Has there ever been a president that so many people wanted out simply because of rhetoric and feelings?

Has there ever been a president that so many people wanted out simply because of rhetoric and feelings?

Like, how many people on facebook and twitter virtue signaling against Trump even know anything about his policies?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/asia/obama-apologizes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital.html?_r=0
theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Richard Nixon (I'm being serious)

Nope. Never.

I obviously wasn't around, but I wonder what his campaign would have been like if twitter and facebook had existed.

Would he have gotten as much flak?

Sauce nigga

Abraham Lincoln.

Pretty much no one. The left wingers are really more like a twisted cult than anything. They'll follow their sick donkey god barefoot into hell if their political leaders, fake news media or professors merely suggest it. They are the real life mindless zombies.

Yep. His name was Obama.

>virtue signaling
There it is again

Abraham Lincoln

Trump has policies now. Seems like he's the republican Obama. More of a follower than a leader. He talks a big game but he takes a back seat to the real leaders of the country.

Obamacare needs replaced but Trump couldn't get the votes. I can understand a lot of sick people and their families under stress not wanting this kinda shit.

Travel ban implementation was a disaster for green card holders. I don't get why they didn't co-ordinate it better?

The Syrian airstrike was a mess.

Why fire Flynn? Pure disloyalty to him when it really mattered.

There's lots to genuinely question here lads. Pence could probably get an conservative agenda through without Trump fucking up every two minutes.

m8 thats been happening since before he was president.
Welcome to running against the clintons in current year. The media is still reeling from their loss, and now believe their own lie.

To be honest Obama.

And to be fair who could defend Trump if even a portion of the allegations are true? It's not about the person, it's about having a certain standard in a president.

>Stop thinking about that, goyim

The reaction to Obama was not this bad, and the conservatives that were against him knew his policies. And they actually probably knew about his foreign policy better than his supporters.

>The reaction to Obama was not this bad
How do you quantify this?

Fox news acted like it was the end of the world so did any other Republican leaning media. It's just that Obama was more competent than Trump when avoiding mishaps.

Honest Abe. My gringo.

It's politic.
The politician always try to manipulate people with trashtalk and with 0 arguments.

If they could the dem would have shot Trump like kennedy.
Those beasts.

fox news are controlled opposition and always have been

Excuse me? Don't you remember the riots and bloodshed when Obama won? The Tea Party even CARRIED WEAPONS for fuck's sake.

Well, I guess if there is not even a single mainstream Republican outlet maybe their ideas are not that marketable. Is this what you are trying to point out?

I don't think they are.

It's more that the intelligence community run the media, and the media functions solely as a propaganda outlet meant to manipulate low-IQ voters rather than being actual news.

Sounds like making excuses. Do they shut down new media outlets that show "real news"? No.

Let me actually address you here first:
What if none of the allegations are true? Because that's what the evidence is pointing to. And next statement is bullshit unpaid shill intern-worthy. All the "not fit" nonsense is leftist rhetoric to make you think career government is the solution, not government from the people. And it is very much about the person. The media, with HARD EVIDENCE, did not hound Clinton to this degree.
And to go back to your second post, you can quantify that. There's stats of the news time coverage of the Hillary email scandal vs access hollywood tape. There's stats for negative airtime for Trump as a candidate before that as well. And these are easy to look up, don't even pull the "you didn't link it so it doesn't exist" crap. These facts are so well know they're basically in the public knowledge.
One news network and a few radio talk show hosts who always cry 'end of the world' because it sells to conservative boomers is nothing compared to the anti-Trump lies and rhetoric that have been injected at every level of culture.
And like I said, Obama actually did terrible things as president. These were all swept under the rug by the complicit media. to name a few off the top of my head:
>illegally sending Iran pallets of money
>fast and furious
>bombing hospitals in Syria
>drone striking American citizens
Very little coverage by the Media as a whole.

Truth is never as marketable as lies.

>There's stats for negative airtime for Trump as a candidate before that as well.
What is a negative airtime? If anything they give him too much airtime for no cost.

