[Link: foxnews.com]

Kinda like this with Obama:

[Link: snopes.com]

Partisan people act as though this is outrageous behavior, and conversations like that should never take place. In reality, conversations like that are likely not unusual. It only becomes an issue if your personal enemy is involved.

I could state it another way. It is not a problem when your guy does it, it is only a problem when your political whipping boy is involved. Both sides of the aisle regularly engage in such partisan behavior.

I guess the point I was trying to make flew right over your head. That is, the Republican News Network (FOX News) is starting to show some cracks. This has become more apparent since my first post:

[Link: nytimes.com]

and

[Link: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com]

So your post didn’t have anything to do with Trump, it was just Fox News review?

Obama said he would have more flexibility to negotiate.

Trump told a guy that his aid package might not show up unless he goes after a political opponent.

If you truly think that these two things are the same this explains why we have so many problems in this country.

The cracks are just reality peeking through. Trump turned the crazy up to 11 and even FOX News can't keep saying "this is fine" with a straight face.

So what happens is the magnifying glass and every kind of hyperbole is used for one side, and it allows us to easily dismiss the other. Rinse and repeat.

Don’t misunderstand me, I think they are all the same. I just think it’s disingenuous to get your panties all worked up, and then essentially say the other side did no wrong.

They are all crooks and liars.

Especially Jimmy Carter! What a crook! What a liar!

Please try to understand that saying "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat" is not the same as saying "I'm going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it". You make so many arguments on this forum that are nothing more than false equivalencies.

If I tip one way you certainly tip the other so they cancel out. 😄 😀
You could never be accused of being non-partisan or objective.

The two examples i posted aren't even similar. Every president has to negotiate with foreign leaders. Catching Obama (or Trump) on a "hot mic" telling someone "once i am elected i will be more flexible with negotiations" is fine. Actually its a good thing. Putting the other leader at ease by letting them know that you want to make a deal.

What Trump is accused of doing is blackmailing a foreign leader into going after the son of one of his political opponents.


They are not all the same. In the example you posted Obama did nothing wrong. In the example i posted Trump did do something wrong. Its why the impeachment process has begun.


Maybe. That doesn't mean that the two examples here are similar.

It goes back to point of view. Since he is your guy, you minimize what he planned to do, even if you have no idea what it was. But your enemy, you magnify what he says and does, without even having all the evidence in front of you. That’s the way we are.

Okay, let's discuss the terms "your guy" and "your enemy" shall we?

Where does Putin fit in to this? Is he an "enemy' of the USA or is he "Trump's guy"? Last I checked, Russia was an adversary. Why is Trump always performing analingus on Vlad?

But we DO have the evidence:

- Whistleblower report
- Whitehouse transcripts (which match the whistleblower report)
- Rudy's big mouth
- Trump's big mouth (both of them have admitted to doing what all of this is about)

And back to Fox News: Shepard Smith today sounded more like Walter Cronkite and less like Father Charles Coughlin when he reported on the meltdown Trump had today (meltdowns, actually). Indeed, the cracks are showing.

I felt so sorry for the President of Finland today. Having to sit/stand next to this time bomb that is our Dear Leader. I may have to purchase some Genelecs just to ease my guilt.

Partisan politics as usual. We’ve been down this road before.

Next question: When Bill Clinton was impeached, were the proceedings against him completely justified?