Really Trump wants to form a joint cyber terrorist task force with Putin? Talk about inviting the fox into the hen house. All the focus on Trump and Putin takes away from the real issues. Putin of course is eating it up like candy, his nations economy isn't strong, doubt they are even in the top ten, so this type of attention and the US forced to deal with his crap plays right into his hands.

The real issue IMHO is the US stepping back from leading and adopting a policy of isolation; the west against the east rhetoric is a dangerous path. Dig out your knight armor boys, Trump is going on a crusade. I get that we need strong borders. I get that most of these nut jobs are coming from Muslim countries, but the dangerous crap coming out of his mouth at times just blows my mind. I've said it before the radicals need only cut and past from Trumps speeches and tweets to get all the recruiting advertising they want.

I'd be more concerned about North Korea than Russian any day of the week. That situation is going to get out of hand.

Really Trump wants to form a joint cyber terrorist task force with Putin? Talk about inviting the fox into the hen house. All the focus on Trump and Putin takes away from the real issues. Putin of course is eating it up like candy, his nations economy isn't strong, doubt they are even in the top ten, so this type of attention and the US forced to deal with his crap plays right into his hands.

The real issue IMHO is the US stepping back from leading and adopting a policy of isolation; the west against the east rhetoric is a dangerous path. Dig out your knight armor boys, Trump is going on a crusade. I get that we need strong borders. I get that most of these nut jobs are coming from Muslim countries, but the dangerous crap coming out of his mouth at times just blows my mind. I've said it before the radicals need only cut and past from Trumps speeches and tweets to get all the recruiting advertising they want.

I'd be more concerned about North Korea than Russian any day of the week. That situation is going to get out of hand.

Putin is clobbering the **** out of ISIS in Syria. It's a complicated part of the world. Putin hates jihadists...not for the right reasons, perhaps, but he hates them.

"the radicals need only cut and past from Trumps speeches and tweets to get all the recruiting advertising they want."

They recruited plenty when Obama was POTUS. You can't construct national security policy around the goal of being so nice to terrorists, that they need to create their own propaganda for recruiting. Obama killed plenty of terrorists, with plenty of collateral damage, with drone strikes. You don't think they used that for recruiting?

We are constantly reminded that the terrorists kill far more Muslims than anybody else. How does what Trump or Obama say motivate the terrorists to kill all those Muslims? How does it motivate the terrorists to kill all those non-Muslims in France and Germany and Britain and Spain?

It seems that there must be a whole lot of different people saying a lot of various things motivating the recruits to join ISIS.

Or, maybe we just don't want to admit what the real and basic motivation is.

Really Trump wants to form a joint cyber terrorist task force with Putin? Talk about inviting the fox into the hen house. All the focus on Trump and Putin takes away from the real issues. Putin of course is eating it up like candy, his nations economy isn't strong, doubt they are even in the top ten, so this type of attention and the US forced to deal with his crap plays right into his hands.

Yes - that was particularly dumb - joint cyber task force. Beyond stupid on the surface. What would happen is each would send their best people to gather info and their people least likely to share anything valuable.

In all fairness, some "joint" centers for yadayaydayada are beneficial .

The real issue IMHO is the US stepping back from leading and adopting a policy of isolation; the west against the east rhetoric is a dangerous path. Dig out your knight armor boys, Trump is going on a crusade. I get that we need strong borders. I get that most of these nut jobs are coming from Muslim countries, but the dangerous crap coming out of his mouth at times just blows my mind. I've said it before the radicals need only cut and past from Trumps speeches and tweets to get all the recruiting advertising they want.

The real issue is the US is stepping back? Leading from behind? Abdicating a leadership role in the world? :rotflmao: :laughs:
:rotflmao:

And I suppose this started in January 2017?

I'd be more concerned about North Korea than Russian any day of the week. That situation is going to get out of hand.

NORKs really suck but they do know that if they nuke us they die.

Russia is the existential threat and has been since the 1960s. Gee - looks like Romney was right and Obama wrong. Had a few more people voted for him we might not be in these problems today and we wouldn't have Trump. Wonder if any media reflect on that.

Russia might not have much to lose. They aren't a top 10 economy. They have a GDP per capita 1/7 of ours. China with a billion poor has almost as much GDP per capita. Russia has the economic might of Mexico but with 10,000 nukes.

They have a declining population, dying younger every year, rampant drugs, alcohol, and disease.

Putin is clobbering the **** out of ISIS in Syria. It's a complicated part of the world. Putin hates jihadists...not for the right reasons, perhaps, but he hates them.

Errr, Putin is clobbering the crap out of Anti-Asad fighters and calling them "ISIS" but he is not focusing on ISIS as we are.

"the radicals need only cut and past from Trumps speeches and tweets to get all the recruiting advertising they want."
Jim - this only happens when Republican governments do it. After bush, for 8 years, there was no recruitment. BOOM in January it started again.


They recruited plenty when Obama was POTUS. You can't construct national security policy around the goal of being so nice to terrorists, that they need to create their own propaganda for recruiting. Obama killed plenty of terrorists, with plenty of collateral damage, with drone strikes. You don't think they used that for recruiting?

Just didn't get reported so it didn't happen.

Errr, Putin is clobbering the crap out of Anti-Asad fighters and calling them "ISIS" but he is not focusing on ISIS as we are.

Jim - this only happens when Republican governments do it. After bush, for 8 years, there was no recruitment. BOOM in January it started again.


Just didn't get reported so it didn't happen.

Correct, John, he is killing ISIS fighters to help his pal Assad, not because it's the right thing to do. You are 100% correct. But I think some of the people Putin is fighting, really are ISIS, no? Some of them are non-terrorists who want to get rid of Assad, but some are genuinely ISIS I thought?

"Jim - this only happens when Republican governments do it. After bush, for 8 years, there was no recruitment. BOOM in January it started again"

It really is amazing that anyone could say that with a straight face. The POTUS is supposed to be cordial to terrorists, so that they can't use his speeches as recruiting tools.

Here's all the recruitment that they will ever need...we let our women go to school, we don't force them to dress like ninjas, we don't mutilate their genitals. That's all they need.

Obama claimed that his softer tone would make them hate us less. Jimmy Carter though the same exact thing with his pacifism. They were both wrong.

Correct, John, he is killing ISIS fighters to help his pal Assad, not because it's the right thing to do. You are 100% correct. But I think some of the people Putin is fighting, really are ISIS, no? Some of them are non-terrorists who want to get rid of Assad, but some are genuinely ISIS I thought?

Sadly the majority Putin is killing is Anti-Asad people. He calls them ISIS in order to taint world opinion against the anti-Asad folks. Syria is Game of Thrones in real life. ISIS was not in Allepo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/middleeast/russias-brutal-bombing-of-aleppo-may-be-calculated-and-it-may-be-working.html

ISW has perhaps the best and most unvarnished reporting of what is happening in Syria

http://iswresearch.blogspot.com/search/label/Syria


"Jim - this only happens when Republican governments do it. After bush, for 8 years, there was no recruitment. BOOM in January it started again"

It really is amazing that anyone could say that with a straight face. The POTUS is supposed to be cordial to terrorists, so that they can't use his speeches as recruiting tools.

The /sarc was silent, understood

Does anyone really think Trumps West vs East rhetoric is directed solely at terrorists? It's us against them and by them I suspect any country, religion or ideology that doesn't match trumps is probably what he truly believes. Some of his speeches, like his opening one, clearly are written for him and don't really reflect how that man really thinks. How he really thinks is what is scary and you can see it in the question answer sessions or God help us, the endless can't sleep so I'll tweet sessions.

Do these radical nut jobs need recruiting videos supplied by Trump, certainly not, but when he shrinks his "circle of trust" to use a line from a Fockers movie and alienates half the globe that doesn't meet his criteria, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need allies in these countries to assist us in the war on terrorism. I just think he is poorly choosing his words, the message he wants to send and doesn't see the forest through the trees lining the global stage we are supposed to be leading.

