Latest poll

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Because his crooked father taught him how to cheat very well...that line is ending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Triggered Nonsense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Because his crooked father taught him how to cheat very well...that line is ending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I feel bad that you ended up with this anger. Some day you will look back and understand why He is the greatest president of our lifetime. Enjoy the fruits of His labor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

dempcraps are working very hard to re-elect him!!!

[Sea Dangles]

Thanks for sharing. The country has a lot to consider.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Trump has accomplished “little good”.

In which a 50 year low in unemployment, an all time
low in black unemployment, and continuing to rout jihadists, is “little good.”

If Obama was president he’d have won a second Nobel in economics.

He’s also appointing judges who are likely to put personal
agendas aside and use the constitution as he rulebook, rather than using the bench as a platform for activism.

He’s doing a LOT of good. He’s just an unbelievable
jerk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Pete, your article says Trump replaces the language of democracy with vulgarity. I agree he’s very very undiplomatic. My question is, so what? What actual harm has this caused? Is Canada going to sign a treaty with the jihadists? Leaders may not
like Trump, but I don’t see any evidence that it changes the way they view America at all. Not in the least.

Everybody said Obama’s apology tour was going to improve our standing in the world, and everyone says that Trump’s “America First” will ruin our relationships with everyone. I see little evidence that either happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, your article says Trump replaces the language of democracy with vulgarity. I agree he’s very very undiplomatic. My question is, so what? What actual harm has this caused? Is Canada going to sign a treaty with the jihadists? Leaders may not
like Trump, but I don’t see any evidence that it changes the way they view America at all. Not in the least.

Everybody said Obama’s apology tour was going to improve our standing in the world, and everyone says that Trump’s “America First” will ruin our relationships with everyone. I see little evidence that either happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could have just read the whole article that I linked
but here is some more since you asked.
As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, not seeing evidence means you likely need to look beyond right wing media.

Or read a foreign paper: https://www.kyivpost.com/?s=trump&ti...es&authors=all

But these head-spinning spasms of psychic subjectivity aggravate dangers in every corner of the globe. Trump threatens Iran with “obliteration like you’ve never seen before,” then withdraws American troops from Syria, licensing Iran to pursue its goals in the region. He confuses our allies and emboldens our enemies, both of whom understand that his emotional lability translates into geopolitical incompetence. Vladimir Putin can barely conceal his laughter—and sometimes does not try.

Writing in the Atlantic, William Burns summarizes Trump’s dysfunction:

However sound his instincts on some policy issues—such as pushing back against predatory Chinese trade practices—Trump has badly undermined American influence through his erratic unilateralism, disdain for expertise, and obsession with diplomacy as an exercise in narcissism. It is exactly the wrong prescription for this plastic moment in world affairs, when we are no longer the only country calling the shots, and when diplomatic tools to cajole and coerce friends and foes alike are more important than ever.

The results are predictably grim. Partners are insecure and hedging, worrying about the ‘brain death’ of crucial alliances. Adversaries feel the wind in their sails, with Russian state television crowing over dysfunction in Washington and vulnerability in Kyiv. The international landscape is hardening against us, and our diplomatic toolkit is being emptied by design and disuse…

Why shouldn’t authoritarian rivals conclude that the only thing that matters is the vanity of an eminently manipulable president? Why shouldn’t allies lose confidence in the requests of our diplomats when they can be overturned by the next tweet?

Why, indeed?

But there is no one left around Trump to point out these obvious problems. Because he is psychologically unable to abide dissent or respect expertise, Trump has replaced professionals with sycophants—degrading our State Department and demoralizing its best people. The epitome of these enablers is the pompous puppet Mike Pompeo, our shrinking secretary of State, who has survived this long only through abject subservience.

Pompeo is the opposite of James Mattis; he chooses sycophancy to serve himself. In his imagined future, he is not simply a future Republican senator from Kansas, but Trump’s eventual successor. Unlike Trump, Pompeo is sane: quite deliberately, he has catered to Trump’s narcissism, fronting for Trump as he trashes the State Department and repeatedly commits gross political malpractice.

The result of Pompeo’s calculating cowardice is baneful—a dearth of sound advice and institutional engagement which empowers Trump’s mindless solipsism. Pompeo countenanced Trump’s love affair with Kim. He choked down Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds. He watched as Trump publicly contemplated canceling our mutual defense treaty with Japan; threatened to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea; mocked our NATO allies as deadbeats; and dismissed the E.U.

Little wonder that Trump has said “I don’t think I’ve had an argument with Pompeo.” Why would he need to? Pompeo never disagrees with him, thereby encouraging Trump to pretend that the intellectual, moral, and strategic Sahara of his foreign policy is as grand as Trump needs to believe – freeing Trump to do his worst, unimpeded.

