That's called being POTUS not hangingout or having qestionable contacts while being a candidate

I don't understand the treasonable thing it's not treason don't know what to call it until they conclude the investigation and unlike some on both sides I will accept the outcome

Muller hiring 15 more lawyes? ? For a nothing burger .....

Obama started out with praise for Putin (ibtimes 1/9/17):

President Barack Obama first met Russian President Vladimir Putin in July/2009 at Putin’s Dacha, or country home, outside of Moscow, and in spite of the tensions between the two leaders, the men spoke optimistically of a new relationship between their countries.
Obama told Putin, who was then serving as prime minister under his handpicked presidential successor Dmitry Medvedev, that he was aware of “the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people,” and that “We think there’s an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a much stronger footing.” Putin responded to Obama that, “With you we link all our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries.”

There was even a "reset" in relations with Russia during the Obama Presidency handled by his SecState Hillary.

Things changed in the relationship as relations are wont to do. The same will probably happen between Trump and Russia. There are signs they already have. Among other things, Trump's speech in Poland most certainly was not welcomed by Putin.

Get all the facts together, don't just cherry pick or, as you put it, "deflect."

So being POTUS exempts one's contacts from being "questionable"? And it absolves one's actions from being considered "hangingout"?
So now that Trump is POTUS, his contacts cannot be considered questionable, nor his actions considered "hangingout."

And who decides what is "questionable"? Isn't it nearly always the case that one considers the actions of those he opposes but can't be proven to be wrong, bad, or illegal, to be "questionable"?

You claimed falsely that Obama never "hung out" with socialists or communists. He did. And he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. Obama's several contacts previous to becoming POTUS were considered "questionable" by those who are anti-communist or anti-radical. Was he "hangingout" then? Was he colluding with left wing elements in our country and other parts of the world either through direct aid or political aid and intellectual or media backing on his way to the presidency?

Well if becoming POTUS absolves Obama of all that, I guess Trump, now being POTUS can be absolved of his "questionable" contacts.

"HANGIN' OUT"

President Obama got caught in private conversation with a hot mic today in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more "space" and that "[a]fter my election I have more flexibility."

Jake Tapper has the exchange:

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

is this your gotcha quote? and are they the same thing one president asking an out going one to give a message to the new one Theses issues can be solved ??? and he still got reelected no scandal no collusion suggestions ...

not sure how you see that and possibly having the Russians intentionally mess in our elections .. and Trumps people and himself asking for their help “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”


Russian agents hacked the Democratic National Committee’s email account in a bid to disrupt the 2016 election. This claim has been affirmed by every branch of the American national security state, virtually every member of Congress from either party


Trump is arguing that the Democratic National Committee — and, later, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — deliberately allowed their politically damaging emails to be hacked and published, so that they would have a ready-made excuse for losing the election. Thanks to their friends in the “deep state,” this worked. And now, the FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon, top White House national security officials, and entire Republican Party are carrying water for this Democratic hoax.

Sure they are the same thing

Was this before they invaded ukraine Seems you need to put your facts with a time line of world events ... it matters As Trump plays nice with Putin its about facts and time lines .. as well

he was raised as a child by socialists and communists. this statement alone is why I ignore your posts you love to sprinkle these little prejudice comments in your well written rants .. plese get back to me when you have info these questionable people ... hacked our election or were agents of a foreign power ...

this would be secret collusion with the Russians intending and expressing the willingness to avoid/side step congress....

Obama also secretly colluded with the Iranians....which confirmed that he was perfectly willing to do the above

the Russians and Iranians both ran rings around feckless Obama and his arrogant naiveté.....


and who could forget "Pictured together, Hillary Clinton, her husband and the Chinese billionaire accused of being front for Communist bid to influence election"


these things bother me as much if not more than anything Trump has been shown to be involved in .....


you constantly move the bar to suit your arguments....very "Trumpian"

that's the "Trump Effect".....it hurts, it's not in your nature, you really don't want to... but the left and media have gone so full speed whacko that they make you shake your head(have you seen Eben's posts lately?) and he comes out of each debacle looking much better than he otherwise should :huh:

if Wayne is looking for some talking points with which to bash Trump he should frequent the National Review website(Conservative bible)...no shortage of articles hammering the President and his team and there actions on a daily basis

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...e-hard-believe

not only was the left and media responsible for the election of Trump...they are responsible for his longevity as well :rotflmao:

And he didn't do it on a Thursday after eating a Reuben. Simple: he met, praised, and respected Communists and Socialists for most of his life - before and during his presidency.



