Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Is that my party's line? This is a first I have heard that.

I am a registered Independent.

Love the ignorance boys, keep it up.

And yet, you keep defending trump's policies. You can call yourself an independent all you want, but that doesn't make it true. If you agree with 90% of X party's policies, guess what. You're X party.

tneva82 wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
The Trump avatar is there for you, not me.

So you say. But that avatar and you speak like trump fanboy...

Like 99.99/100 what looks like a dog and barks like a dog is a dog

No I am proudly independent. Why? Because there are clowns and criminals on both sides of the isle. And to take a position that any one party has all the answers to solving this countries problems is 100% ignorant. The reality is that each party only represents a group within the US population, and to argue that Democrats will make America a better place if given full reign is just as stupid as saying the Republicans would.

I just looked up a few online tests to summarize political beliefs and as expected the results are all over the place. One said I was 68% Republican, another said I was a Democrat, and a third said I was a dead tie. Another said I was a Social Libertarian. Go figure. It all depends on what individual the issue is. I am a wavy line down the middle, as I have stated numerous times on this site. The LAST THING I EVER DO is sign up along party lines because I don't have a party, because as I said, signing up for one would cause me to ignore the views or solutions set forth by another. So I do not sign up for a party, I just decide on which issues are the most important to have resolved at the time, and which candidate/party would be better at solving them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
Is that my party's line? This is a first I have heard that.

I am a registered Independent.

Love the ignorance boys, keep it up.

Prove it.

Seriuosly?

I'm a registered Independent as well. Gonna tell me to prove it to?

No, you're not using an unverifiable claim as support for your position of debate, so you're cool.

This coming from the guy who shut down the last US Topics thread because he couldn't handle the debate.

Here's where I stand on some random issues of our day and you do the math:

Woman's right to choose: Yes
Support Same-Sex Marriage: Yes
Continue Planned Parenthood: Yes
Do more to prevent Climate Change: Yes
Regulate emissions and find better energy sources: Yes
Support Nuclear Energy: Sure
Expand off-shore drilling: In some places
Greater Gun Control: No
Capital Punishment: We don't execute enough as far as I am concerned
More taxes on the rich to solve debt problems: No
Increase the Minimum Wage: Yes
Support Net Neutrality: Yes
Support Obamacare: No
Insurers deny existing conditions: No
Support the legalization of Marijuana: Yes
Increase Military Spending: Yes
All Officers wear bodycams: Yes
Photo ID required to vote: Yes
Increase Government Spending on Public Transport: No
Build a wall on southern border: If not a wall, build something.
Deport Immigrants who commit crimes: Absolutely
Grant Illegal immigrants access to government-subsidized healthcare: No
Take refugees from Syria: No
Prayer be allowed in public school: No
Work with NATO and the UN: To a certain point

If I left something out, ask and I will answer. I certainly do not have anything to hide here, nor am I out to convince you that your position is wrong, just that I may disagree with it. You probably aren't going to change my mind nor I yours.

Finally:

 feeder wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:
The Trump avatar is there for you, not me.

So... you are being intentionally provocative? Why?

Think of it like, irony. The very people who are complaining about Trump being president are some of the very reasons he is president. The pendulum is naturally going to swing back and forth overtime anyway, but if Obama's 8 years in office went spectacular, the torch would have been passed and we'd have a democratic president. The Democrats would also rule congress. They don't. What does that tell you? The avatar is a reminder that just as you can say Trump voters got what they ask for by voting for him, it was Obama's 8 years of office that put him there. Everyone is to blame. Everyone who looks at the grass on the other side thinking its greener has a short memory. Obama was a cool guy, acted Presidential, but also did a lot of things to piss people off. I have said it before here and I guess I will have to keep saying it, the most important job of any politician is the economy. Its what puts food on people's plates. All the BS after that we can surely be debated after our stomachs are full. Enough people felt they were struggling under a democratic vision and wanted change. I cannot blame them for that. Whatever faults Trump has, they were willing to look past those in hopes of a better economy. And they got it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/18/us-weekly-jobless-claims-july-14-2018.html

I just don't think most of you guys get it. "Unemployment claims dropped to their lowest level in more than 48 1/2 years, as the labor market continues to strengthen." These are historic times. I have never seen anything like this. And it naturally wont last so take advantage of it. Does this mean that I am happy with everything Trump or the Republicans are doing? No, of course not. But my job, my money, my 401k, my investments, etc, is tied to what these guys are doing. I want them to be successful. Do you think Hilary would be doing a better job at this?!? Her only solution for the economy was tax the rich. Same with Bernie Sanders. While they might take the lead on a lot of social issues, they are both circus clowns when it comes to economics.

