• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump calls his intel chiefs 'passive and naive'

concernedpuma said:
I hope to not waste your time any further. There is a magic button on the forum that allows you to ignore posts from others. In the best of worlds, you will use it often and find your kinship with those who only agree with you. Illuminating to have an echo chamber, is it?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

No, it is NOT illuminating to live in an echo chamber. It's why I listen to talk-radio. I listen to those who I find to be clueless about the real world because it is always better to know your opponents than it is to remain ignorant of their ideology.

Those who refuse to listen to or read what others are saying will soon fall behind.
 
concernedpuma said:

I never meant to, and never will, "attack" him in a physical way. But sure, if the Mueller investigation uncovers High Crimes and Misdemeanors, I'd love to see the House and the Senate fulfill their constitutional obligation and remove him from office. Will it happen? I don't think so. But it would be lovely if it in any way,

I didn't mean to imply that you would attack him physically, please accept my apology if you felt I intended that. Certainly I was speaking, as were you, of verbal adds.
I state here categorically, if ANY President were to be guilty of High crimes and Misdemeanors, they ought to be impeached. I also want respect for the office if those things suggested of President Trump prove to be untrue, there will be a rallying around the office. I'm afraid, I am willing to face facts, but there are those who won't, simply because they've been caught up in the whole anti-Trump parade of goofs.
Where do you stand on a finding of innocence of collusion with foreign interests?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...


No need to apologize. We're just debating the point, and I appreciate your civil way to go about it. You're a quality poster.

Where do I stand? With Trump's refusal to show his tax return, and the new allegations of a Trump Tower/Hotel project in Moscow with advantages being extended to highly ranked Russian figures during the campaign, I think it is VERY likely that Trump favored the Russians and got favored by the Russians in his campaign, and yes, regardless of the word collusion (which doesn't really have a legal definition) I'd call it treason if proven true, because if the President of the United States favors the historical enemies of the country in order to advance his personal wealth, he is not putting America first.

I also find very suspicious his sudden favors to that Chinese telecom company that was rightfully being penalized by our Department of Commerce and considered highly suspicious by our intelligence community until he cancelled the sanctions, one week after the Chinese committed to a huge deal (500 million, if I recall correctly) to prop up an investment in Indonesia that includes a Trump resort.

If all allegations made against Trump are proven untrue or fail to be proven true, I'd extend to him the respect for his office, although I'd still consider him a terrible president who makes impulsive and childish decisions without considering decades of American foreign affairs expertise and our intelligence community. He notoriously skips over briefings in favor of watching Fox News. He is extremely ignorant in matters of foreign affairs.

I also think he is a terrible president in terms of favoring the rich and screwing the middle class with his tax cuts, like people will soon realize more and more.

I think Trump puts his financial interest first together with his narcissism, and the global interests of the American people and nation, way below his own.

Trump is a me-me-me narcissist, and I laugh when someone says he is "serving" the country. He only serves his self-interest.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
I asked a question and this is what I get? Surely you can name a few things?

And I want to hear good things everyone can agree on. Not just republicans. Verstehen?
Click to expand...
Face to face meetings with the North Koreans-Remember when President Obama promised he would sit down with our enemies? I liked that then, and I like that President Trump is actually doing it. He is taking on the Chinese in trade. He made NAFTA more fair. He destroyed in all but name ISIS. He lowered taxes, cut the unemployment rate(especially on the traditionally low employed). Sent the stock market through the 20,000's. He supports law enforcement verbally and financially. He...well, there is a lot more, but I am fatigued with pointing out the obvious,
Regards,
CP
 
GreatNews2night said:
No need to apologize. We're just debating the point, and I appreciate your civil way to go about it. You're a quality poster.

Where do I stand? With Trump's refusal to show his tax return, and the new allegations of a Trump Tower/Hotel project in Moscow with advantages being extended to highly ranked Russian figures during the campaign, I think it is VERY likely that Trump favored the Russians and got favored by the Russians in his campaign, and yes, regardless of the word collusion (which doesn't really have a legal definition) I'd call it treason if proven true, because if the President of the United States favors the historical enemies of the country in order to advance his personal wealth, he is not putting America first.

