President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Clinton was charged with "sexual child abuse"? When? Or are you wrong to compare what Clinton did with "sexual child abuse"?

 

He was heard saying "Hold on Melanie, someone is wrong on the internet and I have to go tweet at them!"

 

Labor Day commemorative (redux)

(also retyped)

 

David Hogg raises thousands for anti-Ted Cruz billboard in Texas

 

So, we're not holding the candidate responsible for the actions of his campaign? Why not?

This is a weird phenomenon in American politics, and the reaction to it. Most campaigns have "surrogates", narrated commercials, "push polls", and outside groups, acting on their behalf, make the attacks on their opponents, as if that somehow removes them from the equation.

Trump was viewed as more authentic, and less of a traditional politician, because he was wiling to be the spokesperson for his own campaign.

But, hey we do have a comparison to Rove. McCain did ban a couple of political operatives from his funeral. His own former campaign managers, John Weaver and Steve Schmidt weren't allowed to attend the service.

Top 2008 campaign aides shut out of McCain funeral

 

I'll admit to not knowing how old the Senator's daughter was at the time she made this statement.

So, maybe she wasn't worried about "child" sexual assault, and it was just the typical, garden variety, Bill Clinton level of sexual assault that concerned her, when she thought about the possibility of her daughter being alone with him.

 

Now do financial crimes, such as paying off porn stars to keep quiet about two minutes of sex with six figures of campaign money.

Also: there, they're, and their. Learn them, love them.

 

Is there evidence of Trump having committed financial crimes? Can you provide a link?

Is there something illegal about securing a non disclosure agreement with someone, regarding legal activity, in return for a monetary payment?

 

Is he and his campaign team still under federal investigation? Which is what we're discussing. Including for using campaign funds illegally to do something legal, if shady as hell.

This began with our collective asking whether you'd hire someone to do a job if they were under investigation for doing that job badly. We all know you would not, so it doesn't matter if you answer. Merrick Garland was held up solely because it was an election year (well, that was the Republican pretence). There's a real possibility that Trump will be found to have committed serious crimes in short order and so will be seen as an illegitimate president. He shouldn't be appointing Supreme Court justices—in an election year to boot.

 

You can't possibly be this stupid. If you don't understand the difference between those two situations, you are truly beyond help.

 

Actually, it began with these two, unsupported comments from Dan:

This whole thing was supposed to be about "collusion" with the Russians to win the election.

Now, you're hoping to get him on payments to porn stars or Playboy models, or imagined financial crimes, that there is no evidence for.

The payment made to "Daniels" didn't come from campaign funds, and, regardless of what Michael Cohen may bad pled to, it would be impossible to convict Trump of a campaign violation for making that payment, as you could easily show that there were reasons not related to the campaign why he'd want to secure her silence.

The Garland comparison is silly too.

Garland was denied a seat because... of politics. Pure and simple.

And the Dems would have done the same thing, had they been in a similar situation.

The Dems are also invited to, and surely will, employ every political maneuver at their disposal to prevent Kavanaugh from taking his seat.

The difference between the situations is only that, in both cases, the Republicans had/have a majority in the Senate.

 

This a typically cowardly response of yours.

You make bold proclamations, but refuse to back them up with facts, or even an explanation of your viewpoint.

Sad.