But hea Kushner and Flynn sat down in December at Trump Tower with Sergey Kislyak, according to a senior administration official, who described it as an "introductory meeting" and "kind of an inconsequential hello."
The meeting lasted for about 10 minutes, the official added. I know busy ambassadors run around for 10 min meetings

Gordon told CNN that along with national security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares, Gordon stressed to the Russian envoy that he would like to improve relations with Russia. Gordon added that at no time did any inappropriate chatter come up about colluding with the Russians to aid the Trump campaign.

they Never asked them to stop hacking meddling
in our election

and this is FOX news answer:

The longtime Russian ambassador met with seven then-Democratic senators in a single sit-down in 2013, among other discussions – and reportedly was a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

and then you have House Speaker Paul Ryan put it Thursday, “We meet with ambassadors all the time.”

Let's see. Here in this thread you make a Trumpian sort of misspeak by saying "bar" instead of "goalpost." Now, when Trump does that sort of thing, it's called a lie.

Then you try to claim that the "bar" (goalpost) was not moved, but that it was "created." Actually, that's just another way, a parsing, to say that the goalpost was moved--just create another goalpost in a different spot. That is, moving the goalpost from the position of answering the question from the context in which it is asked to the position of answering it in a broader context.

So you used the moved goalpost to infer that Sessions "lied." That his answer (his kick) didn't go through the uprights. But it actually did. It went squarely through the uprights of the first position of the goalpost. Your moving it to another position made it impossible for the kick to be good, to be true. Ergo, you manufactured a Sessions' "lie."

You also attribute, in this thread, two "lies" to Trump by parsing "lie" to being "not correct . . . time and again." Or Proven to be not true." Well, not correct is not a lie unless it is intended to be so. Nor, likewise, is "not being true." But not only is the "time and again" an unsubstantiated statement, but your "proved to be not true" is incorrect, not true. Your example of Trump's "didn't think" that his people where colluding with Russians is not only, on its face, not provable (you can't prove that he didn't think something), but your example of his campaign members "repeated contacts with Russian intelligence agencies" was not proven to be campaign collusion, as I pointed out in the Times article, nor even proved whether those conversations had anything to do with Trump. So your proof amounts to innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations for which there is no real evidence.

Now I'm not going to call these accusations lies, but when Trump says stuff like this, it is said that he lies--even by you. So I don't know if you're out and out lying, but your statements and misuse of words, just in this thread, would be called lies by folks like you if they came out of Trump's mouth. That's why I said "sort of what happens to Trump when he makes mistakes."

And, then, there is called a lie of omission. I asked for comments a few times, once in this thread to you, about the classified leaks against Trump. I asked if you had anything to say about those. They are real, not just foggy accusations. They are illegal and a threat to national security. Did you just forget, or did you intentionally omit to make a comment--a lie of omission? Maybe like you would accuse Sessions of?

I'm not accusing you of lying. But can you see how throwing out the word "lie," like the word "racist" and others, in loose, haphazard manner, ain't nice, and no way to make reputable argument or civil discussion?

I couldn't make it through the whole post. Got as far as the 2nd sentence

That demonstrates why you think the way you do and say the things you say. Lack of information leads to false conclusions. Which, if you're Trump, will be called lies. And what is humorous is that what you say you couldn't make it through is pasted in italics right above your disclaimer. Those reading your post of self-willed ignorance will see that which you are ignorant of. And it doesn't make you look good.

But ignorance, they say, is bliss. Stay happy.

I know you have said in the past "what difference does it make" when I have pointed his glaring lies.

Keep defending a liar - shows a lack of morals on your part (see I can do that too).

See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual lies, whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie.

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump.

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

doesn't the left traditionally hate and mock morality and those who speak of it...suddenly it's a big deal???

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
See, there you go lying again. I have not defended his actual lies

PaulS :At one point in the past you said "what difference does it make",[Detbuch: in debating with you, it often doesn't make any difference. If you specifically bring up what I was referring to, I might be able to give you a more specific answer.

whatever they may have been. I have certainly pointed out that what was called a lie wasn't actually a lie.