It appears that the only country really happy with Trump is Russia, doesn't that bother people? Seems like a lot of the major leaders (our allies) are not to happy with him or the back peddling he seems to be doing on climate accords, NATO, trade agreements and probably more that I'm not even aware of.

Russia isn't the issue or threat they used to be, but inviting him in to be our buddy is dangerous to say the least. We probably let more Russian spies and intelligence agents into this country than potential terrorists.

Does anyone really think Trumps West vs East rhetoric is directed solely at terrorists? It's us against them and by them I suspect any country, religion or ideology that doesn't match trumps is probably what he truly believes. Some of his speeches, like his opening one, clearly are written for him and don't really reflect how that man really thinks. How he really thinks is what is scary and you can see it in the question answer sessions or God help us, the endless can't sleep so I'll tweet sessions.

Do these radical nut jobs need recruiting videos supplied by Trump, certainly not, but when he shrinks his "circle of trust" to use a line from a Fockers movie and alienates half the globe that doesn't meet his criteria, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need allies in these countries to assist us in the war on terrorism. I just think he is poorly choosing his words, the message he wants to send and doesn't see the forest through the trees lining the global stage we are supposed to be leading.

It appears that the only country really happy with Trump is Russia, doesn't that bother people? Seems like a lot of the major leaders (our allies) are not to happy with him or the back peddling he seems to be doing on climate accords, NATO, trade agreements and probably more that I'm not even aware of.

Russia isn't the issue or threat they used to be, but inviting him in to be our buddy is dangerous to say the least. We probably let more Russian spies and intelligence agents into this country than potential terrorists.

this made Trump sound coherent :confused:

The problem with having a narcissist as president is that he has no idea of what a joke he has become and what a laughing stock he has become to the rest of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem with having a narcissist as president is that he has no idea of what a joke he has become and what a laughing stock he has become to the rest of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wouldn't this describe the last 4 in the eyes of so many?...alternating, depending on your point of view...the world must have really been laughing at Lyndon Johnson, Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson, FDR and JFK

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/14/the-most-narcissistic-u-s-presidents/

feckless leader (where did i hear that before ) he talks a good game .. but what came of the G20 besides a 2hr meeting with 4 people then again claiming it wasn't the russians or Putin hacking but in the meeting with mexico it was full of staff? and his Daughter taking his seat during the meeting ... odd to say the least...

and as always Terrorism the excuse to keep Americans afraid .. so Government can do as they wish.. in the name of security

feckless leader (where did i hear that before ) you are hearing your echo

but what came of the G20

he got an 11 out of 10......

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/opinions/trump-g20-opinion-lord/index.html

What makes you think pulling out of the climate change agreements or the trade deals makes America great again? I think the jury is out on whether 3 years down the road, those decisions make us stronger and better or just put us in a weaker position at the global bargaining table.

What makes you think pulling out of the climate change agreements or the trade deals makes America great again? I think the jury is out on whether 3 years down the road, those decisions make us stronger and better or just put us in a weaker position at the global bargaining table.

so you are saying you will/we should wait to judge...or jury as it were?

I'm saying not everyone feels that those decisions are good ones for future economic benefits, or the health of the long term environment, time will tell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm saying not everyone feels that those decisions are good ones for future economic benefits, or the health of the long term environment, time will tell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know right?...I'm still waiting for the Obama Russia strategy that Spence claimed was so brilliant no one(except the Oluminatti) could even recognize it's incredible brilliance to pan out....:hihi:

Does anyone really think Trumps West vs East rhetoric is directed solely at terrorists? It's us against them and by them I suspect any country, religion or ideology that doesn't match trumps is probably what he truly believes. Some of his speeches, like his opening one, clearly are written for him and don't really reflect how that man really thinks. How he really thinks is what is scary and you can see it in the question answer sessions or God help us, the endless can't sleep so I'll tweet sessions.

Do these radical nut jobs need recruiting videos supplied by Trump, certainly not, but when he shrinks his "circle of trust" to use a line from a Fockers movie and alienates half the globe that doesn't meet his criteria, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need allies in these countries to assist us in the war on terrorism. I just think he is poorly choosing his words, the message he wants to send and doesn't see the forest through the trees lining the global stage we are supposed to be leading.

It appears that the only country really happy with Trump is Russia, doesn't that bother people? Seems like a lot of the major leaders (our allies) are not to happy with him or the back peddling he seems to be doing on climate accords, NATO, trade agreements and probably more that I'm not even aware of.

Russia isn't the issue or threat they used to be, but inviting him in to be our buddy is dangerous to say the least. We probably let more Russian spies and intelligence agents into this country than potential terrorists.

I don't like Trump, I like him even less than I thought I was going to.

"Some of his speeches, like his opening one, clearly are written for him "

All of his speeches are written for him. Just like all of Obama's speeches were written for Obama.

"alienates half the globe that doesn't meet his criteria"

Yes he does. He's not a guy that makes a lot of people want to come under his tent. Neither was Obama, who mocked everything I believe, non-stop, for 8 years. But it was OK when he did it. Because he's a genius, or something.

Trump is obviously more overtly crass than anyone we have seen. Which makes him more divisive. Is he way more divisive than Obama was? I don't think so. The difference is, those two presidents offend very different groups of people. The people offended by Obama, didn't riot every time he ridiculed them, they didn't burn down buildings. They formed the Tea Party, and moved the dial the way they wanted. When liberals get offended, their first instinct (first few instincts, probably) is to destroy property and go berserk.

Obama and the media had a mutual love affair, so all the coverage was favorable. Trump and the media hate each other, so all we see is negative news. Obviously most of it is legit, as Trump deserves a lot of criticism.

If there was no Obama, there likely would have been no Trump. It's a funny little world.

"Some of his speeches, like his opening one, clearly are written for him "

All of his speeches are written for him. Just like all of Obama's speeches were written for Obama.

.

ya think?....that was funny...

Agreed, which is why you get a better sense of how Trump really thinks in the question and answer sessions or in the daily tweets. Frankly Trump alienating the media isn't my concern, he isn't the first Potus to do so, I'm more concerns about the impact to our relationship with our allies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is so much noise and panic every time he blinks an eye...it's hard to tell what is really going on which is as you point out likely by design

I'm more concerns about the impact to our relationship with our allies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is absolutely worth discussing and maybe worth being concerned about.

However, Obama was supposed to be the one that would make the whole world love us (by telling everyone that we aren't anything special), and I don't know that it worked. So if Obama's message of "America isn't any better than anyplace else" didn't make the world love us, hopefully Trump's message of "we rule, you suck" won't create many more enemies.

I don't think too many countries pledge loyalty to the US because of who happens to be in the Oval Office. I have to think that most countries choose to be our allies, because they know it's in their interest to do so, and hopefully that doesn't depend upon how big of a jerk is in the Oval Office. Right now, it's a really big jerk.

there is so much noise and panic every time he blinks an eye...

It is incredible, how much energy the media is devoting to making him out to be a James Bond villain. If the subsequent congressional special elections are any measure, it's not having the desired effect.

It is incredible, how much energy the media is devoting to making him out to be a James Bond villain. If the subsequent congressional special elections are any measure, it's not having the desired effect.


Thats funny he and he alone is the reason for the coverage .. Trump it's not having the desired effect.

here we go with the media is out to get Trump .. More fake new I guess Trump Jr emails show Russia communication


More like Trumps make America great again plan it's not having the desired effect.

here we go with the media is out to get Trump .. More fake new I guess Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

There doesn't appear to be anything illegal once again . Maybe you could've recommended he delete emails instead of releasing them ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There doesn't appear to be anything illegal once again . Maybe you could've recommended he delete emails instead of releasing them ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See, this is where the genius of Hillary shines. If you keep your e-mail server in the broom closet it throws the whole concept of non-repudiation right out the window.. :hee:

See, this is where the genius of Hillary shines. If you keep your e-mail server in the broom closet it throws the whole concept of non-repudiation right out the window.. :hee:

Don't forget to delete the suspicious ones!

