Trump and defending the indefensible

It’s so hard defending Trump and his staff so the attempts to do it becomes really funny.




Like for example that the Democrats supposedly tricked Donald Trump Jr into the meeting. Then they didn’t give any information to ensare the Donald Trump campaign instead the talked about adoptions. Also why did Democratic believe that the best time to give the e-mails to the press was over half a year after Hillary Clinton lost the election?


Or if the meeting was so unimportant why did both Donald Trump Jr, Kutcher and Manafort attend the meeting?


Also, if it exists e-mails that states that Donald Trump Jr could receive very high level and sensitive information that is part of Russia and its government's support for Donald Trump. There the response from Donald Trump Jr. toward the offer in those e-mails is that he loves it especially later in the summer. Also, in the same e-mails, it says that person Donald Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort would meet is a Russian government attorney. Shouldn’t you then want to explain and declare the meeting if was totally innocent and nothing happened because think what would have happened if those e-mails had been leaked before the election?

Donald Trump Jr emails: Read the full text - Donald Trump's America - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Bergslagstroll said:

It’s so hard defending Trump and his staff so the attempts to do it becomes really funny.




Like for example that the Democrats supposedly tricked Donald Trump Jr into the meeting. Then they didn’t give any information to ensare the Donald Trump campaign instead the talked about adoptions. Also why did Democratic believe that the best time to give the e-mails to the press was over half a year after Hillary Clinton lost the election?


Or if the meeting was so unimportant why did both Donald Trump Jr, Kutcher and Manafort attend the meeting?


Also, if it exists e-mails that states that Donald Trump Jr could receive very high level and sensitive information that is part of Russia and its government's support for Donald Trump. There the response from Donald Trump Jr. toward the offer in those e-mails is that he loves it especially later in the summer. Also, in the same e-mails, it says that person Donald Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort would meet is a Russian government attorney. Shouldn’t you then want to explain and declare the meeting if was totally innocent and nothing happened because think what would have happened if those e-mails had been leaked before the election?

Donald Trump Jr emails: Read the full text - Donald Trump's America - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Click to expand...

What is difficult is the hot air the liberals are blowing instead of concentrating on constructive policy. But one can understand it. They hope enough fabricated muck will reach the emotions of their onetime followers to motivate them to remember to vote next time. Of course, that's not realistic as the Democrats are now the party of the slick investment bankers and cool internet types than the masses, whom they have nothing to offer.

Trump is embarrassing that's for sure.

You got to wonder why all of the countries Trump has criticised over the last month's Russia is the one country that he's never criticized. Why is that?

There is no such thing as "the indefensible," at least not in the United States...a supposedly free nation with a code of laws designed to protect the individual from abuses by the majority.

Let me repost my position again:

Captain Adverse said:

...Whenever I am confronted with a situation containing allegations of wrongdoing, I fall back on the first principal of the criminal justice system in the United States of America...

That is THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL GUILT IS PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

The Court of Public Opinion is simply a Kangaroo court, which is swayed whichever way those who control the flow of information lead them along by the nose.

Practical thinkers deal in facts, not wishful thinking.

So unless and until any investigation is concluded, facts are presented, and the criminal courts conclude a criminal act has been committed? All of this ranting and raving about Trump criminality is just so much noise.

Click to expand...

As an ex-Public Defender, I was tasked every day with defending the "indefensible" because that is the bulwark of a free society; every person has a right to a good defense...regardless of the allegations or their station in life. :yes:

katzgar said:

Trump is embarrassing that's for sure.

You got to wonder why all of the countries Trump has criticised over the last month's Russia is the one country that he's never criticized. Why is that?

Click to expand...

Maybe it's because Trump blew up 20 Russian supplied jet fighters in the missile attack on Syria. Maybe there's a message in there somewhere.

joG said:

What is difficult is the hot air the liberals are blowing instead of concentrating on constructive policy. But one can understand it. They hope enough fabricated muck will reach the emotions of their onetime followers to motivate them to remember to vote next time. Of course, that's not realistic as the Democrats are now the party of the slick investment bankers and cool internet types than the masses, whom they have nothing to offer.

Click to expand...

I'll ignore the derp, blah blah, derp routine, since I'd like to point out that the GOP controls the branches and its thin-skinned cheerleader cannot manage to do anything but say mean words at them. Yet you're complaining about "liberals" not "concentrating on constructive policy".


Shouldn't the GOP and conservatives be focusing on policy? They're the ones who have power, after all. Yet all they seem to manage is drafting ACA "replacements" that are so crappy that they don't want to vote for their own ideas.

humbolt said:

Maybe it's because Trump blew up 20 Russian supplied jet fighters in the missile attack on Syria. Maybe there's a message in there somewhere.

Click to expand...

That Vlad doesn't care because ultimately, he knows how to play the Donald like a fiddle and compared to Syria remaining a solid Russian twenty fighter planes are irrelevant? Yeah, that's a good message. Not for America, of course, but to Trump cultists America has never been the priority.

Tigerace117 said:

That Vlad doesn't care because ultimately, he knows how to play the Donald like a fiddle and compared to Syria remaining a solid Russian twenty fighter planes are irrelevant? Yeah, that's a good message. Not for America, of course, but to Trump cultists America has never been the priority.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen this playing Trump like a fiddle thing. I know it's a popular meme. Maybe you can enlighten me.

20 planes by themselves mean little. That's true, but the larger message is that we can do such things and we will if we think it's necessary. This isn't a Trump cultist thing. It's the restoration of credibility that Obama couldn't or wouldn't establish - that when we tell a country like Syria not to resort to chemical weapons, we mean it. In my view, Trump actually had very little to do with it - most president's would've taken similar action.

humbolt said:

I haven't seen this playing Trump like a fiddle thing. I know it's a popular meme. Maybe you can enlighten me.

20 planes by themselves mean little. That's true, but the larger message is that we can do such things and we will if we think it's necessary. This isn't a Trump cultist thing. It's the restoration of credibility that Obama couldn't or wouldn't establish - that when we tell a country like Syria not to resort to chemical weapons, we mean it. In my view, Trump actually had very little to do with it - most president's would've taken similar action.

Click to expand...

Of course, the problem with that sort of "large message" is that a good chunk of Trump's own supporters on this website condemned it. What's that say when a politician does something which should be universally applauded--- using chemical weapons on civilians is a horrific crime--- and instead a good chunk of his own base rebels? Nothing good.

Putin is KGB. He knows the old acronym--- MICE. Money, Ideology, Coercion/ Compromise Ego. Trump has repeatedly gone in record as stating approval for the actions of strongman type leaders; he'll want to look good in front of Vlad and give away the bank

Tigerace117 said:

Of course, the problem with that sort of "large message" is that a good chunk of Trump's own supporters on this website condemned it. What's that say when a politician does something which should be universally applauded--- using chemical weapons on civilians is a horrific crime--- and instead a good chunk of his own base rebels? Nothing good.

Click to expand...

Good and necessary things are not always popular. I don't care about Trump's base. In this instance, I care about the perception of our country abroad - that we will take action in support of our principles rather than simply give a good speech. Trump's barely capable of a good speech.

Putin is KGB. He knows the old acronym--- MICE. Money, Ideology, Coercion/ Compromise Ego. Trump has repeatedly gone in record as stating approval for the actions of strongman type leaders; he'll want to look good in front of Vlad and give away the bank

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt there are any illusions about what and who Putin is. The rest above is pure conjecture. To be honest, Putin doesn't have enough cards to play a hand, and when it comes down to it, he doesn't have enough money to place a meaningful bet. When he announced that he will consider using tactical nukes in the Baltic, we put Patriots in Poland. I don't think that worked out particularly well for him.

humbolt said:

Good and necessary things are not always popular. I don't care about Trump's base. In this instance, I care about the perception of our country abroad - that we will take action in support of our principles rather than simply give a good speech. Trump's barely capable of a good speech.



I seriously doubt there are any illusions about what and who Putin is. The rest above is pure conjecture. To be honest, Putin doesn't have enough cards to play a hand, and when it comes down to it, he doesn't have enough money to place a meaningful bet. When he announced that he will consider using tactical nukes in the Baltic, we put Patriots in Poland. I don't think that worked out particularly well for him.

Click to expand...

But they should be. This was something that the same folks who make up Trump's base whined endlessly about Obama not doing the first time Syria gassed its own people. The exactly same thing happens again, and all of a sudden Bashir Al Assad's regime is the victim to them, being "framed" by the evul west and probably, somehow, the "liberals".

Trump campaigned on tossing our values out the window(for example, our values of being there for our friends and keeping our word) and people voted for that.