But it is Pompeo’s performance with respect to Ukraine which best encapsulates Trump’s degradation of diplomacy and perversion of policy. He stood aside as Trump attempted to blackmail the new Ukranian president into serving his personal political interests, allowing Trump to subcontract the dirty work to Rudy Giuliani. Pompeo licensed Trump to bully and then fire Ambassador Marie Jovanovich. He listened to Trump’s coercive call to President Zelensky, thereby acquiescing in the corruption of American aid. And then, when all this was done, Pompeo pretended to ABC’s Martha Raddatz that he knew nothing about the call before admitting, ten days later, that he had heard it all.

In sum, Mike Pompeo has pretzeled himself to be the flawless lackey Trump demands: spineless, mendacious, unprincipled, and disloyal to his own subordinates. As two seasoned former American diplomats write of Pompeo’s tenure: “At the very least, Pompeo enabled the smear campaign to go unchallenged, acquiesced in the Giuliani back channel with Ukraine and failed to say a word in defense of Bill Taylor, George Kent or Marie Jovanovich. These are breathtaking acts of craven cowardice and beneath the dignity of any Secretary of State.”

All of which perfectly captures the Trump effect: His immutable character disorder moves those who serve him to adopt the corrupt and cowering ethos of minions in a banana republic.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could have just read the whole article that I linked

nobody reads what you link

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

I can't read

Fixed it for you

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Fixed it for you

I read fine...though I'll admit to struggling to decipher some of the gibberish here

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You could have just read the whole article that I linked
but here is some more since you asked.
As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, not seeing evidence means you likely need to look beyond right wing media.

Or read a foreign paper: https://www.kyivpost.com/?s=trump&ti...es&authors=all

"You could have just read the whole article that I linked"

No one has the time to do that.

"As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, "

In other words, there is no tangible evidence that Trumps obnoxious personality is actually harming America on the world stage, certainly not to the degree to negate the economic gains we are enjoying.

Obama was supposed to make everyone love us, he toured the world and told them all how we're nothing special. The he made a pitch to the International Olympic Committee for Chicago to host the Olympics, and we were eliminated in the first round.

The likeability of the POTUS, probably doesn't mean much, because America is so much more than one person. I find it hard to believe that foreign leaders make big decisions based on how much they like the current occupant of the White House. If they did, the entire civilized world would have imposed sanctions on us.

Find a soapbox that has some substance to it?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You could have just read the whole article that I linked"

No one has the time to do that.

"As far as the "evidence" you require, diplomacy and foreign policy are skills not science, "

In other words, there is no tangible evidence that Trumps obnoxious personality is actually harming America on the world stage, certainly not to the degree to negate the economic gains we are enjoying.

Obama was supposed to make everyone love us, he toured the world and told them all how we're nothing special. The he made a pitch to the International Olympic Committee for Chicago to host the Olympics, and we were eliminated in the first round.

The likeability of the POTUS, probably doesn't mean much, because America is so much more than one person. I find it hard to believe that foreign leaders make big decisions based on how much they like the current occupant of the White House. If they did, the entire civilized world would have imposed sanctions on us.

Find a soapbox that has some substance to it?

And you call my posts gibberish

[Sea Dangles]

Thanks PeteF, that clears it all up. Great job and thanks for sharing with us.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

new Quinnipiac national poll on 2020 general election shows every prospective Democratic nominee beating Trump :

Biden 51%, Trump 42%
Sanders 51%, Trump 43%
Warren 50%, Trump 43%
Bloomberg 48%, Trump 42%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 43%
Klobuchar 47%, Trump 43%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

new Quinnipiac national poll on 2020 general election shows every prospective Democratic nominee beating Trump :

Biden 51%, Trump 42%
Sanders 51%, Trump 43%
Warren 50%, Trump 43%
Bloomberg 48%, Trump 42%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 43%
Klobuchar 47%, Trump 43%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's what hillary said

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

new Quinnipiac national poll on 2020 general election shows every prospective Democratic nominee beating Trump :

Biden 51%, Trump 42%
Sanders 51%, Trump 43%
Warren 50%, Trump 43%
Bloomberg 48%, Trump 42%
Buttigieg 48%, Trump 43%
Klobuchar 47%, Trump 43%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is great news, obviously the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s will roll.👍🏿
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

From the law-and-order party to the I'm-voting-for-the-guy-who-calls-the-FBI-scum party...

...in 48 months.