Thats funny he and he alone is the reason for the coverage .. Trump it's not having the desired effect.

here we go with the media is out to get Trump .. More fake new I guess Trump Jr emails show Russia communication


More like Trumps make America great again plan it's not having the desired effect.

Trump is not having the desired effect? There have been 4 special elections since he took over. Two of them, the democrats and the media said were going to be a referendum on trump. Do you know what the results were?

I have said many times he's not a good guy, and he brings much of the criticism on himself. But not all of it. The media is out of the news business and in the "let's get trump" business.

If you think I am a trump apologist, think again, I dislike him. but if he ran against Hilary tomorrow, I'd vote for him in a second
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump is not having the desired effect? There have been 4 special elections since he took over. Two of them, the democrats and the media said were going to be a referendum on trump. Do you know what the results were?

I have said many times he's not a good guy, and he brings much of the criticism on himself. But not all of it. The media is out of the news business and in the "let's get trump" business.

If you think I am a trump apologist, think again, I dislike him. but if he ran against Hilary tomorrow, I'd vote for him in a second
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would be so interesting if you could step back in time and he didn't use tweeter, he relied heavily on his cabinet to work as a team and if there was a question about Russia and meetings; the entire team put it all on the table stating; look we are hear to get to work do with this what you want we have things to do.

There doesn't appear to be anything illegal once again . Maybe you could've recommended he delete emails instead of releasing them ...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you guys love deflection dont you ... Not sure how red blooded Americans are still more outraged of Her email server then

Trumps Russian issues that are like an Onion many Layers and keep coming ..

So lets get this straight... Obama was a socialistic and a communist but never hung out with them

But Trump and his circle hang out with socialistic communists and Conservatives insist there is nothing to See... that Just Amazing :lama:

So lets get this straight... Obama was a socialistic and a communist but never hung out with them

But Trump and his circle hang out with socialistic communists and Conservatives insist there is nothing to See... that Just Amazing :lama:

huh?? :huh:

you guys love deflection dont you ... Not sure how red blooded Americans are still more outraged of Her email server then

Trumps Russian issues that are like an Onion many Layers and keep coming ..

Hillary's email server wasn't a mere layer of an onion. It was the onion. It was a fact.

Trump's so-called issues are being manufactured into "issues." All of life, including yours, if you are not a perfect being but merely human, is composed of layers of "onion," layers of "issues" that are real or imagined depending on who narrates them, and that keep unfolding until you are no more. At this point in the supposed peeling, Trump's layers are not proven to be connected to the desired big "onion" which itself has not been proven to exist.

So lets get this straight... Obama was a socialistic and a communist but never hung out with them

Actually he did more than "hang out" with them. He was raised by them. And his socialistic (Progressive) philosophy on governing certainly has not rejected his "hanging out" with communists and socialists.

But Trump and his circle hang out with socialistic communists and Conservatives insist there is nothing to See... that Just Amazing :lama:

Not getting a clear picture of what you mean by "hang out." Trump has "hung out" with a whole lot of capitalists. A lot more than with socialists and communists. And his "hanging out" with Commies has not yet reached the volume of Hillary's or Obama's "hanging out" with them.

The Commies do exist. And they certainly "hang out" around the world . . . just about everywhere. And are extremely influential. And have a lot of impact on world affairs. Kind of hard to avoid them. Might not be prudent to avoid "hanging out" with them from time to time . . . as most of our politicians and Presidents do.

Not sure what you got "straight" with your "hang out" meme. Doesn't make sense. Seems to "deflect", as you put it.

How many times have people associated with the Trump admin lied about their contacts with the Russians so far? Witch Hunt lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/12/doj-settled-massive-russian-fraud-case-involving-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr/?utm_content=buffer33319&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


DOJ Settled Massive Russian Fraud Case Involving Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr.

Also the attorney representing the Russian companies in the DOJ case, Veselnitskaya, is the same one who organized a meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. and top Trump campaign officials in June 2016 to offer material that could “incriminate” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

conservatives :faga:

So lets get this straight... Obama was a socialistic and a communist but never hung out with them

But Trump and his circle hang out with socialistic communists and Conservatives insist there is nothing to See... that Just Amazing :lama:


Huh?

Dude, you are making me defend Trump here - not something I aspire to do. FDact is I am waiting to see if there is a sleight of hand, a last millisecond shift from the meatball driving right down the sweet spot of the plate.

Obama was a socialistic and a communist but never hung out with them

Obama is well know for associating with communists / socialists / radicals

:doh:

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/__new/f_obama_putin_150928.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/RTSBIO3-obama-castro-625.jpg

https://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120326&t=2&i=587253543&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=CDEE82P1HB600

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/12/doj-settled-massive-russian-fraud-case-involving-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr/?utm_content=buffer33319&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


DOJ Settled Massive Russian Fraud Case Involving Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr.

Also the attorney representing the Russian companies in the DOJ case, Veselnitskaya, is the same one who organized a meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. and top Trump campaign officials in June 2016 to offer material that could “incriminate” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

conservatives :faga:

If you want to present facts, first get ALL of the facts.

http://theresurgent.com/breaking-that-russian-lawyer-has-ties-to-the-group-that-prepared-the-trump-dossier/

Read the whole article. It provides in depth information on ties Dermocrats had with the Russians. But here is a smaller portion re the meeting Trump Jr. had with Veselnitskaya:

"Prevezon, which is a Russian group, hires Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin to generate negative press coverage on a British citizen. Prevezon also hires as legal counsel both Baker Hostetler and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

"Rinat Akhmetshin also puts Natalia Veselnitskaya on the payroll.
Rinat Akhmetshin, who works in collaboration with Fusion GPS at the time it is preparing the Trump dossier, is an admitted “Soviet counterintelligence officer” who specializes in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda.”
While all of this is going on, Fusion GPS is working on the opposition research dossier on Donald Trump using a foreign agent. Are we really supposed to believe that it is completely coincidental that Natalia Veselnitskaya just so happens to be the Russian lawyer who got access to Donald Trump, Jr.? Are we to believe that there is no direct relationship between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

"It is remarkable how she gets a PR agent to urge Trump, Jr. to meet with her by promising Russian information about Hillary Clinton’s emails as the Clinton email server story is blowing up. And then it is remarkable how she gives a perfect performance to NBC News two days ago claiming she only talked with Trump about the Magnitsky Act, but assured the press that the Trump team was hoping for dirt on Hillary.

"It is also really remarkable that this all happens as Fusion GPS is prepping its opposition dossier and a New York Times reporter who has been following the story admits it was a year ago, at that time, that someone tipped him off about the meeting.

"Add to all of that two more nuggets. Natalia Veselnitskaya had been denied a visa into the United States. She had been given temporary parole, allowing her to enter the country with an expired visa, but it has been revoked by 2016. Still, Veselnitskaya was able to enter the US anyway to meet with Trump, Jr. in the middle of 2016. It is my understanding this could have only happened in one of two ways. First, she could have argued she was the sole lawyer of representation for her client, but Baker Hostetler also represented Prevezon. She could also have been allowed into the country if she had a collaborative relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You know, the organization that was considering paying Christopher Steele for his Trump dossier work prepared for Fusion GPS.
Also, Ms Veselnitskaya, on her Facebook page, purportedly had several pro-Hillary Clinton posts and anti-Trump posts.
There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.
What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?"

