This is f*cking embarrassing,

United76America said:
Obama to Dmitri Medvedev on a hot mic "Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after my election and if he gives me space know then I'll be able to offer more flexibility on missile defense etc.." (paraphrase) -- Libs have no problem.

Hillary to Putin *offers physical reset button to represent a reset in relations between the US and Russia with no consequences for Russian actions in Crimea, Syria, or around the world and nothing in return.* -- Libs have no problem.

Trump *two year investigation into potential collusion with Russia over election meddling with no evidence. Despite millions of taxpayers dollars tossed into it and billions of media dollars poured into it. Meets with Putin to discuss relations.* Libs freak out about the end of democracy and our president being a Russian stooge.

I believe this is called... hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You're wrong.
Hypocrisy is any conservatard complaining about the Mueller investigation after cheering Whitewater for seven years.
 
LV426 said:
Of course they do because they establish their motivation; money.

Manafort, Flynn, Gates all conspired with Russia because of money. So the indictments are related to the Russian conspiracy because they show the motivations Flynn, Gates, and Manafort had for doing so.

This is how investigations work; you roll people up on their superiors by indicting their motivations.
Click to expand...
No a single indictment is related to a conspiracy with Russia to elect Trump. Like I said, the Manafort indictment is for 10-15 year old crimes. Was Trump campaigning for president in 2016 in 2005?
 
katzgar said:
Your comment is ignorant. and investigator may pursue any crime as he comes across it
Click to expand...
Investigator, yes. Special counsel, no. The scope of a special counsel investigation is suppose to be narrow. Any crime that a special counsel comes across that is not within the scope of his or her investigation must be passed along to the department of justice to be referred for investigation otherwise. This is the reason why Congress is demanding to know the original scope of the Mueller probe. Because Mueller is refusing to tell them.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Good. I'm glad to see that we both agree then that the POTUS is indeed a globalist. His overriding concern is his own business interests, which he has promoted by supporting the deregulation of banking and investment regulations, lowering corporate tax rates, and wanting to abolish a minimum wage law. He has in fact failed to divest himself of these business interests despite being POTUS. He is fine with outsourcing; in fact, he imports non-citizens to work at his resorts. He is definitely hostile to freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, particularly that of speech. He has stated that journalists that don't support him should be jailed and/or fined. As for your last sentence.... bingo. Perfect description of Trump's take on non-whites.
Click to expand...
Leaders will usually be rich and well off, that's a given. But the policies espoused are what's important. We need tariffs to make trade more reciprocal at this time.

He's more non globalist than shrillary, and made his money in real estate, not selling out the American people like the Clinton's.

And as far as free speech, don't make me laugh, the liberals are so keen on censorchip it's nauseating.

And for the record, the left came up with "fake news" to try to silence pizzagate content contributors.
 
United76America said:
No a single indictment is related to a conspiracy with Russia to elect Trump. Like I said, the Manafort indictment is for 10-15 year old crimes. Was Trump campaigning for president in 2016 in 2005?
Click to expand...

The indictments against Manafort, Flynn, and Gates are with regard to their shady financial dealings with Russians, thus giving them the motivation to conspire with Russia.
 
archives said:
Trump/Putin press conference

Earlier when a reporter just Trump if he bought up Russia interference Trump skipped over the question and went into the usual dialogue on what a great victory he attained, and Putin added that he was unaware of anything but would look into it

Now, when asked if he believed the US intelligence agencies or Putin he went into a rant about Hillary's server. The next question if Trump would warn Putin not to do it again was also skirted over with a regurgitation on Hillary and the election. Putin pretty much concurred

Love to see how Fox is going to spin this debacle
Click to expand...

Hacking was done on Obama's watch..he has already told Putin to cut it out
 
LV426 said:
The indictments against Manafort, Flynn, and Gates are with regard to their shady financial dealings with Russians, thus giving them the motivation to conspire with Russia.
Click to expand...
But there's no evidence that they did conspire with Russia... lol. Your argument is "They may have benefited from conspiring with Russia so that's definitive evidence that the did conspire with Russia". Your argument lacks any hard, prosecutable evidence. Your argument is based on assumptions of the motivations of people whom you've never met.
 
