• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Spicer Presser

You are the same arrogant, lying, piece of shit that you've always on the boards. Only your opinion can be correct. The fact that basically every other poster has disagreed with your outrageous and preposterous positions doesn't matter to you. Only DeacMan knows anything.

you are wrong about this. You were wronf about Benghazi. You are wrong about the IRS. You are simply wrong but incapable of admitting it. But that is 100% consistent with who you have been for the best parts of twenty years.
 
False equivalency is all the rage these days.

Uh, no. I've made clear Obama isn't Trump. What is comical though is how those on the left will twist around and proclaim Obama was scandal free. When you do this. When you fail to acknowledge his very obvious shortcomings, you merely give those who want to give Trump a hall pass on all sundry of things to come a lot of leeway because you, yourself, have stretched the bounds of credibility when it comes to integrity for Obama. I guaranty people here were outraged at how Bush handled surveillance. Yet when Obama proclaims it all as illegal and promises to end it and then turns around and expands the very same programs it is merely breaking a campaign promise and isn't a scandal? That's just dense.
 
You are the same arrogant, lying, piece of shit that you've always on the boards. Only your opinion can be correct. The fact that basically every other poster has disagreed with your outrageous and preposterous positions doesn't matter to you. Only DeacMan knows anything.

you are wrong about this. You were wronf about Benghazi. You are wrong about the IRS. You are simply wrong but incapable of admitting it. But that is 100% consistent with who you have been for the best parts of twenty years.

Yay, RJ!! Defender of truth. When Bush does something it is awful and wrong. When Obama goes further after promising to end what Bush has permitted, well that's just breaking a campaign promise. You know that dog don't hunt.

Or perhaps you are telling me you are for the complete end around of the fourth amendment via mass surveillance on all American citizens who have not been accused of committing any crime?
 
Last edited:
There were plenty of criticisms and negatives to the Obama presidency but he simply didn't have a political scandal the magnitude of other recent presidents. You're talking about policy disagreements and comparing them to lying to support a war effort, hooking up with an intern in the Oval Office, Iran-Contra, etc.
 
Spicer: 'Negative' Trump coverage is 'demoralizing'

Later, he offered the remarks about the demoralizing coverage, arguing it is always negative and questioning why the media doesn't write positive stories on Trump, such as his “success in keeping American jobs.”

“I’ve never seen it like this. The default narrative is always negative, and it’s demoralizing,” Spicer said.
 
Yeah it's eating Trump up and he is lashing out. Rolling out policies that a majority of Americans aren't going to agree with isn't going to help either.
 
There were plenty of criticisms and negatives to the Obama presidency but he simply didn't have a political scandal the magnitude of other recent presidents. You're talking about policy disagreements and comparing them to lying to support a war effort, hooking up with an intern in the Oval Office, Iran-Contra, etc.

Really? Do you think it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to record anything and everything you send across your phone or your laptop that through no fault or consent of your own happens to leave the United States and then return to our shores to reach it's final destination through the magic of how things travel all the time across the internet? That's o.k. in your book? You see nothing but a "policy" position in this?

It's o.k. to have a policy that targets for audit and harrassment organizations based on their political leanings?

Is it o.k. for the Secretary of State to have a pay for play scheme?

It is o.k. to pay a ransom for prisoners?

Those aren't "policies" or "campaign promises". The reason all of these things became scandals and investigations is because they represented real or potential violations of Federal law. They are no different than Iran-Contra.

And, ultimately, how did a significant part of the population feel about some or all of the above things? Obviously not very good.
 
Really? Do you think it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to record anything and everything you send across your phone or your laptop that through no fault or consent of your own happens to leave the United States and then return to our shores to reach it's final destination through the magic of how things travel all the time across the internet? That's o.k. in your book? You see nothing but a "policy" position in this?

It's o.k. to have a policy that targets for audit and harrassment organizations based on their political leanings?

Is it o.k. for the Secretary of State to have a pay for play scheme?

It is o.k. to pay a ransom for prisoners?

Those aren't "policies" or "campaign promises". The reason all of these things became scandals and investigations is because they represented real or potential violations of Federal law. They are no different than Iran-Contra.

And, ultimately, how did a significant part of the population feel about some or all of the above things? Obviously not very good.

#alternativefacts. Do we need to send you to Merriam-Webster, or do you just need to spend some time with:

Scandal-S3-Cast-Promotional-Photo-scandal-abc-35526464-500-310.jpg
 
Really what is the point of this scandal talk deacman?

Also you've gotten RJ raving and no one wants that.
 
Yeah it's eating Trump up and he is lashing out. Rolling out policies that a majority of Americans aren't going to agree with isn't going to help either.

Yeah. So. You act like I'm defending Trump. I'm not. I'm asking you and others to acknowledge that when Obama acts they way he did and you look the other way, it frees up those who are inclined to defend Trump to do exactly what you are inclined to do - "well, Obama did this and this and this." If you can't say, yeah, those things all were ridiculous or highly suspect, then you just end up ceding ground to the Trumpites. It's been happening for a year and a half. He got elected largely on the grounds he was going to "clean up" Washington.
 
The first days inside Trump’s White House: Fury, tumult and a reboot

But Trump was adamant, aides said. Over the objections of his aides and advisers — who urged him to focus on policy and the broader goals of his presidency — the new president issued a decree: He wanted a fiery public response, and he wanted it to come from his press secretary.

By most standards, Spicer’s statement Saturday did not go well. He appeared tired and nervous in an ill-fitting gray pinstripe suit. He publicly gave faulty facts and figures — which he said were provided to him by the Presidential Inaugural Committee — that prompted a new round of media scrutiny.

Many critics thought Spicer went too far and compromised his integrity. But in Trump’s mind, Spicer’s attack on the news media was not forceful enough. The president was also bothered that the spokesman read, at times haltingly, from a printed statement.
 
Really? Do you think it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to record anything and everything you send across your phone or your laptop that through no fault or consent of your own happens to leave the United States and then return to our shores to reach it's final destination through the magic of how things travel all the time across the internet? That's o.k. in your book? You see nothing but a "policy" position in this?

It's o.k. to have a policy that targets for audit and harrassment organizations based on their political leanings?

Is it o.k. for the Secretary of State to have a pay for play scheme?

It is o.k. to pay a ransom for prisoners?


Those aren't "policies" or "campaign promises". The reason all of these things became scandals and investigations is because they represented real or potential violations of Federal law. They are no different than Iran-Contra.

And, ultimately, how did a significant part of the population feel about some or all of the above things? Obviously not very good.

When you phrase/interpret those actions in this manner, it is easy to see why you would consider those scandals. The problem is in the rhetoric, which has been the issue with Trump since day 1. There is nothing but speculation that validates terms like "pay for play" or "ransom."
 
Last edited:
Aw poor Spicer and Donnie. Welcome to the big leagues.

This is entirely intentional. They are creating all this controversy over crowd size and unsubstantial lies regarding inauguration attendance to distract everyone from the actual policy changes they are implementing. There are twice as many outrage posts on my Facebook feed about "alternative facts" and using "1984" quotes than there are posts about the re-implementation of the global gag rule, or DAPL. This is Trump's strategy and has been his strategy since he started running...creating bullshit controversies over stuff that amounts to very little in the end so that you can get away with other actually substantive things and few people will notice.
 
if JH wants' to call someone out for not learning, it's the goddamn Media falling for the play over and over and over
 
I've criticized Obama for many of the things you have. The difference is in the language. They aren't scandals. He wasn't caught red-handed doing something illegal, unconstitutional, etc. He wasn't conspiring. Yeah, he made an opaque tech-panopticon that only a benevolent philosopher king could ever rule over effectively again, but it's not scandal that led him there, it was just bad policy. It wasn't scandal when Bush badly handled surveillance and PATRIOT era policy either.

Really? It was just bad policy? Obama stands up and proclaims in 2007 that mass surveillance violates the Constitution. Those are his own words. He then not only continues but expands these same programs. Maybe I just have an odd notion of what an unreasonable search means. Like if I send an email to you and it just happens to be routed without my express consent to Germany and then back to the U.S. before it lands on your computer, that I shouldn't expect the NSA to have a copy of that communication. Or if I call you while you are on vacation in Canada, that the NSA won't keep a record of that call. If I send you a written letter would it be ok for the post office to open it and keep a copy? Because that is exactly what is happening. That is a violation of the Constitution. The President himself expressed his view this was the case. And then he ran right around what he promised to do. That is no different than all number of other scandals. He was elected, in part, to end this type of thing. So yeah, he broke a campaign promise - one that happened to be a promise that he would stop the government's ongoing violation of your Constitutional rights. Instead he turned right around and expanded those violations. That isn't just a matter of bad policy.
 
Who gives a fuck. Even if you believe Obama never had a scandal thats pretty sad that's all you have left to hang your hat on the last 8 years. The dems lost the house and senate. They lost the presidency to DJT and Supreme Court justice appointees. You had a bigger crowd for Obamas inaugaration. Great fucking work. Keep it up.
 
Back
Top