>pornographic picture

>vapid bullshit generic topic

SLIDE THREAD

SAGE GOES IN OPTIONS FIELD

So out of a base 300M people some of whom are well educated, you can't make enough to listen to you to keep a media outlet afloat and all the Republican leaning outlets are controlled opposition?

The only plan is making everyone a dumb slave.

>The only plan is making everyone a dumb slave.
What is not a controlled opposition? Please tell me, this "THEY ARE CONTROLLING", "THEY DID IT" arguments are getting old.

Well that's on them as companies (but it was also part of the Clinton campaign's plan), but basically unbalanced hosts, pundits, and guests.

>Do they shut down new media outlets that show "real news"? No.

You mean "yes"; they run hit pieces and character assassinate competition.

god ur dumb

Abraham Lincoln.

What I'm saying is negative airtime is covering Trump in a negative way, if he deserves it or not. That's how you quantify that. And it's undeniable that he got more negative airtime, proportionately more that he deserved, considering the things he said/did on the campaign and as president, compared to his opponent.

>unbalanced hosts, pundits, and guests
Can you give any examples? Because I thought the hosts interviewing with Trump were mostly fair.

Hosts criticizing Trump aren't, but hosts criticizing Obama were not better either. Go back to Obamacare discussions or "IS OBAMA KENYAN!" years. What I'm saying is we literally had "OBAMA IS NOT FIT FOR PRESIDENCY!" discussion, it's not special for Trump.

So you can't start a channel that defends the assassinated characters? Is there anything preventing them? Are there no Republican billionaires interested?

>What I'm saying is negative airtime is covering Trump in a negative way, if he deserves it or not. That's how you quantify that. And it's undeniable that he got more negative airtime, proportionately more that he deserved, considering the things he said/did on the campaign and as president, compared to his opponent.
Ok, but he did say a lot more controversial stuff than Clinton, he gave everyone the subject to talk about. No publicity is bad, his message reached everyone.

Criticizing people you disagree with is not wrong. You can and should criticize candidates as much as possible.

Trump represents a possible end to White Genocide Worldwide. He must be stopped and he must be made an example of.

The anti-Russia anti-Trump hysteria is simply (((bloodlust))) for gentile blood. If WGW is not proceeding at its normal post-1965 pace, progs' bloodlust for white blood arouses them for destruction.

>You can and should criticize candidates as much as possible.


Agreed, but Obama was never criticized to this degree and I guarantee you Hillary wouldn't be either if she won.

It's fucking en vogue to bash Trump right now.

M8 if you seriously can't see an obvious difference between how Obama and Trump were treated across the entirety of the media, not just on fox news, then idk if we will ever come to and understanding. That seems like such basic knowledge to me.
Earlier I gave you 4 examples of the media brushing real Obama scandals under the rug, now compare that to how they're treating alleged Trump stories with no evidence as if they are true.
Gaming websites were not publishing articles about how Obama is Kenyan, or covering him getting two scoops of ice cream.
No one covered the tape of Hillary saying they should have rigged the Palestinian election.

And as I said before, the "fit for the presidency" meme is invalid in every way. It's completely subjective. Before Obama was President, he was a "community organizer" and 4 year senator. If we're talking about qualification to be president, I can tell you that that's not enough for me, and I actually believe that, but I would never say he should be impeached for that.

That sounds like you are attached to him emotionally. If he's not a competent president I'd be okay with seeing him gone, no white genocide feelings attached.

We literally had a "HE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT HE'S NOT EVEN US CITIZEN" discussion for Obama. How was he not criticized?

There are regulations that larger media institutions will use against you. You should look up what happened to Rebel Media in Canada.

George W

>but he did say a lot more controversial stuff than Clinton
demonstrably false.

>simply because of rhetoric and feelings

LUL.

Did the news outside of Fox News do that?

You really need to understand that the media in general, is inherently liberal.

Right wing viewpoints are not the majority in modern media.

