• 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!

Why Did Trump Go On Lester Holt And Contradict Trump Surrogates?

The acting Director said the FBI's work wouldn't stop because the former got fired. Take that to heart.

And the effort is underway to install a Trump loyalist to supplant the current acting director.
 
There a rumor that Trump is pissed at all of them. Preibus, Bannon, the press secretary...to name a few. He's realizing they aren't qualified for their positions and undermine his authority.
I wouldn't doubt that he's displeased, but... his actions and lack of leadership puts them in a no-win situation. Plus, a good leader would keep it behind closed doors.
 
Clinton was a joke for far more than Lewinsky. Thanks for soaking for all of Europe though.

You fail to understand, the Europeans do not go all puritan over sex scandals. Mitterand had several sex scandals, as did Ashdown, it did not effect them politically. No charge for this lesson.
 
The acting Director said the FBI's work wouldn't stop because the former got fired. Take that to heart.

Republican leadership explicitly said it was one of their goals, and we should all be glad the FBI still has the integrity to keep going.
 
Three years, seven months and counting.....

Pretty much. Short of murdering a baby on live television, his followers and the GOP-held Congress would never actually get rid of him. (and half of his followers would read a statement from a former daycare lady saying the baby was fussy all the time and they'd start saying the baby had it coming)
 
Pretty much. Short of murdering a baby on live television, his followers and the GOP-held Congress would never actually get rid of him.

Give us a blue congress next year. "We'll do the rest."
 
Who cares ?


You fail to understand, the Europeans do not go all puritan over sex scandals. Mitterand had several sex scandals, as did Ashdown, it did not effect them politically. No charge for this lesson.
 
Give us a blue congress next year. "We'll do the rest."

Honestly, a blue house or senate would make it even less likely. Democrats saw what happened with Clinton, it's a bad plan to draw up articles of impeachment unless you know you've got the votes. Bill's approval ratings freaking went up. 67 blue senate seats is a laughable dream, and if the impeachment process is started by democrats you will never get one single vote from a Republican even if Trump literally killed and ATE the baby. These people would just tell themselves it's fake news. They're that brainwashed, and their representatives are terrified of angering the idiots.

Impeaching Trump would have to be started by Republicans, and that would take something truly unspinnable.
 
Honestly, a blue house or senate would make it even less likely. Democrats saw what happened with Clinton, it's a bad plan to draw up articles of impeachment unless you know you've got the votes. Bill's approval ratings freaking went up. 67 blue senate seats is a laughable dream, and if the impeachment process is started by democrats you will never get one single vote from a Republican even if Trump literally killed and ATE the baby. These people would just tell themselves it's fake news. They're that brainwashed, and their representatives are terrified of angering the idiots.

Impeaching Trump would have to be started by Republicans, and that would take something truly unspinnable.

You can get 2/3 of the Senate. Trump will have to stall the Russia investigation for another 20 months... until the midterms or so. So, if Dems outperform expectations and gain seats in both chambers... that's sending a pretty loud and clear message to the Senate. Midterms '18 will be seen as a referendum on Trump. And if he loses them the House despite CD being gerrymandered to ****.. Republicans will turn on him. They don't want Trump sullying up their brand. IF Trump is as shady as I think he is, something big will become public knowledge.. and afterwards no one will want to touch him with a 10 foot pole.
 
I wouldn't doubt that he's displeased, but... his actions and lack of leadership puts them in a no-win situation. Plus, a good leader would keep it behind closed doors.

We saw Bush "keep it behind closed doors" and the Left was still unrelenting.

I say down with the status quo.
 
Republican leadership explicitly said it was one of their goals, and we should all be glad the FBI still has the integrity to keep going.

Comey politicized the FBI. We *should be glad the rank and file take their positions seriously.
 
We saw Bush "keep it behind closed doors" and the Left was still unrelenting.

I say down with the status quo.
There will ALWAYS be some who complain no matter what you do. That's a given, and if one is not ready for that one shouldn't run for office. All the more reason to do the right thing and take the high road as much as possible. You'll still catch crap for it in the moment, but history will remember you better.
 
There will ALWAYS be some who complain no matter what you do. That's a given, and if one is not ready for that one shouldn't run for office. All the more reason to do the right thing and take the high road as much as possible. You'll still catch crap for it in the moment, but history will remember you better.

Says who? Trump isn't like other Pols. He'll make mistakes but, IMO, he'll leave worthy legacy.
 
Says who? Trump isn't like other Pols. He'll make mistakes but, IMO, he'll leave worthy legacy.

Sure, it will be a tragic, cautionary tale, which is good. We need to have things tested everyone once in a while, this certainly tested a deep "low" for politics.
 
You fail to understand, the Europeans do not go all puritan over sex scandals. Mitterand had several sex scandals, as did Ashdown, it did not effect them politically. No charge for this lesson.

Anytime someone begins with "You fail to understand" or some variation thereof, it is usually the sign that someone has missed the point. And so it is true here. Let me reiterate: Clinton was a joke for far more than Lewinsky. In other words, the "sex" scandal was just one issue among many that Clinton had to contend with. It should also be noted that Clinton took a far bigger hit for LYING about the Oval Office blowjobs than for the actual act. How does Europe feel about liars? Do they not get all puritan over people who consistently lie to them? So, I think the failure at understanding was not about Europe's sensibilities regarding the sexual dalliances of its leaders, but at your failure to understand the point I was actually making.

It should also be noted that your portrayal of Europe as being uncaring of such things is kind of funny.
Paddy Ashdown's mistress behaved like a real trouper... but he threw her to the dogs | Daily Mail Online

Since you bring up Ashdown. He makes an interesting obvservation (learned from witnessing the Clinton debacle ironically enough)
"I knew it was nearly always not the sin that caused a crisis but the mishandling of its revelation."

The point that I was, more or less, making.


Anything else you would like to fail me for misunderstanding?
 
Back
Top Bottom