@vanatos Yeah, most presidents look like their office took a toll on there health and seem to age quicker. It is stressful, but yeah, Clinton, went wayyy downhill. I am amazed Carter is still going strong, but that was one term. If Trump even makes it one term no telling how he'll look. Edit: Yep, he does the charm thing pretty well.
On another note.
I thought it was a real hoot when Pres. Trump said COMEY was a showboat and grand stander.
Maybe we all need to install theater seating and a popcorn machine in the house for this show.
Well, a little bit of chaos every now and again can result in 'interesting' things.
2020 The Right man will win.
On yet more news that will feed the sharks.
Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein met with Comey to discuss the FBI investigation and this is what they had to say.
"On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement"
Also re-iterated here, no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
White House furious after being trolled with Russia Oval Office photos
Security vulnerability President Trump invited Russians into the Oval office the day after he fired Comey for investigating his campaigns ties to Russia. Could they bug the office? Of course they could.
It's also funny that Trump didn't mention the Russian ambassador was there, we only found out because he let Russians take photos with their equipment.
Some of you voted for this. Many more defend it on a daily basis. You were warned. Continue to be warned. He is threatening the FBI Director he just fired and is about to take an axe to the First Amendment. Free speech is in peril at Berkeley?? Yeah, ok. At a certain point, you have to be DEEPLY cynical or simply an authoritarian mindset to defend this thug.
First of all, if there is ACTUALLY a White House taping system, that is unbelievable given history, and he is already toast. Guaranteed. Secondly, James Comey is many things, but he does not strike me as a fabulist or a liar. He is a boy scout. The credibility gap with Trump is about as wide as the Grand Canyon. And last....he is saying facts don't matter, and that he will shut down your access to those facts. And they JUST released paper statements that were flat-out lies, blown out of the water by words from the President's OWN MOUTH.
The inevitable response to this will be "lol look at Trump trolling liberals and the media, isn't it grand??" That is the deep, dangerous cynicism I am talking about. Talk to anyone who has lived under an authoritarian regime, and they will all say the same thing: that the first rule of dealing with one is to ALWAYS take them seriously, because they mean it, and the idea that you won't because it is so outlandish is what they are counting on.
And, maybe most importantly....NONE of this continues to happen without the explicit stamp of approval from Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and nearly every single Congressional Republican, walking hand in hand with him into the abyss of democracy. It's at this moment tattooed on their forehead.
I just started reading about this after you posted it, but in a cursory glance (and this LOOKS really bad) it seems there might be a reason for this:
"the subject of an examination under the Conflict of Interest Act or any inquiry under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons is asked to keep any information related to it confidential."
Again, I can't say if that's accurate, that is a quote from a Canadian discussing it in a message board, but it seems he IS following some sort of protocol here. It is still optically terrible. It also seems they cleared him of wrongdoing?? Again, I have no idea, please feel free to elaborate.....
I just started reading about this after you posted it, but in a cursory glance (and this LOOKS really bad) it seems there might be a reason for this:
"the subject of an examination under the Conflict of Interest Act or any inquiry under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons is asked to keep any information related to it confidential."
Again, I can't say if that's accurate, that is a quote from a Canadian discussing it in a message board, but it seems he IS following some sort of protocol here. It is still optically terrible. It also seems they cleared him of wrongdoing?? Again, I have no idea, please feel free to elaborate.....
Announcing how many times he has met with the ethics commish wouldn't break any conflict of interest acts as long as he doesnt go into details about why he was meeting with them. And that is the jab. A MP can go to the ethics commissioner to ask a question relating to thier personal life for recommendations to prevent an ethics breach.
It is probably because he doesnt have an accurate number to give to the opposition. Which makes it a lose -lose. He has either met with the commissioner to many times to count hence how ethical is his dealings. Or he throws an inaccurate number out which the Conservatives pounce on and call him a liar saying it was actually X amount of times and if he cant tell the truth on such a simple question how can the Canadian public trust him to answer any other questions.
It's a threat. Trump is suggesting that he has a record of conversations he had with Comey so if Comey starts talking to the media and says anything which contradicts those conversations that he will nail Comey to the wall. We normally see such behavior in movies or TV shows where a mid-level mafioso is telling someone else to keep their mouth shut; in more modern parlance we would encounter the phrase "snitches get stitches".