If you want to present facts, first get ALL of the facts.

http://theresurgent.com/breaking-that-russian-lawyer-has-ties-to-the-group-that-prepared-the-trump-dossier/

Read the whole article. It provides in depth information on ties Dermocrats had with the Russians. But here is a smaller portion re the meeting Trump Jr. had with Veselnitskaya:

"Prevezon, which is a Russian group, hires Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin to generate negative press coverage on a British citizen. Prevezon also hires as legal counsel both Baker Hostetler and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

"Rinat Akhmetshin also puts Natalia Veselnitskaya on the payroll.
Rinat Akhmetshin, who works in collaboration with Fusion GPS at the time it is preparing the Trump dossier, is an admitted “Soviet counterintelligence officer” who specializes in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda.”
While all of this is going on, Fusion GPS is working on the opposition research dossier on Donald Trump using a foreign agent. Are we really supposed to believe that it is completely coincidental that Natalia Veselnitskaya just so happens to be the Russian lawyer who got access to Donald Trump, Jr.? Are we to believe that there is no direct relationship between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

"It is remarkable how she gets a PR agent to urge Trump, Jr. to meet with her by promising Russian information about Hillary Clinton’s emails as the Clinton email server story is blowing up. And then it is remarkable how she gives a perfect performance to NBC News two days ago claiming she only talked with Trump about the Magnitsky Act, but assured the press that the Trump team was hoping for dirt on Hillary.

"It is also really remarkable that this all happens as Fusion GPS is prepping its opposition dossier and a New York Times reporter who has been following the story admits it was a year ago, at that time, that someone tipped him off about the meeting.

"Add to all of that two more nuggets. Natalia Veselnitskaya had been denied a visa into the United States. She had been given temporary parole, allowing her to enter the country with an expired visa, but it has been revoked by 2016. Still, Veselnitskaya was able to enter the US anyway to meet with Trump, Jr. in the middle of 2016. It is my understanding this could have only happened in one of two ways. First, she could have argued she was the sole lawyer of representation for her client, but Baker Hostetler also represented Prevezon. She could also have been allowed into the country if she had a collaborative relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You know, the organization that was considering paying Christopher Steele for his Trump dossier work prepared for Fusion GPS.
Also, Ms Veselnitskaya, on her Facebook page, purportedly had several pro-Hillary Clinton posts and anti-Trump posts.
There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.
What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?"

And John McCain
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you want to present facts, first get ALL of the facts.

http://theresurgent.com/breaking-that-russian-lawyer-has-ties-to-the-group-that-prepared-the-trump-dossier/

Read the whole article. It provides in depth information on ties Dermocrats had with the Russians. But here is a smaller portion re the meeting Trump Jr. had with Veselnitskaya:

"Prevezon, which is a Russian group, hires Fusion GPS and Rinat Akhmetshin to generate negative press coverage on a British citizen. Prevezon also hires as legal counsel both Baker Hostetler and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

"Rinat Akhmetshin also puts Natalia Veselnitskaya on the payroll.
Rinat Akhmetshin, who works in collaboration with Fusion GPS at the time it is preparing the Trump dossier, is an admitted “Soviet counterintelligence officer” who specializes in “subversive political influence operations often involving disinformation and propaganda.”
While all of this is going on, Fusion GPS is working on the opposition research dossier on Donald Trump using a foreign agent. Are we really supposed to believe that it is completely coincidental that Natalia Veselnitskaya just so happens to be the Russian lawyer who got access to Donald Trump, Jr.? Are we to believe that there is no direct relationship between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS?

"It is remarkable how she gets a PR agent to urge Trump, Jr. to meet with her by promising Russian information about Hillary Clinton’s emails as the Clinton email server story is blowing up. And then it is remarkable how she gives a perfect performance to NBC News two days ago claiming she only talked with Trump about the Magnitsky Act, but assured the press that the Trump team was hoping for dirt on Hillary.

"It is also really remarkable that this all happens as Fusion GPS is prepping its opposition dossier and a New York Times reporter who has been following the story admits it was a year ago, at that time, that someone tipped him off about the meeting.

"Add to all of that two more nuggets. Natalia Veselnitskaya had been denied a visa into the United States. She had been given temporary parole, allowing her to enter the country with an expired visa, but it has been revoked by 2016. Still, Veselnitskaya was able to enter the US anyway to meet with Trump, Jr. in the middle of 2016. It is my understanding this could have only happened in one of two ways. First, she could have argued she was the sole lawyer of representation for her client, but Baker Hostetler also represented Prevezon. She could also have been allowed into the country if she had a collaborative relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You know, the organization that was considering paying Christopher Steele for his Trump dossier work prepared for Fusion GPS.
Also, Ms Veselnitskaya, on her Facebook page, purportedly had several pro-Hillary Clinton posts and anti-Trump posts.
There are three questions reporters should be asking right now.
What is the relationship between Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS and Natalia Veselnitskaya?"


Wow love the defense articles. .. again deflection at its best .

Oh for the love of god. Now you are going to say her and McFaul are in cahoots too. People are stirring this sheit up so NOBODY knows what to believe.

But some of this is tinfoilhat territory, up there with #resist and #treason

Huh?

Dude, you are making me defend Trump here - not something I aspire to do. FDact is I am waiting to see if there is a sleight of hand, a last millisecond shift from the meatball driving right down the sweet spot of the plate.

Obama was a socialistic and a communist but never hung out with them

Obama is well know for associating with communists / socialists / radicals

:doh:

Simple concept did canaditate Obama meet with praise the Russians or his campaign people?... No

Did canaditate Trump meet with or praise the Russians or his campaign people yes

Hence hung out with

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/__new/f_obama_putin_150928.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

http://www.russia-direct.org/sites/default/files/field/image/RTSBIO3-obama-castro-625.jpg

https://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20120326&t=2&i=587253543&w=&fh=545px&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=CDEE82P1HB600

That's called being POTUS not hangingout or having qestionable contacts while being a candidate

Oh for the love of god. Now you are going to say her and McFaul are in cahoots too. People are stirring this sheit up so NOBODY knows what to believe.

But some of this is tinfoilhat territory, up there with #resist and #treason

I don't understand the treasonable thing it's not treason don't know what to call it until they conclude the investigation and unlike some on both sides I will accept the outcome

Muller hiring 15 more lawyes? ? For a nothing burger .....

Simple concept did canaditate Obama meet with praise the Russians or his campaign people?... No

Did canaditate Trump meet with or praise the Russians or his campaign people yes

Hence hung out with

Obama started out with praise for Putin (ibtimes 1/9/17):

President Barack Obama first met Russian President Vladimir Putin in July/2009 at Putin’s Dacha, or country home, outside of Moscow, and in spite of the tensions between the two leaders, the men spoke optimistically of a new relationship between their countries.
Obama told Putin, who was then serving as prime minister under his handpicked presidential successor Dmitry Medvedev, that he was aware of “the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people,” and that “We think there’s an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a much stronger footing.” Putin responded to Obama that, “With you we link all our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries.”

There was even a "reset" in relations with Russia during the Obama Presidency handled by his SecState Hillary.

Things changed in the relationship as relations are wont to do. The same will probably happen between Trump and Russia. There are signs they already have. Among other things, Trump's speech in Poland most certainly was not welcomed by Putin.

Get all the facts together, don't just cherry pick or, as you put it, "deflect."

That's called being POTUS not hangingout or having qestionable contacts while being a candidate

So being POTUS exempts one's contacts from being "questionable"? And it absolves one's actions from being considered "hangingout"?
So now that Trump is POTUS, his contacts cannot be considered questionable, nor his actions considered "hangingout."

And who decides what is "questionable"? Isn't it nearly always the case that one considers the actions of those he opposes but can't be proven to be wrong, bad, or illegal, to be "questionable"?

You claimed falsely that Obama never "hung out" with socialists or communists. He did. And he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. Obama's several contacts previous to becoming POTUS were considered "questionable" by those who are anti-communist or anti-radical. Was he "hangingout" then? Was he colluding with left wing elements in our country and other parts of the world either through direct aid or political aid and intellectual or media backing on his way to the presidency?

Well if becoming POTUS absolves Obama of all that, I guess Trump, now being POTUS can be absolved of his "questionable" contacts.

Simple concept did canaditate Obama meet with praise the Russians or his campaign people?... No


Hence hung out with

"HANGIN' OUT"

President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."

Jake Tapper has the exchange:

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

"HANGIN' OUT"

President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."

