TrumPutinGate

[Obsessed]

Why does Trump fight this so hard? If there is nothing to it, why not just be an open book about it ?

He complains that it distracts from his agenda, but the man won't stop talking about it to try to shame people into giving up on it, firing people, or taking other actions that just draw everyone's attention right back to it.

If there's nothing to it, his approach just makes no sense, at all.

How about them college transcripts....

 

[volinbham]

Can you agree with this?

Seems you and the Dems cannot with this whole Russia thing.

Prosecution in search of a crime .

 

[hog88]

Can you agree with this?

It's Lindsey Graham, I find it hard to look at him let alone agree with him.

 

[Grand Vol]

Can you agree with this?

Okay, first off, Lindsey Graham is no friend of the POTUS, however, has dialed back his rhetoric since he's been in office. However...

He is correct in what he said. Such things are better left to private meetings within the WH to discuss it, not over Twitter. As I've stated before, Trump needs to knock that **** off and concentrate on things he can affect.

Now, having said that to say this, Graham's Tweets are also indicative of the DNC and their witch-hunt against Trump for anything and everything they can possibly get in the media. And you cannot say the Russia thing isn't politically motivated. Hell, why else would the company that wrote that dossier on Trump suddenly clam up when called by the Senate? Answer? Politics.

 

[hog88]

Okay, first off, Lindsey Graham is no friend of the POTUS, however, has dialed back his rhetoric since he's been in office. However...

He is correct in what he said. Such things are better left to private meetings within the WH to discuss it, not over Twitter. As I've stated before, Trump needs to knock that **** off and concentrate on things he can affect.

Now, having said that to say this, Graham's Tweets are also indicative of the DNC and their witch-hunt against Trump for anything and everything they can possibly get in the media. And you cannot say the Russia thing isn't politically motivated. Hell, why else would the company that wrote that dossier on Trump suddenly clam up when called by the Senate? Answer? Politics.

The first question that always comes to my mind when Graham or McCain comments is "what's in it for them".

 

[Grand Vol]

The first question that always comes to my mind when Graham or McCain comments is "what's in it for them".

True. But I'm wondering if LG considered both VB and I bringing up the fact the DNC is in compete violation as well.

 

[volinbham]

True. But I'm wondering if LG considered both VB and I bringing up the fact the DNC is in compete violation as well.

not a chance

 

[JCP201]

We can all agree that Clinton had a ton of baggage and was a deeply flawed candidate. It, more than anything, explains why Trump won.

But none of that has anything to do with whether Trump can effectively govern given the circumstances, and, even if you don't think he did anything wrong, you have to admit that there is such a pall over his administration by how he has reacted that its tough for even the GOP in Congress to take him very seriously.

It doesn't really explain why Trump won, though. There were 17 Republican candidates. Anyone who had done a minuscule bit of research before the election would know that he is a habitual liar, vindictive and immoral. We should all start thinking about what went on with our election--not because Hilary lost but because this mental case won.

 

[hog88]

It doesn't really explain why Trump won, though. There were 17 Republican candidates. Anyone who had done a minuscule bit of research before the election would know that he is a habitual liar, vindictive and immoral. We should all start thinking about what went on with our election--not because Hilary lost but because this mental case won.

Boils down to salesmanship. Nothing more, he identified what people were tired of and what they wanted to hear and the press went along like unknowing lapdogs.

 

[orangeluvr]

Okay, first off, Lindsey Graham is no friend of the POTUS, however, has dialed back his rhetoric since he's been in office. However...

He is correct in what he said. Such things are better left to private meetings within the WH to discuss it, not over Twitter. As I've stated before, Trump needs to knock that **** off and concentrate on things he can affect.

Now, having said that to say this, Graham's Tweets are also indicative of the DNC and their witch-hunt against Trump for anything and everything they can possibly get in the media. And you cannot say the Russia thing isn't politically motivated. Hell, why else would the company that wrote that dossier on Trump suddenly clam up when called by the Senate? Answer? Politics.

The sooner that damn kook is impeached the better. Pence will be no better but he will have respect for the office and act like a damn president should.

 

[Boston Vol]

It doesn't really explain why Trump won, though. There were 17 Republican candidates. Anyone who had done a minuscule bit of research before the election would know that he is a habitual liar, vindictive and immoral. We should all start thinking about what went on with our election--not because Hilary lost but because this mental case won.

He won because he actually presented an economic vision for the country. He appealed to a lot of blue collar democrats and left leaning independents(those are the ones that won him the election) with his message about trade, immigration, and jobs. And it also helped that he could sell himself as an outsider. It's not that complicated to see why he won.

 

[Grand Vol]

We should all start thinking about what went on with our election--not because Hilary lost but because this mental case won.

Understanding how she lost is the key to why he won. The sooner the DNC understands that, the easier this becomes.

 

[volinbham]

Boils down to salesmanship. Nothing more, he identified what people were tired of and what they wanted to hear and the press went along like unknowing lapdogs.

He won because he actually presented an economic vision for the country. He appealed to a lot of blue collar democrats and left leaning independents(those are the ones that won him the election) with his message about trade, immigration, and jobs. And it also helped that he could sell himself as an outsider. It's not that complicated to see why he won.

BV is on it. The general populace rightly has a low opinion of governing officials. They were tired of the cronyism, the corruption, the divisiveness, the lecturing, etc. Trump presented an outsider, put you first (not other countries or identity politics causes), practical vision. For the right he was someone who wasn't afraid to stand behind policies; wasn't afraid of the PC police. For the working class (D and R) he was someone that talked of fixing the system so they once again could thrive rather than past candidates that prioritized other things.

The fact he can't deliver is secondary - he put his finger on the pulse of the electorate and won despite his shortcomings. If he didn't have all the baggage it would have been landslide election.

Schumer acknowledged as much Sunday and Monday. Russia, Comey - these are not the reasons Trump won.

 

[volinbham]

Understanding how she lost is the key to why he won. The sooner the DNC understands that, the easier this becomes.

Schumer's already on it - Sunday he stated it wasn't Russia or Comey and Monday he rolled out the "get back to talking about policies to help the middle class" press op.

The Russia/Resistance sideshows are how to lose future elections and he recognizes it.

 

[Boston Vol]

Understanding how she lost is the key to why he won. The sooner the DNC understands that, the easier this becomes.

You mean writing off a huge portion of the electorate as uneducated, hapless rubes isn't a winning strategy?

 

[lawgator1]

I think he sucks, totally sucks.

However, I hate (and fear) the criminalization of politics. Regardless of how bad he sucks I will never condone him being forced out of office on bogus charges or open-end investigations to find something/anything to "get him".

He was elected fairly. He'll be gone soon enough. We lose our national soul if we abandon our principles just to get rid of him.

Well, now actually, I definitely agree with you in principle on that. Its the practice that tells the tale.

For example, the Benghazi thing was just absolutely ridiculous, the way the GOP kept holding hearing and issuing report after report, which basically found that there was complete institutional boobery in dealing with security requests, no one (including Clinton) was particularly to blame for it.

I thought that the GOP went to that well about 9 times too many, wasting a ton of government time and money doing so.

So now we have Trump. I have three observations that in my view distinguish it from the earlier experience, tell me what you think.

First, the administrations denials and explanations on this have not just contradicted themselves, they've flatly changed stories on a number of things (that cannot be explained as just messing it up) and in ways that are very disconcerting.

From no contacts, to minimal contacts, to contacts but not about the campaign, to contacts about the campaign, to contacts with Russian government emissaries specifically to help Trump win. The Trump administration has lied at every single hurdle, only to throw up the next one as soon as confronted with evidence of the last one.

Second, the secrecy around Trump finances, when there are indications that Trump does have financial ties to Russia.

Third, the fact that the concern is bipartisan.

Look, anyone watching the last 20 months knows that Trump burned a lot of bridges within the GOP and made a lot of enemies. So maybe he does not have the usual rallying ability of past presidents.

But this feels different to me than just a few Senators with vendettas. Those are there, yes, but when you look at these guys after briefings, there is a deer caught in the headlights look. That they have been told some VERY alarming things about what the intelligence community has discovered.

So the Senate GOP it seems like it caught between a lot of different priorities. They have Trump bashing them at every turn, blaming them for not making good on the key GOP campaign promise. And that worries them.

