President Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and this is why...

[dan_c00000]

But "I" understand his anger after all the people that been Bullying him since day one.

I'm sorry did he get bullied before or after he called Mexicans rapists, said Muslims in Jersey City celebrated September 11th, and implied that Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions because she had her period?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm sorry did he get bullied before or after he called Mexicans rapists, said Muslims in Jersey City celebrated September 11th, and implied that Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions because she had her period?

The Donald was referring to illegal aliens when he spoke of Mexican rapists and drug dealers, and it is known to be a true statement. Muslims were celebrating on 9-11, according to eye-witnesses and cops, although maybe not thousands of them.

 

[cuck72]

The Donald was referring to illegal aliens when he spoke of Mexican rapists and drug dealers, and it is known to be a true statement. Muslims were celebrating on 9-11, according to eye-witnesses and cops, although maybe not thousands of them.

THANK YOU!!

 

[cuck72]

I'm sorry did he get bullied before or after he called Mexicans rapists, said Muslims in Jersey City celebrated September 11th, and implied that Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions because she had her period?

You think all of these Mexicans braking the law to get in here are all up standing people, what about the drugs and gang members, think about what OUR! president really meant. That is the biggest problem we have here, people's lack of understanding our President. I agree he's not a very good speaker, but I know where he's coming from when he makes those comments. And I'm SURE! Millions of Muslims were celebrating after 9/11. SO SAD! how people forget that day. And well where is ole Megyn today. I was shocked that she has actually said some nice things about Trump over the last year or two.

NOW! lets talk about who the real Bullies are. Billy bush, why did he come out with that tape? the tape that he shouldn't have even made, that POS!. OH! Stormy after 10 YEARS! wants to talk about her affair with Trump. If he wasn't running for the Presidency in 2016 you have never heard about this shit. And during all this BS! we had the VERY FAKE!! Russia crap. OH! and the AOC squad Bullies, you know the only ones who voted against helping those Mexicans. But blamed Trump for the whole mess that's been going on for YEARS! long before Trump was thought of.

Now would you want a list of all the good stuff our president has done, and is doing that all the other presidents didn't have balls to do?

 

[icanhelp1]

You forgot the part where the Dems had almost three times as many Senate seats to defend as the GOP did, and they still won 58% of the popular vote and 67% of the seats that were up. But I'm sure that was an honest oversight on your part, since you're all about the numbers, Dump.




Most of them, frankly, because they don't have 25 years of baggage from a cottage industry dedicated to destroying them. They also don't have the sense of complacency that Dems had in 2016.



Better prepared for the job, not for running for it. A subtle difference, but a VERY important one. Bottom line, she didn't run a very good campaign.



Even if I agreed with you, your track record proves you would say that no matter who was running. Heck, if the Dems could somehow reanimate Ronald Reagan, convince him to run as a Democrat and repeal the 22nd Amendment so he'd be eligible, you'd still be bleating about how no one could defeat your beloved Saint Donny.



The final polls showed Trump gaining and with a chance of winning, and again, you're ignoring how tiny the margin was. Besides, as I always say, there's a reason why you only have that one example in all of modern polling history to point to.

YDB95 writes: "What part of "The Dems gained 40 seats in the House" makes it look to you like they haven't pulled in support?"

Yes, the Democratic Party won the House in 2018 - but they simultaneously LOST two-seats in the U.S. Senate during those same mid-terms! Of course, those Senate losses consisted of FOUR incumbent Dems who had voted against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to our U.S. Supreme Court (as opposed to only ONE incumbent G.O.P. senator who supported Kavanaugh losing his seat!) President Trump will now have a much EASIER time getting his next high-court justice confirmed!

"And we all know you would never see ANY Democratic candidate as a strong one."