I see a lot of illusions. The Donald's fans seem to think he's some kind of strategic genius, the smartest one around, and Putin is some kind of benign figure because he helped them beat Clinton. I don't see a whole lot of objective thinking going on there. Putin is too smart for people to try to romanticize him. He's what the KGB made a him--- a ruthless, competent, efficient expert manipulator, and obviously physically capable of handing his duties(remember the "Hilary is so sick" storyline?")

Well, we put them there......but Poland isn't his real prize anyway. If we'd put them in the Baltic States I'd be impressed, but....

Tigerace117 said:

But they should be. This was something that the same folks who make up Trump's base whined endlessly about Obama not doing the first time Syria gassed its own people. The exactly same thing happens again, and all of a sudden Bashir Al Assad's regime is the victim to them, being "framed" by the evul west and probably, somehow, the "liberals".

Click to expand...

Obama was extremely risk-averse in foreign affairs, and Putin exploited it. I don't think he can successfully bluff Trump. I'll wait and see, but as I said, Putin has a very shaky hand in this.

Trump campaigned on tossing our values out the window(for example, our values of being there for our friends and keeping our word) and people voted for that.

Click to expand...

I didn't see Trump campaigning on tossing our values out the window. Perhaps I missed it. All agreements we have with our allies are quid pro quo agreements. I think Trump was rightfully questioning the commitments of some of our allies to their particular contributions.

I see a lot of illusions. The Donald's fans seem to think he's some kind of strategic genius, the smartest one around, and Putin is some kind of benign figure because he helped them beat Clinton. I don't see a whole lot of objective thinking going on there. Putin is too smart for people to try to romanticize him. He's what the KGB made a him--- a ruthless, competent, efficient expert manipulator, and obviously physically capable of handing his duties(remember the "Hilary is so sick" storyline?")

Click to expand...

I don't think Trump's a strategic genius at all. OTOH, I don't view him as a push over, and I don't fear Putin. He barks a lot, but he doesn't have a full set of teeth, and he knows it.

Well, we put them there......but Poland isn't his real prize anyway. If we'd put them in the Baltic States I'd be impressed, but....

Click to expand...

Poland was just a simpler, faster response in that it had already been negotiated. It indicates a willingness to deploy such defensive weapons as a counter to Putin's bluster.

humbolt said:

Obama was extremely risk-averse in foreign affairs, and Putin exploited it. I don't think he can successfully bluff Trump. I'll wait and see, but as I said, Putin has a very shaky hand in this.



I didn't see Trump campaigning on tossing our values out the window. Perhaps I missed it. All agreements we have with our allies are quid pro quo agreements. I think Trump was rightfully questioning the commitments of some of our allies to their particular contributions.



I don't think Trump's a strategic genius at all. OTOH, I don't view him as a push over, and I don't fear Putin. He barks a lot, but he doesn't have a full set of teeth, and he knows it.



Poland was just a simpler, faster response in that it had already been negotiated. It indicates a willingness to deploy such defensive weapons as a counter to Putin's bluster.

Click to expand...

Stronger than you might think. Despite what his followers like to believe, Trump isn't exactly a diplomatic master, and Putin is more than capable of handling him.

Questioning whether we should be there for our NATO allies is not a good thing.

He knows he has enough to be able to handle Western Europe if he can get America to stay out of any situation which might arise; in that regard, he has every reason to stoke the isolationist sentiment of some in this country.

Poland isn't a likely target for Russian expansionism. The Baltic States are a lot more vulnerable.

Tigerace117 said:

Stronger than you might think. Despite what his followers like to believe, Trump isn't exactly a diplomatic master, and Putin is more than capable of handling him.

Click to expand...

To date there's no evidence to support the notion that Putin is handling Trump.

Questioning whether we should be there for our NATO allies is not a good thing.

Click to expand...

Questioning whether or not our NATO allies will be there for us is.

He knows he has enough to be able to handle Western Europe if he can get America to stay out of any situation which might arise; in that regard, he has every reason to stoke the isolationist sentiment of some in this country.

Click to expand...

He can't get America to stay out of it, and he knows it. As long as the EU continues to place ever more faith in Russian energy supplies they're going a long way toward making our involvement inevitable. Putin's hand is on the supply valve.

Poland isn't a likely target for Russian expansionism. The Baltic States are a lot more vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Which is why we have an increased presence there now. You may have read about that. Putin's options are becoming increasingly limited without risking a war he cannot win. Russia lacks the equipment and logistical supply train to sustain anything significant for very long at all. The Russian presence in Syria is nowhere near what would be required in the Baltic, and that very limited presence was highly strained at first.

