|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 16 2017 04:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 04:11 oneofthem wrote:
if things start to get moving on impeachment or coup then it might not be so boring. just waiting for things to develop.
people who dont see trump as alarming would require quite a bit of mental energy to turn around their views. but given the likely priors involved with this happy bunch what they think has as much weight as the general consensus of the psych ward Or we could take each thing as it comes instead of fear mongering or cheering an unelected part of government taking revenge on elected leaders. I'm not a Trump fan, but this thread (and the left in general) is taking a dive off the deep end.
Reducing this story to fear mongering and taking revenge just isn't accurate.
|
On February 16 2017 05:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 05:12 Plansix wrote:On February 16 2017 05:07 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 05:01 Sermokala wrote:On February 16 2017 04:55 Nevuk wrote:On February 16 2017 04:50 Sermokala wrote:On February 16 2017 04:43 Nevuk wrote:On February 16 2017 04:16 oneofthem wrote:
lol the far left is busy bashing the deep state as we speak. this bunch is a lost cause. enjoy your red country It is comments like this that convince true leftists that there's no point in reaching out to the centrists at all. Then the moment they're convinced of this they become far left and a liability to their own cause. Ah yes, the true key to neo liberal victory stragies: suppressing your own vote. The more I see neoliberals refuse any and all culpability for getting Trump elected the more convinced I am that his victory was probably the best outcome for anyone except a very specific group of people in the long run. A Clinton win would have dragged the country even further right, while Trump is accidentally reversing long term economic trends of both parties. Bro I'm a republican. Politics 101 is being willing to compromise your ideology for power. Doesn't matter if it's giving pompey leave to campaign in Iberia or making a deal to keep environmentalists and coal miners happy. Important figures have been compromised for the entirety of the Republic Jefferson called slavery a henious blot but tolerated it to keep the south from going back to england. Problem is that the "center left" Clinton crowd isn't any better at compromise. You continue to be the Aaron Burr of this thread. I have no idea what you stand for, but you are against many things. I see the past three months of Trump-induced exile have not done much good for seeing things with a fresh outlook. If you want an answer to that, you could ask nicely with specific questions. One cannot be that self righteous and be proven so very wrong without taking a 90 day ban to the face. Just keeping the universe in balance. But your Burr-ness has not changed during that time away. Just biding your time, watching the tension grow.
It is, perhaps, a necessity to have tension to create a better future. The reality is that nationalism is here to stay as a force of politics, that globalization is highly divisive, and that the liberal order may not survive another decade. Best to embrace it and plan for a world where these forces are accepted as a reality than to try to whitewash them in pursuit of a consensus that no longer exists.
|
Norway28864 Posts
On February 16 2017 04:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 04:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 16 2017 03:57 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 03:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:I certainly believe that Trump would like to be dictator, but American institutions seem much too resilient for it to be an even remote possibility. And Introvert, Trump is amazing at energizing - both his base and his opposition. We'll keep on fighting him until he's out of office, be it 1, 4 or 8 years.  Fighting, yes, but with no sense of unity. What's the end game after Trump is gone? Back to normal. And there is a sense of unity - Trump is a dangerous embarrassment and he has to go. I'm reading and hearing that from all types of sources - what is particularly inspiring is that a lot of it comes from people who used to be pretty apolitical. I'm not expecting leftists to unite in 2024, but it also doesn't make sense that they would. I think there's a lot of merit to the notion that there's a bigger difference between a Sanders type of social(ist) democrat and a neoliberal like Clinton than the difference between a progressive neoliberal like Clinton and a more conservative neoliberal like Jeb. So if the republicans start fielding someone competent who makes sense, leftist unity is gonna dissipate. But as long as Trump is there I really believe that people will unite around whatever candidate opposes him - pre-election people weren't sure how bad it was gonna be, they thought Clinton was winning anyway, etc.. I don't see it happening again. I mean 4 years is a long time, I don't hold much weight to my own predictions tbh, but at least how it is right now, that's how it feels. I think if there was a reelection held tomorrow, Trump would get obliterated. An acquaintance told me a story about how he was eating dinner with 3 different couples, and aside from my acquaintance and his gf, all 6 people said they actually cried on election night. Even though they were all Sanders supporters, and two of them didn't vote for Clinton. Obviously this is anecdotal, but I'm reading a lot of similar stuff from a lot of different sources. Back to normal? What's normal at this point? A fractured left, a gaining populist right, and a partisan divide that is forever growing. You want a Jeb Bush type of Republican running? Tough shit, he got slaughtered in a very hilarious fashion by both Trump and the voters. The right doesn't want a president like that, at all. If Trump had lost that wouldn't have changed. This has been going on for a long time. You think people are going to finally see how dangerous Trump is and vote for some kind of centrist consensus candidate that will toe the status quo? Not happening either. Those candidates continue to be impressively unpopular. Just because leftists can agree they hate Trump doesn't mean they can agree on who will be their standard bearer. They hate each other almost as much. And nothing changed. People saw Trump this way before his presidency started, they will see himself this way now. Democracy gave us two candidates that almost the entire country hates, and the choice made was not the one who bragged about being super electable. Leftists want to fight Trump, but right now they're fighting each other just as hard. That's the entire reason Trump won despite being hugely unpopular.