>tfw the law

It's a ridiculous phrase. Maybe some things might be virtue signalling, some of the time. But the idea that an entire group of people's values are entirely artificial and exist only so as to raise their social standing is absurd.
That's right user, no person attacking trump knows his policy. Because of course if they knew his policies they'd love him. Clearly they're just acting as one hivemind where the consensus in their social groups is that Trump = bad and nothing as much as a thought bubble has gone beyond that.

I'm emotionally attached to the white race. Trump never was its savior, but he represents to both supporters and opponents the possibility of a future for the white race. This is what motivates the ferocity on both sides.

>Earlier I gave you 4 examples of the media brushing real Obama scandals under the rug, now compare that to how they're treating alleged Trump stories with no evidence as if they are true.
And what were the proofs for the allegations made against Obama? Allegations against the president are a thing in US politics, if you are bad at handling them they will continue. If you are actually guilty and bad at handling them you get impeached.

>to
>this
>degree
you know that this is the paint point of this thread right?

Demonstrate.

W got a lot of hate but it's 100 times worse with Trump.

Never because social media is new and everyone wants to express their gay feelings.

It's strange how trumpies can't even identify the flaws in their idol. It's almost unimaginable that you people are incapable of recognizing flaws in his actions and policies, regardless of what you feel about his rhetoric (they are basically completely divorced).

all 4 examples are things that really happened.

Look man, I don't know why you don't understand this concept.
YES. Allegations and criticisms against any president is a real thing. NO ONE HERE is denying that.
The point that everyone who is replying to you is trying to make, and the point of this thread is THE LEVEL to which unfounded criticism and allegations are being thrown at the current President is more than was at Obama.

>And what were the proofs for the allegations made against Obama?
And there's proof for everything I said. These are things that happened that no one content.
I'm starting to think you are a troll, or are actually retarded.

>all 4 examples are things that really happened.
According to whom? Did anyone find Obama responsible for them?

Yes, allegations happen, more allegations are happening against Trump, he's terrible at handling them which means even more will follow. Also smoke-fire relation thingy comes to mind as well.

Less, if anything. The tapes were a big part of what turned the public against him. Today we're much less shocked when public figures turn out to be closet sleazeballs, in part thanks to social media voyeurism.

(I mean he probably still would've gone down for the bribery and abusing the CIA and IRS and everything)

I've always said Pence needs to step up and play a bigger role as VP. Not Cheney level but even Biden was supposed to have been a big player.

Pence should be helping get Trump's agenda through faster.

I'm genuinely impressed that you managed to fool the other user as long as you have. Top shill m8 but your previous post is what put me onto you - no one is actually that stupid and going on a Hungarian risk management/assessment circular.

>who could defend Trump if even a portion of the allegations are true?
If literally everything alleged w.r.t. Comey was true it still wouldn't come close to rising to anything impeachable.

As far as russia, the allegations are so many light years beyond the facts that if the allegations were true Trump would be Benedict Arnold, Judas, and Satan all rolled into one if half of it was true.

nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/asia/obama-apologizes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital.html?_r=0
You're contesting history at this point user.
The president orders airstrikes. The airstrikes killed innocent Afghans. The airstrikes hit a hospital. This happened quite a bit in Syria as well, you can find articles on it if you really look

theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/us-justification-drone-killing-american-citizen-awlaki
Dead american citizens

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
fast and furious gun running scandal

cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html
Obama sending illegal cash to Iran

>Fox news acted like it was the end of the world

Obama: Fox News goes nuts
Trump: Absolutely every media outlet BESIDES Fox (and sometimes Fox also) goes nuts.

Well, maybe he's not that great then.

respond

>I think whatever the corporate media tells me to think

Worst is how ignorant of Pence they are.
Having trump out would be like cutting your foot off to remove a splinter.
Kiss goodbye your gay marriage and cannabis reform.

I'm a paid shill, I made enough money from this thread.

All you accomplished by coming in here and getting btfo was people reading the responses to you and realizing how wrong you are.

50$ worth of embarrassment, I can do this 24/7 on an anonymous board.

Wanna join?

those feet desu

post paycheck