PaulS: Can you give me an example Detbuch: I gave you some examples in the thread where you couldn't get past the second sentence,

And, again, you deflect and refuse to comment on the illegal leaking of classified information that tries to undermine Trump.

PaulS: When dd you ask me? How did I "deflect"? And why do you think someone has to respond to everything you say? Detbuch: In post #37 of the Sessions thread. And you don't have to respond to everything I say. But when you respond to most of the minor, unimportant stuff and not the more significant, it sure looks like your dodging, deflecting, moving goal posts, and "lying" by omission.

Yet you, somehow, seem to picture yourself as more moral than Trump.

PaulS: I actually do.. In fact, I would say the majority of the people who regularly post on this forum seem to have more morals than Pres. Trump in my opinion.

Yes you do have a high opinion of yourself. And, like Trump, you know how to make someone you don't like look like an immoral liar.

Why this massive daily frenzy over something for which there is no evidence? But even if there was some collusion, why not treat it like all the foreign collusions and inner surveillances that have gone on before? When Ted Kennedy asked the Russians in 1983 to help defeat Reagan in the upcoming 1984 election, and that was exposed later, WHILE KENNEDY WAS STILL A SITTING SENATOR, there was no media uproar, no congressional investigation, no tiny slap on the wrist, no call for him to step down . . . nothing. When Obama blatantly interfered with the re-election of Netanyahu--no big deal. No little deal. Not to worry. When Obama surveilled journalists that did stuff he didn't like--just a little blip, then gone. When we all removed Saddam Hussein there was later a big hullabaloo against Bush, but helping to remove Gaddafi and straining to remove Assad, no problem. When FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet agents who helped to turn China over to Mao and all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin, eh, the way the cookie crumbles. FDR's reputation was not tarnished. He is one of the Democrat's icons.

There does seem to be a pattern. When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

Trump brings some of this upon himself with his childish rants. But a fair amount of anti-Trump coverage is what you correctly labeled as naked hypocrisy.

The refugee ban, for example. Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months (because he concluded it wasn't safe for us to take any), and he gets to keep his Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Clinton banned refugees from Sierra Leone, and he's a hero. Trump does it, and he's the devil.

Yes, I do have a high opinion of myself. If you think a thrice married, serial liar (:biglaugh:) who has a long history of bankruptcy and stiffing people has more morals than you, then perhaps you need to reexamine your actions.

Bill Clinton isn't known for being a gentleman, and Hilary has been known to bend the truth. But again, it's only a character flaw when Republicans do it.

I would bet you, Paul, are a much better human being than Trump is. The Clintons? Not so much.

I am not interested in Trump. It is tiresome to constantly be hearing, reading, talking about Trump. I didn't know much, nothing of significance, about him until he became a presidential candidate. The only emotional, guttural, "feeling" I associated with him (watched a small part of one of his Apprentice shows, couldn't stomach more than that) was a mild dislike. Then, as candidate, the supposed "truth" about him became the subject du jour. The dirt was suddenly "exposed." He became this nasty, evil brute who hated and mistreated everybody but himself. The quintessential narcissist.

Seemed strange that who was once one of the golden boys could so quickly fall so low. Felt a little sorry for him. But watching his performances, first against the mealy mouthed Republicans who were afraid that their shadow might not look right and tried to appear to be saying the right things in correct ways (except maybe Cruz a little bit), then against insufferable Hillary, and then against the sanctimonious Press, I began to have some admiration for his fearless responses and even his supposedly outrageous claims. He actually began to be more likeable, more human, foibles and all. Stories about the good and charitable things he had done were more believable. The outstanding way his children turned out, the dedication he seemed to have for his family, in spite of how many times he was divorced, hearing him talk on conservative radio (conversations which most progressives were ignorant of) fleshed out a different human being than what was being defined by all his opponents (very few who impressed me as paragons of virtue or of ability or honesty or of concern for my issue--preservation of the Constitution).

I didn't think he would win the nomination, so was not overly concerned about who he was being made out to be. But when he did win it, and then went up against Hillary, it became apparent to me that how he was being portrayed was as much, or more, an exaggeration as were some of his whoppers. It was apparent, to me, that most of what were called his lies were not, objectionable as they might have seemed. It was also apparent that they were effective. There was, and probably still is, effective method in his wacky, outlandish comments. And it is genuinely entertaining, as well as satisfying, to see the reactions they elicit from his opponents and the Press. His latest bomb that Obama wire-tapped him being a case in point. He went from defense to offence and now there's this floundering around looking for "evidence" and coming up with rebuttals that are more damning to the notion that Trump colluded with the Russians than damning to Trumps statement. He keeps turning chit to Shinola.

But enough about Trump! Get on with appointing Gorsuch. Return power to the states. Get a couple more SCOTUS Justices and fill a hundred lower court vacancies with original textualists. I don't care where Trump was allowed by some groupie to put his hand 10 years ago. The real Trump doesn't compare badly as a person to the host of Presidents we've had in the past. We tend to forget some of the real doozies that have occupied that office, and forget the sexual proclivities and closet foul mouths of most of the "great" ones.

The President is not the Pope. Not the King. Not the Dictator. He is first and foremost the defender of the Constitution, and the faithful executor of his office. If he is virtuous in that, much as we might like him to be "moral" in terms of our own personal interpretation of morality, we should not expect more.

And there is such a thing as redemption. I may be way off, but there appears to be some of that in Trump. On the other hand, there is also the authoritarian in him. Maybe just ego which comes with presidential territory. And he may turn out to be more of a lefty than is good. It is right that Presidents don't serve more than two terms.

In a presidential primary debate, he bragged about the size of his hands. It's way beneath the dignity of that office. He does stuff like that a lot. It's a choice on his part unless he has tourettes. Policy wise, he was my favorite among the two choices. In time, maybe his vulgar tantrums will fail to be newsworthy. Not yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no issue with him calling out the press because he is right. Truth doesn't bother me. But tweeting that Meryl Streep is overrated? If trump said she's an a-hole who gave a standing ovation to a violent, convicted child rapist, I would have liked that. Instead he engaged in the thoughtless personal attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The size of his hands thing was a response to somebody's negative comment on the size. He didn't initiate it out of thin air. He debunked what was said. The dignity of that office is, for me, denigrated when a President trashes the Constitution. When a President becomes grabs more power than is delegated to him. When he does not do what the office calls for him to do. And when he consistently goes back on his promises.

Again, she attacked him first. Trump strikes back. I think she had it coming. And if he believes she is overrated, why not throw it back to her. Seriously, did the earth shake when he said she was overrated? Although, I like your version of what he should have said. Kind of think, though, that would have gotten a more earth shaking response than the one given to him after saying she was overrated.

She did attack him first, and there is an adult way to respond to that, which is to use her own actions to tear her to shreds, but do it like an adult, like a prosecutor would do.

The earth doesn't shake when he does any of these things. But I'm on his side, and yet these things make me wince. If he responded by saying "she tosses laurels at the feet of child rapists, so I'm not concerned what she thinks of me", THAT would earn my respect. It would also make people think twice before throwing cheap shots at him. I don't want him to take the abuse silently like Bush did, but respond like a smart, mature adult. Sarcasm and humor is fine too, but put some factual truth in there. He just sounds like a little baby brat.

I hope we're on the right track. Have a good night.

Yeah, I wish he was Reaganesque. But he is Trump. And Reagan also didn't have the Dems, the Press, or the establishment Republicans on his side. And if Trump was Reaganesque, he still wouldn't have them on his side.

There is probably a lot more than Trump's personality that arouses the frenzy to take him down. The hysteria is over what many say was a true watershed election, one which could have entrenched a Progressive globalist oriented government and opened the door wide to a more rapid surrender of sovereignty to a socialistic world order. Or which could put a halt to that direction and reestablish the so-called American experiment. And the election did not stop that battle.

