AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
One year since Trump's election
- Thread starter justjoinedtopost
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
Can't he just get his cock out already? I'd be much more comfortable with this dick measuring contest if it was with actual dicks at this point rather than the ability to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.
Violet Dawn
Cam Model
- Aug 22, 2015
- 2,737
- 5,341
- 213
- Twitter Username
- @Violet_Dawn
- Streamate Username
- VioletDawn18
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/147433/LunaBelle/
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/store/98721/LunaBelle
That sinking moment when you realize THIS is our president.
That sinking moment...
Fallout is coming to life y'all.
- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
Well you are the last one I would have expected to catch believing a reported white nationalist.
Very strange to me...two of the most unpopular candidates I have ever seen, both running campaigns accusing each other of criminality/treason. Then Donna Brazile comes out with her insider bombshells, now Bannon/Wolff doing the same. I still can't shake the nagging suspicion that the whole thing is staged.
Well you are the last one I would have expected to catch believing a reported white nationalist.
Very strange to me...two of the most unpopular candidates I have ever seen, both running campaigns accusing each other of criminality/treason. Then Donna Brazile comes out with her insider bombshells, now Bannon/Wolff doing the same. I still can't shake the nagging suspicion that the whole thing is staged.
I am confident it will be an interesting reading after all. I'll let you know. Also Mr Trump called Mr Bannon a "leaker", not a liar so...
Also, which "reported white nationalist" are you talking about? I believe they both are.
- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
Bannon (he seems to be the real focus of the attention the Wolff book is getting).
Oh don't be silly.
And then of course, there is the allegation that Ivanka herself said “You’re a f***ing liar!” when Bannon was still in the White House (apparently after Bannon accused her of being a leaker
). @Just_A_Guy it seems to me you are on a quest for bias confirmation, not the truth.
Last edited:
How do you know it's bias and not the truth? You don't. Wolff said flat out he did speak with Trump and it was not off the record and I'm sure proof will come out of it. One way or the other one of them is lying. I have to wonder why Trump tried to get it not released so much. He denied so many things though that have come out to be true. He has a record of lying so it's not out of the question he would lie about this too.
- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
http://www.businessinsider.com/mich...-doesnt-know-if-trump-book-is-all-true-2018-1
It is a tabloid. It is a giant distraction if you ask me. Is there some truth in it? I would be highly surprised if there wasn't. Does that mean it is the truth? No; it's a fucking tabloid.
Trump is a liar? At times he is an audacious one. But who isn't lying at this point?
I don't want to hear about this Don Jr meeting with a Russian for the umpteenth time, or hear one side screaming it was a setup while the other side screams it was treason.
I want to know who has been meeting with the Israelis, the Saudis, the Russians, the Ukranians, the Pakistanis, the UK, the EU...
I want to know how many lies Hillary told, Comey, Mueller, Obama, W, Clapper, Brennan, Flynn, Bill, Cheney...
I want to know how many of the people who have had claims of being strongarmed by govt agencies (and have been largely ignored by msm) are telling the truth...
I want to know how many people who have committed suicide or had accidents over the last few decades were assassinated...
Trump has disturbed the hell out of me with some of the things he has said. Yes, Trump has lied, so I guess I get a cookie and a gold star for figuring that out.
Unfortunately Trump has also told the truth. And I gotta tell you, that really has me craving a Xanax right about now.
Last edited:
Yeah that's great you want to know all that but you never will and that has nothing to do with this book. Thing is of course it's a sensational book, but it still doesn't actually mean it's bias or full of only lies. Also we don't know for sure if he met with Trump or not really. If he did...well, that's gonna be factual shit. The writer never said it was a biography anyway. Trump lies, those around him lie to protect him, and fact is his son did meet with someone he thought had dirt on Hillary when he shouldn't have. You may not care, but others do. Trump has told as many truths as a Pinocchio has at this point.
- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
Sure it does.
This book distracts from all those things I mentioned. And if this book is full of exaggerations and lies, it is going to make any truths in it suspect. Also seems a little strange to me that the author flat out says he is relating a bunch of lies.
This is not in dispute (the part about Trump lying). The extent to which Don Jr. crossed the line, I honestly cannot tell.
It is not that I don't care; it is that for a year now, there has been more and more come out that makes it look like the other campaign was is actively creating dirt on Trump.
I don't doubt for a minute there is dirt on Trump btw; it's just a little shocking to me that he is starting to look like the cleanest pig in the pen.
???
Now I don't know if this is for good or evil, and it ain't never over until the fat lady sings, but....
Well, I was just quoting his last tweet.