I also find very suspicious his sudden favors to that Chinese telecom company that was rightfully being penalized by our Department of Commerce and considered highly suspicious by our intelligence community until he cancelled the sanctions, one week after the Chinese committed to a huge deal (500 million, if I recall correctly) to prop up an investment in Indonesia that includes a Trump resort.

If all allegations made against Trump are proven untrue or fail to be proven true, I'd extend to him the respect for his office, although I'd still consider him a terrible president who makes impulsive and childish decisions without considering decades of American foreign affairs expertise and our intelligence community. He notoriously skips over briefings in favor of watching Fox News. He is extremely ignorant in matters of foreign affairs.

I also think he is a terrible president in terms of favoring the rich and screwing the middle class with his tax cuts, like people will soon realize more and more.

I think Trump puts his financial interest first together with his narcissism, and the global interests of the American people and nation, way below his own.

Trump is a me-me-me narcissist, and I laugh when someone says he is "serving" the country. He only serves his self-interest.
Click to expand...

Thank you friend. It is clear we disagree, that is constructive sometimes. In your heart of heats, no matter how you may feel about some evidence, don't you really hope it isn't true that the President is guilty of the many(some spurious, I believe you will agree) charges against him?
Regards,
CP
 
I haven't read the entire thread but if he doesn't believe the Intel community he should fire them. Amirite? But that would lead to another investigation of his fitness to lead and circumvent democracy.
 
Somerville said:
No, it is NOT illuminating to live in an echo chamber. It's why I listen to talk-radio. I listen to those who I find to be clueless about the real world because it is always better to know your opponents than it is to remain ignorant of their ideology.

Those who refuse to listen to or read what others are saying will soon fall behind.
Click to expand...

I so agree with you. I was replying to your notice to Trump supporters (219) I thought that was your message. I see you sign on as Socialist. You and I can have some interesting discussions, but please don't post dismissive pastes, if you don't mean them. It is too hard to tell what is mirth, and what is intent.
As Bob Seeger wrote, (let's) turn the page.
Regards,
CP
 
Parrish said:
I haven't read the entire thread but if he doesn't believe the Intel community he should fire them. Amirite? But that would lead to another investigation of his fitness to lead and circumvent democracy.
Click to expand...

It has been said that it is easier to change the weather than to fire a bad democrat government employee.
 
concernedpuma said:
Thank you friend. It is clear we disagree, that is constructive sometimes. In your heart of heats, no matter how you may feel about some evidence, don't you really hope it isn't true that the President is guilty of the many(some spurious, I believe you will agree) charges against him?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly hope that he isn't screwing America in favor of Russian interests, or at least, not in a malicious way. If I were given a magical choice, "you can make one of two situations happen; press button A, and the POTUS is guilty of treason and is functioning as an agent of the Russian government; press button B, and the POTUS acts in certain ways out of his own convictions - even if you find them misguided - and actually never had any business with the Russians that influenced his actions; it's all coincidental" I'd certainly press B. Why would I want the president of my country to be colluding with our historical enemies who definitely don't have our best interest at heart? If for some petty pleasure I preferred to see our president red-handed in favor of the Russians just to get him caught, I'd be harboring treasonous feelings myself.

Yes, some accusations seem spurious. I've berated people who went over-the-top with some unwarranted conclusions and rush to judgment, and I've said more than once that at times we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, I'm very suspicious of some other actions, and consider that there is a good chance that some accusations are substantiated.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
Well, I certainly hope that he isn't screwing America in favor of Russian interests, or at least, not in a malicious way. If I were given a magical choice, "you can make one of two situations happen; press button A, and the POTUS is guilty of treason and is functioning as an agent of the Russian government; press button B, and the POTUS acts in certain ways out of his own convictions - even if you find them misguided - and actually never had any business with the Russians that influenced his actions; it's all coincidental" I'd certainly press A. Why would I want the president of my country to be colluding with our historical enemies who definitely don't have our best interest at heart? If for some petty pleasure I preferred to see our president red-handed in favor of the Russians just to get him caught, I'd be harboring treasonous feelings myself.

