G20 Summit

[PaulS]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[Got Stripers]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

[scottw]

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.