Be serious, YDB95 - WHAT current Democratic Party presidential candidate (out of the twenty-two still running) would you say is as strong as was Hillary Clinton? Even President Obama said that there had never been a presidential candidate (including himself) better prepared for the White House! Who does that party have running now who is stronger than Mrs. Clinton? Let's be honest here - there ISN'T anybody!

"The polls have consistently shown his approval rating underwater by a substantial margin."

And ALL of the polls throughout 2016 consistently showed Donald Trump's approval ratings underwater by substantial margins. What of it?

Politics aside, if the DOJ inspector general report finds criminal behavior in the upper levels of the Obama administration, that won't bode well for democrats in 2020. The investigations into Clinton's emails, Brenan's illegal spying on american citizens, Comey's alleged misuse of the FISC and all the other potential unethical use of DOJ and NSA assets to sabotage a presidential election will hurt the democrats in 2020. With 2.5 years of democrats screaming Trump was involved in Russian collusion ( conspiracy ) and the Mueller report came up empty and what's worst is if it's found that it was the Clinton campaign crew involved with Russian collusion that won't go over too well with the voting electorate. Horowitz report, Senate intelligence investigation, the State Department investigation and Durham's investigation into the unmasking debacle and abuse of power by the Obama admin will have an impact on the elections.

 

[tubby424]

Corad

I recently read an EXCELLENT column by Conrad Black on the National Review web-site about something that we all already know is going to happen - and that's this president's re-election in November of next year.

Did you check the return address of that editorial by Conrad Black ?? The last time i heard his name, he was on his way to prison !!

 

[Dumpington]

tubby424 writes: "Did you check the return address of that editorial by Conrad Black?"

No, tubby - I just read what the man wrote. Another excellent columnist, David Harsanyi of the Washington Examiner has just penned an excellent summary of President Obama's legacy now being in tatters.

When he was first elected in 2008, Obama’s ascent transformed a nation forever, stirring the American soul and sending thrills up the leg of the collective media! Without lifting a finger, Barack won a Nobel Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” before actually doing anything! This was a man who promised to marshal the forces of all mankind to live up to his lofty expectations and start "healing" the earth.

Bill Clinton might have felt your pain, but Obama was imbued with the supernatural ability to intuit exactly what an entire nation was thinking. It was not “merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric,” as one media admirer gushed, but he was that "rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.”

But that was then & this is now.

Today, not even Joe Biden seeks Barack Obama's advice. Some pundits have theorized that the former president was concerned that a gaffe-prone Biden might sully his legacy. But does anyone really believe that Obama, even if Biden was at the top of his game, would back the antiquated one-time Blue Dog Democrat over one of the fresh-faced quasi-socialists running for the presidency? Biden’s years in the Obama administration may have obscured the fact that he wasn’t blessed with much ability in the first place. His four-decade gaffe-filled career as a senator had already been dotted with his gaffe-filled presidential runs.

Long before Obama salvaged Biden’s career as a way to moderate his ticket, the young and vigorous Delaware senator had been plagiarizing speeches and bragging about his grandiose, but wholly imaginary, accomplishments. Like many politicians, Biden is a man who often confuses great luck with great talent. In an effort to ingratiate himself to a contemporary progressive base, Biden has been forced to rapidly shed 45 years of policy positions on abortion, immigration, and crime. Let’s face it: Until recently, Biden never saw a prison he didn’t want to fill. Once the straight-talking, Amtrak-riding, working-class hero, he now had little choice but to tether his fortunes to a former president, even if there was no reciprocation.

The fact is, while Obama was always good at selling himself, he’s been abysmal at advocating for anyone or anything else. In his defense, it’s always easier to be passionate about something you truly love. And boy does Obama love himself. You might remember that even as Obama was pulling off convincing electoral victories, the men and women selling his policy agenda were being tossed from their seats in droves. Over a thousand Democrats met this fate during the Obama years.