I think your assessment has value if you go two months back in time. But I've hardly seen leftists fighting leftists post-Trump. Now it's all leftists thinking this shit is fucking ridiculous, centrists thinking this shit is fucking ridiculous, Trump supporters being disappointed because they really thought he was gonna be a way better version of himself after leaving campaign mode, reluctant republicans being quiet because he's becoming harder and harder to justify having voted for, and some particularly sadistic fucks being happy that other people are sad. That's what I am seeing. I think biology]major is one example from this thread - he clearly sees Trump in a different light now than he did 2-3 months ago. Even xDaunt has been critical of his attack on the courts and his relationship with the truth, as another example. I'm not expecting the infowars crowd to change their opinion, but that is still a small minority of the american population, even if they are loud online.
I'm not saying that I long for the days of Clinton vs Bush, but yeah, I think the spectacular crash and burn we're seeing from the Trump administration right now is going to hurt the populist winds spreading across the west - although I also think more nationalist policies are going to be favored by responsible and competent political actors.
Norway is in many ways an example of this; we've rejected joining the EU in referendums twice (politicians pushing for membership both times) - now support is lower than ever. We've had a populist right wing party speaking about dangers of unfettered immigration since the mid 80s, they were at some point polling in the 25-30% area, but because our Labor party adopted many of their immigration policies (without adopting any of the inflammatory rhetoric), their progress was halted - they got 16% in the previous election, now down to 14%. So my prediction for the future is basically;
Whatever candidate wins democratic nomination wins the 2020 election. Doesn't matter who. But whomever it is will campaign on a platform containing elements of Trump's most popular political positions, just without the idiocy. And then they will disappoint many people, and genuine leftists will find it harder to support that candidate in the 2024 election. The world is gonna keep revolving, the end of history keeps being far into the horizon, there'll still be war, strife, conflict. Immigration is gonna be a constant source of conflict, because more people are going to want to (and need to) migrate, but Western countries (both the US and Europe) are going to enact stricter immigration policies, possibly coupled with reduced welfare options. Some countries will be more liberal, some less, there will be fluctuations both ways.. I can certainly see populists succeed in some of the coming elections in western european countries as well, but populists winning power is not the new normal, it's one of the ways normality is going to continue to deviate.
|
On February 16 2017 05:14 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 04:59 biology]major wrote:On February 16 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
We've reached the point at which any previously hated party - Russia, the IC, Buzzfeed, random whistleblowers, and so on - can just release some compromising material on important political figures and half the country will rationalize away their own hatred of that party. What a beautiful situation. Are you not at all worried that the important political figures are compromised? It has more to do with the fact that we don't have all the answers. ofcourse people are worried that political figures are compromised, but at the same time trusting these leaks blindly when they could be politically motivated is also a misstep. We need more information to come to that conclusion, why don't these leakers just release the transcripts? Is it because the nature of the conversations are benign and will shift the narrative? Do they not have the transcripts? And yet the GOP came out saying that Flynn is now gone and there is no need at all to investigate and that we should all quickly forget about this. Considering the information that we do know there is cause for an investigation. Just like there was cause to investigate Benghazi or Clinton's email servers. And when the investigation finds that all that happened was some discussions about the weather then there is nothing to worry about (aside from Flynn lying to Pence and Trump knowing about it). What worries people is that there are serious allegations about top US officials potentially being compromised and the governments reaction is to make us all look the other way. That sends off a lot of alarms bells. Are they trying to hide a real scandal? The easiest way to make the current scandal go away is to order a full investigation and then be silent while its conducted. But that only works if nothing happened. So you're saying GOP investigations into Clintons emails and benghazi was justified now? Investigations take months and might not turn up anything and there isn't any hard proof of impropriety that can be credited to anyone. Unnamed sources are enough to ask questions but they aren't enough to start investigations over.
