How would you grade Trump thus far? - Page 2

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 11 through 18 for How would you grade Trump thus far?


New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
How would you grade Trump thus far? - - - 18 messages. Showing 11 through 18. Go to page: 1  2  
Joined 06/30/2005

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 11 Posted: 08:41 AM 02/23/17 (CST)
Why don't we start that question in a new thread, no sense answering it here where people won't be able to find it.

Joined 06/30/2005

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 12 Posted: 08:45 AM 02/23/17 (CST)
Oh and not all of the judges were libs, at least one was a Bush appointee. According the Judges he lost the court case because of his words stating he wanted to ban Muslims. There isn't any gray area in there, virtually every judge that upholds the laws honestly is going to see that as unconstitutional doesn't matter if you think they are liberal of conservative. Its pretty cut and dry with no room for interpretation. I suspect if he thought he could win in court he'd have kept pushing it. Instead he chose to admit defeat with the original ban and is now revising it.

Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 13 Posted: 12:26 AM 02/26/17 (CST)

I am giving Trump a B grade. Why? Simply because he is trying to do exactly what he said he would do. I find it refreshing that someone who is not a politician has the guts to get up there on the campaign trail and make promises and now that he is in office, actually try to keep those promises. You gotta stop watching the MSM. It seems that is where you are getting most of your information. They hate the guy and are not going to give him a break even if he keeps his promises. Even if he succeeds and makes America great again smile smiley They want him to fail and it looks like they will do ANYTHING to make that happen. They are still in shock that their darling Clinton lost. I will take on your points one at a time.

1. Granted, the executive order was poorly written. He was over zealous in wanting to get that done and perhaps in his haste it was just rammed through. But remember, it was one of the things he ran on. MSM won't tell you that banning immigration to the US has been going on for decades. In the late 1800s, Congress moved for the first time to limit the number of immigrants. Lawmakers targeted Asians, especially Chinese. The Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act banned most Chinese women and workers. The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the overall number of immigrants and established quotas based on nationality. Among other things, the act sharply reduced immigrants from Eastern Europe and Africa. And it completely restricted immigrants from Asia, except for Japan and the Philippines. 65 years ago a provision was added that gives presidents broad authority to ban individual immigrants or groups of immigrants and presidents haven’t hesitated to use it. More recently Barack Obama invoked it 19 times, Bill Clinton 12 times, George W. Bush six times and Ronald Reagan five times. George H.W. Bush invoked it once. Where the hell was the uproar then?

2. Now let's take on fake news...

Fake news: Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.

Fake news: Democrats want to impose Islamic law in Florida.

Fake news: Thousands of people at a Donald Trump rally in Manhattan chanted, "We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back."

None of those stories – and there are so many more like them – is remotely true. But there is another kind of fake news that is much more sinister; the news that is reported by supposedly creditable news agencies that only tell part of the story. Once again, it is the MSM that is guilty of this. It's funny to me that when Wiki Leaks released thousands of emails showing the collusion between MSM and Clinton; emails showing multiple examples of the Democratic National Committee coordinating with the Clinton campaign and major media figures to both build up Hillary Clinton and trash Bernie Sanders, all while claiming neutrality to the public; emails referring to an “agreement” with Politico’s Ken Vogel to let the DNC pre-screen stories before they’re sent to Vogel’s editors; emails that showed John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, showing Donna Brazile, the interim head of the Democratic National Committee and a CNN contributor, giving Clinton a heads up about likely debate questions the day before she was due to take on Bernie Sanders at a primary debate... all of this crap, and the Left just yawned. NONE OF THIS WAS EVER REFUTED BY ANYONE. "Pay no attention to the emails, just pay attention to the messenger!"

But now, one or several Intelligence Agencies has illegally leaked information of supposed wire tapped phone calls of members of the Trump organization claiming Russian collusion. And the MSM suddenly changes its tune and cries "Pay no attention to the messenger, pay attention to the content!" And what exactly is the content? Have you seen a transcript of what was said? It is convenient that the actual details are missing. Is this illegal? No, it is not. ALL incoming administrations have done this in the past and there was no uproar by the press. Did you know that there were 28 phone calls placed to various heads of state in 28 countries? The MSM won't tell you that, they just want to concentrate on the phone call to Russia. Why? Because they hate Trump. They want to take him down and they will do anything to do that. They did a poll and found that by reporting on JUST the Russian call, it would get much more spin then all the other communication that took place. Bush made the same type of calls along with Bill Clinton and Obama. Where was the uproar then?

