President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I have a source who says the reason Trump is pulling out of the Paris Accord is that Donald desires to deal directly with Paris Hilton.

 

OK. What's your point, Izzy?

 

We're just supposed to take their word that this is true now?

 

Cite?

Your 180 degree turnaround on Comey has been totally out of left field. Never saw it coming.

 

I'm just glad that the ACA straightened out the individual health-insurance market.

 

So the answer must be to consolidate around legislation that will make things worse for the poor and elderly but give very rich people a huge tax cut.

 

My position on Comey has never changed. I think he did what he thought was right, and that any errors he may have made were not politically motivated.

I've been consistent on this, unlike Dems who loved him when he stood up to George Bush, but hated him when he investigated Clinton.

But, he did falsely testify to Congress recently. I don't know why. He should have known the facts, but maybe he didn't.

But, to then pretend outrage when it's suggested other testimony may be false is silly. Dems were outraged over his email testimony, which turned out not to be true.

Clapper just flat out lied.

The F.B.I. on Tuesday clarified testimony last week by its director, James B. Comey, about how classified information ended up on the laptop of the disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, hours before Mr. Comey was fired by President Trump.

Mr. Comey had told the Senate Judiciary Committee that during the F.B.I.’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, officers uncovered evidence that Mrs. Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, had “forwarded hundreds and thousands of emails, some of which contain classified information” to Mr. Weiner, her husband.

But while some of the emails were forwarded, the F.B.I. told Congress that it was likely that the vast majority were instead backed up to Mr. Weiner’s laptop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/comey-clinton-emails-testimony.html


It was an exchange made famous not because of what was said at the time, but because of what Americans discovered later.

At the tail end of a rare open session of the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked National Intelligence Director James Clapper whether intelligence officials collect data on Americans.

Clapper responded "No, sir," and, "Not wittingly."

In the following months, a series of news stories fueled by leaks from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that wasn’t the case. Reports showed the government was collecting and storing bulk metadata of American phone records, and had methods for capturing a vast amount of email and Internet data as well.

A year later, Clapper’s testimony represents one of the great, and unfortunate, holes in timely fact-checking. The challenge in discerning whether those with privileged information, particularly on matters of national security, are speaking truthfully in public is a difficult, if not impossible, task.

James Clapper's testimony one year later

 

Undermining trust in officials and offices that might have negative information about you.

Nope, no fascism to see here. Moving along...

 

I don't understand the distinction.

You'll never believe this, particularly when it comes to a liberal or someone you perceive as a threat to a rock-ribbed, lifelong conservative like Donald J. Trump, but people frequently fuck up facts, even under oath, because .... people fuck up facts. I mean, you go after them about it, but not necessarily to show they are lying. But just to show that their testimony is unreliable, whatever the reason.

 

Right. And, when Comey gets attacked from the left, that's fine and dandy, but if the President hits him, OUTRAGE!!

It's a political trap Republicans have fallen into for far to long.

It's actually what Trump fought against when he made his John McCain comment. Dems can slam MacCain all they want, but when Trump criticized him -- in what was a public back-and-forth -- he get's the whole, "John McCain is a hero, how can you criticize him," that Democrats never get.

It's the same way Clinton and other Dems could go after Ken Starr, and that was never inappropriate.

Let's choose one standard and stick with it, but Republicans would be fools to live under different rules than the Dems.

They did for far too long, and now that Trump is refusing to, Dems don't know what to do. They've lost a huge advantage.

 

Probably the answer (or at least an answer) lies somewhere between that and simply assuming, always, that someone who ain't paying enough is gonna pay more.

 

This is so disingenuous.

He criticized him specifically for being a POW.

That's pretty different than criticizing his position on immigration or fucking Iran.