The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Everything stinks in DC. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

What's the firing count so far? It surprises me the donald has not turned it into a reality show yet...

donald-585x400.jpg
 
Is the inability to answer a question without dodging a requirement to join the conservatives or just a personal failing?
I don't know, is asking stupid questions that beg stupid answers a requirement for the regressive left or is that just a personal failing? ;)

It sounds like you're blindly assuming that I supported some sort of "special prosecutor" (whatever that actually means) against Hillary Clinton, but wouldn't against Trump, because partisanship. But I've said this during the lead up to the election, if you have proof of wrongdoing or criminal behavior, then prove it and prosecute. Had either Hillary or Trump been knocked out of the running, for whatever reason, I honestly believe we would have a different president today. A better president, assuming it wasn't Sanders. :p But I can't blame the Republicans, since it seems like they ran a clean primary and did everything they could to knock out Hillary. Had the Republicans succeeded, we would probably have a Democrat president today, ironically.
 
The whole Russia thing is an excuse for the failings of the Democratic Party. It wasn't Russia or Comey that fucked Hilllary up. She did it herself with her stupid server. Her response to her server. Her just being generally an awful person and the democratic establishment for supporting her because she's Hillary Fuckin' Clinton

Second to blame would be the media for following and covering ad nauseum every move Trump made (good or bad) giving him billions of dollars worth of free advertising.

All that said, its apparent some people in the Trump campaign did coordinate in some way with Russians. But they honestly thought they wouldn't win anyway so after they lost nobody would actually give a shit.
 
I don't know, is asking stupid questions that beg stupid answers a requirement for the regressive left or is that just a personal failing? ;)

It sounds like you're blindly assuming that I supported some sort of "special prosecutor" (whatever that actually means) against Hillary Clinton, but wouldn't against Trump, because partisanship. But I've said this during the lead up to the election, if you have proof of wrongdoing or criminal behavior, then prove it and prosecute. Had either Hillary or Trump been knocked out of the running, for whatever reason, I honestly believe we would have a different president today. A better president, assuming it wasn't Sanders. :p But I can't blame the Republicans, since it seems like they ran a clean primary and did everything they could to knock out Hillary. Had the Republicans succeeded, we would probably have a Democrat president today, ironically.

It seems you're projecting.

What I quoted from you was simple: you asking if we believe Comey was worthwhile to lead the FBI's investigation. I asked something simple in return, whether you support a special prosecutor or not to take over the investigation. Hillary had nothing to do with it, and I do not assume your feelings on that; you brought her up on your own. Hillary's mishandling of classified information and Trump's alleged collusion with Russia are separate incidents. Let's ignore the rest of your quote because it's silly: if Hillary or Trump had been knocked out of contention, we'd have a different president? How logical. Almost like that time I was drunk and said I'd be deadly if I held a lethal weapon.

But to get back to my question:

But I've said this during the lead up to the election, if you have proof of wrongdoing or criminal behavior, then prove it and prosecute.

I'll ask again with a bit more clarity: do you believe the way the current investigations are going is fine, or do you believe that events like what Nunes pulled or Comey being fired have cast enough doubt over them to warrant a more independent look?
 
Sorry for any confusion. The thing that bothered me about the whole "special prosecutor" thing, when Trump brought it up, is the same thing that bothers me about stuff like "social justice". If real justice isn't giving you the results you want, then use social justice. If a real prosecutor isn't giving you the results you want, then use a special prosecutor. Do you know what I mean? It may just be semantics, but the implications bug me.

I'll ask again with a bit more clarity: do you believe the way the current investigations are going is fine, or do you believe that events like what Nunes pulled or Comey being fired have cast enough doubt over them to warrant a more independent look?
I have no preferences on who investigates it. Besides someone competent and as objective as possible. Although we can see with Comey how quickly people can go from hating someone to loving someone to hating them again, in a matter of minutes, depending on how politically useful it would be.

The other part of the Russia thing that bothers me is that Russia isn't the only country that has a vested interest in US politics, nor are they the only country that may have took action to influence the election. I mean, a foreign government donating money to a presidential campaign is more than enough, since historically the biggest budgets tend to win elections. Because at the end of the day, if what they say is true, then Russia influenced the election by exposing the truth about the Democratic party, which allowed voters to make a more informed decision on voting day. But apparently keeping the American people in the dark, as ignorant as possible, is a corner stone to American democracy, and the Russians are undermining it.
 
Last edited:
Why are people bringing up Clinton again? At this point there is only one major difference that matters:
- Investigating Clinton may have personal repercussions on her, but will have zero effect on the direction of the country or national politics (and the only thing it will produce is a bunch of people celebrating and saying "Ha, told you so!" and that's it).
- Investigating Trump very much has the potential to alter the course ahead, and is necessary because his potential wrongdoings or connections to Russia are impacting us at this very moment.
 
Or maybe, just maybe, because the dismissal of James Comey was directly related to the Hillary Clinton investigation?
 
Do you honestly, hand on heart, believe you know the real reason behind his dismissal?
Nope, but Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is the most likely. A lot of people wanted Comey dismissed for the same reasons given by the White House for actually dismissing him. His handling of the Clinton investigation was a disaster, for different reasons depending on who you ask, but still a disaster. Everything else is just a conspiracy theory at this point, worthy of an InfoWars segment.

Now if some actual facts come out... I have no problem changing my opinion.
 
[...] Now if some actual facts come out... I have no problem changing my opinion.

Trump praised Comey on multiple occasions not only, but also for the handling of said e-mail probe. Now he fires him for that. And you are wondering that people are thinking there may be other possible motives? When the president himself made comments that directly contradict what he did now?

I've made my point about the uselessness of this whole discussion a page ago, but just dismissing that people are wondering about the president saying one thing and then saying another - that's also not quite right. It leads nowhere ... but come on, denying that this makes people wonder? Of course it does.
 
You would think he would have learned from Sean Spicer's colossal gaffe:

?America has overcome amazing challenges that Donald Trump, as frightening as he is to some people, small potatoes compared to Nazi Germany,? Garrett (R-Va.) told constituents at a church here in southwest Virginia
Source

Saying that Trump is not as bad as Nazi Germany is hardly a compliment.
 
Last edited:
So Trump basically vouches for Comey when he takes office - when he had the opportunity to get a new director - and then fires him a couple of months later saying he's useless?

Great forward thinking going on there.
 
Last edited:
Now if some actual facts come out... I have no problem changing my opinion.


This is the third person that was involved in investigating the Trump campaign and the connection to Russia.


Are you seeing a trend?
 
This is the third person that was involved in investigating the Trump campaign and the connection to Russia.


Are you seeing a trend?
Did Democrats demand all 3 of their resignations at some point in the past 6 months?

It seems to me that each situation was very different, but perfectly rational. :dunno:
 
Top