(03-17-2017 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Trump spendings another weekend in Mar-a-lago. Do we still have people like OO who don't think he is actively trying to use the office to profit personally?
Oh, come on. Next you'll be saying his sons going around the world making new deals is totally unrelated to him being President. Or that we shouldn't be spending millions of dollars as taxpayers subsidizing their efforts. Or that the presidency is not a part-time job.
(03-18-2017 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2017 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Trump spendings another weekend in Mar-a-lago. Do we still have people like OO who don't think he is actively trying to use the office to profit personally?
Oh, come on. Next you'll be saying his sons going around the world making new deals is totally unrelated to him being President. Or that we shouldn't be spending millions of dollars as taxpayers subsidizing their efforts. Or that the presidency is not a part-time job.
Honestly, the cost of the sons traveling isn't an issue to me.
The odd timing of the China trademark granting is worrying. The giant deal that Kushner's family just closed is worrying. And so on and so on.
A lot of people seem to be making a lot of good money while closely associated with Trump. And it is not clear what influence the presidency has had on that.
Even Republicans have been calling on Trump to produce evidence or apologize for his accusations about Obama wiretapping him. Now Comey has also said there's no evidence.
At what point does honesty and integrity begin to matter for Trump supporters?
And then there's the thing where Trump and Spicer accuse the Brits of spying on him for Obama, are forced to apologize to the Brits and then deny they apologized and say it's not their fault anyway, they were just repeating Fox News and Breitbart. Because that's how the president should get his info. WTF?
(03-20-2017 11:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then there's the thing where Trump and Spicer accuse the Brits of spying on him for Obama, are forced to apologize to the Brits and then deny they apologized and say it's not their fault anyway, they were just repeating Fox News and Breitbart. Because that's how the president should get his info. WTF?
Based on the crickets the last few weeks, I imagine you won't get an answer.
I've taken the relative silence to indicate that either those on the other side of the spectrum realize the failure of their party in hitching their cart to this crazy train or they don't feel like trying to provide counterarguments to the points being brought up for whatever reason.
(03-20-2017 12:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2017 11:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]And then there's the thing where Trump and Spicer accuse the Brits of spying on him for Obama, are forced to apologize to the Brits and then deny they apologized and say it's not their fault anyway, they were just repeating Fox News and Breitbart. Because that's how the president should get his info. WTF?
Based on the crickets the last few weeks, I imagine you won't get an answer.
I've taken the relative silence to indicate that either those on the other side of the spectrum realize the failure of their party in hitching their cart to this crazy train or they don't feel like trying to provide counterarguments to the points being brought up for whatever reason.
I love about half of what Trump says, and hate the other half. This is well over into the half that I hate.
Setting aside real policy differences, it seems to me that a lot of this can be summed up as follows:
Even us leftists can admit (with some admiration, in fact) that Obama could be a hell of a Spin artist when the need arose. He spoke the truth most of the time, and when the truth was inconvenient (e.g. You get to keep your doctor) he could bend it with acrobatic spin.
So let's say Obama was X% truth and (100-X)% eloquent spin.
When the truth is inconvenient for Trump it seems like even many of those who support him would agree he doesn't bother with spin, he just goes straight to bats*** crazy.
So Trump is Y% truth and (100-Y)% bats*** crazy.
And maybe we can't agree on the comparative relationship between X and Y. (Hint: I think X >> Y but whatever).
For some on the right maybe the way they see it is that if it's not the truth it really doesn't matter whether it's spin or it's bats*** crazy.
And for those of us on the left Trump's crazy often demeans the office of the presidency and/or makes the world a nastier place -- e.g. Obama was sick, McCain wasn't a hero, let's ban Muslims, that gold star Mom is just standing quietly because of her culture that tells her to, and don't get me started on the thing about the reporter with the disability. So we get pretty bent out of shape about it.
But boiling the state of affairs down to this too-basic math helps me accept that supporters of both sides can be generally well-intentioned Americans no matter how bad the s***show gets.
(03-20-2017 11:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Even Republicans have been calling on Trump to produce evidence or apologize for his accusations about Obama wiretapping him. Now Comey has also said there's no evidence.
At what point does honesty and integrity begin to matter for Trump supporters?
What I'm wondering about is why Comey says there's no substantive evidence for wiretapping (although that doesn't address the FISA court warrant...) but also says there's an investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump presidential campaign, an event for which there is also no substantive evidence. I guess he's trying to play it like the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server (although in that case there was substantive evidence that the use was occurring).
(03-20-2017 06:23 PM)erice Wrote: [ -> ]Setting aside real policy differences, it seems to me that a lot of this can be summed up as follows:
Even us leftists can admit (with some admiration, in fact) that Obama could be a hell of a Spin artist when the need arose. He spoke the truth most of the time, and when the truth was inconvenient (e.g. You get to keep your doctor) he could bend it with acrobatic spin.