Those investigations were a great way to win an election. I wonder if the Democrats could take back congress if they conducted enough investigations into who in congress knew what about the Russian connections? Who decided to ignore it? Who felt it was fine because it hurt Clinton and they needed Trump’s supporters? Throw the word treason around a lot.
That sounds like a really great way to create endless witch hunts until the mid-terms. The press will eat it up.
The mistake the Democrats made with Benghazi was they just whined about how it was wrong.
|
Populism seems to come in waves. Spectacular upset victories, then underwhelming performance, and repeat. The waves seem to be getting bigger now, though. Brexit and Trump are bigger than the peaks that preceded them. And yes, Trump may make populists look like fools for a time, but that won't last. The concerns people have are boiling beneath the surface and they sometimes come out - even in destructive ways.
Leftists aren't fighting leftists in the US right now? Arguable. Problem is that there simply isn't any central entity that they rally around. Bernie Sanders is the closest to that but a lot of people hate him as well.
But either way, there is no "back to normal." The Western world is as divided as it's been in a long time. Democrats may be able to beat Trump but they won't be able to satisfy an ever-increasing polarization in the country. And the pendulum will just keep swinging, harder and harder.
|
On February 16 2017 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 04:59 biology]major wrote:On February 16 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
We've reached the point at which any previously hated party - Russia, the IC, Buzzfeed, random whistleblowers, and so on - can just release some compromising material on important political figures and half the country will rationalize away their own hatred of that party. What a beautiful situation. Are you not at all worried that the important political figures are compromised? It has more to do with the fact that we don't have all the answers. ofcourse people are worried that political figures are compromised, but at the same time trusting these leaks blindly when they could be politically motivated is also a misstep. We need more information to come to that conclusion, why don't these leakers just release the transcripts? Is it because the nature of the conversations are benign and will shift the narrative? Do they not have the transcripts? And yet the GOP came out saying that Flynn is now gone and there is no need at all to investigate and that we should all quickly forget about this. Considering the information that we do know there is cause for an investigation. Just like there was cause to investigate Benghazi or Clinton's email servers. And when the investigation finds that all that happened was some discussions about the weather then there is nothing to worry about (aside from Flynn lying to Pence and Trump knowing about it). What worries people is that there are serious allegations about top US officials potentially being compromised and the governments reaction is to make us all look the other way. That sends off a lot of alarms bells. Are they trying to hide a real scandal? The easiest way to make the current scandal go away is to order a full investigation and then be silent while its conducted. But that only works if nothing happened.
Except that you know it doesn't work like that. There are still plenty of people who think that Hillary sent Ben Ghazi to murder US military personnel, or whatever bullcrap they invented, and the hearings dragged on and on and on precisely because there was political capital to be won by dragging out that farce of an investigation. A Flynn investigation seems justified, but I can predict already that this will become a political circus at a similar scale rather than any kind of actual investigation of wrongdoing.
|
Two days after Trump’s victory, Russia’s deputy foreign minister told a reporter in Moscow that “there were contacts” between Russian officials and the Trump campaign. “Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” he said. That prompted a vigorous denial from Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks, who insisted there had been “no contact with Russian officials.”
•On Jan. 11, an NBC reporter asked Trump whether members of his staff were in contact with Russian officials during the campaign. “No,” he replied.
•On Jan. 15, Mike Pence was asked basically the same question on two Sunday shows. “Of course not,” he replied on Fox and CBS.
•Yesterday afternoon, Sean Spicer stood by Trump’s earlier denials during the daily briefing when questioned by ABC.