It is a sad hoot to watch the far right try to defend the criminal president.

humbolt said:

To date there's no evidence to support the notion that Putin is handling Trump.



Questioning whether or not our NATO allies will be there for us is.



He can't get America to stay out of it, and he knows it. As long as the EU continues to place ever more faith in Russian energy supplies they're going a long way toward making our involvement inevitable. Putin's hand is on the supply valve.



Which is why we have an increased presence there now. You may have read about that. Putin's options are becoming increasingly limited without risking a war he cannot win. Russia lacks the equipment and logistical supply train to sustain anything significant for very long at all. The Russian presence in Syria is nowhere near what would be required in the Baltic, and that very limited presence was highly strained at first.

Click to expand...

Well, other than the Russians supplying Trump with info, that is.

The Baltic States meet their NATO commitment numbers, so the idea of leaving them out to dry is even make cynically dumb.

Actually, he doesn't "know" that. He likely figures that with a president who was elected with his aid, and who has been backing away from American allies in favor of making kissy face with various strongmen type leaders, he has a window to drive a wedge and shatter NATO.

Which is another reason why Putin knows he can handle Western Europe if he can get the US to retreat into isolationism.

At first being the key phrase there. Without American military involvement via NATO, the Baltic States wouldn't last long enough for him to need supplies for a longer campaign. Minus the US, the balance of power swings towards Russia as compared to just about any other state in the area

humbolt said:

To date there's no evidence to support the notion that Putin is handling Trump.



Questioning whether or not our NATO allies will be there for us is.



He can't get America to stay out of it, and he knows it. As long as the EU continues to place ever more faith in Russian energy supplies they're going a long way toward making our involvement inevitable. Putin's hand is on the supply valve.



Which is why we have an increased presence there now. You may have read about that. Putin's options are becoming increasingly limited without risking a war he cannot win. Russia lacks the equipment and logistical supply train to sustain anything significant for very long at all. The Russian presence in Syria is nowhere near what would be required in the Baltic, and that very limited presence was highly strained at first.

Click to expand...

Putin has no trouble deflecting Trump as their recent meeting demonstrated.

I agree with most of the remainder of your post. The EU will be there for us because it really has no choice, and we will support Europe regardless of what Trump wants. You are right that Russia is military not capable of launching and maintaining and sustained intervention in Poland. The Baltics, yes, are another matter altogether.

joG said:

What is difficult is the hot air the liberals are blowing instead of concentrating on constructive policy. But one can understand it. They hope enough fabricated muck will reach the emotions of their onetime followers to motivate them to remember to vote next time. Of course, that's not realistic as the Democrats are now the party of the slick investment bankers and cool internet types than the masses, whom they have nothing to offer.

Click to expand...

LOL You mean concentrating on tax cuts for the wealthy and drastic cuts to social programs much of the country depends on don't you? Even if Trump was not acting like Putin's bitch there is no way Democrats are going to cooperate with a radical right wing agenda. It's bad for the country and the opposite of what should be done. It's like you want to keep repeating all the mistakes of history over and over again until it kills us.
Seriously though, you really don't want the Putin controlling our nation do you? Do you realize that not one thing has been done by Trump to stop further meddling in future elections? That he had the nerve to suggest we "partner" with Putin on our own security? It is an imperative that we do something about it or we might as well move our Capital to Moscow.

Tigerace117 said:

Well, other than the Russians supplying Trump with info, that is.

Click to expand...

Russia and the US swap information, or misinformation, rather regularly.

The Baltic States meet their NATO commitment numbers, so the idea of leaving them out to dry is even make cynically dumb.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do. I wasn't referring to the Baltic states honoring their NATO commitments. I was referring to countries like Germany, who don't, and have also just signed a big natural gas deal with Putin.

Actually, he doesn't "know" that. He likely figures that with a president who was elected with his aid, and who has been backing away from American allies in favor of making kissy face with various strongmen type leaders, he has a window to drive a wedge and shatter NATO.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence Russia aided Trump in his victory. There is evidence that Podesta unwittingly aided in Hillary's defeat. There is also evidence that Hillary herself contributed significantly in her own defeat.

Which is another reason why Putin knows he can handle Western Europe if he can get the US to retreat into isolationism.

Click to expand...