Yes, some accusations seem spurious. I've berated people who went over-the-top with some unwarranted conclusions and rush to judgment, and I've said more than once that at times we need to give him the benefit of the doubt. But unfortunately, I'm very suspicious of some other actions, and consider that there is a good chance that some accusations are substantiated.
Click to expand...

I guess I see you pressing A as a terrible blow to our country. I would most certainly press B, regardless of who might be President. I am willing to wait out the will of the electorate and would find a Nixonian style exit as terribly troubling. We just disagree, I guess.
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
I guess I see you pressing A as a terrible blow to our country. I would most certainly press B, regardless of who might be President. I am willing to wait out the will of the electorate and would find a Nixonian style exit as terribly troubling. We just disagree, I guess.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Oops, I meant to say I'd be pressing B. That was a typo. I guess a Freudian Slip got the best of me.
 
Last edited:
concernedpuma said:
Understood. You know, I was almost sure you meant that. :2razz:
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Yes, you can tell I'm being truthful, because if you keep reading what I said after my typo (which I've corrected by now), the subsequent phrase only makes sense if I pressed B.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Yes, you can tell I'm being truthful, because if you keep reading what I said after my typo (which I've corrected by now), the subsequent phrase only makes sense if I pressed B.
Click to expand...

Truthful? Have no fear, I presume all here to be truthful. The differences I see on the board have to do with perspective and life lessons. Some may bear heavy on a topic, but not to lie. As I do, I am sure you view our country with an eye toward making it better for all
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
Truthful? Have no fear, I presume all here to be truthful. The differences I see on the board have to do with perspective and life lessons. Some may bear heavy on a topic, but not to lie. As I do, I am sure you view our country with an eye toward making it better for all
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...
Yes, I love the view that we are all patriotic Americans, with different notions of what is best for the country. It used to be this way. Now, politics is too polarized, and people seem to hate each other and always try to score points against each other.

These days, I think some people would rather see a big damage done to the country - such as rooting for a recession - just to be able to say to the other side "see, losers, I told you so, your side's administration sucks and plunged us into a recession" and they say so with satisfaction and glee. This is profoundly stupid because a recession hurts all of us.

Another issue is domestic policy versus foreign policy.

I think that our differences should stop the moment we are out of our borders. Out there, we need to present the most united front. We are Americans, and we defend the interests of our country, regardless of the administration, regardless of the party that is temporarily holding the White House.

Again, it used to be this way. Nowadays, conservatives loved it when Obama put his feet in his mouth in the international stage (like the Syria red line), and progressives love it when the North Korean dictator doesn't come through as Trump expects, etc.

Again, it's stupid. If our interests in the Middle East or the South China Sea are not upheld, it's our entire international stature that suffers, resulting in fewer trade opportunities, smaller international reliance on the dollar, and so forth, or God forbid, a foreign war with a huge cost in American lives and resources. We are all get damaged by these blunders.

So, I may detest Trump for a lot of his domestic actions, but if he goes to confront North Korea, or China, etc., I hope he succeeds.
 
marke said:
It has been said that it is easier to change the weather than to fire a bad democrat government employee.
Click to expand...

He appointed his intel chiefs. They are republicans.
 
Parrish said:
He appointed his intel chiefs. They are republicans.
Click to expand...

What are the possibilities that Trump figured out thet the White Helmets were responsible for the False Flag WMD event that caused Trump to rain down over a hundred missiles on Damascus? That might have made his Intelligence Agency heads look like simpletons. That's what I think.
/
 
Parrish said:
He appointed his intel chiefs. They are republicans.
Click to expand...

Let that be a lesson. Never trust a republican who does not thank God in public for His unsurpassed goodness.
 
Parrish said:
And he's finally going to Vietnam. ;)
Click to expand...