Anyway, I think you have already read this WP's article. I also believe you know that FAZ, The Times, Le Monde = conservative press.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-is-trump-still-sane/?utm_term=.728826abc581
Reviewing the content of a book without reading it is as silly as trying to review a video game without playing it, or reviewing a movie without watching it. Maybe let's not do that. C'mon back when you've finished the book.
It distracts from those things? I don't know about you but I'm capable of having more than one thought in my head at a time. So are most other people. Talking about one thing doesn't distract me from also focusing on the other things. The writer also isn't in charge of any of the things you wish to know so it's not like he's fucking around on the job either.
The other sides job though was to get dirt on Trump. Duh. Of course that's what they all do. Trump and his side did the same. Nothing new there. However his son crossed a line and we know that for a fact. Plus he lied about it. Shocking no one. If you think he's the cleanest after how much we have known about him before he was ever even a candidate I have a bridge to sell to you.
And that guy had a point. He is a disgrace. I don't care if it came from Hitlers mouth, it's true.
The other sides job though was to get dirt on Trump. Duh. Of course that's what they all do. Trump and his side did the same. Nothing new there. However his son crossed a line and we know that for a fact. Plus he lied about it. Shocking no one. If you think he's the cleanest after how much we have known about him before he was ever even a candidate I have a bridge to sell to you.
And that guy had a point. He is a disgrace. I don't care if it came from Hitlers mouth, it's true.
- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
No I hadn't read that yet, but seems to be mostly a report on reactions to Wolff's book. Astounding.
I have taken a very dim view of my own culture over the last few years (certainly since 9/11), and now it appears clear Western Europe is in no better shape.
Ist Donald Trump noch zurechnungsfähig? ~ FAZ
Trump’s mental health questioned by top aide ~ Times of London
So this is what they are selling; caveat emptor. I have been hearing this for over a year now; yet the ones I have heard making this claim have ceased to sound sane and honest themselves.
Now the remarks by Macron regarding Iran in the Washington Post article you linked, that is a conversation worth having. A disservice to just throw it in as a brief mention.
dilligaf0
V.I.P. AmberLander
If we are only dealing with factual information then we are omitting anything regurgitated on Fox News, right?
D
Deleted member 37064
Guest
So, all news is fake news? At what point does this phenomenon stop?
D
Deleted member 37064
Guest
To constantly make claim that one source does not state anything factual, such as @dilligaf0 commented about Fox, is ignorant and extremely biased. It shows a closed-mindedness to the potential that even their beloved news source may be spreading false news for propaganda reasons. Do I think they all are saying nothing but fake news? No. Nor do I believe that they are stating the absolute truth. It is up to the individual to research and find the truth from the highly opinionated information sources that people like to call news nowadays.
People need to stop with the bullshit of throwing turds from one side of the aisle to the other and realize that the political parties only have themselves in their own best interest. The more people open their eyes and mind to the fact that being one-sided when it comes to political parties does no one any good.
Our first president warned us of a two party political system more than two hundred and twenty years ago. Yet, here we are, doing exactly what he warned us of.
While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
dilligaf0
V.I.P. AmberLander
If only some of these people were as upset about a hostile, foreign government interfering in our elections as they are about something the interpret as bad being said about Fox News, we might get some answers and solutions to prevent it from happening again.
D
Deleted member 37064
Guest
Oh, you mean like how the US interferes in elections, and "replacing" leaders of other sovereign nations by coercion, assistance of training "rebels" and infiltration of CIA and SpecOps? Up to and including assassinations of leaders?
Doesn't matter if its here or abroad, the fact that others interfere in a sovereign nation's actions bothers me.
But, I stand by my statement that people need to get away from political parties. Especially since it's been shown that the DNC really doesn't give a fuck about anyone other than who it wants to put on the porcelain throne.
https://ivn.us/2017/05/02/courts-cant-protect-right-vote-private-corporations-control-elections/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mocratic-party-failed-the-country-by-ignoring
It also bothers me that we have bullshit internal issues when it comes to our own elections. Everything between cheating, voter issues (miscounts, fraud, and other issues that interfere with legitimate counts), the fact that parties don't have to listen to its members, illegal actions by candidates, etc. Yes, shit like this bothers me.
So, when are people going to wise up and step away from the political parties and start really voting for candidates based on their own research of how the candidate performs, and not believing in the voice behind the green curtain or blind party-line voting?
The way I see it (and I'm not actually a Dem or Libtard or Snowflake or whatever y'all wanna call the opposition these days) is that Fox is the most guilty of swaying to one side, and completely stroking Trumps dick with lubed hands, as opposed to other news stations posting their news as they see it.