Again, there is no evidence that we are retreating into isolationism.

At first being the key phrase there. Without American military involvement via NATO, the Baltic States wouldn't last long enough for him to need supplies for a longer campaign. Minus the US, the balance of power swings towards Russia as compared to just about any other state in the area

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

There is no evidence we have withdrawn from NATO or our commitments in that regard. In fact, it appears that we are strengthening our physical commitments in the face of Putin's blustering.

humbolt said:

Russia and the US swap information, or misinformation, rather regularly.



Yes, they do. I wasn't referring to the Baltic states honoring their NATO commitments. I was referring to countries like Germany, who don't, and have also just signed a big natural gas deal with Putin.



There is no evidence Russia aided Trump in his victory. There is evidence that Podesta unwittingly aided in Hillary's defeat. There is also evidence that Hillary herself contributed significantly in her own defeat.



Again, there is no evidence that we are retreating into isolationism.



There is no evidence we have withdrawn from NATO or our commitments in that regard. In fact, it appears that we are strengthening our physical commitments in the face of Putin's blustering.

Click to expand...

Considering that information got Trump elected.......it hardly falls under the net of "intelligence sharing" especially since it was obtained illegally.

The Baltic States are the ones there's been vague rumblings about being left out to Putin's mercy.

The Russians obtained the information and utilized it to help sink Hilary. Did she run a good campaign? No, but the Russian involvement ensured that she would lose, because even with all her flaws she was still beating the Donald handily for most of the race.

Other than Trump's rhetoric, and the fevered cries of his base---aka the people he has to appease.

Not yet, anyway.

Tigerace117 said:

Considering that information got Trump elected.......it hardly falls under the net of "intelligence sharing" especially since it was obtained illegally.

Click to expand...

I think Hillary blew the election herself. Had she not taken off weeks at a time and had Podesta not been a complete dunce, she might have won.

The Baltic States are the ones there's been vague rumblings about being left out to Putin's mercy.

Click to expand...

We have troops stationed there.

The Russians obtained the information and utilized it to help sink Hilary. Did she run a good campaign? No, but the Russian involvement ensured that she would lose, because even with all her flaws she was still beating the Donald handily for most of the race.

Click to expand...

Assange maintains that Russia was not the source of his information. I don't know what's true in that regard, but you don't either. If you did, you'd be the most popular guy at the DNC these days.

Other than Trump's rhetoric, and the fevered cries of his base---aka the people he has to appease.

Not yet, anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree that Trump is sometimes a loose cannon in this regard. Pay more attention to what he does, and less attention to what he says. Thankfully, we have Mattis and others to keep him in line with the hard realities of these things.

Bergslagstroll said:

It’s so hard defending Trump and his staff so the attempts to do it becomes really funny.

Click to expand...

Good then you’ll have a discussion about it?

Democrats supposedly tricked Donald Trump Jr into the meeting.

Click to expand...

Stop your confusing a positive and negative claim.
The popular Trump-Russia collusion allegations this meeting is proof.
Showing the lawyer involved does not appear to meeting that narrative is a frame on refuting that positive claim.

Hyperbole meet hyperbole.

They are mocking your story showing it does not follow your conclusion not that Democrats tricked Trump.

Then they didn’t give any information to ensare the Donald Trump campaign instead the talked about adoptions. Also why did Democratic believe that the best time to give the e-mails to the press was over half a year after Hillary Clinton lost the election?

Click to expand...

Do you know how it looks when a satire show doesn’t see sarcasm? This is called begging the question. It is used to mock a triggered person/mob.

Or if the meeting was so unimportant why did both Donald Trump Jr, Kutcher and Manafort attend the meeting?

Click to expand...

Why did a meeting under the precept of evaluating opposition research include multiple members of the campaign staff? Umm…to evaluate the alleged materials.

e-mails that states that Donald Trump Jr could receive very high level and sensitive information that is part of Russia and its government's support for Donald Trump. There the response from Donald Trump Jr. toward the offer in those e-mails is that he loves it especially later in the summer.

Click to expand...

Yes no one is disputing those are facts. The conclusion that proves collusion does however not follow those facts. I admit it rises questions which must be answered in regard to allegations of collusion but that does not collusion of itself make.

So as to the question of why one might sit on information about these emails/meeting…the answer is to build such hysteria and a lack of need for evidence as to match a perfectly innocent facts with a horribly slanderous narrative.

the same e-mails, it says that person Donald Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort would meet is a Russian government attorney. Shouldn’t you then want to explain and declare the meeting

Click to expand...

You’ll see many answers to this question based on people subjective options on Russia. Regardless, the answer is no unless you were planning trying to cover collusion; highly suspicious of Russia (which some are and so are not); in the habit of reporting your meetings and feel this was abnormal meeting.

So though I acknowledge this is an interoperable fact it is a rather neutral one.

if was totally innocent and nothing happened because think what would have happened if those e-mails had been leaked before the election?

Click to expand...

Nothing. Have you read the Podesta e-mails? Full of this neutral interpretable campaign dealings that raise questions if your suspicious of this or that.

So please, It now an open challenge. I don’t think your stupid. I think your wrong. we know the same facts we have vasty different conclusions. Make your case have a civil discussion about it?

Mr Person said:

Shouldn't the GOP and conservatives be focusing on policy? They're the ones who have power, after all. Yet all they seem to manage is drafting ACA "replacements" that are so crappy that they don't want to vote for their own ideas.

Click to expand...

I actually think it a positive sign some disentors are willing to stop a bad policy from their own party and put personal opinion to the test. The thing you refer to in the positive here appear to me as groupthink and it kills productivity and lead to awful policy. Do I need to argue that is true?

Tigerace117 said:

That Vlad doesn't care because ultimately, he knows how to play the Donald like a fiddle and compared to Syria remaining a solid Russian twenty fighter planes are irrelevant? Yeah, that's a good message. Not for America, of course, but to Trump cultists America has never been the priority.

Click to expand...

JamesBY said:

It is a sad hoot to watch the far right try to defend the criminal president.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

LOL You mean concentrating on tax cuts for the wealthy and drastic cuts to social programs much of the country depends on don't you?

Click to expand...

Okay. How are all those statements not just a politics of fear?

iguanaman said:

It's bad for the country and the opposite of what should be done. It's like you want to keep repeating all the mistakes of history over and over again until it kills us.

Click to expand...

I respect your honesty of feeling. I wonder though if you are not advocating ideas only attacking another. At what point is that just turn to slander? In other words, at what point does your opposition become a caricature where you are fighting a people of a certain belief rather then a set of ideas?

I think you passed that point. I am willing to hear why you think those policies kill. I am not willing to listen to you slander good intentioned people though just because they wear the label republican. Being republican doesn’t mean wanting to kill you.

you really don't want the Putin controlling our nation do you?

Click to expand...

Correct. I prefer America to Russia.

Do you realize that not one thing has been done by Trump to stop further meddling in future elections?

Click to expand...

Do you know that for a fact? I don’t think it’s a unreasonable guess. I just don’t think you can make a baseless guess and then ask me do I condemn this horror.

That he had the nerve to suggest we "partner" with Putin on our own security?

Click to expand...

War is ugly and costly and if Trump can work with Russia in Syria to end the war. The world is a better place yes.

If you mean his comments on joint cyber-attacks defence. Acknowledging both Russia and America share concerns they and others hack and meddle in each others internal affairs. Yes I think it is a step to one new and game changing form of protection.

Do I think that is a replacement for upping our internal security? No
Do I think that is a solution? No
Do I think Trump is stupid and actually thinks that announcement would be the end of the Russia-election allegations? No

If you disagree and think trump is stupid/evil; well we have the same facts, we disagree, I am not stupid. Want to have a civil discussion about it?

It is an imperative that we do something about it or we might as well move our Capital to Moscow.

Click to expand...

I do not follow. What of the facts we know has you believe Russia controls United States policy?

Mr Person said:

I'll ignore the derp, blah blah, derp routine, since I'd like to point out that the GOP controls the branches and its thin-skinned cheerleader cannot manage to do anything but say mean words at them. Yet you're complaining about "liberals" not "concentrating on constructive policy".


Shouldn't the GOP and conservatives be focusing on policy? They're the ones who have power, after all. Yet all they seem to manage is drafting ACA "replacements" that are so crappy that they don't want to vote for their own ideas.

Click to expand...

Oh. There is no doubt that the liberal hysteria is doing us all harm. Anyone with half an understanding of political systems or negotiation theory must see that especially, if she has any experience with politics and foreign policy.

But the worst is that the concentration on stupidities that one blows up out of proportion to their importance is harming the Democratic policies, as things develop that the public misses for all the flying schmutz.