The fact that Trump apparently does do things such as require people to pledge loyalty (maybe not overtly but I am certain when you speak with him you know what he is saying even if he doesn't say it) and how he takes things personally it wouldn't surprise me that he records everything. Didn't Nixon do that, as well? It's like we are in 1971 all over again.
From a sociological point of view Trump's Presidency can be seen as the beginning of celebocracy. It is possible to make the case that Obama in 2008 is the first "celebrity" President--truthfully, he hadn't done anything of note before then except get elected to the Senate in 2006 then vote "present" on a number of bills (you can check his voting record for yourself)--but by the time Obama won reelection in 2012 he had established himself as an actual politician and that he had not been an actual celebrity before then.
Don't forget Repubs put up Ronald Reagan in 1981 who was a minor celebrity President.
Reagan was governor of California for 8 years prior to 1980 though, 1967-1975, but lost in the Republican presidential primary of 1976 before winning in 1980.
First off, I also hope there is tapes of this meeting. There probably isn't, but who the hell knows with this guy. He may seriously not even know how much that would seal his fate. He may be that ignorant of (relatively recent) history.
Second of all, maybe some of you have seen "Citizen Kane", where Orson Welles, near the end, was nothing but seething resentment, wandering aimlessly around the monument he had built to his own ego, abandoned by everyone. Or in the waning days of Watergate, Nixon walking around the White House talking to portraits of past Presidents, raging at the enemies in his head. This is where Trump is headed. There are no two cultural figures that could possibly describe his personality better than Charles Foster Kane and Richard Nixon.
It's a threat. Trump is suggesting that he has a record of conversations he had with Comey so if Comey starts talking to the media and says anything which contradicts those conversations that he will nail Comey to the wall. We normally see such behavior in movies or TV shows where a mid-level mafioso is telling someone else to keep their mouth shut; in more modern parlance we would encounter the phrase "snitches get stitches".
It's a threat. Trump is suggesting that he has a record of conversations he had with Comey so if Comey starts talking to the media and says anything which contradicts those conversations that he will nail Comey to the wall. We normally see such behavior in movies or TV shows where a mid-level mafioso is telling someone else to keep their mouth shut; in more modern parlance we would encounter the phrase "snitches get stitches".
That's exactly the thought I had when I read that statement. "Better keep your facts straight Comey, cuz I've got it on tape!"
I am 100% certain Comey has his facts straight, because Comey talked to MULTIPLE people right after it happened, and they have now told reporters about it. Again, Comey is a boy scout, with all the virtues and faults that implies. But telling a bald-faced lie is not one of them.
I have no idea if Trump has a tape. IF Trump has a tape, then he has many tapes, and those tapes, come hell or high water, will end up being demanded, one day, one way or another. Trump had better HOPE he doesn't actually have a Nixon-style taping system in the White House, but then again, he is just that crazy/stupid that it might be possible.
Again, I do not particularly LIKE James Comey. But being self-righteous is a far cry from being a pathological liar. And that is the two personalities we are dealing with here. Comey is telling the truth, and Trump is lying. Because Trump lies even when there is no reason for it, it almost seems like a drug to him.
Maybe you could trip Trump up with one of those logic puzzles where you have to tell the truth to lie (or vice versa). His brain might just go haywire and reverse polarity or something...
There's an article in the New York Times that expresses something I've been worried about for a long time. Trump's most ardent supporters do not seem interested in whether Trump's election or his policies are making the country a better place. They just want to "troll" liberals.
For some people, politics is no longer about love of one's country. It is about hatred for people you don't like.
I want Trump to make the country stronger. We might disagree on how he might do that, but can't we agree that that's our common goal?
There's an article in the New York Times that expresses something I've been worried about for a long time. Trump's most ardent supporters do not seem interested in whether Trump's election or his policies are making the country a better place. They just want to "troll" liberals.
For some people, politics is no longer about love of one's country. It is about hatred for people you don't like.
I want Trump to make the country stronger. We might disagree on how he might do that, but can't we agree that that's our common goal?
Isn't that what we're about?
It's basically the entire mission statement of the Alt-right, or Anti-PC movement. It's endemic online. It's not all that uncommon in this thread. Again, this is the deep, deep cynicism I'm talking about. That making some feminists on a college campus cry is more important to society than even maintaining the basic tenants of our democracy. Who cares if Trump is obstructing justice and clearly trying to stop a investigation into his campaign?? Because, damn, it sure sends those liberals into fits.
Sean Spicer is at the podium right now. He won't say if Trump has a tape or if the White House has a taping system. There is no denial or confirmation that the President is secretly taping meetings with the Director of the FBI and, ostensibly, any number of other people.
It is heinous to direct an attack on a hospital, where even a small problem could cause problems for people in their most vulnerable and weakest moments. Whoever is behind this needs to punished severely, whether it's a government or rogue citizens.
Maybe you could trip Trump up with one of those logic puzzles where you have to tell the truth to lie (or vice versa). His brain might just go haywire and reverse polarity or something...
It doesn't work with the Trumpster. He can deny anything even what he himself is on record as saying. There are tons of examples off the top of my head the one where he made a video "we have to topple Gadafi!" then later he tweets "we should never have toppled Gadafi.". Same deal with his support for the Iraq War.
You'd just aggravate yourself because he'd just deny it.
Interviewer: "Donald, the sky is blue right?" Trump: "No the sky is red, I've always said it's red." Interviewer: "Donald look up, it's blue." Trump: "It's red, always has been and I won the election in a landslide."
There's an article in the New York Times that expresses something I've been worried about for a long time. Trump's most ardent supporters do not seem interested in whether Trump's election or his policies are making the country a better place. They just want to "troll" liberals.
Some of you voted for this. Many more defend it on a daily basis. You were warned. Continue to be warned.
This kind of rhetoric is why political discourse is so toxic.
Instead of keeping criticism on Trump's actions, the focus is actually to Attack Trump supporters.
I've rarely (and quite honestly almost never) seen the same kind of passive-aggressiveness against Hillary Supporters or Democratic supporters, And in fact this election honestly makes it seem that Democrats were far more hostile then Republicans but thats more of a function of Democrats having more institutional power nowadays.
The same with Brexit. 'Because they didn't vote for my candidate im ok with generalizing them as monsters throughout the media'.
Even reading this thread, the attacks and insults have almost by uniform been against 'Trump supporters' but rarely if ever have i seen such generalized attacks on Hillary supporters or democrats.
Its sad this thread actually kind of shows the same emblematic problems in our society.
Our country is divided, and the truth is, We are the ones dividing it.
Just to keep things in perspective 'some of you' voted for Hillary Clinton, and even though there's a boatload of arguments one could put forth in how ironic that is given virtually every argument could be simply applied back the same way, I wouldn't encourage devolving the discussion into 'you voted for this person so X'.
U.S., China agree to first trade steps under 100-day plan The United States and China have agreed to take action by mid-July to increase access for U.S. financial firms and expand trade in beef and chicken among other steps as part of Washington's drive to cut its trade deficit with Beijing.
The deals are the first results of 100 days of trade talks that began last month, when a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping proved far more friendly than had been expected after last year's U.S. presidential campaign, but the immediate impact was unclear.
There's an article in the New York Times that expresses something I've been worried about for a long time. Trump's most ardent supporters do not seem interested in whether Trump's election or his policies are making the country a better place. They just want to "troll" liberals.
Right, New York Times says Trump supporters don't care about policies or the good of the nation as a whole (unprovable, subjective, not an argument, essentially slander) because of a character flaw that makes them only want to do immature things like troll (unprovable, subjective, not an argument, essentially slander). Which is, of course, accepted as truth as it confirms the preconceived notions and, frankly, rank prejudices, already felt by it's readers.
Using the worst singular examples you can find of a large group and then pretending that is representative of the group itself is a common tactic, but is only trying to poison the well. This tactic is overwhelmingly common in this thread, in politics, and in everyday life but it's simply fallacious.
Watching Colbert's audience cheer Comey's firing- until Colbert had to tell them why it was actually bad now even though they've been trashing his honesty and credibility for months- was hilarious and totally encapsulates the Trump era. Intellectual consistency doesnt exist. Short term memory doesn't exist. Comey deserved to be fired according to prominent democrats, there was no reason to have faith in him and he had zero credibility in their own words...but if Trump agrees...then its a heinous act born of his own dark rage and need to hide an ambiguous vaguely definied probably Kremlin influenced something. This isn't rational thinking, it's working backwards from a pre conceived notion and trying to make it fit.
As this is surely, without a doubt, the smoking gun surefire proof of the great RussiaMania, I am sure such evidence will be brought forth any day now. Though the lack of it has surely been no cause for concern.
After months of trying to find the non-circumstantial basis for this, it would be refreshing at least.
All that being said, its still probably not normal procedure to hear about your termination through the news first, but frankly nothing regarding Trump is buisness as usual, everything is more dramatic and over the top. Almost designed to cause media hysteria.
To go over the official intel position yet again, here's the summary of the accusations regarding Trump and Russia:
- Russia gave info to Wikileaks after getting info from both parties which had *no false information* according to them.
- Russia's goal was a counter terrorism coalition with the US to defeat the Islamic State.
- Putin was ambiguous and kept direct Trump praise to a minimum but did express Pro Trump sentiment and said Clintons remarks on Russia were aggressive (which they were).
- Russia Today, called a propaganda outlet, favored Trump and so did other prominent Russian political figures.
- Social media accounts, allegedly controlled by russia as they were pro russian conflict beforehand, were pro Trump.
- No Trump collusion.
This narrative simply has no legs to stand on, a mountain out of a molehill. A grand conspiracy based on incredibly mild accusations with the deep dark secret, the smoking gun right under the surface, never quite showing itself but always, definitely there, if you only have eyes to see.
If we assume its all true, the very worst thing is Russia spying, yet lets be real everyone is or is trying to especially us, nothing they leaked was damaging to american society or false and its the part the left seems least concerned about in their continuous efforts to turn Trump into a baby eating russian agent through sheer force of will.
I've rarely (and quite honestly almost never) seen the same kind of passive-aggressiveness against Hillary Supporters or Democratic supporters, And in fact this election honestly makes it seem that Democrats were far more hostile then Republicans but thats more of a function of Democrats having more institutional power nowadays.
Are Republicans that wimpy that although they control the majorities in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court and the Executive branch that "Democrats having more institutional power nowadays". How do you figure that the people who don't control the government have more institutional power than those who do?
And you haven't seen passive-aggressiveness against Hillary Supporters or Democrats you must have missed the "Hillary for Prison" bumper stickers and "lock her up" chants. I guess you've never heard the pejoratives libtards or snowflakes applied to the Democrat. I just don't get it - we're you serious?
Sorry no, this whole unrest and mess is not on the party that is not in power. The Democrats don't have majorities to stop the terrible agenda and boneheaded whims of those actually ruining things. When was the last bill that a Democrat wanted passed? It's been a while. Sure wasn't that dumb American Healthcare thing.
@vanatos@WarChiefZeke: Rest easy; I'm not here to stereotype Republicans. I was referring to "Trump's most ardent supporters" (I couldn't think of a more accurate phrase), not American conservatives in general. I'm criticizing the extreme fringe, not mainstream conservatism.
You two weren't around back then, but @Tresset and I were among the first to speak out in this thread against the stereotyping of conservatives (I think it was last November or December).
I know the "let's troll liberals" attitude is a minority viewpoint (I've only heard a single example in this thread in 230 pages). Most of my family is Republican, and none of them are motivated by spite or a desire to hurt anyone. Quite the opposite.
There's an article in the New York Times that expresses something I've been worried about for a long time. Trump's most ardent supporters do not seem interested in whether Trump's election or his policies are making the country a better place. They just want to "troll" liberals.
Some of you voted for this. Many more defend it on a daily basis. You were warned. Continue to be warned.
This kind of rhetoric is why political discourse is so toxic.
Instead of keeping criticism on Trump's actions, the focus is actually to Attack Trump supporters.
I've rarely (and quite honestly almost never) seen the same kind of passive-aggressiveness against Hillary Supporters or Democratic supporters, And in fact this election honestly makes it seem that Democrats were far more hostile then Republicans but thats more of a function of Democrats having more institutional power nowadays.
The same with Brexit. 'Because they didn't vote for my candidate im ok with generalizing them as monsters throughout the media'.
Even reading this thread, the attacks and insults have almost by uniform been against 'Trump supporters' but rarely if ever have i seen such generalized attacks on Hillary supporters or democrats.