That may sound extreme or desperate, but look at what is happening politically in the West. We, in the West, have been quietly herded into that world order, bit by bit, through most of the twentieth century. And the past half century was shaped by Western guilt for what Progressive Liberals claimed was its rape of the rest of the planet. It has reached the point where the Progressive governments of the West encourage and legislate massive emigration into its boundaries of those in the world we oppressed. This was supposed to create world harmony.

But it exacerbated the hatred of the "less advanced" peoples for the richer people of the West. And it validated more and more demands by the third world on the unjustly fat and comfortable West. And our own Progressively educated youth joined this march of social justice not only supporting the elimination of borders but demanding free stuff for everybody.

And we were told that all was well and good, that mass emigration was good. That workers were needed. That any stories of violence were manufactured or overplayed. And that protesting was racist. That resisting was nationalism. Nazism. Which sounded nice and just, and it delayed any significant pushback.

But the native populations in the West began to see the degradation of their cultures, more violence than was admitted, policies that transferred what they thought was their birthright to others who did not create the wealth and freedom of the West. And were awakened to the realization that demographics pointed to their becoming a minority in their own countries.

Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords. This time not by ruthless tyrants, but by intellectuals who claimed to know how everyone should live. And that way was not what they loved and cherished. A way not connected to ancestors and family lineage, not to their beliefs, their religions, their cultural identities. A way that would eliminate all of that. And would, at the same time, relinquish what they had to what promised to be a veritable invasion of foreigners, many of whose ancestors fought their own in the past.

We have not been told how many Europeans support Trump. Cheered for his victory. And are becoming more "conservative" wishing to preserve their cultures. All of Eastern and Central Europe is becoming nationalistic and pushing back against immigration. Britain opted out of the EU in order to retain its sovereignty. France, with the greatest number of immigrants, may well elect a right winger. Germans as well as Italians, Danes, Swedes, etc. are protesting against what has been happening to their countries.

Trump is part of that revolution. If you actually listen to the tenor of the voices in Europe which are against the destruction of their cultures, you will hear voices that make Trump sound like Santa Claus. A sometimes crude Santa. And wishing that he wouldn't say things to make us wince is just pissing up a rope. Trying to be what he isn't would not be convincing.

Right now, he is fighting a war against which he cannot win if his base abandons him. And his opposition would not be any nicer to him nor less fervent to get rid of him if he was "presidential." How much he is being used by the establishment Republicans may be seen with what legislation they pass. The health care bill they've concocted does not bode well if it is as described by the more conservative Repubs. This may all just slide back into the same old Republicans as Democrat lite. And Progressivism may return stronger than ever. And Trump may help that along. If he survives. We shall see.

Have a good night.

love the verbal gymnastics defending Trump..

Wheres the evidence they demand against him

But these same people do not demand any evidence From Him with his Accusations .. then go on with with utopian statements

" finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dicatorial ruling classes tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law....

If you thinks thats Trumps plan ... thats amazing

But she is over-rated :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he would stick to facts and common sense, which he has on his side, he cannot lose. Instead of him tweeting that his enemies suck, he should tweet why they are so very very wrong. The people that elected him are open to that. And it would make his enemies think twice before acting the way they do. Just my opinion.

He is in a position to halt the moral and economic decline. But he needs to act like an adult. He can still be Trump, I'm not asking him to become George Will. If your goal is to destroy the people who are attacking you, then especially when you have facts and common sense on your side, you can respond more effectively by presenting your case, than by giving them the middle finger. Giving them the middle finger, emboldens his opponents. That's what liberals want, they desperately want to trade insults. The last the thing they want to do, is to talk policy, because their policies are asinine. Expose that to the light of day.

They reported this morning Trump brand is moving to China, so I guess the Russian deal fell through, hey they like golf over there I know that for sure.

He needs more "Congressional Speech" moments and less "Kardashian Tweet" moments

He is an adolescent 13 year old in a 70 year old body, he can't grow up it's not in him.

That's exactly what I was trying, and failing, to convey. He doesn't need to be Abraham Lincoln, but he shouldn't be a Kardashian either.