You are all well within your right to choose what issues are more important to you, but I can assure you financial security is the most important. I am sure the vast majority on here are banging away on their keyboard while at work. If you were unemployed, I am pretty sure you would have a different set issues prioritized. And you have the economy to thank for that, as well as, as much as you are going to hate hearing it, some of the guys you are all bitching about.

I love it.

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html

Agreed that the fact that they're considering is appalling. The precedent would be fething ludicrous.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html

Agreed that the fact that they're considering is appalling. The precedent would be fething ludicrous.

If I were them I would consider it. And then decide against it. It's fair play to say we'll think about it. I would expect the same from Russia and have no expectation anything they might give would be wroth the money it costs to examine. I think it's just a mater of putting on face but we'll see how it shakes out.

 warhead01 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html

Agreed that the fact that they're considering is appalling. The precedent would be fething ludicrous.

If I were them I would consider it. And then decide against it. It's fair play to say we'll think about it. I would expect the same from Russia and have no expectation anything they might give would be wroth the money it costs to examine. I think it's just a mater of putting on face but we'll see how it shakes out.

Even considering it should be absolutely out of the question.
1. No President should ever "consider" letting a foreign power interrogate US citizens. Thats why you are commander in chief of 8 gazillion nukes, to make sure US citizens are safe from foreign powers.

2. They had diplomatic immunity. As some politician said today, even Stalin never considered interrogating US citizens. Nixon would have had B52s launching to their rally points off Soviet space at just the thought of it.

WHO THE feth IS THIS GUY?

 Frazzled wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html

Agreed that the fact that they're considering is appalling. The precedent would be fething ludicrous.

If I were them I would consider it. And then decide against it. It's fair play to say we'll think about it. I would expect the same from Russia and have no expectation anything they might give would be wroth the money it costs to examine. I think it's just a mater of putting on face but we'll see how it shakes out.

Even considering it should be absolutely out of the question.
1. No President should ever "consider" letting a foreign power interrogate US citizens. Thats why you are commander in chief of 8 gazillion nukes, to make sure US citizens are safe from foreign powers.

2. They had diplomatic immunity. As some politician said today, even Stalin never considered interrogating US citizens. Nixon would have had B52s launching to their rally points off Soviet space at just the thought of it.

WHO THE feth IS THIS GUY?

Ok, I think I wasn't clear enough.
They're politicians. They say they will consider it which should read as no it's not on the table. But until they do anything I have no idea. Politicians all all kinds of gak. Someone's going to tell them No.
Or they are just that stupid. In which case vote them out.
Maybe the US should just annex Russia as the 51st state and build a bridge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/29/larry-kudlow-and-the-white-house-now-claim-the-growing-deficit-is-actually-dropping-and-rapidly/?utm_term=.48e666704d26

June 29th

Friday morning with President Trump's chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow. Kudlow took to the Fox Business Network to boldly claim that a growing federal budget deficit was declining — and then threw in a “rapidly” for good measure.

“The deficit, which was one of the other criticisms, is coming down — and it’s coming down rapidly,” Kudlow claimed. “Growth solves a lot of problems.”

.... hmm..

White House's OMB projects the deficit will rise by $225 billion in 2018 and nearly $200 billion more in 2019.




one cannot also help but think the future numbers for 2022 onwards are a bit..optimistic.


previously

 Frazzled wrote:
San Francisco now allowing noncitizens to vote in school elections.

Yeah thats been popping up lately.

On one level, there's a lot of well educated and affluent permanent residents in the area, theres an argument to be made for wanting all parents in the area invested in their children even if there illegally (though I think thats overstated in this case) and school boards arent exactly the most contentious of offices.

On the other hand, the basic principle of citizenship and voting would appear to be undermined by something like this, and more than anything, it screams of virtue signalling to the fringes of their political base for its own sake, particularly as I doubt the millionaire NIMBY SF crowd are gonna actually allow any actual changes.