WSJ
|
On February 16 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 16 2017 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 04:59 biology]major wrote:On February 16 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
We've reached the point at which any previously hated party - Russia, the IC, Buzzfeed, random whistleblowers, and so on - can just release some compromising material on important political figures and half the country will rationalize away their own hatred of that party. What a beautiful situation. Are you not at all worried that the important political figures are compromised? It has more to do with the fact that we don't have all the answers. ofcourse people are worried that political figures are compromised, but at the same time trusting these leaks blindly when they could be politically motivated is also a misstep. We need more information to come to that conclusion, why don't these leakers just release the transcripts? Is it because the nature of the conversations are benign and will shift the narrative? Do they not have the transcripts? And yet the GOP came out saying that Flynn is now gone and there is no need at all to investigate and that we should all quickly forget about this. Considering the information that we do know there is cause for an investigation. Just like there was cause to investigate Benghazi or Clinton's email servers. And when the investigation finds that all that happened was some discussions about the weather then there is nothing to worry about (aside from Flynn lying to Pence and Trump knowing about it). What worries people is that there are serious allegations about top US officials potentially being compromised and the governments reaction is to make us all look the other way. That sends off a lot of alarms bells. Are they trying to hide a real scandal? The easiest way to make the current scandal go away is to order a full investigation and then be silent while its conducted. But that only works if nothing happened. So you're saying GOP investigations into Clintons emails and benghazi was justified now? Investigations take months and might not turn up anything and there isn't any hard proof of impropriety that can be credited to anyone. Unnamed sources are enough to ask questions but they aren't enough to start investigations over. Those investigations were a great way to win an election. I wonder if the Democrats could take back congress if they conducted enough investigations into who in congress knew what about the Russian connections? Who decided to ignore it? Who felt it was fine because it hurt Clinton and they needed Trump’s supporters? Throw the word treason around a lot. That sounds like a really great way to create endless witch hunts until the mid-terms. The press will eat it up. The mistake the Democrats made with Benghazi was they just whined about how it was wrong.
Lol. I didn't read this before I made my post. Case in point. All that matters is using this investigation as a political tool: it doesn't even matter if Trump is actually innocent.
Note that if there is actual evidence of Trump hobnobbing with Russian spies and quid-pro-quoing during the campaign, that would be a scandal bigger than Watergate, but nobody expects to find shit. They just want to make lots of hay.
|
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century.
|
United States44190 Posts
On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century.
It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong.
|
Puzder is out on word that 4 Republicans wouldn't budge from a No vote and up to 12 signaled a willingness to follow suit
|
On February 16 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong.
At this point, what difference does it make? No one actually cares. Some people pretend to care but no one actually cares.
|
On February 16 2017 05:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:On February 16 2017 05:14 Sermokala wrote:On February 16 2017 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 04:59 biology]major wrote:On February 16 2017 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
We've reached the point at which any previously hated party - Russia, the IC, Buzzfeed, random whistleblowers, and so on - can just release some compromising material on important political figures and half the country will rationalize away their own hatred of that party. What a beautiful situation. Are you not at all worried that the important political figures are compromised? It has more to do with the fact that we don't have all the answers. ofcourse people are worried that political figures are compromised, but at the same time trusting these leaks blindly when they could be politically motivated is also a misstep. We need more information to come to that conclusion, why don't these leakers just release the transcripts? Is it because the nature of the conversations are benign and will shift the narrative? Do they not have the transcripts? And yet the GOP came out saying that Flynn is now gone and there is no need at all to investigate and that we should all quickly forget about this. Considering the information that we do know there is cause for an investigation. Just like there was cause to investigate Benghazi or Clinton's email servers. And when the investigation finds that all that happened was some discussions about the weather then there is nothing to worry about (aside from Flynn lying to Pence and Trump knowing about it). What worries people is that there are serious allegations about top US officials potentially being compromised and the governments reaction is to make us all look the other way. That sends off a lot of alarms bells. Are they trying to hide a real scandal? The easiest way to make the current scandal go away is to order a full investigation and then be silent while its conducted. But that only works if nothing happened. So you're saying GOP investigations into Clintons emails and benghazi was justified now? Investigations take months and might not turn up anything and there isn't any hard proof of impropriety that can be credited to anyone. Unnamed sources are enough to ask questions but they aren't enough to start investigations over. Those investigations were a great way to win an election. I wonder if the Democrats could take back congress if they conducted enough investigations into who in congress knew what about the Russian connections? Who decided to ignore it? Who felt it was fine because it hurt Clinton and they needed Trump’s supporters? Throw the word treason around a lot. That sounds like a really great way to create endless witch hunts until the mid-terms. The press will eat it up. The mistake the Democrats made with Benghazi was they just whined about how it was wrong. Lol. I didn't read this before I made my post. Case in point. All that matters is using this investigation as a political tool: it doesn't even matter if Trump is actually innocent. Note that if there is actual evidence of Trump hobnobbing with Russian spies and quid-pro-quoing during the campaign, that would be a scandal bigger than Watergate, but nobody expects to find shit. They just want to make lots of hay.