Maybe.

But in my opinion (and we can certainly disagree) his policy ideas are way more productive for the whole of our citizenry, than Hilary's would be.

Obama went on TV and specifically said that the Carrier jobs in Indiana could not be saved, and he mocked Trump for predicting that they could be saved. Then Trump and Pence made a phone call, and did that which Obama claimed was not possible. It made Obama look like a complete idiot.

That is what Trump brings to the table, a refusal to believe that things can't be done, just because everyone else says it will take 9 years for an idea to get through the necessary sub-committees. He has no tolerance for that. That's the beauty of electing an outsider.

He wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure. And he wants to give big tax breaks to working families, to offset the costs of childcare. And he wants paid family medical leave. These are populist ideas that most people like, and he will ram them through faster than any of his predecessors would, because he is not part of the system that chooses to move at a glacial pace.

But all of that gets lost because of his Kardashian moments. The press certainly doesn't help, they will never, ever give him a fair shake. They can't bring themselves to say anything good about him. And shame on them for that. But he is doing everything he can, to make their job as easy as possible. And shame on him, for that.

He has the chance to be one of the most effective presidents ever. If he would just grow up a bit.

I'd like to see someone actually talk some sense into him, be it his family, close business associate or recently appointed cabinet member. Someone needs to convince him to give up the constant tweeter storms and just get to fing work governing.

I've said it before, it's concerning to me that someone this thin skinned is in charge of handling the many very serious global issues any president elect faces in his 4 year term. North Korea, Russia flexing their muscles, the middle east, the list of conflicts requiring a cool head is a long one.

I know he says he has nothing to do with the family interest, but the announcement this morning about the Trump brand moving into China, begs the question is he getting special treatment to influence his decisions moving forward.

You know what's interesting, his children (at least Ivanka and Eric) don't act like him at all. When I see them on TV, they present themselves well, they appear poised and mature. He needs to act a bit more like them.

"it's concerning to me that someone this thin skinned is in charge of handling the many very serious global issues "

You are right to have some concern. Fortunately, there are some limits to what he can do unilaterally, we have all kinds of limits to his authority, all kinds of checks and balances.

"the announcement this morning about the Trump brand moving into China, begs the question is he getting special treatment to influence his decisions moving forward"

Of course it begs that question. Handing the business to his kids, which I think is what he did, isn't nearly enough of a separation. He should have sold his entire family's interests outright.

I know Trump can't wake up one morning with a hair across his arse and decide to nuke North Korea, but I'm not so sure all of our allies and more importantly our enemies; can see through all the BS coming out of his mouth. Loose lips sink ships and nobody has as loose a lip as the Donald.

He will not be as diplomatic to our partners, as they may be used to. That's another valid concern. Trump's approach seems to be, to make people realize that they need his help, and should therefore be willing to put up with his brashness. That attitude has worked for him in previous endeavors. He think sit will translate to international relations. Time will tell.

These are valid concerns, I think. But if you watch NBC or CNN, you'd think that Britain had already announced that they signed a treaty with ISIS against the US. And forget about MSNBC, that is a truly deranged place.

Trump would do well do act more adult. And the media would do well to remember why the founding fathers gave their profession special protections that no other profession enjoys, and start living up to that, and earning it.

That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time. That has not been as persuasive to the voters as you seem to think it must be. When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon. Has any of your common sense, adult conversation on this forum persuaded any of those you debate?

Policy is not the last thing the Progressives want to talk about. They talk policy all the time. Policy is totally what they are about. Government policy is government rule. The more policy, the more rule. Their policies may be asinine to a classical liberal who sees government as a necessary limited evil, but they are manna to people who have been conditioned to view government as the benevolent answer for all problems. Engaging in policy debates assumes the importance of policy, and places the debate within the Progressive framework of what government is.

And Progressives don't want to trade insults. They only want to dish them out to belittle their opposition while schmoozing the public with policies that supposedly make the people's lives better. Trading insults exposes their own as such and neutralizes one of their tactics.