Jake Tapper has the exchange:

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

is this your gotcha quote? and are they the same thing one president asking an out going one to give a message to the new one Theses issues can be solved ??? and he still got reelected no scandal no collusion suggestions ...

not sure how you see that and possibly having the Russians intentionally mess in our elections .. and Trumps people and himself asking for their help “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”


Russian agents hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email account in a bid to disrupt the 2016 election. This claim has been affirmed by every branch of the American national security state, virtually every member of Congress from either party


Trump is arguing that the Democratic National Committee — and, later, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — deliberately allowed their politically damaging emails to be hacked and published, so that they would have a ready-made excuse for losing the election. Thanks to their friends in the “deep state,” this worked. And now, the FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, top White House national security officials, and entire Republican Party are carrying water for this Democratic hoax.

Sure they are the same thing

Obama started out with praise for Putin (ibtimes 1/9/17):

President Barack Obama first met Russian President Vladimir Putin in July/2009 at Putin’s Dacha, or country home, outside of Moscow, and in spite of the tensions between the two leaders, the men spoke optimistically of a new relationship between their countries.
Obama told Putin, who was then serving as prime minister under his handpicked presidential successor Dmitry Medvedev, that he was aware of “the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people,” and that “We think there’s an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a much stronger footing.” Putin responded to Obama that, “With you we link all our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries.”

There was even a "reset" in relations with Russia during the Obama Presidency handled by his SecState Hillary.

Things changed in the relationship as relations are wont to do. The same will probably happen between Trump and Russia. There are signs they already have. Among other things, Trump's speech in Poland most certainly was not welcomed by Putin.

Get all the facts together, don't just cherry pick or, as you put it, "deflect."


Was this before they invaded ukraine Seems you need to put your facts with a time line of world events ... it matters As Trump plays nice with Putin its about facts and time lines .. as well

So being POTUS exempts one's contacts from being "questionable"? And it absolves one's actions from being considered "hangingout"?
So now that Trump is POTUS, his contacts cannot be considered questionable, nor his actions considered "hangingout."

And who decides what is "questionable"? Isn't it nearly always the case that one considers the actions of those he opposes but can't be proven to be wrong, bad, or illegal, to be "questionable"?

You claimed falsely that Obama never "hung out" with socialists or communists. He did. And he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. Obama's several contacts previous to becoming POTUS were considered "questionable" by those who are anti-communist or anti-radical. Was he "hangingout" then? Was he colluding with left wing elements in our country and other parts of the world either through direct aid or political aid and intellectual or media backing on his way to the presidency?

Well if becoming POTUS absolves Obama of all that, I guess Trump, now being POTUS can be absolved of his "questionable" contacts.


he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. this statement alone is why I ignore your posts you love to sprinkle these little prejudice comments in your well written rants .. plese get back to me when you have info these questionable people ... hacked our election or were agents of a foreign power ...

is this your gotcha quote?



this would be secret collusion with the Russians intending and expressing the willingness to avoid/side step congress....

Obama also secretly colluded with the Iranians....which confirmed that he was perfectly willing to do the above

the Russians and Iranians both ran rings around feckless Obama and his arrogant naiveté.....


and who could forget "Pictured together, Hillary Clinton, her husband and the Chinese billionaire accused of being front for Communist bid to influence election"


these things bother me as much if not more than anything Trump has been shown to be involved in .....


you constantly move the bar to suit your arguments....very "Trumpian"

Huh?

Dude, you are making me defend Trump here - not something I aspire to do.



that's the "Trump Effect".....it hurts, it's not in your nature, you really don't want to... but the left and media have gone so full speed whacko that they make you shake your head(have you seen Eben's posts lately?) and he comes out of each debacle looking much better than he otherwise should :huh:

if Wayne is looking for some talking points with which to bash Trump he should frequent the National Review website(Conservative bible)...no shortage of articles hammering the President and his team and there actions on a daily basis

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449480/donald-trump-russia-witch-hunt-narrative-hard-believe

not only was the left and media responsible for the election of Trump...they are responsible for his longevity as well :rotflmao:

Simple concept did canaditate Obama meet with praise the Russians or his campaign people?... No

Did canaditate Trump meet with or praise the Russians or his campaign people yes

Hence hung out with
And he didn't do it on a Thursday after eating a Reuben. Simple: he met, praised, and respected Communists and Socialists for most of his life - before and during his presidency.



I don't understand the treasonable thing it's not treason don't know what to call it until they conclude the investigation and unlike some on both sides I will accept the outcome

Muller hiring 15 more lawyes? ? For a nothing burger .....

Ohh, there is something wrong, possibly even criminal. But we have half the country on the fainting counch or grabbing torchesd and pitchforks. You have supposedly smart people calling "Treason". Know the definition of Treason? None of this reaches that. Period. Prove Me Wrong.

that's the "Trump Effect".....it hurts, it's not in your nature, you really don't want to... but the left and media have gone so full speed whacko that they make you shake your head(have you seen Eben's posts lately?) and he comes out of each debacle looking much better than he otherwise should :huh:
:rotflmao:

No - he does not look better - he has not looked better other than tiny brief periods. Hardly has he looked good.

he has not looked better other than tiny brief periods.



that's something, I'm sure he'd consider it a bigly win :hihi:

Was this before they invaded ukraine Seems you need to put your facts with a time line of world events ... it matters As Trump plays nice with Putin its about facts and time lines .. as well

Your time line of world events is squeezed into a small slot which you think supports your argument. The truer time line of "world events" shows Putin to have been a lieutenant cornel in the KGB. It shows his transition from that to political power as President of Russia after the KGB undercut Gorbachev's "glasnost" and "perestroika" and Yeltsin's attempt to liberate Russia from the clutches of a KGB type dictatorship and to be more in accord with western democracy.

http://www.economist.com/node/9682621

This was well before the invasion of the Ukraine. The invasion was, actually, an attempt to begin the restoration of Russian control of East Europe. So the invasion was actually connected to the old KGB control of Russia. Putin was the same KGB type operative during the Ukraine invasion as he was well before Obama became President.

And Obama surely knew that. It was probably what he referred to when he praised Putin for the "extraordinary work you have done on behalf of the Russian people"--Putin had broken the power of the oligarchs who had risen during the Yeltsin administration. And it was exactly the type of politics Obama would favor--the control of the big money guys by government--socialism.

If Putin's invasion of the Ukraine changed Obama's opinion of him, just as FDR realized he had been suckered by Stalin when he let the Commie dictator take over East Europe, who knows what Trump's opinion of Putin would be if he did such a thing again.

So it's your facts and time line that are lacking. The relevant time line does not does not show that Obama's praise for Putin is more justified than Trump's. You keep straining and deflecting in order to make Trump some sort of boobocrat who is more dangerous than other Presidents we have had. The facts and time lines don't support that.

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

reminds me of the Clinton years

good news is...Trump will be gone possibly in a matter of months and definitely in a couple of years....bad news is people will continue to reelect the corpses in Congress who are also "running" the country

And don't remember Clinton saying things like that in front of the spouse - I'm sure he thought it (numerous times).

Sanders said something like Hillary was better on her worse day than Trump would be on his best day. I would add every Repub. candidate to that statement ( better).

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

You're kidding right? It was a compliment. Are those offensive now too . What a country you left wingers would have if left alone .. except for the war with Russia that you keep begging for 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

man... Bill Clinton would have a tough go of it with the current leftist standards for behavior :kewl:

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

He said she looked fit , beautiful !! You act like he said she had nice booty and a great rack .
I can't believe how many Saints now reside oh the party of "God is bad"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Said great shape. The guy is a pervert and has no self control.

And now we learn that Donald Jr. had another visitor w/him - a former Russian counter intelligence officer (Sen. Grassley said he had ties to the Russian government). Another lie (one of many). He just said Tues. that he released everything but forgot to mention this.

I'm shocked at how bad liars the Trump family is. Lie for the sake of lying - no strategy, nothing.

