a line-up of GOP elected officials who have said positive things about her commitment, resolve and ability to work across the aisle... even when they've found themselves philosophically opposed to her points.
I think she's probably done as many super-shady things as almost all of them in DC, but nothing has ever stuck, despite an almost nonstop investigation of her by some of the same people who have complimented her in interviews. Her time as a NY Senator was marked by cooperation with Guliani after 9/11 and advocacy for 9/11 First Responders, which I respected. I deeply disliked the fact that she went hawkish on both Afghanistan AND Iraq. (Af, I had no real problems with, other than it was more war for American troops. I was against Iraq from the get-go) She opposed the 2007 Iraq surge, which I agreed with, but it was too little, too late... she still had a hand in us being there in the first place.
I can't stand to hear her make speeches. She's awful at it. I find her to be stilted, wooden and overly-scripted, which makes her come of to many as phony and insincere. She's a Policy Wonk, not a charismatic public speaker- and it shows.
I think she's tough, opinionated, and hard to cow in a fight over policy. She seems like someone I'd have to work hard to like personally, and we'd probably go at it like cats and dogs if we found ourselves on opposite sides of an issue.
I don't like her much, but I don't despise her like I do Donald Trump. I wish I could feel more inclined to vote for her than I do, but I just can't muster any enthusiasm for the candidate or her campaign. I don't know enough about Gary Johnson to feel compelled to vote for him, even though I started looking into him as soon as he popped up on the radar. It's the first time in decades that I'm considering sitting this one out... and that doesn't make me feel very good either.
If voting were mandatory, and I was led to the polling both at gunpoint, I'd hold my nose and vote for her for this reason alone:
It's one less vote that would be cast for her opponent. America deserves better than she, but it truly doesn't deserve to be led by that unscrupulous piece of human detritus that's running on the GOP ticket.
That's about all I got for tonight. I gots some pract-zin' to do for Sunday's throwdown, and I'm all politicked out.