So let's say Obama was X% truth and (100-X)% eloquent spin.
When the truth is inconvenient for Trump it seems like even many of those who support him would agree he doesn't bother with spin, he just goes straight to bats*** crazy.
So Trump is Y% truth and (100-Y)% bats*** crazy.
And maybe we can't agree on the comparative relationship between X and Y. (Hint: I think X >> Y but whatever).
For some on the right maybe the way they see it is that if it's not the truth it really doesn't matter whether it's spin or it's bats*** crazy.
And for those of us on the left Trump's crazy often demeans the office of the presidency and/or makes the world a nastier place -- e.g. Obama was sick, McCain wasn't a hero, let's ban Muslims, that gold star Mom is just standing quietly because of her culture that tells her to, and don't get me started on the thing about the reporter with the disability. So we get pretty bent out of shape about it.
But boiling the state of affairs down to this too-basic math helps me accept that supporters of both sides can be generally well-intentioned Americans no matter how bad the s***show gets.
Basically, you're stating that Obama's ahead on style points. The fact is that both Obama and Trump are egotists - the difference is that Obama tried to hide it while Trump doesn't (which also puts Obama higher on the sociopath scale than Trump). That's actually a big part of Trump's appeal - he may come across as full of bluster and maybe even a little crazy, but at least he comes by it honestly; you know he's not trying to hide it. By contrast, Obama would try to spin (or, more accurately, lie) about things; you got the impression he spent long hours trying to figure out how to fool people. It gives the superficial impression that he was statesman-like and hid the reality that he was an ideological con artist. Trump doesn't care what you think about him; he says what he thinks and lets the chips fall where they may.
Jonathan, you bring up an interesting angle, and one about which I frankly admit I'm somewhat confused at this point. I'm referring to exactly where things stand with the FISA court. Could someone please provide some clarification?
What I first heard was that the FISA court had first refused to issue a warrant, but the matter was brought back later and a warrant or warrants were issued. Is that correct? If so, then what Comey and others are saying is that they went to the FISA court, not just once but a second time, to get a warrant that they have never acted upon. I'm sorry, but that is so patently illogical as to be unbelievable.
So what am I missing? Where am I going wrong? And why hasn't more been made of this?
Well, this seems like big news.
"President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned...
Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse..."
https://www.apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a
I havent seen anything substantive confirming or contradicting the FISA claims. Have to say anything dealing with FISA warrants (aside from a single unsourced newpaper article) should be considered speculative at best given the lack of information. In my mind, any claims about the FISA warrants or pursuing them are really nothing more than hearsay at this point.
And, until tangible evidence of eavesdropping or electronic surveillance is put forth, as has been promised by the President, going to regard the claims of that in much the same light that the claim that the Benghazi outpost was run over by people po'ed by a video.
From the lefties over at the WSJ editorial board:
"If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world?"
"We’re not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods."
(No subscription needed summary)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...redibility
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-president...1490138920
Ivan's a officially added as a member of the Trump administration. Not sure how this doesn't violate the anti-nepotism statutes.
(03-30-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ivan's a officially added as a member of the Trump administration. Not sure how this doesn't violate the anti-nepotism statutes.
Ivan, as in the Russians? That's quite the Freudian slip there!
(03-30-2017 08:25 PM)erice Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Ivan's a officially added as a member of the Trump administration. Not sure how this doesn't violate the anti-nepotism statutes.
Ivan, as in the Russians? That's quite the Freudian slip there!
Autocorrect has got Russia on the mind!
Well, she is married to the president.
Stealing from a friend: "Phew. Jared Kushner's in Iraq. Everything's going to be OK now."
Make America Nepotistic Again. No wonder Trump sees no problems installing people close to him to positions where they have absolutely no experience - it's just a factor of life.
Quote: "Nepotism is kind of a factor of life,” said Eric Trump, sitting in an office on the 25th floor of his father’s famous Trump Tower, just down the hall from his brother Don Jr. “We might be here because of nepotism, but we’re not still here because of nepotism. You know, if we didn’t do a good job, if we weren’t competent, believe me, we wouldn’t be in this spot.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexande...0fd692e557
(04-05-2017 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Make America Nepotistic Again. No wonder Trump sees no problems installing people close to him to positions where they have absolutely no experience - it's just a factor of life.
Quote: "Nepotism is kind of a factor of life,” said Eric Trump, sitting in an office on the 25th floor of his father’s famous Trump Tower, just down the hall from his brother Don Jr. “We might be here because of nepotism, but we’re not still here because of nepotism. You know, if we didn’t do a good job, if we weren’t competent, believe me, we wouldn’t be in this spot.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexande...0fd692e557
Who was JFK's attorney general again? When did Ted win his first elected post, and was it really a contested spot?
Who did Bill Clinton tab to head up his own health care reform initiatives?