Witch hunt - LOL

Said great shape. The guy is a pervert and has no self control.

that's nearly as horrifying as Ted Kennedy's "waitress sandwich"...speaking of no self control...and he was in Washington for like a hundred years and serious democrat presidential candidate and icon


great shape?.....good grief


"It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant’s annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. “They’d always get their girls very, very drunk,” says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells [waitress Carla] Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check."



don't think Trump can trump that :cheers:

Some guy I hardly knows says your wife has great shape I tell him he is a dic*.

Some guy I hardly knows says your wife has great shape I tell him he is a dic*.

In all seriousness, is this a joke? The party of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, is now lecturing the world on how to act in front of your wife, when other women are around?

The left recently attacked Mike Pence because he goes in the other direction, he doesn't even like being alone with any woman other than his wife.

And somehow that was offensive to the left. And Trump, at the other extreme, is also offensive to the left.

It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1125039
It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?[/QUOTE]

That is funny from the most prolific whiner on the Forum. You complained about anything and everything Obama did. Including getting so upset you called him a POS. And Hillary the c word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I missed the announcement that it was OK to cheat on your wife with a child, or to drunkenly drive a young girl off a bridge, leave her, and then use the family money to dodge responsibility. That was OK when those things took place?

Trump is very crass, very boorish, and had no problem with objectifying women.

"he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance "

Have times changed that much since Bill Clinton and John Edwards? You don't have to go back all that far.

Trump has very, very poor ethics. I have no problem, none, for calling him out on that...unless you give others a pass for ding worse, because they have a (d) after their name.

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you allow lunitics to set the standards , what's "acceptable " becomes loony .
Glad I work with normal people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is funny from the most prolific whiner on the Forum. You complained about anything and everything Obama did. Including getting so upset you called him a POS. And Hillary the c word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Obama do that I complained about, which I routinely give conservatives a pass for?

I stand by those characterizations of Obama, and especially Hilary. I also say that Trump is a POS. Sure, I complained a lot during the Obama years. That doesn't mean I am guilty of hypocrisy.
.

If you allow lunitics to set the standards , what's "acceptable " becomes loony .
Glad I work with normal people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Trump used that same comment to compliment the wife of a friend that they socialize with on a regular basis, that's totally acceptable comment. If you don't see that it's off base for the president of the united states to comment on a leaders wife body, then sit against the wall at lunch break and whistle at the women you feel are hot as they make their way back to work.

It wasn't right of JFK, but back then it was more of a Men's world and he might have gotten a pass that leaders today certainly wouldn't. It certainly wasn't right for Bill Clinton either, that's an abuse of power, whether your the leader of the free world or your local church.

I don't consider it "acceptable" behavior, I'd consider it respectful and the behavior most of the people (of either party)I know would expect of the president of this country. I'm embarrassed at times to see the crap coming out of his mouth, or the BS he spews over twitter, I have no respect for the man.

If Trump used that same comment to compliment the wife of a friend that they socialize with on a regular basis, that's totally acceptable comment. If you don't see that it's off base for the president of the united states to comment on a leaders wife body, then sit against the wall at lunch break and whistle at the women you feel are hot as they make their way back to work.

It wasn't right of JFK, but back then it was more of a Men's world and he might have gotten a pass that leaders today certainly wouldn't. It certainly wasn't right for Bill Clinton either, that's an abuse of power, whether your the leader of the free world or your local church.

I don't consider it "acceptable" behavior, I'd consider it respectful and the behavior most of the people (of either party)I know would expect of the president of this country. I'm embarrassed at times to see the crap coming out of his mouth, or the BS he spews over twitter, I have no respect for the man.

His personal behavior is going to fall short, much of the time. Deep down, he's a jerk, or gross, or boorish, something like that.

But if he ran against the serially dishonest pantsuit lady tomorrow, I'd vote for him again. I'd love to have a president of high personal character. The GOP tried that in 2008 and 2012, the country wasn't interested.

I have to admit that PaulS sounds a little silly considering Clinton got blown in the White House. Maybe times hadn't changed yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good to see see seadangles's is back with his typical insults. Nothing constructive ever to add, just childish insults. What do you do lurk until you can't take it anymore and then feel like you have to comment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good to see see seadangles's is back with his typical insults.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's an insult? :huh:.....good thing he didn't tell you that you were in "great shape" :musc:..wait...is it ok to comment that a guy is in "great shape" but not that a woman is in "great shape" in the era of "gender equity"?



love this....

"Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed with Chinese interference in a presidential election. This summer we mark the 20th anniversary of a major investigation by Congress of attempts by a hostile foreign power to influence an American presidential election. I’m glad the news media is pursuing the Trump–Russia scandal, but let’s not forget the differences between how they are covering Russia compared with how they reported a similar story — this one involving Communist China — that developed during Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. The Washington Post reported in 1998 that “evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.” Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?” According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana."

We need to demand better from all of the them, all the time

We need to demand better from all of the them, all the time

sure but...in a world of constantly changing rules(times)...it's hard to know what to demand

sure but...in a world of constantly changing rules(times)...it's hard to know what to demand

how about honesty, integrity and truth? maybe do actual journalism not opinion tin foil conspiracy bull and let the audience decide. instead we get more dividing the country


I know one thing, I can only control what I can control so what I say here won't change anything.

how about honesty, integrity and truth? maybe do actual journalism not opinion tin foil conspiracy bull and let the audience decide. instead we get more dividing the country

.

So when you think of President Trump, the words honesty, integrity and truth come to mind?

that was focused on the media and you know that, but don't let that change the subject of my reply . :1poke:


to answer your question directly with a yes or no, that would be a no of course.

like I said, I can only control what I can

If our president is more conservative than the last one, then that is a great thing for the country in my opinion, you are entitled to your opinion.

So you want the press to have attributes that our Pres. doesn't even have.

Very rarely have I commented on the politics of Pres. Trump. The vast majority have been on his (lack of) honesty.

What tin foil conspiricies - Russia? So everyone should just ignore the constant lies, shifting explanations and unusual interactions concerning Russia?

So you want the press to have attributes that our Pres. doesn't even have.

Very rarely have I commented on the politics of Pres. Trump. The vast majority have been on his (lack of) honesty.

What tin foil conspiricies - Russia? So everyone should just ignore the constant lies, shifting explanations and unusual interactions concerning Russia?

did I say I want that?

I want less government, not more ok?


Russia? collusion? waste of taxpayer money investigating to find out if there was any crime when nothing happened. When they get to the bottom of the witch hunt, I'm sure they will let us all know about it.


Is this more of trying to shame me for not voting for Hillary or you just trying to show you'd rather see the country fail than Trump succeed ? Or maybe you think I am not smart enough to realize we elected a worse candidate than who lost? It is July, it's over with.

did I say I want that?No, but you clearly have different standards for different people then. how is that?

I want less government, not more ok?


Russia? collusion? waste of taxpayer money investigating to find out if there was any crime when nothing happened. When they get to the bottom of the witch hunt, I'm sure they will let us all know about it. So you want to just dismiss all of the lies and interactions of the Trump team and the Russian interference? I'm sure you wanted the same after the 1st Bengahzi investigation.


Is this more of trying to shame me for not voting for Hillary or you There is no shame in not voting for her and I've never said any such thing. It is the constant dismissing of anything to do w/the Russians. Was there collusion - we won't know until there is an investigation. Why not let it proceed and see where it goes?just trying to show you'd rather see the country fail than Trump succeed ? Hmm, can't recall saying that. or even impling that. Or maybe you think I am not smart enough to realize we elected a worse candidate than who lost? It is July, it's over with.

NM

So you want the press to have attributes that our Pres. doesn't even have.

Very rarely have I commented on the politics of Pres. Trump. The vast majority have been on his (lack of) honesty.

What tin foil conspiricies - Russia? So everyone should just ignore the constant lies, shifting explanations and unusual interactions concerning Russia?

"So you want the press to have attributes that our Pres. doesn't even have."