White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html

That's ah...more than a wee bit concerning. Maybe Congress will find ther backbone, but they appear to have misplaced it.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/29/larry-kudlow-and-the-white-house-now-claim-the-growing-deficit-is-actually-dropping-and-rapidly/?utm_term=.48e666704d26

June 29th

Friday morning with President Trump's chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow. Kudlow took to the Fox Business Network to boldly claim that a growing federal budget deficit was declining — and then threw in a “rapidly” for good measure.

“The deficit, which was one of the other criticisms, is coming down — and it’s coming down rapidly,” Kudlow claimed. “Growth solves a lot of problems.”

.... hmm..

White House's OMB projects the deficit will rise by $225 billion in 2018 and nearly $200 billion more in 2019.




one cannot also help but think the future numbers for 2022 onwards are a bit..optimistic.


previously

Objective reality is the enemy, they are seeking to maintain power, not actually solve anything. Kudlow is another Spice Weasel or Huckabooboo, he's there to be a cheerleader, not actually provide expert economic advice.

 Just Tony wrote:
Hasn't taken any physical property? Occupying domicile without contributing to the community's tax system, tying up job positions that would otherwise go to the community?

They are occupying a domicile by paying rent to its owner, and the owner pays property taxes on it. Illegal immigrants are not coming in and taking houses away from their rightful owners. And "job positions" are not property to be taken.

Not to mention having a couple incidents myself and a ton of stories from around town of being hit in traffic by an illegal who promptly sped off before you could get their information.

And you know why that happens? Because, as illegal immigrants, it's harder (impossible?) for them to get insurance and any involvement in the legal system, even for a minor accident, might get them deported. If you make them legal residents those factors disappear and the hit and run rate would likely be no worse than it is for citizens.

You're also looking at the precedent that'll be set by hand waving millions of people into citizenship like that.

Legal resident =/= citizen. Give them amnesty and make them legal residents who can then go through the normal citizenship process.

And while it may seem that the process would be disruptive, we have a large body of personnel that could be mobilized within 8-24 hours to handle such an undertaking.

Yes, let's just call in the military and deport everyone. How exactly are you going to handle things like due process rights, or even correctly identifying the people to deport? How are you going to handle the PR debacle of deporting parents whose children are US citizens? How are you going to handle the economic disruption of having that many employees suddenly removed? There's way more to the problem than just getting enough labor to physically remove people.

The whole "Steal ar jerbs" thing is such BS. Immigrants do the gakky jobs that Americans don't want to do because it's hard work for little pay. They aren't "stealing" high end jobs or anything, they are doing janitorial work, or farm labor. And those jobs are piss easy to get for any American who actually wants them. It's a distraction and nothing more.

Well, might be a bit harder to get those jobs at a Trump property. They have a habit of doing the exact, legal bare minimum of hiring American, then hiring immigrants because that's a little cheaper.

With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

The economic policy of the Republican Party is fairly clear right now. The objective is to manufacture a budget crisis due to a deficit that becomes simply too heavy to be supported. The Republican Party platform has been for years that the government "doesn't work" the bigger it is the worst it is. For this basic sales pitch to be true, they need the government, especially the Federal government, to be as inefficient as possible. If the government manages to offer goods and services to the population, it's really bad for such a platform. The best way to make the government as inefficient as possible and prevent your political opponents to make it efficient or at least capable of offering goods and services that would be popular with the voters like healthcare, education, roads, public transportation, parcs, museums, etc. The best way to do so, is to cripple the finance of the government. If money is spent in venues that doesn't really impact services to population like military equipment for example and taxes keppt too low to balance the budget, the deficit grows larger and at some point it will have to be paid or the government will collapse.

Republicans right now can have the best of both worlds. They do not cut in a significant manner in services to the population to avoid being unpopular with the voters. They do talk about it and about the evils of those programs to please their ideological base, but bark a lor more then they bite. They reduce taxes whenever they can which is always popular with the voters and increase military spending whenever they can. Military spendings are enormous and need to be sustained as weapon programs cost a fortune and take time to develop. It's extremely hard to "pull the plug" on military spending for equipment. They are also inconsequential for the population in general. It provides nothing. An army is an absolute money sink, but one that cannot be easily avoided if one doesn't want to die.

