POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

Your most lucid argument ever on this site.

 

I don’t totally agree, but it is a fitting post to summarize his opinion of your list.

 

Dumb-Dumb-

When did Obama put those sanctions into effect and when did he take those actions? Before the election - when he knew they were meddling - or after?

It was after. After the meddling was over.
He just sat and watched it happen, and like so many other things. Because like every liberal, he’s equal parts stupid and weak.

Do you mean this Obama, who got caught on a hot mic asking a Russian official for more “space” until after the election, and when he’d have more that he would have more “flexibility” in negotiating?

Or, do you think he meant more flexibility and space to get tougher?

Where were you when this shit went down, interning at Amnesty International? Oiling your Birkenstocks? What, man?



Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...xibility-after-election-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326

Here’s a good article on Trump’s dealing with Russia and sanctions:

Or these:

Or best, this summary, with my emphasis:
“Compare all of the above actions to Obama’s milquetoast policy on Russia and outright appeasement on issues such as the “red line” that Russia blew right past in Syria. Obama’s lackluster track record with Russia is in stark contrast to the Trump administration that has already, in its first 18 months, surpassed what Obama did over a total of eight years.”

Link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight%

And this, on top of when he struck Russian-buddies Syria for using chemical weapons, and when Obama failed to do so, despite that having crossed his own “red line”.

Did you read anything in there that about Trump trying to pass the buck to Congressional leadership?

Do you want to talk about that?

Three (3) articles, a video and about 2 dozen brain cells is all that it takes to prove how truly dumb you are, and that your political opinions are utterly worthless.

Don’t worry about this shit, man. It’s too hard for your

You go think about other stuff.

 

You run a damned close second.

Why don’t you figure not the square root of this apartment, and report back.

Now all that we need is for IP to jump in and the Stooges will be reunited.

 

Classic you.

One, you link an article by a right wing Republican strategist who, shockingly, creates, and I emphasize creates, a narrative to your liking by which you then pass off as an informative piece rather than an opinion or partisan hit job.

Second, you take something from 2012 and pass it off as part of the 2016 election.

Third, the point was not did Obama do enough, but was he harsher towards Russia than Trump. Trump, the president who had to be be forced into a corner to sign sanctions against Russia. Trump, the guy who sided with Putin in Helsinki over his own government's finding (Way, waaayyy worse than what Obama said on the hot mic in 2012, which wasn't really bad, at all, and before the meddling. The "red line", though is legit criticism and maybe Obama's worst mistake.). And on and on.

And, let's be fully clear. Had Obama raised hell and loudly excoriated the Russian efforts to help Trump, you, like McConnell threatened to do, would have pitched a fit about him trying to influence the election. Now, McConnell and the right says Obama did too little.

You simply ignore, and argue against, any semblence of an idea, no matter how small, rational or even if Trump's own words verify it, which goes against your strict ideology of Trump idolotry. Only you would make, with all seriousness, the argument Trump has been tough on Russia, as you are closing in on Jonestown-level territory.

 

Zero. Zero square feet.

 

Also, I have never owned Birkenstocks. That was an abominable slander, which I missed the first time around, worse than any others in the post.

 

Haha

 

I’m sure the Spin Doctors will be in here soon enough to tell us why this time is different...

 

What’s to spin?

I’ve repeatedly said that the Dems should move to immediately impeach him.

Today.

 

Not the answer he was looking for.

 

Let’s rephrase this.

Is Graham’s line of thought consistent with yours on the standard for impeachment?

Personally, I don’t like it. Particularly in the instance of Trump. We knew we were getting this when electing him.

 

Because you think it will help him politically, not because you think he deserves it.

 

Plenty good enough.

 

I didn’t watch the clip, and won’t, as I no more rely on 1997(ish?) Lindsey Graham’s opinion than I do his 2019 version. Nor will I will heed any other, in subsequent years.

The remedy here is clear - if the Dems believe that Trump has committed an impeachable offense, they own the House and should immediately begin those proceedings.

If they don’t, it’s because:

A) They are derelict in their duties, or

B) They don’t believe that he has committed an impeachable offense, and are utterly full of shit in continuing to say and act as if he has, should be or they are incapable of getting the good to do it, or

C) They both believe that he did committed an impeachable offense and deserves to be impeached, but are allowing some other and entirely political concern prevent it, or

D) Some combination of the three (3) options, above.

So, if they don’t move to impeach him, it’s because they’re incompetent, full of shit, or are playing a dangerous game of silly politics and with the most powerful position on earth.

It’s all very simple, really, and requires scant little analysis or discussion.

You aren’t going to beat him in 2020, so if your want him gone, best get moving in the impeachment direction, anyway.

Just my $.02

 

Only one way to find out, I ‘spose.

Your side has already screwed this up so badly as to have surrendered 2020, and should turn your attention to Pence in 2024, instead.

Or the Senate, where he’s going to name at least two more justices, at a minimum. Bare, bare minimum.

Simply, somewhere, anywhere that all of this temper-tantrum anger and disdain will make one hot damn.

 

Basically his argument is no crime is required for impeachment. An impeachment is justified if someone is determined to not have the qualities required by the office - it is to protect the values of the office.

 

Someone should ask Lawrence O'Donnell if any of his opinions have changed in the past 22 years.

 

I agree with you 100%. Don't know what they are waiting for?