Another serious blow to the Obama legacy is the Democrats’ increasingly dim view of the 2009 Affordable Care Act, Obama’s greatest and perhaps only genuine legislative accomplishment. Obamacare would be the first major national reform in modern history to be pushed through Congress without any real consensus, or even a single Republican vote, for that matter. For the leftists who now dominate the Democratic Party, Obamacare had been, at best, a half-measure. Even as voters have warmed to the carcass of the ACA, which by now has been gutted by the courts, mismanagement, and Republican efforts, Democrats were turning against the legislation. Leading contenders such as Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders spoke of the healthcare law, which shaped eight years of national political discourse, as if it had been a complete waste of time.

The problem with Obama’s inability to build coalitions, even for his watered-down initiatives, is that he soon began relying on executive actions. Every time the Republicans failed to “act” or “do their job” on issues Democrats deemed vital — of course, Congress acted all the time by checking the president’s ambitions — Obama would attempt, or threaten, to circumvent the legislative process. This would backfire in two serious ways.

First, it meant that the vestiges of his legacy could be easily discarded once he was gone. Second, it would radicalize politics.

Trump, for example, would keep his campaign promise and withdraw the United States from Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, the Iran nuclear deal, because while the unilateral norm-busting international agreement had been approved by the mullahs of Iran, it had not been ratified by the Senate.

Obama’s signature achievement on the environment had been joining the Paris climate deal - European nations were big fans. The U.S. Senate, not so much. It too was a goner, doomed to languish unratified in its primordial state in perpetuity. Obama’s presidency hadn’t turned out to be "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow" because during those two years that the Democrats controlled both the Senate and House under Obama, they couldn’t pass any major climate change legislation.

On immigration, not only had Obama been rounding up illegal immigrants at record levels — “Do not send your children to the borders... If they do make it, they’ll get sent back,” he had warned — he also failed to protect those facing deportation. It was only when brandishing the plight of Dreamers was no longer politically useful that Obama moved forward with executive actions to protect them.

Obama’s arrogant reliance on executive power and coercive regulations (“the pen and the phone") would energize conservatives, especially social conservatives, who were often the target of his progressive cultural coercions, such as forcing nuns to pay for other peoples’ birth control. Though a newly idealized GOP kept winning seats, many conservatives never felt as if Republicans had fought quite hard enough to contain Obama’s imperious diktats. For many, then, Donald Trump was the answer that would rectify eight years of capitulation.

 

[Dumpington]

Historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gets it - the Democratic Party of 2019 is looking more & more like the Democratic Party of 1972! That year, the Dem's presidential candidate won one-state & D.C. (worth 17 electoral votes), while getting landslided in the popular vote, 60.67 to 37.52%!

Gingrich writes that everything we're seeing in what President Trump calls “Fake News” also existed back in 1972. He notes that the parallels are amazing – take the New York Times' recent shift from Russian collusion to smearing President Trump with allegations of racism! It copies the elite media's hostility to President Nixon a half-century ago. The real opposition to Nixon wasn't the Democratic Party or its presidential candidate (Senator George McGovern) - it was the elite news media.

The media hated Nixon more than any major politician before Trump - and nothing has changed. Modern news reporting is largely centered on venting bitterness and hostility. "The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk and think about—an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins."

The power of the liberal-left grows from the media. Since Nixon, the media has sought to attack presidents not deemed worthy. Much like President Trump a generation later, Richard Nixon did not flinch from the fight. Nixon understood that his primary adversary was the press. It is vital to understand that the news media and and its Hollywood allies are the defenders and imposers of an alternative culture that hates conservatism and particularly hates effective conservatives.

The elite media had its final victory over President Nixon in the Watergate scandal, which drove him from office. This same elite media tried this on President Trump with its “Russian collusion” lie and failed miserably. The Left wants to forget that President Nixon received nearly 61 percent of the vote in '72. The same thing would happen 12 years later when President Reagan won with 58 percent of the vote.

Don't be shocked if President Trump wins by a margin unimaginable today (nobody in '71 or '83 expected the enormous landslides that would come the following year) - don't be shocked if the elite media are again proved wrong in 2020.

 

[YDB95]

Historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gets it -

Well, he's certainly a reliable source!

 

[badbabysitter]

Well, he's certainly a reliable source!

https://media.tenor.com/images/4c5f70f4857907605c43ac84c45cffda/tenor.gif

 

[JKendallDane]

Originally Posted by Dump: Historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gets it -

YDB comes back with: Well, he's certainly a reliable source!

SNORT!

Sorry, but since I have been friends for 50 years with Newt's press secretary when he was Speaker, and having heard a bunch of the backroom stories, I can't help but laugh anytime someone tries to make Newt any kind of expert at anything but swapping out wives.

Newt's been a joke even before he got kicked to the curb by his own party in 1999 and twenty years later he is still little more than a bad punchline.

.

 

[YDB95]

Well, really, how else would we ever know that men are biologically programmed to go out and hunt for giraffes?

 

[jp55665566]

Historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gets it - the Democratic Party of 2019 is looking more & more like the Democratic Party of 1972! That year, the Dem's presidential candidate won one-state & D.C. (worth 17 electoral votes), while getting landslided in the popular vote, 60.67 to 37.52%!

Gingrich writes that everything we're seeing in what President Trump calls “Fake News” also existed back in 1972. He notes that the parallels are amazing – take the New York Times' recent shift from Russian collusion to smearing President Trump with allegations of racism! It copies the elite media's hostility to President Nixon a half-century ago. The real opposition to Nixon wasn't the Democratic Party or its presidential candidate (Senator George McGovern) - it was the elite news media.

The media hated Nixon more than any major politician before Trump - and nothing has changed. Modern news reporting is largely centered on venting bitterness and hostility. "The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk and think about—an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins."

The power of the liberal-left grows from the media. Since Nixon, the media has sought to attack presidents not deemed worthy. Much like President Trump a generation later, Richard Nixon did not flinch from the fight. Nixon understood that his primary adversary was the press. It is vital to understand that the news media and and its Hollywood allies are the defenders and imposers of an alternative culture that hates conservatism and particularly hates effective conservatives.

The elite media had its final victory over President Nixon in the Watergate scandal, which drove him from office. This same elite media tried this on President Trump with its “Russian collusion” lie and failed miserably. The Left wants to forget that President Nixon received nearly 61 percent of the vote in '72. The same thing would happen 12 years later when President Reagan won with 58 percent of the vote.

Don't be shocked if President Trump wins by a margin unimaginable today (nobody in '71 or '83 expected the enormous landslides that would come the following year) - don't be shocked if the elite media are again proved wrong in 2020.

Right again.

 

[JKendallDane]

Well, really, how else would we ever know that men are biologically programmed to go out and hunt for giraffes?

Didn't Newt teach an entire college course based around that very premise?

.

 

[badbabysitter]

Right again.

So, because the media went after Nixon for the crimes that were commited...they're the bad guys?

 

[YDB95]

So, because the media went after Nixon for the crimes that were commited...they're the bad guys?

Yes, because you see, Nixon was a great American except when he created the EPA, and the liberal media was out to get him because...well, something about JFK and, I mean, all he meant to do with Watergate was...oh you...WELL, IT MADE PERFECT SENSE WHEN RUSH EXPLAINED IT, Goddammit!

 

[jp55665566]

Historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich gets it - the Democratic Party of 2019 is looking more & more like the Democratic Party of 1972! That year, the Dem's presidential candidate won one-state & D.C. (worth 17 electoral votes), while getting landslided in the popular vote, 60.67 to 37.52%!

Gingrich writes that everything we're seeing in what President Trump calls “Fake News” also existed back in 1972. He notes that the parallels are amazing – take the New York Times' recent shift from Russian collusion to smearing President Trump with allegations of racism! It copies the elite media's hostility to President Nixon a half-century ago. The real opposition to Nixon wasn't the Democratic Party or its presidential candidate (Senator George McGovern) - it was the elite news media.

The media hated Nixon more than any major politician before Trump - and nothing has changed. Modern news reporting is largely centered on venting bitterness and hostility. "The power of the press in America is a primordial one. It sets the agenda of public discussion; and this sweeping political power is unrestrained by any law. It determines what people will talk and think about—an authority that in other nations is reserved for tyrants, priests, parties and mandarins."

The power of the liberal-left grows from the media. Since Nixon, the media has sought to attack presidents not deemed worthy. Much like President Trump a generation later, Richard Nixon did not flinch from the fight. Nixon understood that his primary adversary was the press. It is vital to understand that the news media and and its Hollywood allies are the defenders and imposers of an alternative culture that hates conservatism and particularly hates effective conservatives.

The elite media had its final victory over President Nixon in the Watergate scandal, which drove him from office. This same elite media tried this on President Trump with its “Russian collusion” lie and failed miserably. The Left wants to forget that President Nixon received nearly 61 percent of the vote in '72. The same thing would happen 12 years later when President Reagan won with 58 percent of the vote.

Don't be shocked if President Trump wins by a margin unimaginable today (nobody in '71 or '83 expected the enormous landslides that would come the following year) - don't be shocked if the elite media are again proved wrong in 2020.

Yuuup.

 

[Dumpington]

JKendallDane writes: "Didn't Newt teach an entire college course based around that very premise?"

Newt Gingrich is a brilliant historian who was also a former U.S. Speaker of the House - he is without doubt a very intelligent man!

badbabysitter writes: "So, because the media went after Nixon for the crimes that were commited...they're the bad guys?"

Back in the late 1990's, when special prosecutor Kenneth Starr went after President Clinton for lying under oath to obstruct an investigation into Bill's sexual harrassment of women, a LOT of liberal Democrats labelled Starr as "a bad guy." I guess it comes with the territory!

YDB95 writes: "Yes, because you see, Nixon was a great American except when he created the EPA, and the liberal media was out to get him because...well, something about JFK and, I mean, all he meant to do with Watergate was...oh you...WELL, IT MADE PERFECT SENSE WHEN RUSH EXPLAINED IT, Goddammit!"

President Nixon was responsible for some brilliant foreign policy initiatives, but he was also paranoid when it came to monitoring his political enemies, which ultimately led to the Watergate break-in which resulted in his resignation in 1974. But yes, the media hated Nixon as much as they currently hate President Trump. The difference is, Nixon succumbed to the Watergate investigation, whereas the Democratic Party's effort to end the Trump presidency ran aground with the failed Mueller Report.

 

[YDB95]

JKendallDane writes: "Didn't Newt teach an entire college course based around that very premise?"

Newt Gingrich is a brilliant historian who was also a former U.S. Speaker of the House - he is without doubt a very intelligent man!

Even most Republicans no longer believe that, Dump. The man had very few friends left in Congress when he left in 1999. Since then, his entire political career has consisted of getting his ass handed to him in the GOP primary for president.

Back in the late 1990's, when special prosecutor Kenneth Starr went after President Clinton for lying under oath to obstruct an investigation into Bill's sexual harrassment of women, a LOT of liberal Democrats labelled Starr as "a bad guy." I guess it comes with the territory!

Whatever you want to call what Bill and Monica did, it wasn't sexual harassment. They were consenting adults.

But yes, the media hated Nixon as much as they currently hate President Trump.

Well, he certainly thought so. But like with most cases of "liberal media bias," what you're really seeing is the media didn't bend over backwards to adore him.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "The man had very few friends left in Congress when he left in 1999."

And what does THAT have to do with his being a very brilliant man? Are you now equating being smart with having a lot of friends? And are you disputing my claim that Gingrich was also a former Speaker of the House? Or are you simply disagreeing with everything I write because that's what you do?

"Whatever you want to call what Bill and Monica did, it wasn't sexual harassment. They were consenting adults."

Yeah, so the president had sex in the oval office with a young female intern and then he lied about it under oath - WHY would they suspend his license to practice law for that? Perhaps it was because he was also found guilty of sexually harrassing Paula Jones (NOT a consenting adult)?

"But like with most cases of "liberal media bias," what you're really seeing is the media didn't bend over backwards to adore him."

"The media didn't bend over backwards to adore him?" No, that's NOT journalism! But that's exactly what the media did with Barack Obama, isn't it?

 

[69johnmichaels]

No serious person can dispute.....

I recently read an EXCELLENT column by Conrad Black on the National Review web-site about something that we all already know is going to happen - and that's this president's re-election in November of next year.

No serious person can dispute President Trump's economic successes - most notably the virtual elimination of unemployment and energy imports - along with his revival of a viable policy of nuclear nonproliferation, his taking serious measures to stop mass illegal immigration, his moving decisively to address dangerous disadvantages in some of our nation's trading relationships, and his shaping-up the Western alliance from an association of freeloading beneficiaries of American military protection.

Trump is our nation's first-ever businessman president, and he's engaged in a policy form of zero-based budgeting. And because the underlying premise for climate policy is largely false, he's scrapped it. The notion that the U.S. performed a service for international development by allowing the Mexicans, Chinese, and others to pick America’s pockets and export unemployment to the United States was false, and so he scrapped that, as well! The people of this country are increasingly tired of spending billions every year on education designed to destroy freedom of expression at liberal universities all the while producing fewer-well-educated students in the unionized state public-school systems, and so Trump is attacking that, too.

Tens of millions of people in both parties seemingly supported the Clinton-Bush-Obama management of America's decline, and Trump's 2016 victory and his ongoing successes in office have profoundly shaken those who assumed that restoring Amercian greatness was the impossible dream. The result of Trump's achievements has been a steadily creeping rise in his poll-numbers. The confidence liberals once held that he would be evicted from office is rapidly evaporating, while the fear & hostility shown by his enemies is only growing increasingly hysterical.

What is astonishing and unprecedented is that instead of fudging their differences with the president where he has clearly succeeded, almost all of the Democrats have retreated into an even more extreme dissent from the administration in every area and have amplified their personal attacks on him to a level unheard since Watergate. The Democratic party has now pretty well locked itself into an inescapable confinement of commitments to open borders, free health care for everyone (including those who enter illegally in their millions), a green terror that will disemploy millions and achieve nothing useful, open-ended reparations for about 80 million African-&-Native-Americans, a doubling of upper-level personal income taxes, and a definition of “reproductive rights” that now extends to the killing of live, born, and separated children. There is no chance that the voters will ever support any of this!

President Trump, meanwhile, continues to win! His deliberately offensive comments, such as inviting four socialist/racially controversial young congresswomen (three of whom were born in the U.S.) to go back to the countries they came from, as it was tweeted, may be assumed to have been premeditated and designed to excite the were-wolfish lunacy of the Democrats. It has worked. Modern Dems are claiming that border control is an effort to retrieve an all-white America. It has somewhat empowered the four (very tedious and limited) women to challenge House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is finally forced to slap them down while a sinking Bernie Sanders foolishly embraces them.

Meanwhile, Barack & Michelle Obama are now seemingly trying to deliver their party's presidential nomination to Kamala Harris, forcing poor, aged Joe Biden to drop his “Barack and I...” mantra, while the rest of the Democratic Party moves further & further to the far-left! Even the July 4th "Salute to America," a patriotic military parade comparable with Bastille Day in Paris, caused at least one liberal Trump-hating Democrat to compare it with Hitler's Nuremberg rallies. The president's enemies just don't get it. But that really doesn't matter - the Trump steamroller is accelerating.[/QUOmany HAH, HAH, HAH !!! No facts, just nonsense. Absolute nonsense! It's surprising how many individuals fall for propaganda of this variety.