The emotional side of politics, in the end, is the most powerful. It is easier to win over the minds of relatively free people by promising them more comfort with less responsibility than it is by just promising to protect and defend the freedom they already have. It is only among an enslaved people that liberty can evoke the strongest emotions.

As the Progressive notion of government keeps flooding us with its never ending tangle of policies that direct our lives, some of us begin to understand that we are losing something valuable in exchange for all the government's "gifts." In the freest part of the World, the West, there is this growing "feeling" that the exchange is a Faustian bargain. After incessant debates over policy which don't change the direction of government, the first emotional reaction is to raise the middle finger. The next step is to emotionally energize people to fight back against encroaching despotism. Trump is merely a step "in the right direction."

We may still have what's left of a Republic . . . if we can keep it.

I agree with that.

Who's "they" ??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what happens if he gets impeached and removed from office? If he has sold his interests outright, does he get them back. Maybe he should just collect his pension, if he gets one. He did say that he is not going to collect a salary as President. Is that the case, I wonder?

Did the Founders of this nation give up all their stuff when they got elected to office? No. The bulk of their income actually came from their private interests and assets. That did not corrupt their ability to govern. And they defended and protected the Constitution far better than our "divested" politicians of today.

I think that business of divesting themselves is overplayed. It would certainly be exposed by our attentive media if a Republican President was using his office for financial gain. Maybe not so much if a Democrat one did. Whatever the China thing is, it cuts both ways. Although, with China to date, it seems to have been a one way street.

"That common sense, rational, grown-up approach has been used against Progressives for a long time."

Not by a President. Bush just sat there and let everyone dump all over him, he never responded at all. Which is also not an approach I like.

When we show up and make our case, we win. That's why these wussies on college campuses would rather riot than let a conservative speak, because they know they have no response.

"When Progressives have academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood, on their side of the debate, polite conversation is not an effective weapon."

I disagree. When the left controls things, they don't win fact-based debates, they avoid fact-based debates. I watch NBC and MSNBC, I rarely see a conservative on there making effective points. Every once in a while MSNBC will throw a Klansmen out there, under the assumption that he represents everyone who isn't liberal. Show me a debate that Ann Coulter has ever lost. Or Trey Gowdy.

I do agree that control of media, academia, and Hollywood, is a massive obstacle. Bush responded by sating nothing when they attacked him. It didn't work. Trump responds by flying off the handle like a teenager. That won't work. The answer, I think, is in the middle somewhere.

But most people don't watch Foxnews, which means, most people only get the far-left take on everything.

"The way his children turned out and how they support him kind of tell me that there is something about Trump that we are missing when we sum him up to be this temper tantrum deranged teenager who will destroy our world"

Of course. He's not the cartoon villain that the media is making him out to be. if you google "Trump generous charity" you will get all kinds of examples of his being very generous to those in need. At times, I think he has a very soft heart. But only one TV station will ever, ever bring that up.

"So what happens if he gets impeached and removed from office? If he has sold his interests outright, does he get them back. "

But owning a huge international business concern, can portray the appearance of a conflict of interest. I wonder what Romney's plans were if he won.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1118373
Of course. He's not the cartoon villain that the media is making him out to be. if you google "Trump generous charity" you will get all kinds of examples of his being very generous to those in need. At times, I think he has a very soft heart. But only one TV station will ever, ever bring that up.

[/QUOTE]

I googled "Trump generous charity" and the titles of almost, if not all the titles on the 1st page indicated he is not that generous. I believe in NY social circles he was considered cheap.

http://theblacksphere.net/2016/09/tr...edia-blackout/

Not vouching for the source, but some of these are public knowledge, like the time Trump (the anti Semite) flew his plane across country to fly a sick Orthodox Jewish boy.

http://ijr.com/2015/11/461306-these-...brity-persona/

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2016...enerosity.html

https://townhall.com/columnists/lizc...kable-n2190160

Shall I go on?

Does that make him "generous" as far as billionaires go? I have no idea. I hang out with people who go camping for vacation.