But -- and be honest here -- do you not get the sense that there is a hesitation, and a strong one, on the part of the GOP in both the House and the Senate, to be tied to this President? I feel like he is viewed as a bit toxic right now.

And I believe its because what they know is coming.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Schumer's already on it - Sunday he stated it wasn't Russia or Comey and Monday he rolled out the "get back to talking about policies to help the middle class" press op.

The Russia/Resistance sideshows are how to lose future elections and he recognizes it.

As long as Mueller is allowed to conclude his investigation, I agree with Schumer. Democrats should be talking about policies... however, Democrats should speak up when White House surrogates such as Conway are going on Fox News and trying to discredit Mueller by suggesting that either he or a member of his team has a conflict of interest in the investigation or that he is somehow prejudiced against Trump. Democrats should feel very comfortable with this investigation in Mueller's hands and that all avenues will be aggressively pursued.

 

[Grand Vol]

Schumer's already on it - Sunday he stated it wasn't Russia or Comey and Monday he rolled out the "get back to talking about policies to help the middle class" press op.

The Russia/Resistance sideshows are how to lose future elections and he recognizes it.

Schumer's smarter than some give him credit for. He recognizes the fact his party stands for nothing at the moment and will lose again if they don't make a plan right now. That's why he came out against Hillary and that's why he's saying what he is now.

 

[lawgator1]

Schumer's smarter than some give him credit for. He recognizes the fact his party stands for nothing at the moment and will lose again if they don't make a plan right now. That's why he came out against Hillary and that's why he's saying what he is now.

True. I listened to part of it in the car.

Reasonable talking points, but no actual policy was offered up. I'm holding their feet to the fire on that, myself. I want to know what they will do if they get back into power, not just who they want to appease to get there.

 

[Grand Vol]

True. I listened to part of it in the car.

Reasonable talking points, but no actual policy was offered up. I'm holding their feet to the fire on that, myself. I want to know what they will do if they get back into power, not just who they want to appease to get there.

You're old enough to know all parties appease until elected and forget about it right after.

 

[luthervol]

having her staff destroy all the devices and hard drives isn't suspicious?

having about 10 different stories about why she used a private server isn't suspicious?

her foundation raking in millions from foreign companies and leaders while she's SoS and making decisions impacting said countries isn't suspicious? Same for her husband getting paid huge amounts for speeches to these same entities?

her comingling the foundation work with her SoS work by going so far has having her SoS assistant also be an employee of the foundation AND an employee of a lobbying arm wasn't suspicious?

just a partial list of suspicious behavior.

that said, I'm generally against Special Prosecutors for the very reason that they typically go in search of a crime rather than investigate one that is known to have occurred. I do not want law enforcement to do oppo research but that's typically what these things turn into.

You didn't ask specifically about Clinton. I read your question as more of a future hypothetical. I believe the bar should be set high when considering the use of a special prosecutor. However, I think the Mueller appointment was fully justified. A clear message needed to be sent to fake president Trump for the sake of future candidates and their staffs.

** I'm using "fake president Trump" as often as possible to highlight how utterly asinine he sounds every time he says "fake news media" when referring to legitimate news sources.

 

[luthervol]

You mean writing off a huge portion of the electorate as uneducated, hapless rubes isn't a winning strategy?

I've seen countless references of how people vote democrat because they want something for nothing, just want to take other people's money, or are just lazy and looking to live off of the government teat. That knife cuts both ways and how ever true you feel one to be, you should assume the other is equally true.

 

[tumscalcium]

I've seen countless references of how people vote democrat because they want something for nothing, just want to take other people's money, or are just lazy and looking to live off of the government teat.

^This is true.

That knife cuts both ways and how ever true you feel one to be, you should assume the other is equally true.

In reference to the providers for the worthless this is not true. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[CABVOL]

You mean writing off a huge portion of the electorate as uneducated, hapless rubes isn't a winning strategy?

Huffingtonpost or guardian hasn't written an article on that, therefore, armchair hasn't caught on just yet. Give him/her/it time.

 

[golfballs]

So is the plan for Sessions to quit, then Trump appoints someone (Giuliani?) during recess, who then fires Mueller? Do I have that right?