SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 He also doubled down on stripping American citizens of their constitutional rights while simultaneously accelerating the breakdown of checks and balances by expanding the scope of the Executive branch with his pen and a phone. He also: *Increased the surveillance state *Continued the erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments *Dropped more bombs than any president not in a world war (after winning a Nobel) *Doubled down on the drone assassination program and expanded it greatly, targeting american citizens without due process *Completely bungled the Iraq withdrawal of forces, allowing ISIS to form in the vacuum (which he needed for his proxy war in Syria) *Launched two regime change wars (Libya and Syria) - and tried hard to launch a third (Ukraine) But he gave us health care... only after selling out to the insurance lobby. Reading the list I can see that Obama continued many Bush policies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Not too badly. How would it be going for Vlad if President Clinton was in office? My guess, much better. Enviros would still be holding US energy policy hostage and oil prices would continue their climb. She wouldn't roll-back any BO's policies and the US economy would slow down, asset prices sink much faster and we'd be facing a serious recession by the end of this year. But other than that, Vlad is winning with a trump White House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Spiting Hillary and putting a candidate in the white house who will play nicer with Putin and friends. Except he's not. Harder line in Syria, reaffirmed sanctions against Russia. Eastern European ties haven't changed. Harder line against NK. US policy is actually less friendly to Russia now than it was a year ago. The international stage is much friendlier, however...largely because nations are looking away from the US for international leadership. Which kind-of gets back to my earlier point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I am appalled that anyone could take Trump Jr. personally communicating with a foreign national about hurting a political opponent, and compare that to a DNC consultant working with Ukrainian government officials. It's a fair comparison to something that the Trump campaign had going on with Manafort but it isn't any worse than that. By no means is it equivalent to what Trump Jr. was discussing. lol... Trump JR met with a foreign national who did not make any claims to be associated with the Russian Government. He wanted some dirt on Clinton and didn't get any... BFD. Clinton has someone on her staff working with actual foreign government officials at the Embassy to get dirt on Trump. You are correct in that it is not a fair comparison. L effing O effing L! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 The economy at the end of 2016 was a mirage built on accommodative Fed policies. Frump said this about Obama and now a mere 6 months in Frump's taking credit for a stable economy. Facts and Fiction (Alternate Truth(s)). I won't play the game and credit the great pretender for things he didn't do. He criticized Obama for not getting China to deal with NK yet he's failed to sway them as well. He criticized Obama for not getting Russia under control yet he's failed to put them in line as well. He criticized Obama for Syri, what great feats has Frump done in Syria? A Cease fire? How many of those have we seen before? When he truly accomplishes something Obama failed to do, then and only then can or should he take credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 He also doubled down on stripping American citizens of their constitutional rights while simultaneously accelerating the breakdown of checks and balances by expanding the scope of the Executive branch with his pen and a phone. He also: *Increased the surveillance state *Continued the erosion of the 4th and 5th amendments *Dropped more bombs than any president not in a world war (after winning a Nobel) *Doubled down on the drone assassination program and expanded it greatly, targeting american citizens without due process *Completely bungled the Iraq withdrawal of forces, allowing ISIS to form in the vacuum (which he needed for his proxy war in Syria) *Launched two regime change wars (Libya and Syria) - and tried hard to launch a third (Ukraine) But he gave us health care... only after selling out to the insurance lobby. And GM, DACA, Title IX... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 --- Russian (Spy) to TrumpJr - No, I'm not a spy, no, no we can talk, nothing is illegal here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Frump said this about Obama and now a mere 6 months in Frump's taking credit for a stable economy. Facts and Fiction (Alternate Truth(s)). I won't play the game and credit the great pretender for things he didn't do. He criticized Obama for not getting China to deal with NK yet he's failed to sway them as well. He criticized Obama for not getting Russia under control yet he's failed to put them in line as well. He criticized Obama for Syri, what great feats has Frump done in Syria? A Cease fire? How many of those have we seen before? When he truly accomplishes something Obama failed to do, then and only then can or should he take credit. Gee, it's so unlike you to pivot a discussion when your points are refuted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 You know, Trump could care less what is in the health care bill, as long as he can sign something. But he is working like a compromised fool the way he trying to stop the House from passing a new Russia sanctions bill. Good thing there are still a lot of good Republicans that put America first. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/russia-sanctions-republicans-royce-240378 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 (edited) Except he's not. Harder line in Syria, reaffirmed sanctions against Russia. Eastern European ties haven't changed. Harder line against NK. US policy is actually less friendly to Russia now than it was a year ago. The international stage is much friendlier, however...largely because nations are looking away from the US for international leadership. Which kind-of gets back to my earlier point. The question was about motivation, not about what happened after he got what they wanted. Of course Trump was going to have to show he's not a Putin puppet. Putin isn't going away anytime soon so I doubt he's overly concerned with immediate gratification. Perhaps spiting his opponent was victory enough? Putin seems like a vindictive type of guy. A guy willing to take the heat while showing the world what happens when you f@#$ with him. I admit there's no real proof of this, just the vibe I get from