Posts made by Frederick

@Drwas:

A majority of voters believe that President Donald Trump is abusing the powers of his office, according to a poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University.

Fifty-four percent of voters think Trump is abusing his power as President, according to the survey, while 43 percent think he is not.

In addition, a majority of those surveyed — 54 percent — disapproved of Trump’s decision to abruptly fire James Comey as director of the FBI, while only 36 percent approved.

First of all, that poll was conducted at Quinnipiac University.. which is a libtard stronghold.

As for firing Comey…    people like John Pedosta, Hillary Clinton, and Rosie O'Donnell called for Comey's firing many many times.

@beep:

Trump bowed to them. Bowed to them. Did not shake there hand. Did not, like, nod. BOWED to them. Oil and money is the only damn thing he cares about.

Oops. Sorry. Trump is the only thing Trump cares about. Oil and money come close tho!

Nice try, but Trump did not bow to anybody.  He squat down because he is 6'2, so that the towelhead could put a big fancy medal around his neck. 
 racial slur "towelhead"

@mhorndisk:

Plan Clinton - Partial Birth Abortion!

Not to mention she praised Margaret Sanger who started Planned Parenthood, and said that black people are weeds that need to be exterminated.  :afr2: Vomit

That's it!  Plan C = Plan CLINTON = Partial Birth Abortions!

@Drwas:

President Donald Trump in April told Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte that the United States has two nuclear submarines stationed in Korean waters, according to several reports.

“We have a lot of firepower over there. We have two submarines, the best in the world,” Trump bragged to Duterte, according to reports by the New York Times and the Intercept. “We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all.”

Defense officials were shocked by reports Trump had disclosed the location of the submarines because: “We never talk about subs!”

Trump’s cavalier attitude toward sensitive information is nothing new. The Washington Post reported last week that Trump shared highly classified information with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the U.S. during a meeting in the Oval Office earlier in May.

You don't use your brain much, do you?

Previously, Trump said he sent an aircraft carrier to North Korea.. when in fact he did not.  That was called a BLUFF which is a very successful strategy.  Supposedly that aircraft carrier is there now.  As for submarines.. you must be ignorant.. because not only has Trump mentioned them weeks ago, but at LEAST two subs ALWAYS accompany an aircraft carrier.  A single aircraft carrier has enough firepower to take out almost any country on the planet.  Do you think they let aircraft carriers float around without any protection?  For instance, Iran has submarines.  Do you think they would let an aircraft carrier go anywhere without U.S. submarines protecting it?  Not a chance, and that is common knowledge to people with a functional hippocampus.

@aadam101:

According to Ben Carson…..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/24/ben-carson-calls-poverty-a-state-of-mind-during-interview/

I guess that makes sense.  It's been my belief for a very long time that Trump isn't a billionaire and never has been.  That's why he won't show his tax returns.  He is only a billionaire in his head.

I wasn't aware that poverty began when Trump became president. 
In fact, after Obama got done doubling the national debt in just 8 years from $10 trillion to $20 trillion, the economy immediately bounced UP the day Trump was elected - and has continued to rise.

Trump is under no obligation to produce his tax returns, in fact, a businessman would be a fool to do so. 
Nevertheless, Rachel Maddow got ahold of some of them illegally, and boldly posted them on a prime time special - which should have put her in jail.

I heard someone saying that there are 3 ways of disposing of unwanted children:  Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C
I know that:
Plan A = Adoption
Plan B = the name given to "Day After Pills"
But what is Plan C?

What's the matter libtards?  Run out of things to bitch about?  
I don't suppose you consider that when you randomly make up stories with no factual content that you destroy what little credibility you have?

I will try and interject some facts into your poisonous thread.  
Days before the Nov 2016 election, the media were acting as if a Hillary victory was certain.  The economy was plummeting in free fall, and continued to plummet up until the moment that Trump won… and then the economy bounced.. and rose sharply, and other than a few temporary minor setbacks, has continued to rise.

The attached chart shows exactly what I am referring to.  I put an arrow to indicate election day 2016.  This is my own investment portfolio's performance which is made up of 113 investments.  I am quite pleased with my 16% annual rate of return, thank you very much.

@ajax0980:

This thread or my post is NOT about Podesta, who has NO OFFICIAL FUNCTION in the CURRENT administration.

And yes, tho not PROOF POSITIVE, as I mentioned (and have others), these pre-election and CURRENT contacts between Russia and Trump cronies deserve SCRUTINY.

BTW, the sad 'joke' is that this charlatan is MY representative to the world.

Nobody SHOULD be talking about Podesta anymore since he has NO OFFICIAL FUNCTION in government anymore..  HOWEVER, Pedosta is STILL running his mouth and making attacks upon Trump.. as is Hillary.  If he's going to cast stones, he better expect to be criticized.  
There is another issue here.. Hillary doesn't give a damn about the Democratic Party.  All Hillary cares about is… (drumroll)  HILLARY!  She will do and say anything that will benefit her own personal agenda.  It looks like she might be trying to promote her daughter Chelsea now.. that is a hunch.  Good luck with getting that horse faced, pseudo intellectual elected to anything.

@brettw97:

I'm not arguing First Amendment rights.  I'm pointing out that with the internet anyone can become a journalist and utilize their First Amendment rights as a media outlet.  If traditional media is going to survive in this atmosphere, it is important that they be perceived by their audience as an unbiased umpire, which given the number of political cronies they hire, unlikely & give both sides of the political divide a fair shake in that they assign investigative reporters who actually want to see a story through to every allegation made by both sides.  Otherwise, their purpose as a credible neutral arbitrator of facts will cease to exist in the eyes of the public.  Without that credibility, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, et. al. will be as relevant as Buzzfeed and bloggers.

I get what you are saying, but it is not quite true in this regard. 
One can NOT exercise their First Amendment rights on social media.  I know this for a fact, because during the 2016 campaign, and even after, I had multiple Facebook and YouTube accounts permanently banned for no reason other than my comments about liberals. 
Apparently free speech is only granted to people that agree with the agenda's of Facebook's Mark Fuckaburger and YouTube.

P.S. Facebook and YouTube are ripe for being sued out of existence much like Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) put Gawker out of business.

@Drwas:

Fox News on Tuesday removed a story based on an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the unsolved murder of a DNC staffer.

“The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting,” Fox said in a brief statement. “Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.”

The network did not apologize and said it “will continue to investigate this story.”

If you want to continue playing with this story.. and stirring up the Clinton pot again.. I would be happy to do so. 
I would rather not stir that pot up again, however, there are dozens of VERY mysterious murders and very suspicious suicides tied to the Clintons.  I would suggest you drop it.  I can't resist sharing one though.  There is a video of Bill Clinton celebrating immediately after the death of Ron Brown.. but the instant Billy spotted that he had a camera pointed at him, his face turned from a smile to a frown.

Here's the facts:
Hillary ILLEGALLY kept a server in her house containing hundreds of thousands of digital documents (which is a Federal Crime).
These documents included those from her tenure as Secretary of State during the 2008-2012 tenure of Osama (and Benghazi).
Her house was not a secure location, nor was it safe from cyber attacks, nor did she have permission to do that.
The people Hillary hired to set up her server and maintain it.. and access it, and DELETE things had NO security clearance.
Congress ORDERED Hillary to turn over 30,000 e-mails from that server.
AFTER being ORDERED to turn over the e-mails, Hillary hired a private company with no security clearance to destroy the evidence.
Those actions amount to treason, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, and other crimes - all of which should have her in prison.

Trump wanted those e-mails recovered, to show that Hillary is a crook.
Hillary then took the extra step of not only deleting those e-mails but made sure they could not be recovered by using "bleach bit" software.