United76America said:
But there's no evidence that they did conspire with Russia... lol. Your argument is "They may have benefited from conspiring with Russia so that's definitive evidence that the did conspire with Russia". Your argument lacks any hard, prosecutable evidence. Your argument is based on assumptions of the motivations of people whom you've never met.
Click to expand...

No evidence you've seen yet. Apparently, it was so overwhelming that Flynn and Gates pleaded guilty already to lesser charges. That seems to indicate they're turning evidence against the conspirators.

Seems to me, based on Mueller's indictments from last week, that there was definitely contact between Trump and Russia. We already know Roger Stone was in touch with Russia because he admitted it. Roger Stone was also in contact with Trump senior advisors, maybe even Trump himself.

The picture is very broad, but it's there.
 
volsrock said:
What is embarrassing is the fact that Obama let it happen
Click to expand...

1. Obama wanted to go public and issue a bi-partisan statement, but McConnell refused.

2. Obama had Comey investigate it, but then Trump fired Comey specifically because of Russia - we know because that's what he said to Lester Holt.
 
archives said:
No, "I" don't think it is required, but when you are representing the American people and meeting with a leader of a foreign nation, a nation has just been caught attempting to sabotage your democratic traditions, it would seem appropriate to make that fact an issue

Allowing Putin on the world stage to deny the facts is embarrassing
Click to expand...
how is he supposed to stop Putin from answering?

It's old news. the summit is about areas we can cooperate on
 
Thing1 said:
The one photo I can think of, Putin looks very nervous, and Obama is looking at him w/ disdain.

Besides, we're talking about Trump. This morning was - at its very best - one of the weakest moments I've seen from an American President, ever.
Click to expand...
I swear you have become a clone of John McCain "weak/strong" -what does that even mean in the real world?

You do know Trump has been much tougher on Putin then Obama?..maybe not
 
anatta said:
I swear you have become a clone of John McCain "weak/strong" -what does that even mean in the real world?

You do know Trump has been much tougher on Putin then Obama?..maybe not
Click to expand...

Weak means obsequious and ineffectual. Strong means principled and cautious.

See how easy that is in the real world?

Trump was the former today - bigtime. It's impossible to defend his performance this morning, but I'm sure you'll give it a go.
 
Grumpy said:
What is truly embarrassing is that any reporter would be stupid enough to expect the president to offend a nuclear super power that has always been very suspicious of us. If Reagan and Gorbachev hadn't become friendly the cold war most likely would have continued and the Soviet Union might not have collapsed. So Trump is following sound principles in dealing with a potential hostile nuclear nation.
Click to expand...

I thought our freedom and strength ended the Cold War -- but now according to Trump lovers, it was being friendly to a leader of the Soviet Union, got it.

Maybe we should just be friendly to all of the murderous dictators around the world --- and all this time conservatives would have us believe that "appeasing dictators" was a bad thing.

Oh and by the way, to suggest that a country would voluntarily collapse its economic system and break up their country because their leader was friendly with another leader is an absolutely idiotic thing to believe, but common for a Trump supporter
 
Thing1 said:
It's all high fives when the Russian higher-ups get together w/ Putin after this one.

What a complete embarrassment.
Click to expand...
more deflections..
Nothing has changed with Russia. sanctions are on, Javelin sold to Ukraine militias, NATO funding up..
 
Thing1 said:
Weak means obsequious and ineffectual. Strong means principled and cautious.

See how easy that is in the real world?

Trump was the former today - bigtime. It's impossible to defend his performance this morning, but I'm sure you'll give it a go.
Click to expand...
those are words without any meaning in the real world.

Last thing I'm going to do is "defend" Trump from your blandishments of "weak and strong".
They are silly attributions

You should look at the current state of US/Russian relations and see how "strong" they are -but you won't
you'd rather blather on about you perceived appearences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top