President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Nah, you were wrong on this one. He said the right thing when he admitted he didn't know enough to answer the question well. Again, that's behavior we should be encouraging, not attacking.

We're all guilty of it. We've all gotten into a dispute at some point on this board, had someone bring up something we didn't know much about and, rather than admitting such, we've gone to Google and acted an authority on the subject.

YF reacted and engaged honestly (until the last sentence). He basically did exactly what the left-leaning portion of this board says he "should" do more often. So your unprovoked snark is not conducive to intelligent debate. It's antagonistic and fruitless. What incentive does YF, or anyone else, have to react honestly if they're just going to be called out for it?

 

Let's try one of your tactics. If Hillary Clinton was in office and facing these exact circumstances, would you be defending her?

 

I'm using it properly. He lied. He lies.He's a liar. Perhaps you should look those words up on Dictionary.com. You seem to have forgotten what they mean.

 

Nah.

 

And pointing out how often he makes no such excuse and posts from a position of clear ignorance was warranted.

 

What's the crime they're investigating?

Hell, Alan Dershowitz says it wouldn't even be a crime if the Trump campaign had coordinated with a foreign government:





He's looking for a crime.

 

I reject Dershowitz's premise ... he's a liar.

And don't get me started on his arguing from ignorance.

 

OK. So, what's the crime they are investigating.

What words? We now know -- and reporters with their great FBI contacts have known for some time now -- that Trump wasn't personally under investigation.

And, firing Comey, for any reason is not a crime:

Contact is not a crime. Just as Comey was not "investigated" for his false statement under oath, because he amended it when it was pointed out to him, making a mistake on a security clearance form is not a crime. The "meetings" these guys failed to disclose were things like incidental, short greetings, in a group setting, at an event.

No one's going to jail for forgetting that, or for forgetting a brief phone call, when it was among hundreds of phone calls.

The only guy in any serious jeopard might be Flynn, because he received payments he didn't disclose.

 

Defending her?

Why would I do that?

If the process against her was as warped as this one is, I might criticize that.

Again, here's Alan, he makes the point that he's not defending Trump:

 

You're defending Trump. You wouldn't defend her? Great. Thank you for proving my point that it is all about the political laundry and hatred of the Clintons with you.

 

I don't know ... a crime? The President can't really be charged with a crime (not in the way we usually think). But the President can't fire the FBI Director for a corrupt reason. Seeing as how there's a possibility your statement could be in error, I'm going to have to call you a liar.

 

You missed the point, not unsurprisingly.

I wouldn't have to defend her to make the same point, any more than Dershowitz is "defending" Trump.