With lower revenue, stable services to the population and increase spending, the deficit rises a lot. When the Democrats come into power, they of course, want to implement social services programs because they believe the government can play an important and useful role as a wealth redistributor, regulatory agent and service provider. There is no better way to prove this true then by actually doing things to improve the lives of citizens then by offering them low cost essential services. If they want to do so, they must either raise more taxes, which is not popular and might cost them their re-election or indebt the government further. In both case the Republican win something that can guaranty their return to power in the short term.

Finally, hte objective of this strategy is of course to reach a point where the deficit will be so important that taxes will have to be raised, not to pay for programs, but to pay the interests of the dept itself. Past a certain point, new taxes cannot be raised. Programs offering services to the population will also have to be cut. Of course, this can lead to some social unrest as the poorest and most vulnerable members of society will protest such an inevitable and unavoidable situation. Those protests can be used to justify the maintaining of a high defense and law enforcement budget.

In the end the rich guys win on all front. They have a government whose function is to preserve and enforce their power and authority. Public services are partially or completly privatised allowing them more control over society. Power is like matter and energy. It cannot be destroyed or created. It can only be transformed as in who has access to it. The moral of the story is don't put people who have a vested interest in being bad in charge of your government, they will run it to the ground and accuse everybody else, voters included, of being responsible for it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The whole "Steal ar jerbs" thing is such BS. Immigrants do the gakky jobs that Americans don't want to do because it's hard work for little pay. They aren't "stealing" high end jobs or anything, they are doing janitorial work, or farm labor. And those jobs are piss easy to get for any American who actually wants them. It's a distraction and nothing more.

The only ones "stealing" jobs are, per some folks like my neighbor talks about, the Indians being brought over here on HB visas (I forget if they are HB 1 or HB 2, so, forgive me that much) to work "high end" tech jobs for companies like Amazon or Microsoft for around half what an American IT worker would negotiate for.

But that's a completely different topic, IMO, and one that should be focused on those employers, not the immigrants, because as has been pointed out the vast majority of immigrant labor is seen on the "lowest" end of the economic scale, the menial labor pool (as Co'tor mentions, the janitors/housekeepers, farm labor and the like)

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

True...

However, the state is more than able to codify voting laws to allow non-citizen residence to vote in local elections if they so choose. That's the one of the beauties of federalism. But, the challenge is to ensure that these non-citizen residence don't vote in national elections, as citizenship is required.

So, not only does Trump want to bring Putin for a meeting in the oval office...the US Director of National Intelligence was apparently informed of this by Andrea Mitchell, live, on air during an interview on NBC, because Trump hadn't decided to tell anyone except John Bolton, and Coats has no idea what Trump and Putin discussed.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/vladimir-putin/nation-s-top-intel-official-coats-says-he-wishes-trump-n892846

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
With regards to the school board elections in San Francisco, the original rallying cry of the rebels was "No Taxation Without Representation".

From that angle, there is NOTHING LESS AMERICAN than banning tax-payers from voting because they don't hold the correct passport.

Except that "no taxation without representation" stemmed from them being English citizens that were being denied representation in the English Parliament which was due to them in their Bill of Rights. If i go to another country to work, lets say on a work program in Germany, I would expect to pay taxes since I am using their infrastructure and getting the benefits of their government which is only able to run through money gained by taxes. I would not expect the German government to allow me to vote in their elections until I had decided to become a German citizen though, and why would I?

Funnily enough, every foreigner in the Netherlands is allowed to vote in the local elections for the municipality they are registered. Even Germany has toyed with this idea. France, Cyprus, Belgium, Ireland and some others I'm forgetting about. A limited right to vote for non-citizens isn't as uncommon as you would expect in Europe.

 whembly wrote:

Of course it was bad and there were no excuses for it.

I. DONT. CONDONE. WHAT. HE. DID.

But it's lunacy to say that rises to treason.

Really:

US Constitution wrote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Do you deny that siding with Putin, a man who admitted he ordered his agents to attempt to rig the US elections, and defending him on television against accusations from US intelligence agencies that Putin has conducted both cyberwarefare and election tampering against the United States, was 'aid and comfort'?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Of course it was bad and there were no excuses for it.

I. DONT. CONDONE. WHAT. HE. DID.

But it's lunacy to say that rises to treason.