him. Edited July 11, 2017 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 The question was about motivation, not about what happened after he got what they wanted. Of course Trump was going to have to show he's not a Putin puppet. Putin isn't going away anytime soon so I doubt he's overly concerned with immediate gratification. Perhaps spiting his opponent was victory enough? Putin seems like a vindictive type of guy. A guy willing to take the heat while showing the world what happens when you f@#$ with him. I admit there's no real proof of this, just the vibe I get from him. The motivation is to screw with US elections, period. Frankly, out of all the candidates, they'd prefer Bernie. You think it's a coincidence that most of the incriminating leaks from DNC were all about Bernie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 The motivation is to screw with US elections, period. Frankly, out of all the candidates, they'd prefer Bernie. You think it's a coincidence that most of the incriminating leaks from DNC were all about Bernie? Yes, to dampen support for Hillary you complete idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 The motivation is to screw with US elections, period. Frankly, out of all the candidates, they'd prefer Bernie. You think it's a coincidence that most of the incriminating leaks from DNC were all about Bernie? It doesn't seem like much of a leap to me to suggest that the Kremlin may have favored one candidate over another. Nor does it strike me as a leap to suggest that Putin had no love for Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 It doesn't seem like much of a leap to me to suggest that the Kremlin may have favored one candidate over another. Nor does it strike me as a leap to suggest that Putin had no love for Hillary. Which is standard OP for them. Where's the payoff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 The question was about motivation, not about what happened after he got what they wanted. Of course Trump was going to have to show he's not a Putin puppet. Putin isn't going away anytime soon so I doubt he's overly concerned with immediate gratification. Perhaps spiting his opponent was victory enough? Putin seems like a vindictive type of guy. A guy willing to take the heat while showing the world what happens when you f@#$ with him. I admit there's no real proof of this, just the vibe I get from him. I wasn't responding to a question. I was responding to your statement that the Russians wanted a friendlier president in the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I'm glad you're getting some satisfaction in your party winning. I don't have a party. Before I knew any better, I considered myself a Republican. Now I know better and consider myself a conservative. Small government. Self-accountability. Hand up, not a hand out. That kinda thing. On the other hand, liberals stand against everything I believe in. The Obama liberal is my least favorite kind of liberal. Never at fault. Always quick to blame others. Convinced individuals are too stupid to take care of themselves, and only the government can fix things. Looks at the rest of the world, shrugs his shoulders, points at America and suggests "Can you believe I have to put up with these asssshats?" Biggest pussssy of my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Trump Jr. Releases Emails; They Support His Account Earlier this morning, Donald Trump, Jr. released the email threads relating to his meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in June 2016. The emails support his account of the meeting. (E-Mails at the link) A few points are worth noting. First, the emails support Trump Jr.’s statement that he attended the meeting because he had been told that the Russian with whom he would meet had negative information about Hillary Clinton. The email from Rob Goldstone, who drove the whole process, says that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia met with [Emin’s] father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia….” This would obviously have been of great interest to the Trump campaign, and Trump, Jr. would have been foolish not to schedule the meeting. In one of the emails he says, “if it’s what you say I love it,” an entirely appropriate response that also showed an appropriate degree of skepticism. Trump may have assumed that the incriminating information would relate to the uranium transactions that are described in Clinton Cash, but there is no elaboration in the emails. Second, someone in this chain is obviously lying, and it isn’t Donald Trump, Jr. Maybe the Russian Crown prosecutor lied, or maybe Emin or Aras lied, or maybe Goldstone lied, and maybe Natalia Veselnitskaya was in on it. Why any of these people would falsely claim to have dirt on Hillary is unclear. One wouldn’t expect that the lie originated with Goldstone, since as soon as the meeting took place, it would be exposed, and Goldstone could only look like a fool. Beyond that, all we can say is that Trump, Jr. correctly described what he was told and why he agreed to the meeting. Nothing about that process reflects poorly on him at all. {snip} Maybe someday we will find out where the lies began and what motivated them. The answers could turn out to be moderately interesting. For now, all we can say is that the emails confirm Donald Trump, Jr.’s account, and support the conclusion that once again, the New York Times and the Washington Post have made fools of themselves by trying to fashion an anti-Trump news story out of entirely innocent materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdutton Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Anyone looking for a good objective explanation of the possible legal consequences of Jr.'s meetibg, here you go: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/11/trump-tower-meeting-russian-lawyer-raises-legal-qu/ No smoking gun yet. More facts need to come out first but obviously the email chain is not moving things in a good direction. Remember yesterday when the narrative was that the Times couldn't be trusted with their anonymous sourcing? Haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 I've lived through the accusation that Nixon interfered with the end of the Vietnam War by discussions behind the scenes during his 1968 campaign, and that Reagan interfered with the hostages release from Iran during his 1980 campaign. Both were very serious accusations if true, both have never been proven, and it is far more likely that a cease-fire offer was just a gimmick by LBJ to help out Humphrey. Carter couldn't have negotiated anything in a useful fashion. So this isn't even an ant hill to the mountain of serious national interest. But snowflakes gotta snowflake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts