also, check out the comments section on Breitbart: Breitbart

It's the same type of insanity raza is peddling here. — Benkei

I did and it's all about wishing McCain gets cancer and fuck everyone and fake news and the usual ignorant stupidities of his base, but there is also in and around there some discomfort at his weakness, which is somewhat new. But sure he'll keep the 20-25% hardcore xenophobic base that read Breitbart. He will lose enough overall though, doesn't have to be much, to be unelectable.

I hope you're right but I doubt it. Even our eminently reasonable Hanover is unfazed by Trump his Helsinki show as far as I can tell.

Oh no, don't you see a problem with this sort of "honesty"? If the person prioritizes self-interest, wants to take advantage of others, and is deceitful, and says what that individual feels like saying, how can this be honesty? The person is acting deceitfully because that's what the person feels is the best tactic, yet you call it "honesty" because the person is "true to how he feels". I don't think so. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree with you in that when someone is acting honestly and true to their self, that they are can also be actively being deceitful and taking advantage of others. If a person is being honest and true with their words AND it turns out that they were incorrect does not make them deceitful, it just makes them wrong.


Do I think he would knowingly say something that he knows is not true? Nah, I don't think it is his style and for what purpose would he lie? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

How well do you think you know president Trump? — Metaphysician Undercover

I would imagine I know Trump as well as the rest of America does.

I have seen evidence which demonstrates that he does lie. Most people lie now and then, for one reason or another. I don't know him well enough to say with any conviction for what purpose he would lie. However, he seems to me like the type of person whom if he wants something he will do what he thinks is necessary to make that desire come true, and that might include lying. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please post the evidence you have that Trump has out and out lied and not merged or changed his beliefs and expressed them after that change. One is a lie when being said and the other can honestly be how they feel at the time before an evolution on their perspective.

@Hanover is a playa. Who knows what dark maneuverings he's up to? ;)

Could you please quote my opinion of Strzok's affair? :brow:

hope you're right but I doubt it. — Benkei

He's being compared to Lincoln in The Donald, so...

Informative and surreal.

In a vacuum, decontextualized, you can make the argument that Trump's questioning of his own intelligence agency is shocking. You can even resort to the hyperbole of suggesting he trusts the KGB (or whatever they're called now) over the CIA, which, of course, suggests he's read reports from both, compared, contrasted, and come to some conclusion about the legitimacy of their respective conclusions. You can even suggest, once again, that he's committed a high crime and misdemeanor demanding impeachment because he said things folks think is plainly wrong and bad to say.

Contextualized, Trump is really only reiterating what he's been saying all along, which is that he is the legitimate President of these United States, having won fair and square, without meaningful interference from anyone. He sees the whole Russian inquiry as an attempt by the Democrats (which began on the eve of his election) to delegitimize and weaken his presidency. His response is fairly simple: delegitimize me, and I'll delegitimize you. He does not see the inquiry into Russian involvement as a true effort to protect the American democratic process from foreign influence. He sees it as a direct attack against him alone, and this concern about Russia is only being motivated by his detractors to damage him. I do think it's doubtful that if Clinton had won, we'd be seeing this same inquiry into Russian interference, which does suggest that the inquiry is against Trump and not just a sudden desire to clean up our process. And there is no evidence that the Russian shenanigans, whatever they might have been, did anything to actually impact the outcome.

None of this is really defensive of Trump as much as it's just an acceptance of politics being politics. Trump really is going to be President for his full term and every event that pisses off his opponents can't end with the statement "therefore we must impeach" and be taken seriously. The buffoon won, so we get buffoonery. We ordered the clown and he showed up. It's democracy in action. It's a matter of perspective whether you see this as a tragedy or as a comedy.

Well, sure, we know how he thinks, which is to put himself before everything including his country. Not so good in a President and especially not so good in a commander-in-chief, but I agree it's still unlikely he'll be impeached, which some of us opponents do not particularly want if it means Pence as a replacement.

It's a matter of perspective whether you see this as a tragedy or as a comedy. — Hanover

As I said before, as long as he doesn't start a war, I'll vote comedy.

Well, sure, we know how he thinks, which is to put himself before everything including his country — Baden

Are you suggesting that the Russian inquiry really was motivated by anyone who wanted to put their country first?

Clinton wouldn't have needed a special council because she wouldn't have fired Comey.

Are you suggesting that the Russian inquiry really was motivated by anyone who wanted to put their country first? — Hanover

I am.

Non-sequitur and I don't know or care for sure. But I suppose it is plausible that starting an enquiry into interference by a foreign power into your elections that has bipartisan support could in part be motivated by concern for your country seeing as sitting back and allowing such interference to happen would damage your country. Isn't that obvious to you?

He sees the whole Russian inquiry as an attempt by the Democrats (which began on the eve of his election) to delegitimize and weaken his presidency. — Hanover

Except it started in July 2016 at the FBI, with Mueller, a Republican, later being appointment by a Trump-appointed Republican in response to Trump firing the until-recently Republican (now Independent) FBI Director.

The view from a long term member of the intelligence community Trump denigrated:

"Explain to me...why we [protected the US]? So the President can say I don't trust American intelligence but I do trust the adversary that fomented revolution overseas in favour of communism and that murdered people in the UK? That's why we did [our] service? ...it's not only political, there's personal aspects to this...it's painful."

The video also shows Chris Wallace, who's one of the better Fox News commentators (along with Shep Smith), taking on Putin in a way Trump was afraid to.

Except it started in July 2016 at the FBI, with Mueller, a Republican, being appointment by a Trump-appointed Republican in response to Trump firing the until-recently Republican (now Independent) FBI Director. — Michael

July 2017, not 2016, right? Trump was elected November 2016.

Anyway, Clinton was making allegations about Russian involvement before Mueller's appointment.

July 2017, not 2016, right? Trump was elected November 2016. — Hanover

July 2016. The investigation started before the election.

Anyway, Clinton was making allegations about Russian involvement before Mueller's appointment. — Hanover

And the investigation started before Clinton's allegations.

The Dutch intelligence agency actually found proof of Russian meddling in the US elections by hacking the Russian computers back in 2014 already. They discovered break ins at the White House, DNC and state department.

By now you'd think it would've passed all this partisanship given the available evidence.

Non-sequitur and I don't know or care for sure — Baden

If you really don't care then why are you arguing it and calling it fact?

By now you'd think it would've passed all this partisanship given the available evidence. — Benkei

The USA has been meddling in any other country we can break into on a cyber level. I know this for a fact as I am watching the NEXT generation learn how to act and react on cyber attacks on our country of all natures. The USA is just as talented at cyber attacks as any other country and to suggest that we can't or that we don't is an absurd concept.

More Fox News calling out Trump as a traitor. Good for them as it doesn't sell well with Trump
supporters many of whom will stick their hands over their ears and pretend they can't hear.

And Obama suggesting that he will have "more flexibility" in his second term was?

So much of this is absurd.

No one doubts that he is the legitimate President of the Unites States. He won the electoral college based on a choice that voters made, even if they were influenced by Russian propaganda and agitprop. However, considering that leading members of the inquiry, Mueller, Chris Wray, Rosenstein are Republicans, not to mention that the IG report showed no partisan bias, and that the inquiry itself has been defended by top Republican politicians, it is simply wrong to conclude that this is an attempt by Democrats to legitimize him. That Russia interfered with our election is the accepted conclusion by seven different federal and congressional intelligence groups, including the FBI, CIA, the NSA, and the House and Senate Intelligence Committee, who have warned that we are susceptible to attacks in the future. To think that this inquiry is "against Trump" instead of the broader "protecting the democratic process", is to assume some type of Deep State conspiracy. That several people close to Trump have been indicted is also true.

The proof of this is in the pudding, but Trump would rather slurp on the borscht, and that's deeply concerning.

I do think it's doubtful that if Clinton had won, we'd be seeing this same inquiry into Russian interference, which does suggest that the inquiry is against Trump and not just a sudden desire to clean up our process. — Hanover

You do realize you've reifiied a hypothetical, right?

f you really don't care then why are you arguing it and calling it fact? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It's not as important because they did the right thing (wouldn't any country want to find out if their election was interfered with?) but my love for Hanover compels me to answer even his more pointless questions.

And Obama suggesting that he will have "more flexibility" in his second term was? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I can't access the video so maybe you can explain and justify the equivalency you are trying to draw here. (Bear in mind though this discussion is not about Obama and I'm not an Obama fan, so I'm not a partisan with regard to him and Trump. I don't like either).

They hacked into Hillary's non-secured emails, which was a crime in itself.

"None of this is really defensive of Trump as much as it's just an acceptance of politics being politics. "

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but keep in mind that "politics being politics" includes the negative political impact to Trump, both domestically and internationally. This has hurt his ability to do his job (it's astounding how much time and effort he expends with his crazy tweets degrading the investigation and about the intelligence agencies that are under him), it may impact Republicans chances in the midterms, and it may hurt his chances for reelection. All these are also "politics being politics." Had he simply acted like an adult and accepted that an investigation was under way, then with his full knowledge of being innocent, he could have simply ignored it and concentrated on the job of being President.

They hacked into Hillary's non-secured emails, which was a crime in itself — Hanover

Insert evidence here >…………………<

None of this is really defensive of Trump as much as it's just an acceptance of politics being politics. — Hanover

A kind of politics, actually anti-politics. The insistence on the lie is exhausting for any who pay attention, and we have to pay attention. That's the point of the lie: not to persuade that the lie is actually the truth, but to catch up the opponent in distraction and waste of energy and resource. Even now we hear that Trump may "consider" whether the the Russians interfered. There's nothing to consider! In addition, it seems there's a new outrage at every turn. What we do not counter, we lose. Does anyone with any sense suppose that's just a coincidence? Does anyone suppose that Trump is his own master-mind here?

Putin is a master of this game at home. If anyone calls him on it, he takes care of them one way or another. But what do we do? We recognize the battle for what it is, part of a war. An honest-to-gosh real live war fought in ways that most of use do not understand - many of us do not even know it's happening. The purpose of the war? Encroachment. In the case of Crimea, invasion.

Do you remember Lech Walesa? I wonder what he has to say about Poland's current government and its rapprochement with Russia.

One of the signs of evil is that it causes confusion and doubt. Where there is too much of these, or they're not "right," suspect evil. We have a mountain of confusion and doubt, so much so that it obscures the overt evil that's in our faces. No American has a choice. No free person has a choice. This evil must be confronted and disposed of. I simply hope the midterms will be a clear sign of that movement.

Putin is a master of this game — tim wood

Unfortunately, Putin doesn't have to be a master to outfox Trump, he only has to be... conscious. A ten-year old child could learn the beat-Trump-on-foreign-policy strategy: flatter his ego and then sit back and watch as he does everything you want him to do.

Unfortunately, Putin doesn't have to be a master to outfox Trump, he only has to be... conscious. A ten-year old child could learn the beat-Trump-on-foreign-policy strategy: flatter his ego and then sit back and watch as he does everything you want him to do. — Baden

I suggest that what Putin wants Trump to do is to not want war.

That should serve everybody. Well, everybody that matters.