Really:

US Constitution wrote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Do you deny that siding with Putin, a man who admitted he ordered his agents to attempt to rig the US elections, and defending him on television against accusations from US intelligence agencies that Putin has conducted both cyberwarefare and election tampering against the United States, was 'aid and comfort'?

Yes... we're not at WAR nor there's some AUMF against Russia.

 Frazzled wrote:

White House considering permitting Russians to interrogate US ambassador annd staff about...something.

If I were in Congress, I would consider this immediate grounds for removal of the President.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/18/white-house-not-ruling-out-putin-proposal-to-let-russia-question-ex-us-ambassador-prominent-financier.html

Sure, i link the Daily Beast talking about it, and no one reads it, but Fox brings it up and it's suddenly an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Yes... we're not at WAR nor there's some AUMF against Russia.

Note that it does not require war. Only that the countries be enemies, which, frankly, is the reality on the ground, atm.

Edit: for those who don't believe that my reference to the Nazis making people 'uncitizens' is topical in the Trump administration, here's this recant article from the Washington Post by one of Trump's minions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/citizenship-shouldnt-be-a-birthright/2018/07/18/7d0e2998-8912-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html?utm_term=.934e52eaef8c

Is it normal for Presidents to have secret one-on one meetings with other heads of state?

 feeder wrote:
Is it normal for Presidents to have secret one-on one meetings with other heads of state?

If by secret you mean private then I would say yes. While there is usually a media photo op and/or press conference and/ or a state dinner there are also conversations that occur without cameras, reporters etc being present. I don’t think you can call Trump inviting Putin to the WH a secret when Andrea Mitchell is discussing it on tv.

 feeder wrote:
Is it normal for Presidents to have secret one-on one meetings with other heads of state?

And the head of a state that the President is suspected of colluding with in order to win the election?

The Auld Grump

Other Presidents have had such meetings. But other Presidents have kept their staffs informed about what was said and agreed to. No one in the Trump Administration seems to know anything about what's going on.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Is it normal for Presidents to have secret one-on one meetings with other heads of state?

If by secret you mean private then I would say yes. While there is usually a media photo op and/or press conference and/ or a state dinner there are also conversations that occur without cameras, reporters etc being present. I don’t think you can call Trump inviting Putin to the WH a secret when Andrea Mitchell is discussing it on tv.

I mean secret as in no aides or advisors. Just the two of them in a closed room.

 feeder wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Is it normal for Presidents to have secret one-on one meetings with other heads of state?

If by secret you mean private then I would say yes. While there is usually a media photo op and/or press conference and/ or a state dinner there are also conversations that occur without cameras, reporters etc being present. I don’t think you can call Trump inviting Putin to the WH a secret when Andrea Mitchell is discussing it on tv.

I mean secret as in no aides or advisors. Just the two of them in a closed room.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Other Presidents have had such meetings. But other Presidents have kept their staffs informed about what was said and agreed to. No one in the Trump Administration seems to know anything about what's going on.

^ this +1

Other presidents are also more connected to reality than Trump is. Would anybody here honestly believe a word of what Trump says was discussed? Would anybody here honestly believe that Trump could give an accurate account of such discussions?

 whembly wrote:
Yes... we're not at WAR nor there's some AUMF against Russia.

We're at about everything short of open dick waving, but yes, we aren't at war.

Mean while the little quisling in office is blaming the US for the bad relations driven by applying diplomatic pressures for Russia's actions in the last few years.

That's not outright treason, but his attempts to stop the investigations into their election interference should be considered such.

It's literally treason, but it's not technically treason.

And if Futurama's taught me anything, it's that technically correct is the best kind of correct.

The names Putin has thrown out for Americans he wants to "interview" are pretty interesting. It might as well be titled "the intimidation list of Americans I'd love to troll right now" and he's probably laughing his ass off watching Trump dance like a fool doing the trolling for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
It's literally treason, but it's not technically treason.

And if Futurama's taught me anything, it's that technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Even I think treason is strong, but at this point I also think we've crossed the threshold of gross incompetence on Trump's part. I've always thought impeachment was unnecessarily dramatic, and unnecessary cause I thought the US could survive 4 years of Trump but now I'm wondering. This whole little saga playing out over the past few days is absolutely mind bending. I actually don't know if the US can endure another two and a half years of this monkey running things without irreparable damage.