Ohh, there is something wrong, possibly even criminal. But we have half the country on the fainting counch or grabbing torchesd and pitchforks. You have supposedly smart people calling "Treason". Know the definition of Treason? None of this reaches that. Period. Prove Me Wrong.

No - he does not look better - he has not looked better other than tiny brief periods. Hardly has he looked good.

that's something, I'm sure he'd consider it a bigly win :hihi:

Your time line of world events is squeezed into a small slot which you think supports your argument. The truer time line of "world events" shows Putin to have been a lieutenant cornel in the KGB. It shows his transition from that to political power as President of Russia after the KGB undercut Gorbachev's "glasnost" and "perestroika" and Yeltsin's attempt to liberate Russia from the clutches of a KGB type dictatorship and to be more in accord with western democracy.

http://www.economist.com/node/9682621

This was well before the invasion of the Ukraine. The invasion was, actually, an attempt to begin the restoration of Russian control of East Europe. So the invasion was actually connected to the old KGB control of Russia. Putin was the same KGB type operative during the Ukraine invasion as he was well before Obama became President.

And Obama surely knew that. It was probably what he referred to when he praised Putin for the "extraordinary work you have done on behalf of the Russian people"--Putin had broken the power of the oligarchs who had risen during the Yeltsin administration. And it was exactly the type of politics Obama would favor--the control of the big money guys by government--socialism.

If Putin's invasion of the Ukraine changed Obama's opinion of him, just as FDR realized he had been suckered by Stalin when he let the Commie dictator take over East Europe, who knows what Trump's opinion of Putin would be if he did such a thing again.

So it's your facts and time line that are lacking. The relevant time line does not does not show that Obama's praise for Putin is more justified than Trump's. You keep straining and deflecting in order to make Trump some sort of boobocrat who is more dangerous than other Presidents we have had. The facts and time lines don't support that.

You have the Pres. of the United States commenting on another persons wife's body and then you have his personal lawyer threatening someone.

Classy folks we have running the country right now.

reminds me of the Clinton years

good news is...Trump will be gone possibly in a matter of months and definitely in a couple of years....bad news is people will continue to reelect the corpses in Congress who are also "running" the country

And don't remember Clinton saying things like that in front of the spouse - I'm sure he thought it (numerous times).

Sanders said something like Hillary was better on her worse day than Trump would be on his best day. I would add every Repub. candidate to that statement ( better).

You're kidding right? It was a compliment. Are those offensive now too . What a country you left wingers would have if left alone .. except for the war with Russia that you keep begging for 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DS, I'm not sure if you realize it but talking about someone's wifes body is not appropriate.

man... Bill Clinton would have a tough go of it with the current leftist standards for behavior :kewl:

He said she looked fit , beautiful !! You act like he said she had nice booty and a great rack .
I can't believe how many Saints now reside oh the party of "God is bad"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Said great shape. The guy is a pervert and has no self control.

And now we learn that Donald Jr. had another visitor w/him - a former Russian counter intelligence officer (Sen. Grassley said he had ties to the Russian government). Another lie (one of many). He just said Tues. that he released everything but forgot to mention this.

I'm shocked at how bad liars the Trump family is. Lie for the sake of lying - no strategy, nothing.

Witch hunt - LOL

that's nearly as horrifying as Ted Kennedy's "waitress sandwich"...speaking of no self control...and he was in Washington for like a hundred years and serious democrat presidential candidate and icon


great shape?.....good grief


"It is after midnight and Kennedy and Dodd are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurant’s annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. “They’d always get their girls very, very drunk,” says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells [waitress Carla] Gaviglio the senators want to see her.

As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check."



don't think Trump can trump that :cheers:

Some guy I hardly knows says your wife has great shape I tell him he is a dic*.

In all seriousness, is this a joke? The party of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, is now lecturing the world on how to act in front of your wife, when other women are around?

The left recently attacked Mike Pence because he goes in the other direction, he doesn't even like being alone with any woman other than his wife.

And somehow that was offensive to the left. And Trump, at the other extreme, is also offensive to the left.

It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?

Times change boys, what used to be ok and considered totally ok, is completely inappropriate today; especially for the leader of the free world. It shows his ignorance and of course his true colors, he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance and he should know better.

My better half used to be head HR for Raytheon, town of Plymouth and she almost fell off her seat when she heard that comment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1125039
It almost seems like the left will complain, no matter what we do?[/QUOTE]

That is funny from the most prolific whiner on the Forum. You complained about anything and everything Obama did. Including getting so upset you called him a POS. And Hillary the c word.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I missed the announcement that it was OK to cheat on your wife with a child, or to drunkenly drive a young girl off a bridge, leave her, and then use the family money to dodge responsibility. That was OK when those things took place?

Trump is very crass, very boorish, and had no problem with objectifying women.

"he is a womanizer. And please don't compare him to JFK or anyone else, times chance "

Have times changed that much since Bill Clinton and John Edwards? You don't have to go back all that far.

Trump has very, very poor ethics. I have no problem, none, for calling him out on that...unless you give others a pass for ding worse, because they have a (d) after their name.

If you allow lunitics to set the standards , what's "acceptable " becomes loony .
Glad I work with normal people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Obama do that I complained about, which I routinely give conservatives a pass for?

I stand by those characterizations of Obama, and especially Hilary. I also say that Trump is a POS. Sure, I complained a lot during the Obama years. That doesn't mean I am guilty of hypocrisy.
.

If Trump used that same comment to compliment the wife of a friend that they socialize with on a regular basis, that's totally acceptable comment. If you don't see that it's off base for the president of the united states to comment on a leaders wife body, then sit against the wall at lunch break and whistle at the women you feel are hot as they make their way back to work.

It wasn't right of JFK, but back then it was more of a Men's world and he might have gotten a pass that leaders today certainly wouldn't. It certainly wasn't right for Bill Clinton either, that's an abuse of power, whether your the leader of the free world or your local church.

I don't consider it "acceptable" behavior, I'd consider it respectful and the behavior most of the people (of either party)I know would expect of the president of this country. I'm embarrassed at times to see the crap coming out of his mouth, or the BS he spews over twitter, I have no respect for the man.

His personal behavior is going to fall short, much of the time. Deep down, he's a jerk, or gross, or boorish, something like that.

But if he ran against the serially dishonest pantsuit lady tomorrow, I'd vote for him again. I'd love to have a president of high personal character. The GOP tried that in 2008 and 2012, the country wasn't interested.

I have to admit that PaulS sounds a little silly considering Clinton got blown in the White House. Maybe times hadn't changed yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good to see see seadangles's is back with his typical insults. Nothing constructive ever to add, just childish insults. What do you do lurk until you can't take it anymore and then feel like you have to comment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's an insult? :huh:.....good thing he didn't tell you that you were in "great shape" :musc:..wait...is it ok to comment that a guy is in "great shape" but not that a woman is in "great shape" in the era of "gender equity"?



love this....

"Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed with Chinese interference in a presidential election. This summer we mark the 20th anniversary of a major investigation by Congress of attempts by a hostile foreign power to influence an American presidential election. I’m glad the news media is pursuing the Trump–Russia scandal, but let’s not forget the differences between how they are covering Russia compared with how they reported a similar story — this one involving Communist China — that developed during Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. The Washington Post reported in 1998 that “evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.” Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?” According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana."

We need to demand better from all of the them, all the time

sure but...in a world of constantly changing rules(times)...it's hard to know what to demand

how about honesty, integrity and truth? maybe do actual journalism not opinion tin foil conspiracy bull and let the audience decide. instead we get more dividing the country


I know one thing, I can only control what I can control so what I say here won't change anything.

So when you think of President Trump, the words honesty, integrity and truth come to mind?

that was focused on the media and you know that, but don't let that change the subject of my reply . :1poke:


to answer your question directly with a yes or no, that would be a no of course.

like I said, I can only control what I can

If our president is more conservative than the last one, then that is a great thing for the country in my opinion, you are entitled to your opinion.