3. Hypocrisy? Don't even get me started on this one.

A.) Ignoring Science: “Science-denier” is the modern Democrat’s middle name. Hillary Clinton opposed the construction of the Keystone Pipeline even though her own State Department thrice declared it to be environmentally safe.

B.) Pretending States Don’t Exist: Obama’s administration sued Arizona for exercising its own immigration laws; North Carolina over its bathroom laws. Obama’s administration also used aggressive and excessive measures to challenge California’s state authority on medical marijuana.

C.) Coddling Thugs, Killing Free Speech: Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik stormed a gun free zone in San Bernardino, CA, fatally shooting 14 individuals and injuring 24. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch threatened to prosecute anyone who dared say anything that could be in any way construed as anti-Muslim—despite Farook and Malik being radicalized jihadist Muslims.

D.) Crushing Bakeries and Pizzerias: Obama doesn’t think you can build a layered wedding cake “on your own” let alone open your own bakery. So, it’s not entirely surprising that his administration wouldn’t intervene when alt-left protesters put a bakery out of business when the owner practiced her 1st Amendment right to free speech.

E.) No ID to Vote: You must show an ID to withdraw cash from a bank; buy cigarettes; purchase alcohol; patronize a bar or dance club; buy ammo; or use your credit card at the U.S. Post Office—but the government doesn’t want to know who is voting. Could politicians want to hide their attempts to buy votes from illegal immigrants?

F.) Double Standards: If a Marine had access to classified material, he or she would be Court-Martialed for failing to follow basic security procedures with that material. If that Marine deleted tens of thousands of potentially jeopardized emails before turning over her emails to the FBI, she would likely spend a decade in jail. Not Hillary Clinton! She’s the Queen of the Alt-Left, which means she’s above the law.

G.) Normalizing Child Abuse: “As president, I will always have your back,” Hillary told Planned Parenthood. Democrats support using taxpayer dollars to fund the murder of a baby during the final months of pregnancy (partial-birth abortion) despite the baby showing signs of life and viability. In this objectively cruel procedure, the baby’s skull is punctured with a sharp surgical tool and its brain is suctioned, inducing the collapse of the baby’s skull and ultimately the child’s death.

H.) Security Blankets for College Students: Democrats want taxpayers to subsidize “safe spaces” so that students do not encounter intellectual diversity. The alt-left wants us to bankroll silly laws (think California Gov. Jerry Brown’s “Just Say No” law designed to stop rape on college campuses) that prevent students from exercising their 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed. Result: college students cry and stamp their feet when a professor corrects their grammar errors. Yes, this happened at the University of California at Los Angeles.

The ‘Alt Left’ is a radical, Marxist movement that inhabits the Democrat Party like a demon inhabiting a person. They’re hell-bent on destroying America. Hell, after Trump’s landslide victory, many colleges actually put up (in addition to their “cry,” “hug,” and “safe” space areas) – “ANTI-AMERICA” ‘zones on campus!!

What a load of CRAP!

As for your 4 and 5 points, I could go on. But this is getting WAYYYYYYYY too long. All I can say is you have to stop watching MSM and their meltdowns...

"They [the media] are not becoming irrelevant, but they are getting to the point where they are worse than irrelevant,” and “They’re the scourge of the American people.”
—Andrew Breitbart

“The Greens and ‘progressives’ more or less own the mainstream media.”
—Frank Davis

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! ”
—Donald Trump

List of mainstream media organs

Mainstream media outlets are based in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Funny how the east and west coasts want to impose their will on ALL of America.

Significant mainstream media outlets include:


The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Boston Globe
The Philadelphia Inquirer
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The Los Angeles Times
The San Francisco Chronicle
USA Today
The Rolling Stones (magazine)
The Wall Street Journal

News Syndication Agencies...

Associated Press
United Press International


National Public Radio
Public Broadcasting Service
The Cable News Network

I rest my case.

Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 14 Posted: 10:11 AM 02/26/17 (CST)
As for the 9th circuit court, of all decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court from this court, about 80% percent were overturned.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals argued that, “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

Seventy-two individuals that came to the U.S. as either immigrants or refugees from those seven countries are convicted terrorists since after 9/11, the Center for Immigration Studies explained. Three were convicted of using weapons of mass destruction, and 25 of the 72 eventually became American citizens.

Twenty are from Somalia, 19 from Yemen, 19 from Iraq, seven from Syria, four from Iran, two from Libya and one from Sudan.