You're better than that. He didn't say he doesn't want the POTUS to have those attributes, but he's honest enough to admit that, sadly, this POTUS doesn't have those attributes

Integrity was not on the ballot in the 2016 general election. Not on either side. Trump is more offensive on the immediate surface than Hilary is, but if you look at her carefully at all, I think there's zero ethics or integrity. Zip. Just ambition.

NM

"It is the constant dismissing of anything to do w/the Russians."

The reason we brushed it off, is because - until the Trump Jr email - there was absolutely no evidence that anything happened. Now we have evidence that Trump Jr wanted to collude to get some opposition research.

"Why not let it proceed and see where it goes"

Who is saying not to let it proceed? Have at it!

"It is the constant dismissing of anything to do w/the Russians."

The reason we brushed it off, is because - until the Trump Jr email - there was absolutely no evidence that anything happened.Just the constant lying of meeting w/Russians. Now we have evidence that Trump Jr wanted to collude to get some opposition research.Correct - "wanted"

"Why not let it proceed and see where it goes"

Who is saying not to let it proceed? Bruce is. He has called it a witch hunt repeatedly. Have at it!


NM

NM

I don't know what "NM" means...

"Just the constant lying of meeting w/Russians"

But zero evidence of collusion.

"Correct - "wanted""

Right. Trump Jr wanted to collude with the Russians to get dirt on Hilary. I don't think that's up for debate. It's a horrible lack of judgment.

"Bruce is. He has called it a witch hunt repeatedly"

What the media did with it, was a witch hunt. That's just my opinion. The media stopped being in the hard news business, and entered the "get Trump" business.

Here's a question I keep asking, and I have never seen addressed, not once, anywhere. Were any of the leaked emails that supposedly hurt Hilary in the election, false or doctored? What I mena is, is there any debate about whether or not she was guilty of doing the things that were in those emails?

Because the liberals want me to believe that leaking those emails cost her the election. Fine, let's say I agree with that (which I don't). If honestly revealing her actions cost her the election, then how come NO ONE is asking her why she did the things she did?

Aren't her actions, a bigger story than how we learned about her actions?

I'm not saying ignore the Russian involvement, we need to look into that.

NM - No message bc everything was answered in the body. System won't let you respond if it thinks you didn't type a response.

I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion - just the possibility and there is enough things to make an investigation seem warranted. That doesn't make it a "witch hunt" (which I think Bengahzi was after the first investigation).

Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves by their constantly changing their stories and leaving out what Russians they interacted with bf the election. Trump also tries to bully the press (like he probably used to do w/his business assoc.) and the press is pushing back . So when you call someone evil they are going to get even.

I guess the topic of the G20, if that ever was the topic, has slid into the inevitable Trump collusion bit--all roads lead to "collusion."

It still isn't clear to me what is meant by "collusion" here. Getting info, if factual, is not a negative collusion unless disseminating truth is. Getting truthful information, even from a foreign government, does not interfere with the process of our elections. It does the opposite. It helps to clarify the issues for the voters.

Whether or not if I "approve" of hiding or lying about meetings the kind of which a media and the opposition Dems are figuratively foaming at the mouth to paint as proof of collusion, I can understand why the dissembling by the Trumps is done--just as those who supported the Clintons didn't fault Hillary when she tried to cover up, "lie" about, her husband's affairs. Hillary's cover-ups were considered a sign of a faithful, dutiful wife, so quite understandable. And Bill's affairs were not considered by those on the left as relevant nor an "interference" in the election process.

But lying under oath is a different and legal matter.

Curious as to why wdmso, when somebody mentions Benghazi, even when that person is doing so in retort to a Benghazi remark, refers to it as "clinging" to Benghazi. But when some others whom he agrees with (even himself) does it, it's not "clinging" anymore.

NM - No message bc everything was answered in the body. System won't let you respond if it thinks you didn't type a response.

I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion - just the possibility and there is enough things to make an investigation seem warranted. That doesn't make it a "witch hunt" (which I think Bengahzi was after the first investigation).

Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves by their constantly changing their stories and leaving out what Russians they interacted with bf the election. Trump also tries to bully the press (like he probably used to do w/his business assoc.) and the press is pushing back . So when you call someone evil they are going to get even.

"I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion "

The media devotes half its airtime to the story. As it turns out, they were likely correct. Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story.

"Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves "

I agree he brings much of it on himself. However, the media has become the public relations arm of the Democratic party. All of the coverage of democrats is favorable, all of the coverage of republicans is negative. So while I agree with you that Trump gives them extra ammunition to use, the media would still be engaging in yellow journalism even the GOP nominated a genuinely nice guy, because that's what happened when they nominated Romney.

And Hilary brought much of this on herself, by engaging in the questionable actions that were revealed in the leaked emails. Do you agree?

"Trump also tries to bully the press"

Because they will never, ever give him a fair deal. Never, I'm not saying the media has to lie to make him look bad, he makes that easy for them. But he could be a choir boy like Romney, and they would still be determined to make him look bad. He recognizes that, and doesn't try to make nice with them.

If you think his relationship with the media is a net negative to Trump, I disagree. A lot of people recognize how biased the media has become, and rally around Trump because he calls them out on it so bluntly. It helped get him elected.

I'd say Trump and the media probably deserve each other. The difference is, it's helping Trump, and while Trump is helping MSNBC (whose ratings had nowhere to go but up), CNN has become a laughing stock.

"I (and I think many/most? other people who feel this needs to be looked into) haven't said there is collusion "

The media devotes half its airtime to the story. As it turns out, they were likely correct. Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story.

"Trump (and team) have brought all of this on themselves "

I agree he brings much of it on himself. However, the media has become the public relations arm of the Democratic party. All of the coverage of democrats is favorable, all of the coverage of republicans is negative. So while I agree with you that Trump gives them extra ammunition to use, the media would still be engaging in yellow journalism even the GOP nominated a genuinely nice guy, because that's what happened when they nominated Romney.

And Hilary brought much of this on herself, by engaging in the questionable actions that were revealed in the leaked emails. Do you agree?

"Trump also tries to bully the press"

Because they will never, ever give him a fair deal. Never, I'm not saying the media has to lie to make him look bad, he makes that easy for them. But he could be a choir boy like Romney, and they would still be determined to make him look bad. He recognizes that, and doesn't try to make nice with them.

If you think his relationship with the media is a net negative to Trump, I disagree. A lot of people recognize how biased the media has become, and rally around Trump because he calls them out on it so bluntly. It helped get him elected.

I'd say Trump and the media probably deserve each other. The difference is, it's helping Trump, and while Trump is helping MSNBC (whose ratings had nowhere to go but up), CNN has become a laughing stock.

I agree with everything you said. But two things, which I don't disagree with, but which need a bit of amplification.

First, "Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story." Yes, it's legitimate, but so what? Is it because they were Russian that it's so important and supposedly wrong or treasonous? If they had been British would it have been wrong or treasonous? We're not at war with Russia. If somebody has so-called "dirt" on your opposition, what's wrong with getting it? It has happened time and again. What's wrong is if the info is false. Lots of "dirt" against Trump has been openly sought and received. Some has been given by foreigners. Somehow, if Trump gets "dirt" on Hillary, that "interferes" with the election. But getting dirt on Trump is a good thing. It doesn't interfere with the election. It is not collusion. It facilitates things, and the Press, rather than criticizing it, is more than willing to spend weeks on talking about it. You know--spreading the good information to help decide an election.

As for Trump bullying the Press, bullying is a prime tool of the Press. The Press has always bullied whoever it wants to be defeated. They don't like getting bullied back. Boo-hoo cry babies. If you don't want to be bullied, don't bully. Be more "fair and balanced."

Getting info, if factual, is not a negative collusion unless disseminating truth is. Getting truthful information, even from a foreign government, does not interfere with the process of our elections. It does the opposite. It helps to clarify the issues for the voters.

.

I brought this up too, and got zilch for a response.

How come no one is talking about whether or not the "dirt" revealed in the leaked emails is accurate or nor, and if so, how come NO ONE is talking about what that says about Hilary?