Eventually, the dozen or more agencies investigating the e-mails determined that Hillary's rogue server in her house had been hacked by at LEAST 5 different countries and other parties not tied to a government. 
Duplicates of many of those e-mails were found on the computer of pedophile Anthony Weiner who is the husband of Huma Abedin (who is Hillary's top aide and rumored lesbian lover).
WikiLeaks began publishing batches of these e-mails which were extremely damaging to Hillary.  She wisely didn't even attempt to refute these e-mails, but started waving the "Red Flag" and claiming that Russia was trying to destroy her. 
Several times, the head of WikiLeaks stated that the source of the e-mails was NOT a state run agency, NOT Russia.. and Assange has a reputation for never lying.

So, here we are, still blaming Trump and Russia for Hillary's defeat. 
Since when is exposing the TRUTH a crime? 
Is it a crime to produce REAL evidence that Hillary tried to destroy?  No, it's not.

Let's take this one step further:
Imagine that Hillary WON the election.. if we assume that Russia and others had those e-mails that she tried to destroy, then there would be a cloud over Hillary in that she could be blackmailed by Russia and the others who could potentially reveal what she tried to hide.
So, if Hillary had been elected, she would be forced to resign because of that potential for blackmail. 
Hillary created her OWN defeat. 
This is WHY keeping a server in one's own house is illegal.  if the e-mails were intercepted from a legitimate government computer, then it would be the fault of the government.  By having the e-mails intercepted from Hillary's own private computer in her own home, the fault and liability is 100% that of Hillary!

(Feel free to share my comments anywhere you like.. such as Facebook, Twitter, or anywhere else).

@brettw97:

The real problem with fake stories runs deeper than Trump.  This election was one where Trump was the clear outsider, the guy the media did not want to see win.  Even FOX News was split on whether they wanted him.  Trump won much in the same way as FDR & JFK did: he used a new medium to bypass traditional media and project an image that the traditional media of the time could not control.  In FDR's case, the radio, JFK's case, the television, and in Trump's case, social media.

The real problem is that beginning probably in Bush's second term, social media started to evolve.  Yeah, Obama used it, but used it just to organize his own supporters to be subordinate to him.  Never before have we seen groups self-organize on the internet to back a candidate.

While this was going on, many media outlets, loss of ad revenue, had reverted to clickbait articles on their own in order to draw large audiences instead of insuring that they got the story right, which takes more time.  The problem is that when you get a story wrong, and you're likely to do so if you're too worried about being first is that you lose the only asset that is important in journalism: credibility.

So, when they turned a blind eye to Trump's massive social media reach, ignored the fact Hillary wasn't campaigning (yes, she lost because Trump flat outworked her, as she often was off the trail for days and even weeks at a time), told the country there's no way Trump could win, and then went into a meltdown when he did win, their credibility took a massive hit.

Both sides have fake articles.  Both sides have conspiracy theories.  Dems have Russian Collusion.  GOP has Seth Rich.  The traditional media pushes Russian Collusion, and calls Seth Rich a conspiracy theory.  There's valid points that deserve investigation in both.  Instead of assigning real investigative reporters to take their time, get to the bottom of these stories, and give an honest assessment as to what they find, traditional outlets are jumping the gun.  This is what is going to destroy traditional journalism.  Clickbait instead of an even-handed facts matter approach.

However, we shouldn't be surprised at this.  NBC gives contracts to the Bush and Clinton daughters.  ABC hires George Stephanopolus, a Clinton campaign aide and Clinton Foundation donor, and I could keep going, but the problem is that traditional media has tried to play inside baseball by hiring political hacks from both sides of the aisle instead of promoting real journalists based on merit.

So, it's no surprise to see traditional media on the way out.  The only question is what will replace it and how effective will it be.  I have no clue, but it's an interesting time to be alive.

The media interjecting itself into politics has always been a disaster.  It goes way back.. including the "muckrakers" of roughly 120 years ago.

@aadam101:

I don't understand why you think Hillary will go to jail.  Trump already said he isn't going to investigate her.

Trump said that because he was being presidential, and wanted to get on with government rather than having a side-show going after Hillary.

However… Hillary is pushing her luck by continuing to fight for resistance.  Someone other than Trump - such as the Attorney General, or FBI, or Congress can call for investigations into Hillary - perhaps with a nudge from Trump.