And don’t forget that Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, followed by Sudan and Syria.

The message this sends is that Democrats don’t care if immigrants commit terrorism overseas, they just can’t murder anyone once they’re welcomed into America. The logic goes like this: Terrorism in other countries doesn’t mean there’ll be terrorism in America. People from these countries commit terrorism around the world, sure, but they don’t commit terrorism in America, so it’s OK to bring them in. That logic relies heavily on the assumption of “if, not when.”

Now think about that. Do we take a chance?

Okay, so now you are going to go to,, and you are going to actually check the facts. Well my friend, the tentacles of the Left go far deeper than you think. Please read these articles, they will enlighten you...

You see, you cannot trust anything you read. Sure, you will find many articles on fact checking the fact checkers, and a majority of the articles will give them good ratings. But who exactly is writing these articles?

Joined 06/30/2005

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 15 Posted: 03:49 PM 02/27/17 (CST)
Lol, if those articles you posted are the types of places you gather your information from then the conversation is really a non-starter.

Of course there is bias in the media however it goes both ways, surely you realize that. If you post something from Breitbart and call it news then we're in trouble.

For a quick reference here is a handy chart that sorts out the media and where it falls on the bias spectrum and where it lands in terms of in-depth reporting. As soon as someone starts quoting something from either the lower left or right corners you know the discussion has no where to go.

Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 16 Posted: 12:29 AM 03/04/17 (CST)
Okay, I'll give you that Breitbart is a little right of center smile smiley but give me a break... Vanessa Otero?!?! You've got to be kidding. She is definitely way left of center. The Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, CBS NBS, and especially CNN as MSM with little or no bias?!?! That is a joke. Here is a little light reading for you on CNN...

Media Bias Fact Check

Here is Vanessa's Facebook page. Take a look at some of her posts...


Here is a better graphic for you and much more accurate.

Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 17 Posted: 09:18 AM 03/04/17 (CST)
Good article here, granted it's an opinion piece, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the Left...


"Bill and Hillary Clinton received large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Bill Clinton was paid a cool $500,000 (well above his normal fee) for a speech in Moscow in 2010. Who footed the bill? An investment firm in Moscow called Renaissance Capital, which boasts deep ties to Russian intelligence. The Clinton Foundation itself took money from Russian officials and Putin-connected oligarchs. They also took donations from:

Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin confidant who gave through his company, Renova Group
Andrey Vavilov, a former Russian government official who was Chairman of SuperOx, a research company that was part of the “nuclear Cluster” at the Russian government’s Skolkovo research facility
Elena Baturina, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow, who apparently gave them money through JSC Inteco, an entity that she controls
Then there is the glaring fact that the Clinton Foundation also scored $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government in 2010. The deal required the approval of several federal government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, to buy assets that amounted to 20 percent of American uranium. Rosatom, by the way controls the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Equally troubling: some of those donations were hidden and not disclosed by the Clintons. President Obama required the Clinton Foundation to disclose all contributions as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State. But that did not happen. The only reason the hidden donations ever came to light is because we uncovered them by combing through Canadian tax records.

Everyone got what they wanted in this deal: the uranium investors made a nice profit; the Russians acquired a strategic asset; and the Clinton Foundation bagged a lot of money.

Hillary Clinton says she was not involved in the decision to approve the sale of Uranium One. As proof, the Clinton campaign in 2015 trotted out her former aide, Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez, to say publicly that we should take his word for it that she was not involved in approving that deal. But as we now know from the leaked Podesta emails, Fernandez was all too eager to help Podesta kill the story, while getting other favors from Podesta. That raises questions about the veracity of his comments.

It seems strange that while some in Congress are eager to investigate the activities of General Mike Flynn and his contacts with Russia, they have no interest in looking into a transaction in which the Clinton Foundation received a staggering $145 million. It’s that kind of inconsistency that saps all credibility from those raising these issues."

Joined 02/26/2004

WebDude's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 18 Posted: 02:30 PM 03/04/17 (CST)
Ooooohhh... this is great fun!

smile smiley

Webdudes Sig
My Fishing Pals facebook
WebDude's facebook
How would you grade Trump thus far? - - - 18 messages. Showing 11 through 18. Go to page: 1  2  
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
    Big Pole     dittohead     fishfry     flyguy     gonefishin     InTheBoat     LimeGreen     MNTwins     SS    
Users Online:9
Guests Online:155
Total Online: 164

Terms and Conditions