Its sad this thread actually kind of shows the same emblematic problems in our society.
Our country is divided, and the truth is, We are the ones dividing it.
Just to keep things in perspective 'some of you' voted for Hillary Clinton, and even though there's a boatload of arguments one could put forth in how ironic that is given virtually every argument could be simply applied back the same way, I wouldn't encourage devolving the discussion into 'you voted for this person so X'.
I've heard this argument about "passive-aggressiveness" plenty of times, it's quite rich coming from those who mock the left on a daily basis, as if MY statement is more of an attack. It's the tone-police. THIS is an attack?? From the same people who complain about "political correctness" on a daily basis?? Give me a break.
You can't hold the moral high-ground on civil behavior but then engage in generalizations and attacks on Trump supporters explicitly , especially pre-preemptively speaking to any of them 'in the thread' in that manner, That doesn't engender discussion 'between sides'.
At least with troll's they are completely open they're being a troll.
@vanatos@WarChiefZeke: Rest easy; I'm not here to stereotype Republicans. I was referring to "Trump's most ardent supporters" (I couldn't think of a more accurate phrase), not American conservatives in general. I'm criticizing the extreme fringe, not mainstream conservatism.
You two weren't around back then, but @Tresset and I were among the first to speak out in this thread against the stereotyping of conservatives (I think it was last November or December).
I know the "let's troll liberals" attitude is a minority viewpoint (I've only heard a single example in this thread in 230 pages). Most of my family is Republican, and none of them are motivated by spite or a desire to hurt anyone. Quite the opposite.
I have no doubt as to your sincerity and fair mindedness @semiticgod. NYT and the subtext of the piece, notsomuch.
Comments
On yet more news that will feed the sharks.
Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein met with Comey to discuss the FBI investigation and this is what they had to say.
"On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s statement"
Also re-iterated here, no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Wolf was dissapointed
I hope they actually find something juicy because i feel bad for Democrats.
Security vulnerability President Trump invited Russians into the Oval office the day after he fired Comey for investigating his campaigns ties to Russia. Could they bug the office? Of course they could.
It's also funny that Trump didn't mention the Russian ambassador was there, we only found out because he let Russians take photos with their equipment.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/11/politics/oval-office-photos-donald-trump-russians/
Some of you voted for this. Many more defend it on a daily basis. You were warned. Continue to be warned. He is threatening the FBI Director he just fired and is about to take an axe to the First Amendment. Free speech is in peril at Berkeley?? Yeah, ok. At a certain point, you have to be DEEPLY cynical or simply an authoritarian mindset to defend this thug.
First of all, if there is ACTUALLY a White House taping system, that is unbelievable given history, and he is already toast. Guaranteed. Secondly, James Comey is many things, but he does not strike me as a fabulist or a liar. He is a boy scout. The credibility gap with Trump is about as wide as the Grand Canyon. And last....he is saying facts don't matter, and that he will shut down your access to those facts. And they JUST released paper statements that were flat-out lies, blown out of the water by words from the President's OWN MOUTH.
The inevitable response to this will be "lol look at Trump trolling liberals and the media, isn't it grand??" That is the deep, dangerous cynicism I am talking about. Talk to anyone who has lived under an authoritarian regime, and they will all say the same thing: that the first rule of dealing with one is to ALWAYS take them seriously, because they mean it, and the idea that you won't because it is so outlandish is what they are counting on.
And, maybe most importantly....NONE of this continues to happen without the explicit stamp of approval from Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and nearly every single Congressional Republican, walking hand in hand with him into the abyss of democracy. It's at this moment tattooed on their forehead.
"the subject of an examination under the Conflict of Interest Act or any inquiry under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons is asked to keep any information related to it confidential."
Again, I can't say if that's accurate, that is a quote from a Canadian discussing it in a message board, but it seems he IS following some sort of protocol here. It is still optically terrible. It also seems they cleared him of wrongdoing?? Again, I have no idea, please feel free to elaborate.....
Why is he worried about tapes?
Has DOnald Trump admitted to Comey something illegal? You only worry about "tapes" if you have admitted on tape to doing something wrong.
How can anyone possibly read this any other way?