I don't think it will be long before Trump is FORCED to attack NK.. which will wipe all these trivial anti-Trump libtards off the media train. 
The newest leader of North Korea - the bastard son of Kim Jung Il who is Kum Jung_Un  has been far worse than his daddy.. and got a free pass from Obama to develop nukes and missiles.   
Much like Bill Clinton allowed Al Queda to become a power,  Obama allowed NK and ISIS to become powers, as well as allowed Al Queda to arise again after being defeated by Bush.  How anybody can say anything good about Obama is beyond me.

@hunk7778:

ok, did you even forget who is Vice President? He passed a law in Indiana that discriminates lgbt individuals. Now Trump signed the law where people use "religion" as an excuse. So when you said that Trump is not homophobic, i ask you "Why the fuck do you even exist?"

Apparently you missed my post yesterday showing how HILLARY is anti gay.

What Pence did as governor can't be blamed on Trump… and I would remind you that the ultra-liberal state of California was very much against gay marriage - although I don't know why.

In this post, I'm not discussing the validity of any of the attacks.
There has been a tidal wave of anti-Trump stories from a shooting gallery of attackers.
It seems to me that with so many attacks, none of the attacks gets much attention because
the other attacks draw attention away from it.
Seems like the public gives just as much weight to a story about whether Melania wore a scarf on her head
as they do about major issues.  :pleasant:

@tlf1989:

In my country, gay marriage has also only been legalized thanks to justice.

While leftist presidents signed compromises with homophobic Pentecostal Christians.

Something has puzzled me.. which perhaps someone can explain to me…
When gay marriage was gaining support, why is it that ultra-liberal California was so AGAINST it?

@warpaint:

You still can't figure out that Buck Angel is not a guy with a dick cut off but a chick that made FTM transition ? It's a real vagina so your point is invalid

I was not aware that Buck is a female.  I modified the poll to cover that issue.

@amicusets:

Dudes have dicks. No dick and it's a chick.

I don't disagree with you, however, the vast majority of so-called trans people keep their dicks.

I remember from many years ago, I used to chat online with a cyber performer who also was a manager of a bathhouse.  He said that anybody that didn't have a dick was not allowed past the front door.
I'm happy to say that guy moved far away, and is now a very successful manager of an upscale bar & grill.
Some of you might know who I am talking about.. his affectionate nickname is "Snatch".

@lexluthor88:

It doesn't bother me in the least to see a person have a sex change in either direction. I wouldn't want to have one myself, and I'm happy I have a dick, but I can see the appeal of having a vagina. It's a hole that's basically always ready for sex. Part of what sucks about being a bottom is that you have to prepare for sex, and it can rarely be spontaneous.

My understanding is that constructed "vaginas" might look like a real vagina.. but functionally are like a dead dry cold hole and feels like fucking a corpse.  (wait, isn't that what a real vagina is supposed to feel like?)  About 8 years ago on the Howard Stern show, one of Howard's co-workers had sex with a guy who had a vagina installed, and he gave it a big thumbs down.

Frankly, the appearance to me is horrifying.  I admit that there are some aspects of a female that can look nice, the vagina is not one of them.  I find it to be repulsive.  I also find prolapsed assholes to be repulsive (an asshole that is external rather than internal like a rosebud).

It doesn't bother me to see a "chick" with a dick.  In fact, I have found that many so-called straight guys are thrilled at the idea of a beautiful girl having a huge cock.

HOWEVER, it deeply disturbs me to see men who have their dick cut off or otherwise made into a vagina. 
I think this is very rarely done, for good reason.  Who would trade a cock for a vagina?  I'm pretty sure that even Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner still has his cock.  "Stonie" - who  was famously in the movie Borat as Borat's son had a sex change.. but KEPT his huge cock (YAY!).

Unfortunately, Stonie died at 38 in Dec. 2016  :cry2:
I don't know the cause of death.. but could have been Hepatitis B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_CoxXx