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.

NM

"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.

"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!

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.

"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."

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.

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.

"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."

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

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

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

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.