It is probably because he doesnt have an accurate number to give to the opposition. Which makes it a lose -lose. He has either met with the commissioner to many times to count hence how ethical is his dealings. Or he throws an inaccurate number out which the Conservatives pounce on and call him a liar saying it was actually X amount of times and if he cant tell the truth on such a simple question how can the Canadian public trust him to answer any other questions.
The fact that Trump apparently does do things such as require people to pledge loyalty (maybe not overtly but I am certain when you speak with him you know what he is saying even if he doesn't say it) and how he takes things personally it wouldn't surprise me that he records everything. Didn't Nixon do that, as well? It's like we are in 1971 all over again.
From a sociological point of view Trump's Presidency can be seen as the beginning of celebocracy. It is possible to make the case that Obama in 2008 is the first "celebrity" President--truthfully, he hadn't done anything of note before then except get elected to the Senate in 2006 then vote "present" on a number of bills (you can check his voting record for yourself)--but by the time Obama won reelection in 2012 he had established himself as an actual politician and that he had not been an actual celebrity before then.
First off, I also hope there is tapes of this meeting. There probably isn't, but who the hell knows with this guy. He may seriously not even know how much that would seal his fate. He may be that ignorant of (relatively recent) history.
Second of all, maybe some of you have seen "Citizen Kane", where Orson Welles, near the end, was nothing but seething resentment, wandering aimlessly around the monument he had built to his own ego, abandoned by everyone. Or in the waning days of Watergate, Nixon walking around the White House talking to portraits of past Presidents, raging at the enemies in his head. This is where Trump is headed. There are no two cultural figures that could possibly describe his personality better than Charles Foster Kane and Richard Nixon.
That's exactly the thought I had when I read that statement. "Better keep your facts straight Comey, cuz I've got it on tape!"
I have no idea if Trump has a tape. IF Trump has a tape, then he has many tapes, and those tapes, come hell or high water, will end up being demanded, one day, one way or another. Trump had better HOPE he doesn't actually have a Nixon-style taping system in the White House, but then again, he is just that crazy/stupid that it might be possible.
Again, I do not particularly LIKE James Comey. But being self-righteous is a far cry from being a pathological liar. And that is the two personalities we are dealing with here. Comey is telling the truth, and Trump is lying. Because Trump lies even when there is no reason for it, it almost seems like a drug to him.
For some people, politics is no longer about love of one's country. It is about hatred for people you don't like.
I want Trump to make the country stronger. We might disagree on how he might do that, but can't we agree that that's our common goal?
Isn't that what we're about?
Sean Spicer is at the podium right now. He won't say if Trump has a tape or if the White House has a taping system. There is no denial or confirmation that the President is secretly taping meetings with the Director of the FBI and, ostensibly, any number of other people.
It is heinous to direct an attack on a hospital, where even a small problem could cause problems for people in their most vulnerable and weakest moments. Whoever is behind this needs to punished severely, whether it's a government or rogue citizens.
You'd just aggravate yourself because he'd just deny it.
Interviewer: "Donald, the sky is blue right?"
Trump: "No the sky is red, I've always said it's red."
Interviewer: "Donald look up, it's blue."
Trump: "It's red, always has been and I won the election in a landslide."
Instead of keeping criticism on Trump's actions, the focus is actually to Attack Trump supporters.
I've rarely (and quite honestly almost never) seen the same kind of passive-aggressiveness against Hillary Supporters or Democratic supporters, And in fact this election honestly makes it seem that Democrats were far more hostile then Republicans but thats more of a function of Democrats having more institutional power nowadays.
The same with Brexit.
'Because they didn't vote for my candidate im ok with generalizing them as monsters throughout the media'.
Even reading this thread, the attacks and insults have almost by uniform been against 'Trump supporters' but rarely if ever have i seen such generalized attacks on Hillary supporters or democrats.
Its sad this thread actually kind of shows the same emblematic problems in our society.
Our country is divided, and the truth is, We are the ones dividing it.
Just to keep things in perspective 'some of you' voted for Hillary Clinton, and even though there's a boatload of arguments one could put forth in how ironic that is given virtually every argument could be simply applied back the same way, I wouldn't encourage devolving the discussion into 'you voted for this person so X'.
The United States and China have agreed to take action by mid-July to increase access for U.S. financial firms and expand trade in beef and chicken among other steps as part of Washington's drive to cut its trade deficit with Beijing.
