Right, IIRC there are roughly 180 GOP Congressmen (but only 3 Senators) who endorsed Trump whose terms expire in 2018. I predict that most will be competing for the leadership of the anti-Trump faction of the GOP in anticipation of the midterm. Add to that the animosity of the GOP lawmakers Trump pissed off during the primaries (Marco Rubio is currently tearing Rex Tillerson a new one as I write this) and I agree that he is probably doomed.
Please avoid appearing to take shots at other posters.
[/moderating]
Maybe if I said all, most or even the majority of, you’d have a point.
You do know what some means, correct?
I’ve been wondering the same whenever I see people freak out over a Trump tweet.
I’ve seen a lot of mockery, but not much “freak out” from Trump tweets. They’re pretty damn silly sometimes.
Nope – The Republicans would not impeach Donald Trump for anything, including videotaped evidence of him clearly, unquestionably committing treason.
That said, Sun Tsu’s advice (“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.”) applies – if nothing else, a steady stream of ridicule from Wee The People will have its effect on Trumpelthinskin, whose ears are surely burning with the jokes (Q: What’s the difference between a lentil and a chickpea? A: Donald Trump wouldn’t pay $1000 to have a lentil on his face.) that are going around.
You have a very convenient definition of “fake news”. Considering nothing has been corroborated, pushing what’s quite likely a false report presented as true (because it confirms your preconceived notions/biases with regards to Trump) does not somehow disqualify it from being labeled as fake news.
That does make you a partisan, though.
Here we are.
Simply go to his Twitter account and click on a random tweet of his. You’re guaranteed to find many comments which can only be described as hysterical/delusional.
You missed a ‘golden’ opportunity here. If you’re going to turn the “we” into “wee”, you should also change “people” into “peeple”. I mean, if your plan is to resort to grade-school level jokes, at least do them justice.
That’s alright then, it means that most if not all of the allegations that we heard about Clinton were fake news too.
Yeah, you said it, Trump does come like that a lot…
Yeah, pretty much ALL of Trump’s tweets are hysterical/delusional.
Publishing an unsubstantiated (but highly significant, if true) report that was taken seriously enough by the intelligence community that it was presented to both POTUS and PEOTUS–and publishing it alongside explicit caveats stating clearly that the allegations cannot be corroborated–is not “fake news.”
Fake news is presenting known fabrications with the intention that they be taken as fact. Buzzfeed has no way to know that the dossier was fabricated, nor did Buzzfeed intend for readers to take any of this without a grain of salt. Possibly this qualifies as irresponsible/bad journalism, but conservatives are abusing the term “fake news” to the point of rendering it meaningless.
FTR I’m guessing this particular set of allegations is bullshit.
Well of course you would take his side… 
When I heard all those accusations about trump being in bed with the russians, I really thought they were speaking figuratively.
I think people underestimate how vulnerable Trump is. He is unpopular and most Republican politicians would vastly prefer to have Pence as President If they think it’s in their political interest to impeach Trump they will do it. There is very little personal loyalty to him. I also think there is a distinction between an embarrassing scandal and hard proof of a serious crime. Trump can survive the former but not the latter. Obviously no such hard proof has turned up yet but it’s quite possible that it exists.
I have an obvious definition of fake news: If the person who’s reporting it created it to deceive you, it’s fake news. The way the media is treating this is nothing like that. CNN has reported the existed of the document but not the content, saying that they’re tryin to verify the information. Buzzfeed (you know, that weighty news source everyone trusts) went ahead and published the documents but with a warning that they were unverified and they should be read in that context.
Compare this to right wing actual fake news where they know from the start that what they’re publishing is a lie, they made it up themselves, and they tell their readers it’s the absolute truth.
So who created this fake news? John McCain? A British spy? Some random dude on the internet? Certainly not CNN or ABC or NBC, who have reported that it’s being discussed by people high up in the government (which is true and newsworthy). Not Buzzfeed, who said “take it how you will, we can’t verify it, but here’s the document that was presented by McCain.” That makes it not fake news. Fake news is deliberately deceitful, not just wrong. The irony is that you’re trying so hard to be partisan here that you’re blind to this, while so desperately trying to accuse other people of partisanship.
This may be wrong, it may be disinformation. It’s certainly not implausible. It’s no pizza-gate which has been the obsession on your side for weeks.
A partisan… for whom? Democrats? The corrupt party of shitbags that just let their own egos give the presidency to Trump? Am I a democrat because I think it’s plausible that Russian has blackmail material on Trump given that they helped elect him and he does nothing but publically praise them and create an agenda to empower them?
Or am I just an anti-Trump partisan? Because literally everyone on the planet with a shred of integrity is anti-Trump.
She didn’t lie to the FBI? She didn’t potentially Grammy foreign agents access to classified information? She didn’t delete thousands of emails to cover her tracks? She didn’t act with extreme carelessness?
Or are you referring to Pizzagate? Which, yeah, was absurd.
Sounds to me like you’re reading his tweets through your own biases.
If this were any other person, his actions surrounding this and the Russian hacking attempts would be confusing. He’s acting suspiciously, in constantly trying to control the press/media and public opinion; to the point of cutting off major players like CNN.
How long can this behavior fly? The press is the People’s one major artery in keeping the President and his cronies in check. Perhaps this is all just a hoax, or maybe it’s not, but can Trump at least attempt to offer his own denial as to what, specifically, is inaccurate about these very serious accusations presented by the FBI (et al)?
Another point:
If this were any other person, I’d laugh and call these allegations ridiculous. But this is Trump we’re talking about. In all honesty, and as objective as anyone can be, his past actions and known character makes it impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
This is why I’d like some real investigation here. He’s to be our president — I’d like to know how deep his unscrupulous nature goes.
I should know better than to entertain this, but…
What you typed is extreme poppycock. If you believe CNN or Buzzfeed ran with this story in the vein of objective journalism, you’re either a fool or you are lying to yourself. Or both.
Both CNN and Buzzfeed are objectively anti-Trump. Since the left cannot stop Trump from becoming President (and God knows they tried), they’ve devolved imto trying to deligitimize him by posting every last but of sensationalist “news” that they can get is hands on.
Knowing that a story is unverified by deciding to post it anyway is tabloid level reporting, if you want to call it reporting at all. If, say, FOX posted an unverified story about Obama doing blow and banging hookers in the Oval Office based on a “report”, I highly doubt you’d label that as anything other than fake news.
What is “actual fake news”?
It certainly is disinformation. Do you recall them running with any such storied with Obama? Or were they quick to point out how ridiculous they were and how such allegations weren’t deserving of serious coverage?
You’re a partisan for not just believing any of this, but giving it the time of day, and then trying to rationalize it on the basis that this report doesn’t meet the standard by which you deem something to be fake news, even though you’d scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed.
Back when the “pussy-grabbing” story broke, I flashed back to a seminar I attended circa 1972 on self defense for women. One of the presenters said that, should one of the attendees be so unfortunate as to be raped, she might consider reporting the incident to the police as “he exposed himself to me” instead of as rape.
People much younger than I likely think that was horrible advice. But the truth is that back then the police often didn’t try too hard to catch a rapist, partly because there was a commonly believed attitude that “she must have asked for it” – by wearing a short skirt, or makeup, or something. Indeed, it was common courtroom tactics in defending an alleged rapist to make the victim seem promiscuous.
So I wasn’t too surprised that pussy-grabbing didn’t bother his supporters that much. A lot of them I suspect saw that as typical male behavior.
But golden showers? Like weenie-wagging, that’s something perverts would do. So yeah, this may have an impact on how some of his followers see him.
All the while Trump screamed bloody murder about Obama not being an American citizen, I didn’t say boo. As amazingly stupid as all that Birther bullshit was from the start. Sure, look into it, but a birth certificate is plenty proof. Obama actually had some semblance of respectable character. Trump? Not so much, to the point where he and his attractors practically pride themselves on it.
In this case, however, American intelligence agencies thought it beefy enough to create a 35 page dossier on it and give it some serious consideration to put it before President Obama. I’d like to know why. Everyone should.
If it is a fabrication, shouldn’t someone from those ranks eventually allude to that?