It is a political tool that no one should ever use because it means the other side will do it back. But whining about it won’t stop the other side from using it. Burning them with it will. We all need to touch all the stoves so we know they are hot.
|
On February 16 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong. At this point, what difference does it make? No one actually cares. Some people pretend to care but no one actually cares.
Your Russian side is showing again.
Yes people seriously care about the Presidential advisor being in the pocket of the Kremlin.
|
On February 16 2017 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong. At this point, what difference does it make? No one actually cares. Some people pretend to care but no one actually cares. Your Russian side is showing again. Yes people seriously care about the Presidential advisor being in the pocket of the Kremlin.
Looks pretty divided along party lines to me. Russia hawks on the Republican side excepted, of course.
Not saying this is how it should be.
|
On February 16 2017 05:56 farvacola wrote:Puzder is out on word that 4 Republicans wouldn't budge from a No vote and up to 12 signaled a willingness to follow suit
Why such resistance to him? DeVos got confirmed ffs.
|
On February 16 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong. At this point, what difference does it make? No one actually cares. Some people pretend to care but no one actually cares. Your Russian side is showing again. Yes people seriously care about the Presidential advisor being in the pocket of the Kremlin. Looks pretty divided along party lines to me. Russia hawks on the Republican side excepted, of course.
Gee I wonder why Republican officials are reluctant to investigate a scandal that has the potential to cause their sitting President to be impeached...
|
On February 16 2017 06:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong. At this point, what difference does it make? No one actually cares. Some people pretend to care but no one actually cares. Your Russian side is showing again. Yes people seriously care about the Presidential advisor being in the pocket of the Kremlin. Looks pretty divided along party lines to me. Russia hawks on the Republican side excepted, of course. Gee I wonder why Republican officials are reluctant to investigate a scandal that has the potential to cause their sitting President to be impeached...
So you agree that this is actually about Trump and winning then?
|
On February 16 2017 06:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 06:00 Gorsameth wrote:On February 16 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:On February 16 2017 05:54 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:
Few people care about Russia. There are Russia hawks here and there, but most of this isn't really about Russia; it's about beating Trump. We have devolved to the point where actual conflicts of interest and foreign influences no longer matter.
I wonder if even the people who ordered the leaks could have expected how far the fallout of those would go. A few thousand emails was all it took to take internal tensions in the US to levels not seen in more than a century. It's not about beating Trump, Trump legitimately did something wrong. At this point, what difference does it make? No one actually cares. Some people pretend to care but no one actually cares. Your Russian side is showing again. Yes people seriously care about the Presidential advisor being in the pocket of the Kremlin. Looks pretty divided along party lines to me. Russia hawks on the Republican side excepted, of course. Gee I wonder why Republican officials are reluctant to investigate a scandal that has the potential to cause their sitting President to be impeached...
Three weeks into a 4 year term. But sadly, the NSA, CIA and I am pretty sure a reasonable chunk of the armed services sending up red flags.
They really just wanted to ride this out until they could cut some taxes and destroy the ACA. Then maybe deal with the whole Russia thing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
given what putin is willing to do to secure elections having a putin puppet prez seriously raises the potential of future disruptions. including bombing apartments and then blamig terrorists, while poisoning whistleblowers with some plutonium tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