 

[Boxlicker101]

YDB95 writes: "The man had very few friends left in Congress when he left in 1999."

And what does THAT have to do with his being a very brilliant man? Are you now equating being smart with having a lot of friends? And are you disputing my claim that Gingrich was also a former Speaker of the House? Or are you simply disagreeing with everything I write because that's what you do?

"Whatever you want to call what Bill and Monica did, it wasn't sexual harassment. They were consenting adults."

Yeah, so the president had sex in the oval office with a young female intern and then he lied about it under oath - WHY would they suspend his license to practice law for that? Perhaps it was because he was also found guilty of sexually harrassing Paula Jones (NOT a consenting adult)?

"But like with most cases of "liberal media bias," what you're really seeing is the media didn't bend over backwards to adore him."

"The media didn't bend over backwards to adore him?" No, that's NOT journalism! But that's exactly what the media did with Barack Obama, isn't it?

Also with JFK and with Silly Hilly

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "The man had very few friends left in Congress when he left in 1999."

And what does THAT have to do with his being a very brilliant man? Are you now equating being smart with having a lot of friends?

Not necessarily. But if he were brilliant, he probably would have made a much better leader. He was great at bomb-throwing and sowing discord and riding the wave of backlash against Clinton's first two years to a House majority, but his speakership was a disaster in every sense of the word - and it certainly didn't give us any reason to believe Gingrich was a genius.

By the way, Dump, do you know who it was who first argued that Newt Gingrich was brilliant? It was Gingrich himself. He was famous for tooting his own horn for years before he became speaker.

"Whatever you want to call what Bill and Monica did, it wasn't sexual harassment. They were consenting adults."

Yeah, so the president had sex in the oval office with a young female intern and then he lied about it under oath - WHY would they suspend his license to practice law for that?

The better question is, why did the Republicans tie the entire government in knots and trigger a constitutional crisis over a private failing? But we know the answer: because they hated Clinton's guts.

Perhaps it was because he was also found guilty of sexually harrassing Paula Jones (NOT a consenting adult)?

He wasn't.

"But like with most cases of "liberal media bias," what you're really seeing is the media didn't bend over backwards to adore him."

"The media didn't bend over backwards to adore him?" No, that's NOT journalism! But that's exactly what the media did with Barack Obama, isn't it?

If you've got any examples of unfairly adulatory coverage, I'll be happy to consider them. But as is almost always the case with accusations of "liberal media bias," so far you haven't backed up your claim with anything but bucketloads of attitude.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not necessarily. But if he were brilliant, he probably would have made a much better leader. He was great at bomb-throwing and sowing discord and riding the wave of backlash against Clinton's first two years to a House majority, but his speakership was a disaster in every sense of the word - and it certainly didn't give us any reason to believe Gingrich was a genius.

By the way, Dump, do you know who it was who first argued that Newt Gingrich was brilliant? It was Gingrich himself. He was famous for tooting his own horn for years before he became speaker.



The better question is, why did the Republicans tie the entire government in knots and trigger a constitutional crisis over a private failing? But we know the answer: because they hated Clinton's guts.



He wasn't.



If you've got any examples of unfairly adulatory coverage, I'll be happy to consider them. But as is almost always the case with accusations of "liberal media bias," so far you haven't backed up your claim with anything but bucketloads of attitude.

Here are some examples: https://blog.addeigloriam.org/2012/07/notable-quotes-medias-continuing.html

 

[YDB95]

[/b]

Here are some examples: https://blog.addeigloriam.org/2012/07/notable-quotes-medias-continuing.html

Thank you for at least posting something, but it seems to me those are all intended as opinion rather than news coverage, and very clearly identifiable as such.