Jane Fonda also went to Vietnam but the fake Indian drum beating chief and Senator Blumenthal never did in spite of their lying claims to the contrary.
 
marke said:
Jane Fonda also went to Vietnam but the fake Indian drum beating chief and Senator Blumenthal never did in spite of their lying claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Maybe he'll arrive and tell the Vietnamese people that they suffered through the war he had his own "personal Viietnam" avoiding STDs.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Well, think again. A lot of voters are getting very angry now that they are realizing that the Trump tax cuts favor the rich and screw the middle class:

Average Tax Refunds Down 8.4 Percent As Angry Taxpayers Vent On Twitter

He won in 2016 by a razor-thin margin. Don't be that confident that he'll win in 2020.

Remember the saying?

You can fool some people all the time.
You can fool all the people for some time.
But you can't fool all the people all the time.

There will be a rude awakening for a lot of people who supported Trump in 2016, and given the razor-thin margin, not many of those are needed to flip the coin.

Also, don't be so certain that there aren't any High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Sure, the cowardly GOP senators are not likely to fulfill their obligation and convict the president even if the House impeaches him and even if proof is compelling.

But that doesn't mean that High Crimes and Misdemeanors won't be uncovered.

Do I think he will survive his first term? Sure.

But I'm a lot less convinced that he'll get a second term.

And if that's the case (that he doesn't), good riddance.

And no, if your argument is the respect for the office, sorry, but I don't feel that glued to it, regarding this particular president. I don't think he is a legitimate president, given that it is very, very likely that he got his victory by cheating.

And yes, I should feel free to "attack" him. With words, of course. It's my opinion, and as an American, I have a quasi-sacred right to it.

I never meant to, and never will, "attack" him in a physical way. But sure, if the Mueller investigation uncovers High Crimes and Misdemeanors, I'd love to see the House and the Senate fulfill their constitutional obligation and remove him from office. Will it happen? I don't think so. But it would be lovely if it did.
Click to expand...

Well consider this, Nixon was far more liked by Republican senators and there were enough votes to impeach.

And trump has committed by far more and considerably serious crimes...
 
marke said:
Jane Fonda also went to Vietnam but the fake Indian drum beating chief and Senator Blumenthal never did in spite of their lying claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

C'mon! Don't act like Blumenthal is a miserable, no good, lying coward!! Next you'll be saying Hillary didn't have to dodge bullets when she went to Iraq, or Gore didn't invent the internet!!
If you are going to be a good anti-Trumper, you need to keep your eyes on the next pitch!
Regards,
CP
 
GDViking said:
Well consider this, Nixon was far more liked by Republican senators and there were enough votes to impeach.

And trump has committed by far more and considerably serious crimes...
Click to expand...

Any chance you could prove that? If you can, we could have saved the $400m we've wasted on the Mueller pay day extravaganza, by simply checking with you. If no, when you write your opinion state it as such. IMO is easy and understood by most.
Regards,
CP
P.S. Nixon wasn't impeached. He likely would have been, but resigned prior.
 
Last edited:
concernedpuma said:
Any chance you could prove that? If you can, we could have saved the $400m we've wasted on the Mueller pay day extravaganza, by simply checking with you. If no, when you write your opinion state it as such. IMO is easy and understood by most.
Regards,
CP
P.S. Nixon wasn't impeached. He likely would have been, but resigned prior.
Click to expand...

FOUR HUNDRED MILLION FOR MUELLER'S WITCH HUNT!! Funny, there doesn't seem to be any support for your claim, gee I wonder why you would post such nonsense.

Mueller's investigation could make money for the government, thanks to Manafort

. . . as part of his plea deal with the special counsel, Manafort agreed to forfeit real estate and cash estimated to be worth between $42 million and $46 million. The special counsel's office declined to provide an estimate for the value of the assets.

Those properties include Manafort's Trump Tower apartment, two apartments in lower Manahttan worth about $3 million and $4 million, a brownstone in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn, and his sprawling 10-bedroom mansion in the Hamptons section of Long Island.

Manafort will also give up money in three bank account and in his life insurance policy.

In all, the value of the real estate alone that Manafort is surrendering amounts to an estimated $22 million.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom