Guy just can’t quit lying.
Trump has been doubting Obama’s birth records as recently as earlier in 2016. He never stopped, until yesterday, and it was never about records or proof, which were provided years ago.
That last press conference(at HIS new hotel-there’s always a money angle with Trump) was a lie-it was a “Rick-Roll”. Instead of doing what he said he was going to do(talk with the press about an important revelation about Obama’s birth), he paraded a bunch of people in front of the podium to endorse him, then finally he pops up to lie about his and Clinton’s positions…then walks off without taking any questions.
Democrat activist and Hillary Clinton supporter, Philip J. Berg, was the original Birther. He filed a lawsuit contending Obama was not qualified to serve as President.
Not once in the article you cite does it mention Berg. Journalism is dead. Clinton and her surrogates were engaging in a whisper campaign.
Even Politico writes that Democrats are the first to start the Birther movement.
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563?o=1
Unfortunately, about the only thing this accomplishes is to create a little bit of doubt among the softer Trump supporters, and it does blunt the momentum and all the negative press that Clinton was taking. In the end, however, Clinton still has to find a way to capitalize on Trump’s flaws.
The debates are probably going to be the best opportunity to do that, and it’s going to be a real challenge. She will probably go into the September 26 with just a slight lead, so she will have to make that appearance count. Now that Trump has dealt with it (albeit on his own terms) I don’t think it does much good to work birtherism or race into the campaign, particularly since she has already done so clumsily already, but I do think that a well-articulated shot from the podium is in order, and it is the sort of thing that if she can play her cards right, she might be able to rattle Trump a bit. I think that’s the goal here: she needs to use a little controlled aggression on matters of substance and on values.
I think she needs to be prepared to brush off questions about her email abruptly and forcefully. She does NOT want or need to keep repeating the same mistake of having to say “The FBI director said this, and I testified and said that.” She needs to remind people that she’s answered the question and refuse to answer it – and tell the moderators to move on. I think that the general public is tired of hearing about Bengazi and emails – the right wing fringe could hit the rewind button and hear it over and over again but those are not the votes she’s aiming for.
Unless you can cite that her campaign were engaging in a whisper campaign, I’d like you to withdraw this claim.
So, you’re agreeing that it wasn’t Clinton or her campaign that started the discussion? Because that was Trump’s claim. Or, are you saying that Clinton has control over all Democrats and all of her supporters?
I would love for you or magellan01 to just come out and say, “you know, I agree, Trump was lying about this one.”
Hillary never had anything to do with this at all, and repeatedly stated that she accepted that Obama was born in Hawaii (per the mountains of proof, and the zero evidence for anything else).
Because Berg isn’t relevant to the story. It was a fringe nutty supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008. That has nothing to do with her or her campaign. And it’s entirely false that she and her surrogates engaged in a “whisper campaign”. Just more false and evidence-free accusations.
All prominent Democrats rejected this evidence free conspiracy theory for the nonsense it was. Trump continued spreading these lies and fact-free bullshit for years until yesterday. Trump either is so incredibly stupid that he bought into this fact-free bullshit, or he’s so cynical and dishonest that he didn’t care that there was no evidence for it.
Which explanation do you favor? Is Trump so stupid and credulous that he bought into baseless bullshit? Or is he so cynical and dishonest that he just doesn’t care and used it to get attention?
Let me explain how a whisper campaign works. In fact we can use the WaPO as a cite.
All you have to do is discuss the subject. Even refute it. The mere fact that you discuss it allows someone else to take the ball and run with it. It’s in the air.
Nor does it mention the bombs planted in the World Trade Center superstructure, the sound stage where the Apollo landings were filmed, or the results of the Roswell alien autopsies.
Say it, PCP. Go on the record tying yourself to the position that a candidate is responsible for each and every supporter… 
This proves that every politician ever has had a whisper campaign against every person and issue they ever talked about it in any way! Oh my god! Trump has a whisper campaign against Trump! :eek:
Hillary has 50 million supporters. If you find involvement from a member of the Clinton campaign, come back.
…Aren’t you worried about where he’ll pull his next pearl out of…? 
That’s enough of that. Keep it civil.
You can stop blowing that whistle now; I’ve already got 15 German shepherds, eight golden labs, two dachshunds, and a shih tzu blocking my view of the monitor.
- Matter of opinion either way but in my opinion saying the media has been pro-Trump anytime recently is just the reaction of pro-Clintons frustrated that she can’t maintain (much of) a lead against this guy because on her own shortcomings as a candidate.
The MSM has been pursued more of its own investigative stories v Trump (jilted business partners, etc) than Clinton where it purely reacts. For example why doesn’t the NYT make the FOIA requests Judicial Watch does? ‘Because it’s not a real story?’, no because Judicial Watch is a right-biased organization (and doesn’t pretend otherwise) while NYT is a left-biased one (with at this point only a small rearguard action pretending otherwise). And that’s like most of the media, with one glaring right-biased major outlet Fox, not disproving a pretty obvious point. It’s pointless for the GOP to whine about this though they sometimes do, but absurd for Democrats to whine about media bias in general and including this general election.
The main problem with MSM from pro-Clinton anti-Trump POV is they can’t seem to land much of a punch on Trump, not that they favor him. OTOH there are stories they have no choice but to cover which can only put Clinton in a bad light, especially lately.
And as far as general attention level, the media obsession with Trump was a big advantage for him in the primaries where other candidates were struggling to get attention. In the general perhaps it’s also helping Trump, but Clinton has deliberately gone to ground vis a vis the media for the most part. She can’t complain about the result of her own tactic. It’s fodder for only the most naive or her followers to blame the attention imbalance on the media.
- Irrelevant to my point about bitherism, which is simply that a lot of people who go along more loosely with stuff like that are expressing contempt for the target or the politics or change in the social order the target represents in their view. IOW ‘you can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into’.
Come on, Steve MB, doesn’t Philip Berg deserve a mention in the Birther discussion? It’s just bad journalism at the very least.
Philip Berg like Lois Lerner are so blinded by ideology that they take it upon themselves to do the dirty work for the cause. There’s no smoking gun that directly ties Clinton to the Birther movement. It’s nod and wink stuff. When Trump refers to Clinton, he’s talking about the whole Clinton machine and the sycophants around her.
There’s no evidence whatsoever that ties Hillary Clinton to the birthers. Kind of like there’s no evidence whatsoever that Obama was born anywhere else but Hawaii. Which begs the question that I’ve already asked you (but you seem afraid to answer) – is Trump so stupid and credulous that he’ll believe evidence-free claims about Obama’s birth, or is he so dishonest and cynical that he doesn’t care that there was no evidence and never was and was willing to lie openly to get attention? Which is it?
Then, of course, turnabout will be fair play:
Many people are saying that Trump has been caught sending sexually explicit emails to teenage boys.
Ex-congressman Mark Foley sat behind Trump at rally in Florida - CBS News
Top people are saying that Trump should be referred for criminal prosecution to the Department of Justice.
Trump has been caught in blatant lies about his past.
And on and on and on; we haven’t even gotten to David Duke, yet…
Ah, didn’t the FBI clear Lerner of using her office for political purposes? I’m so tied that you may be relying on unreliable news sources for your facts about politics.