It seems more and more that Trump is banging Kellyanne in the Oval Office. Kellyanne Conway said she sees her husband’s anti-Trump statements as a violation of their marriage. Melania certainly doesn't let Trump touch her. And Kellyanne sits next to Trump in the Oval Office most of every day. It is no wonder why Kellyanne's husband, George, cannot stand Trump.
That is loyalty to Trump thing has gone too far. It looks like the Conway marriage has been dead for some time now. Kelly Ann considers her loyalty to Trump > than her marriage. Sad, so sad.
Dee Vorce wrote:
It seems more and more that Trump is banging Kellyanne in the Oval Office. Kellyanne Conway said she sees her husband’s anti-Trump statements as a violation of their marriage. Melania certainly doesn't let Trump touch her. And Kellyanne sits next to Trump in the Oval Office most of every day. It is no wonder why Kellyanne's husband, George, cannot stand Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/she-works-for-trump-he-cant-stand-him-this-is-life-with-kellyanne-and-george-conway/2018/08/15/3b89b82a-9b46-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html
Loyalty gone to far wrote:
That is loyalty to Trump thing has gone too far. It looks like the Conway marriage has been dead for some time now. Kelly Ann considers her loyalty to Trump > than her marriage. Sad, so sad.
Dee Vorce wrote:
It seems more and more that Trump is banging Kellyanne in the Oval Office. Kellyanne Conway said she sees her husband’s anti-Trump statements as a violation of their marriage. Melania certainly doesn't let Trump touch her. And Kellyanne sits next to Trump in the Oval Office most of every day. It is no wonder why Kellyanne's husband, George, cannot stand Trump.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/she-works-for-trump-he-cant-stand-him-this-is-life-with-kellyanne-and-george-conway/2018/08/15/3b89b82a-9b46-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html
People should not comment on other people's marriages or affairs. It's none of your damned business.
PIO! wrote:
Loyalty gone to far wrote:
That is loyalty to Trump thing has gone too far. It looks like the Conway marriage has been dead for some time now. Kelly Ann considers her loyalty to Trump > than her marriage. Sad, so sad.
People should not comment on other people's marriages or affairs. It's none of your damned business.
Buttt, Monica!!! Impeach Clinton!!!
— The party of family values
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
the point is that most voters, and most Dem voters, DON'T want to make 'real change' in this country.
you listen to the news, the US is a hellscape of poverty, gunshot wounds and fires. In reality, the wealth is astounding.
You are CORRECT!
How easily we forget Hope and Change.
Flagpole wrote:
Going to take back something I said...
...After the 2018 election, I said it was not a Blue Wave. Now, with more information, I say that yep, it was.
Just too many flipped seats from House to State seats to governors, and many of those in traditionally very red areas. Republicans did the minimum in the Senate in what was the worst map for Democrats in 100 years.
So, do with that what you will. I will not argue about whether it was a Blue Wave or not. I have made the determination, and it is what I say it is.
Good to see you admit you were wrong. I didn’t mean to take you to task so harshly about it last week, but to many of us who understood what was really happening (and not just watching the 24 hour networks) it was crystal clear.
Flagpole wrote:
Trump loses again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ygcD55dXA
Actually, Trump will come out ahead on this. No one thought they would be able to ban Acosta. However, it brought Jim Acosta and CNN into the national spotlight and debate again.
Trump plants another seed in a lot of people’s mind about Acosta and CNN’s agenda. Acosta will be held to a higher level now and not be able to lecture at briefings. And it opens the door for rules to be created regarding briefings. These rules would not have been able to be implemented without the now public display by Acosta.
Thanks to Acosta there WILL be some limitations put on the press and now CNN has told Acosta to tone it down.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted.
well, actually wrote:
In the end, Trump got what he wanted.
So, you can read Trump's mind? . . . Hopefully, because you mind is entirely useless.
PIO! wrote:
People should not comment on other people's marriages or affairs. It's none of your damned business.
Hear, hear!
For once we agree! wrote:
PIO! wrote:
People should not comment on other people's marriages or affairs. It's none of your damned business.
Hear, hear!
Disagree.
— The Republican Party
Flagpole wrote:
Trump loses again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ygcD55dXA
I for one look forward to American Hero, Defender of the First Amendment, and Savior of Democracy Jim Acosta getting back in the spotlight.
Larry King says CNN isn't even news anymore.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/415669-larry-king-hits-cnn-stopped-doing-news-to-focus-on-trumpNot a Hillbot wrote:
Larry King says CNN isn't even news anymore.
King lost his CNN job more than eight years ago. He is in his mid-80s and has bene irrelevant since he was dropped by CNN.
mind reader wrote:
well, actually wrote:
In the end, Trump got what he wanted.
So, you can read Trump's mind? . . . Hopefully, because you mind is entirely useless.
Do you mind?
well, actually wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Trump loses again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ygcD55dXAActually, Trump will come out ahead on this. No one thought they would be able to ban Acosta. However, it brought Jim Acosta and CNN into the national spotlight and debate again.
Trump plants another seed in a lot of people’s mind about Acosta and CNN’s agenda. Acosta will be held to a higher level now and not be able to lecture at briefings. And it opens the door for rules to be created regarding briefings. These rules would not have been able to be implemented without the now public display by Acosta.
Thanks to Acosta there WILL be some limitations put on the press and now CNN has told Acosta to tone it down.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted.
Completely agree and it was in a DC court, very predictable as well.
Mid reeder wrote:
mind reader wrote:
So, you can read Trump's mind? . . . Hopefully, because you mind is entirely useless.
Do you mind?
If you have to ask then you cannot read minds. Trump's anger tells you he just what he wanted . . . LOL, nope.
Just Stop wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
1) In a court case, you allowed to call any witness that might be helpful. There were many to hear from, including other accusers, corroborating witnesses, character witnesses, and expert witnesses. Expert testimony would have been especially helpful in evaluating the veracity of Dr. Ford's memories.
2) Timeline is important in any case. Ford's testimony about the incident at the Safeway could have been verified, but it was not.
3) You can't deem someone credible if they aren't allowed to testify. Deborah Ramirez was very credible. Dems and the FBI absolutely never said she was not credible. You are lying about that.
4) A few hours is not enough time for 100 people to read and comprehend a single copy of an FBI report. Your assertion is a complete joke. You don't know what was in the report so you can't possibly know if it would have changed anyone's mind.
5) Yes, it was jammed through. The claims of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez should have been fully vetted. There is no limit on how long the confirmation process has to take. For a Supreme Court pick, we need to take as long as necessary. That definitely was not done. See my other points.
6) Yes, it was jammed through. See my other points.
7) I mostly read. That's the best way to learn.
1) Not a court case. Democrats were allowed to bring any evidence from anyone to the committee. No restrictions. In addition, they were allowed to ask any questions they had whether it was their own questions or from others.
2) Proven to be a nothing-burger.
3) Yes you can. There were others who came forward and the committee interviewed them and investigated their story. They turned out to not be credible. That's why a couple of them could face prison time. Do you really think that anyone that comes forward automatically gets to go before a committee? If you do, you are very naive. As for Ramirez, the FBI interviewed two "eye witnesses" to the alleged incident. Nothing-burger. Ford- everyone who was allegedly at the party was interviewed - no corroboration.
4) As the other poster stated - do you really think it was going to change the minds of the majority on either side? No. There was enough time to read the report. Period. Did anyone complain that they were not allowed to read it? Dems sure did make a lot of claims about a report they didn't have time to read. And, of course, Dems were complaining there was not enough time to read it. They didn't want him confirmed. Reports did state that there was no corroborating evidence.
5) You do realize nothing would ever get done if there were not established limits put on. Hours upon hours of testimony, 6 FBI background checks. an FBI investigation into allegations, etc. It was complete.
6) Your other points have been refuted and are absurd.
7) Actually, research has found that not everyone learns best in the same manner or using the same medium. It looks like you haven't found your optimal learning method.
1) Yes, it was not a court case. It was an accusation of rape levied against a supreme court nominee. If this were even a jaywalking case, a prosecutor would be allowed to call other accusers, corroborating witnesses, character witnesses, and expert witnesses. But Republicans blocked all testimony except from Dr. Ford. The man was accused of rape and they just didn't care.
They didn't want to do what was necessary to find the truth. They didn't even subpoena Mark Judge. A statement from his lawyer is not a substitute for cross-examination.
2) The whole episode hinged on the memories of Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez. Proving whether or not those memories could be trusted was the whole case. So you go to timeline, you go to expert testimony about memory, you go to witnesses. It was the everything-burger.
3) Witnesses to the Ramirez incident were never interviewed by the FBI. Ramirez gave them the names and they never followed up. Apparently, the White House limited the scope of the FBI investigation. The Democrats in the House are already calling for an investigation in that. And now they have subpoena power.
4) Yes, the Dems complained that they didn't have adequate time to review the report. Look it up.
It is not inconsistent to complain about that and complain at the same time that the investigation was not thorough enough. We know about important witnesses that were not interviewed. Ramirez gave the FBI 20 names of people who could corroborate her story. None were ever contacted.
5) Republicans held up a Supreme Court nomination for over a year. But now you want to complain that you can't wait a couple of months to make sure you don't put a rapist on the highest court in the land. Get that weak "nothing would get done" argument out of here. It's pathetic.
6) My points are spot on.
7) You mean VAK? Read the latest research dude. The whole "different learning styles" thing is BS. It never was scientific in the first place. "Ooo I think Johnny is a kinesthetic learner. Let's have him run around the classroom all day and learn by osmosis." Get a grip. Or better yet, READ the hard science research instead of listening to the crap you saw on Fox and Friends.
Sean Tabb wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Going to take back something I said...
...After the 2018 election, I said it was not a Blue Wave. Now, with more information, I say that yep, it was.
Just too many flipped seats from House to State seats to governors, and many of those in traditionally very red areas. Republicans did the minimum in the Senate in what was the worst map for Democrats in 100 years.
So, do with that what you will. I will not argue about whether it was a Blue Wave or not. I have made the determination, and it is what I say it is.
Good to see you admit you were wrong. I didn’t mean to take you to task so harshly about it last week, but to many of us who understood what was really happening (and not just watching the 24 hour networks) it was crystal clear.
No need to get all high and mighty, brother. A "Blue Wave" is subjective, and it hadn't hit my threshold for me to decide that personally it was one. It has now done so. Has nothing to do with understanding what was going on.
well, actually wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Trump loses again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7ygcD55dXAActually, Trump will come out ahead on this. No one thought they would be able to ban Acosta. However, it brought Jim Acosta and CNN into the national spotlight and debate again.
Trump plants another seed in a lot of people’s mind about Acosta and CNN’s agenda. Acosta will be held to a higher level now and not be able to lecture at briefings. And it opens the door for rules to be created regarding briefings. These rules would not have been able to be implemented without the now public display by Acosta.
Thanks to Acosta there WILL be some limitations put on the press and now CNN has told Acosta to tone it down.
In the end, Trump got what he wanted.
Nope. He lost here. He didn't get what he wanted. It is more clear now that judges, even ones appointed by Trump himself, will go with the rule of law and not Trump's whim, and it just shows how petty and immature Trump and his administration is. Just one more thing that Trump and his administration will be on the wrong side of history on.
For once we agree! wrote:
PIO! wrote:
People should not comment on other people's marriages or affairs. It's none of your damned business.
Hear, hear!
As a blanket statement, you are both wrong. As we stand here today in 2018 in the United States, it is news and rightly so if the President has an affair while in office, so that would be all of business...sets up the President for all kinds of things including blackmail.
It was fair to hear about Bill Clinton's supposed affairs leading up to his election. It was fair to hear about Gary Hart, and when they jump into that public arena, those kinds of things are our business. If they are having trouble in their marriage, we don't really need to know that, but affairs are a different thing.
In the Conways' case, sorry, but it is news. SHE is an unwavering staunch supporter of his, lying and deflecting all the way. Her husband, who IS a political person...wanted to work for Trump at one point...has a very different opposing view. In THIS atmosphere with the craziness in THIS White House, this is news and our business. Now, to be honest, I don't really care too much about the Conway situation, but they are both public figures, and they speak freely and publicly about their opinions, so it is fair to bring up questions about their marriage...just as it was with James Carville and Mary Matalin.
Larry King Live wrote:
Not a Hillbot wrote:
Larry King says CNN isn't even news anymore.
King lost his CNN job more than eight years ago. He is in his mid-80s and has bene irrelevant since he was dropped by CNN.
King was never known as a "newsman". He interviewed people on his talk-show format show. He fails to understand that the actions of Trump are so insane that any new organization not just wanting to suck up to him, needs to focus on him pretty much 24/7 sans any other big breaking news (hurricanes, wild fires, etc.).
King is wrong. I'm sure one of his 7 ex-wives would agree.