The deals are the first results of 100 days of trade talks that began last month, when a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping proved far more friendly than had been expected after last year's U.S. presidential campaign, but the immediate impact was unclear.
"This will help us to bring down the deficit for sure," U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said at media briefing in Washington. "You watch and you'll see."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-trade-idUSKBN188088?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
It seemed long overdue that the U.S. and China would start increasing their trading.
An actual confirmed whistleblower on the Intelligence Agencies as been notified to Congress, part of the letter.
https://www.scribd.com/document/342765662/Freedom-Watch-Whistleblower-Notification-to-Congress
Could be the next big headline.
http://politiken.dk/indland/art5944408/Det-Jødiske-Samfund-Den-her-slags-prædikener-kan-opfattes-som-en-klar-opfordring-til-at-udøve-vold
Radicals are a thorn in everyone's sides.
Using the worst singular examples you can find of a large group and then pretending that is representative of the group itself is a common tactic, but is only trying to poison the well. This tactic is overwhelmingly common in this thread, in politics, and in everyday life but it's simply fallacious.
Watching Colbert's audience cheer Comey's firing- until Colbert had to tell them why it was actually bad now even though they've been trashing his honesty and credibility for months- was hilarious and totally encapsulates the Trump era. Intellectual consistency doesnt exist. Short term memory doesn't exist. Comey deserved to be fired according to prominent democrats, there was no reason to have faith in him and he had zero credibility in their own words...but if Trump agrees...then its a heinous act born of his own dark rage and need to hide an ambiguous vaguely definied probably Kremlin influenced something. This isn't rational thinking, it's working backwards from a pre conceived notion and trying to make it fit.
As this is surely, without a doubt, the smoking gun surefire proof of the great RussiaMania, I am sure such evidence will be brought forth any day now. Though the lack of it has surely been no cause for concern.
After months of trying to find the non-circumstantial basis for this, it would be refreshing at least.
All that being said, its still probably not normal procedure to hear about your termination through the news first, but frankly nothing regarding Trump is buisness as usual, everything is more dramatic and over the top. Almost designed to cause media hysteria.
To go over the official intel position yet again, here's the summary of the accusations regarding Trump and Russia:
- Russia gave info to Wikileaks after getting info from both parties which had *no false information* according to them.
- Russia's goal was a counter terrorism coalition with the US to defeat the Islamic State.
- Putin was ambiguous and kept direct Trump praise to a minimum but did express Pro Trump sentiment and said Clintons remarks on Russia were aggressive (which they were).
- Russia Today, called a propaganda outlet, favored Trump and so did other prominent Russian political figures.
- Social media accounts, allegedly controlled by russia as they were pro russian conflict beforehand, were pro Trump.
- No Trump collusion.
This narrative simply has no legs to stand on, a mountain out of a molehill. A grand conspiracy based on incredibly mild accusations with the deep dark secret, the smoking gun right under the surface, never quite showing itself but always, definitely there, if you only have eyes to see.
If we assume its all true, the very worst thing is Russia spying, yet lets be real everyone is or is trying to especially us, nothing they leaked was damaging to american society or false and its the part the left seems least concerned about in their continuous efforts to turn Trump into a baby eating russian agent through sheer force of will.
https://t.co/l0lYUP40PP?amp=1
And you haven't seen passive-aggressiveness against Hillary Supporters or Democrats you must have missed the "Hillary for Prison" bumper stickers and "lock her up" chants. I guess you've never heard the pejoratives libtards or snowflakes applied to the Democrat. I just don't get it - we're you serious?
Sorry no, this whole unrest and mess is not on the party that is not in power. The Democrats don't have majorities to stop the terrible agenda and boneheaded whims of those actually ruining things. When was the last bill that a Democrat wanted passed? It's been a while. Sure wasn't that dumb American Healthcare thing.
You two weren't around back then, but @Tresset and I were among the first to speak out in this thread against the stereotyping of conservatives (I think it was last November or December).
I know the "let's troll liberals" attitude is a minority viewpoint (I've only heard a single example in this thread in 230 pages). Most of my family is Republican, and none of them are motivated by spite or a desire to hurt anyone. Quite the opposite.
At least with troll's they are completely open they're being a troll.