Hilary hasn't denied (that I know of) the accusations revealed in the emails. So I presume they are true. And yet no one cares about the truth that was revealed, we only care about who colluded with whom, to reveal the truth.

If they had been British would it have been wrong or treasonous? We're not at war with Russia. If somebody has so-called "dirt" on your opposition, what's wrong with getting it? It has happened time and again. What's wrong is if the info is false. Lots of "dirt" against Trump has been openly sought and received. Some has been given by foreigners. Somehow, if Trump gets "dirt" on Hillary, that "interferes" with the election. But getting dirt on Trump is a good thing. It doesn't interfere with the election. It is not collusion.



the left has openly sought dirt and offered big cash prizes for dirt on political opponents in the past....and I thought we were all "citizens of the world"...so what do borders really mean at election time?

Pour Trump, how he gets sleep at night over the "witch hunt" is beyond me. Seems many on this board see no issue with meeting with whomever to get the "dirt" on the competition. I personally agree with what the new FBI director stated when questioned about someone being approached like that, it absolutely is something that the FBI should be made aware of and the meeting should be refused.

This isn't Israel, the UK, Japan or Australia we are talking about; this is Putin and a long time enemy of the US. We going to OK getting dirt the next election from China or North Korea? Putin is intent on messing with our democracy and our election process, meeting with any representative proclaiming in writing the intent is to aid the Trump bid for the white house and influence that process is borderline collusion from the minute you accept that meeting.

Where are Trump's tax records and full disclosure about his business interests in Russia? I would agree again with the new FBI directors response, this is NO witch hunt; but I wish the hell they would get it done and wrap it up. I can't even order a Rubin for God's sake, because it has Russian dressing on it and I've had all the Fing Russia I can take.

Two of the worst candidates won the parties nomination and we are now suffering for it.

I agree with everything you said. But two things, which I don't disagree with, but which need a bit of amplification.

First, "Trump Jr at least met with Russians in the hopes of getting dirt on Hilary. It's a legitimate story." Yes, it's legitimate, but so what? Is it because they were Russian that it's so important and supposedly wrong or treasonous? If they had been British would it have been wrong or treasonous? We're not at war with Russia. If somebody has so-called "dirt" on your opposition, what's wrong with getting it? It has happened time and again. What's wrong is if the info is false. Lots of "dirt" against Trump has been openly sought and received. Some has been given by foreigners. Somehow, if Trump gets "dirt" on Hillary, that "interferes" with the election. But getting dirt on Trump is a good thing. It doesn't interfere with the election. It is not collusion. It facilitates things, and the Press, rather than criticizing it, is more than willing to spend weeks on talking about it. You know--spreading the good information to help decide an election.

As for Trump bullying the Press, bullying is a prime tool of the Press. The Press has always bullied whoever it wants to be defeated. They don't like getting bullied back. Boo-hoo cry babies. If you don't want to be bullied, don't bully. Be more "fair and balanced."

"Yes, it's legitimate, but so what? Is it because they were Russian that it's so important and supposedly wrong or treasonous? If they had been British would it have been wrong or treasonous? We're not at war with Russia."

Agreed, but they are not an ally of ours, nor are they an ally of the notion of peace or stability.

"If they had been British would it have been wrong or treasonous?"

A great, fair question. My guess is, the media would still act like this was treason. And since Obama mocked Romney not that long ago for describing Russia as an adversary (boy, NOBODY seems to remember that), I'm not sure why it's as big a story as it is. But it seems a bit inappropriate for a campaign to enlist the help of a nation that...well we're not at war with, but they can't be called close allies of ours, either.

In any event, how we got the info shouldn't be (isn't) nearly as important as the fact that Hilary actually did the things that are in the emails. But the media isn't talking about that at all, it's completely buried.

"Lots of "dirt" against Trump has been openly sought and received. Some has been given by foreigners."

That, I can explain for you, easily. There is limitless hypocrisy on the left, and a limitless double standard that is applied.

this is Putin and a long time enemy of the US. We going to OK getting dirt the next election from China or North Korea? Putin is intent on messing with our democracy and our election process, meeting with any representative proclaiming in writing the intent is to aid the Trump bid for the white house and influence that process is borderline collusion from the minute you accept that meeting.

Where are Trump's tax records and full disclosure about his business interests in Russia? I would agree again with the new FBI directors response, this is NO witch hunt; but I wish the hell they would get it done and wrap it up. I can't even order a Rubin for God's sake, because it has Russian dressing on it and I've had all the Fing Russia I can take.

Two of the worst candidates won the parties nomination and we are now suffering for it.

"this is Putin and a long time enemy of the US."

Funny, that "long time" must not go back as far as the 2012 campaign. Because when Romney said Russia was going to be a problem, Obama said "hey Mitt, the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back!!" And the media loved it, and sure as hell didn't question the Messiah. So when did we become adversaries with Russia, I wonder? Answer - as soon as it was convenient for the media to use as a club against those with whom they disagree.

Look, I don't like what Trump Jr did, not at all. But we should be honest about what's happening here.

And again, you and Paul are going on and on about the collusion with Russia, which is fine. But have you commented at all on the issue that really matters, which is that Hilary was engaging in some very unethical behavior, which was what the emails revealed, which supposedly turned the tide of the election. If she wasn't doing unethical things, this never would have happened.

You are more concerned about how we got the dirt, than you are with the fact that she was dirty. And I don't get that.

During the Watergate scandal, we didn't focus 99% of our attention on finding out who Deep Throat was. The emphasis was on what took place.

the list of democrat politicians and related others relationships with questionable foreign characters is quite lengthy :read:

not defending trump world but this goes to the hypocrisy that was mentioned...if it's working for them it's brilliant, forward thinking, great strategy....if it's working against them it borders on treason...

and they still don't get it...maybe never will....yawn :bl:

Trump had a 2nd undeclosed meeting with Putin at the g20

just him and Putin and and Putin''s interptrer ... can't wait to hear the justifications. ... or is this another one of thoses meetings any politicians would have taken

Trump had a 2nd undeclosed meeting with Putin at the g20

just him and Putin and and Putin''s interptrer ... can't wait to hear the justifications. ... or is this another one of thoses meetings any politicians would have taken

haaa...and you said he didn't do anything at the G20:rolleyes:

Trump had a 2nd undeclosed meeting with Putin at the g20

just him and Putin and and Putin''s interptrer ... can't wait to hear the justifications. ... or is this another one of thoses meetings any politicians would have taken

Well he is the President of the United States
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump had a 2nd undeclosed meeting with Putin at the g20

just him and Putin and and Putin''s interptrer ... can't wait to hear the justifications. ... or is this another one of thoses meetings any politicians would have taken

Why on earth does the President of the U.S. have to justify talking to the leader of another country?

Trump also talked to other leaders and wives at the dinner for the G20 leaders a few days after the G20 summit was over. It was not a formal "meeting." I guess the discussions with the other leaders were also secret so must be disclosed and justified. The whole thing was on camera. The other leaders saw Trump talking to Putin. Trump was obviously not hiding that he talked to Putin. The talk was able to be disclosed because it was not secret. It was in full view of all the world leaders attending, as well as various staff and camera people. What a way to undisclose something.

Each leader was allowed only one translator and Trump's translator spoke Japanese but didn't speak Russian. Putin's translator spoke English so he was able to facilitate the conversation which was actually briefer than the approximate hour that a witness claimed it took in that each phrase had to be spoken then translated. The conversation may have actually taken a half hour or less.

No doubt Trump and Putin were colluding about something or other. Maybe they were still colluding the election. Or preparing to collude the next one. Oh, that's right, they were colluding how to make Russia and America great again. And how to screw the rest of the world. Of course, Trump being such a boob-dummy, Putin would fake him out and take over our elections and country in the next four years.

And the media is in a batpoop frenzy over the secret, undisclosed, troubling and suspicious conversation that took place in full view of the several world leaders and their wives and staff and which just raises more questions. Well, yeah, the media raises the questions. And their ratings go up!

It's a crazy, funny circus.