Yes, Fox is more biased repub/Trump-wise than other stations are Dem wise. Dems are more focused on facts and science and things that can be proven with facts. Thus, the news sources that fall on their side of the fence have a lot more of that.
Our fucking president, and of course following suit Fox, does not recognize facts and science, as is proven by statements about global warming and such.
A smart educated person does not follow Fox or other outlets that follow stupid and unfounded assumptions and statements.
Yes, Fox is more biased repub/Trump-wise than other stations are Dem wise. Dems are more focused on facts and science and things that can be proven with facts. Thus, the news sources that fall on their side of the fence have a lot more of that.
Our fucking president, and of course following suit Fox, does not recognize facts and science, as is proven by statements about global warming and such.
A smart educated person does not follow Fox or other outlets that follow stupid and unfounded assumptions and statements.
I'll go ahead and second this as it strengthens my argument above. The only reason Trump and Fox have the support and viewership they do is because of the 2 party system. They think it's all or nothing. And even if the current Republican POTUS is completely unfit and stupid AS FUCKING FUCK t hey'll stick by him because of the fight between Dem/Repub. And it's only making the Republicans look like stupid blind dumb fucking followers.
^^this is what happens when I have had some vodka and speak my mind on our current president.
I seriously doubt the mental capacity of anyone who supports him at this point, and anyone who defends him is labeled as an idiot on my radar. I doubt my radar means anything to you, just sayin.
I seriously doubt the mental capacity of anyone who supports him at this point, and anyone who defends him is labeled as an idiot on my radar. I doubt my radar means anything to you, just sayin.
dilligaf0
V.I.P. AmberLander
D
Deleted member 37064
Guest
While I agree that Fox and the Republicans go hand in hand, so too does CNN and MSNBC with Democrats. They are both equal in stroking their respective party's dicks/cunts/egos/whathaveyou.
Again, this really isn't much different than the treatment Billary gets from the opposing media side. Even during the height of her email scandals, Benghazi and other problems, they stood by her lock step. I really don't see much difference between the two parties and the paid-for media outlets.
This is quite a few years old. But, a pewresearch poll shows the biased views even back then:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/10/30/partisanship-and-cable-news-audiences/
All I'm going to add to this conversation is I preferred our World, the United States and life in general when there wasn't this overwhelming reliance on the buzz term fake news.
As a person that watches different shows from Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. That they all have items of value and can only further to help give one a understanding of the events at large.
Also I'd love to see some of the YouTube video compilers put out some videos that showcase the flipping of positions on Trump and his campaign. Fox didn't truly embrace Trump until it was apparent no Republican candidate was going to derail him.
MSNBC particularly morning Joe didn't pivot away from Trump promotion and praise until roughly the same point.
Are there opinions and biases in the news of course. But if the only position you can take if you don't agree with something is to call it fake news then we are clearly going in the worst of directions
As a person that watches different shows from Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. That they all have items of value and can only further to help give one a understanding of the events at large.
Also I'd love to see some of the YouTube video compilers put out some videos that showcase the flipping of positions on Trump and his campaign. Fox didn't truly embrace Trump until it was apparent no Republican candidate was going to derail him.
MSNBC particularly morning Joe didn't pivot away from Trump promotion and praise until roughly the same point.
Are there opinions and biases in the news of course. But if the only position you can take if you don't agree with something is to call it fake news then we are clearly going in the worst of directions
D
Deleted member 37064
Guest
Agree with you, that it's best to watch all "news" channels one can and form as educated an opinion as possible from them. I tend to watch a little from the major news networks, as well as some international stuff, and other smaller sources.
The problem is that so much of it has become editorial opinions based more on hearse and public opinion than it does on investigative journalism. That's the problems with ratings based news is that they try to do whatever they can to get the ratings rather than do the unpopular thing which their viewer base most likely won't approve of.
The "what about them defense" is never a really strong argument but it utterly fails when it comes to Trump.
You can plausibly line-up Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary on one side of the line and respond to an attack, on George W Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney or damn near any of the 16 folks Trump beat in the primaries, and say the liberal media defended the Democrat with equal partisanship and selective facts. You can flip it around and substitute Fox and talk radio and defend attacks on any of the Democrats.
But what you shouldn't do one year into this fucking disaster of an administration, is try and compare Trump with any other American politician. When you do so you are either lying to us or yourself or just terminally stupid.
I can forgive a Republican (which I was until Nov 8) who said Hillary, is an awful human being and I can't vote for her President. Sure, Trump says some crazy shit, but WTF we need to shake up Washington so let's give the guy shot. But if you can't see this was a mistake now.. I just don't know what to say.
- Status