What a *powerful* set of principles the GOP had.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

This next election will certainly be a great opportunity to finish draining the swamp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This next election will certainly be a great opportunity to finish draining the swamp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With Mulvaney, Jared, Ivanka and Miller advising Trump what could possibly go wrong. Maybe in another four years, he could finally get all the required cabinet heads appointed and cleared. He knows how, oil executives run the EPA, get some bankers to control the money, Miller of course will be in line to run homeland security and we probably will get Rudy to be our Russian ambassador; assuming he can keep himself out of jail.

You want to drain the swamp, don't put more scumbags in it, think more along the lines of term limits and better regulations on lobbyists and campaign contributions.

[Sea Dangles]

I appreciate your perspective
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Can this be right ?

If a Democrat is President, lying about a blow-job is grounds for impeachment

If a Republican is President, betraying his country's defence policy again Russia...isn't

What am I missing here ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Can this be right ?

If a Democrat is President, lying about a blow-job is grounds for impeachment

If a Republican is President, betraying his country's defence policy again Russia...isn't

What am I missing here ?

Generally, Presidents are in charge of defence policy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Generally, Presidents are in charge of defence policy.

In this case Floridaman withheld aid appropriated by Congress, after the statutory requirements set by Congress were met and still continues to hold 35 million in aid.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In this case Floridaman withheld aid appropriated by Congress, after the statutory requirements set by Congress were met and still continues to hold 35 million in aid.

Temporary withholding funds for assuring that they are not wasted on corruption should not be cause for impeachment, nor even be considered a crime. Nor should lying about getting a blow job--unless it was under oath. But even then, a lesser slap on the wrist would be appropriate.

On the other hand getting the blow job could put the President under threat of blackmail which could be used to influence how he would apply or skew defense policy. It can be argued that any misstep of the President could be used as a means to influence his decisions on any policy, defense or otherwise. The point being, not that it would necessarily be impeachable, but that there need not be a distinction between missteps in regard to the effect on defense policy.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Temporary withholding funds for assuring that they are not wasted on corruption should not be cause for impeachment, nor even be considered a crime.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provides that the president may propose rescission of specific funds, but that rescission must be approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate within 45 days. They asked WTF is going on and were told nothing, why not?
Nor should lying about getting a blow job--unless it was under oath. But even then, a lesser slap on the wrist would be appropriate.

On the other hand getting the blow job could put the President under threat of blackmail which could be used to influence how he would apply or skew defense policy. It can be argued that any misstep of the President could be used as a means to influence his decisions on any policy, defense or otherwise. The point being, not that it would necessarily be impeachable, but that there need not be a distinction between missteps in regard to the effect on defense policy.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in the last paragraph, I tried to parse it?
Are you saying his actions were because he was incompetent and therefore the missteps should not be impeachable?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You've made a lot of assumptions there.

Let's get this straight

We are really supposed to believe that Floridaman, who tolerates and even admires some of the most corrupt leaders in the world, suddenly got concerned about corruption just in time to demand an investigation of the Bidens?

It's an assumption that I think you're supposed to believe anything of the sort or anything else. It's an assumption that he asked only for an investigation of the Biden's. And that the investigation was about Hunter Biden's father as well as about him and Burisma. And that Trump "tolerates" somebody or anybody. And that he was only concerned "just in time."

Or that it’s a coincidence that the ONLY two corruption investigations Floridaman has ever demanded from a foreign country—a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and an investigation of the Bidens—happen to correspond exactly to the baloney Floridaman dishes out at his campaign rallies?

You're assuming that the notion that Ukrainian interference has actually been "debunked" is absolutely true. Or, at least, that everyone is supposed to accept that it has. You're assuming the Floridaman dishes out baloney at his campaign rallies. Your assuming that I think you should see this all as coincidence. (I don't assume very much at all about what you think.)


And what about the fact that Floridaman didn’t even really demand an investigation, only a public announcement that one would be conducted? Isn’t that exactly how Trump got elected in the first place? Wasn’t Comey’s last-minute announcement of the reopening of a criminal investigation against Hillary Clinton exactly what handed Trump a comeback victory in 2016?

You're assuming that he "demanded" something. He did ask if Ukraine could "help us"--us being more than just him, but, I assume, our country. You're assuming that Comey did hand the victory to Trump.

It worked once for Trump, so why would anybody doubt that he tried to use the same winning formula again, this time with Ukraine?

You assume that Trump was using a formula. Everything you said was an assumption.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You assume that Trump was using a formula. Everything you said was an assumption.

And will be until the Senate trial, when unless McConnell conducts a sham trial and allows no testimony, we will see evidence.

Till then I'll make assumptions based on past behavior in which Floridaman never gave a damn about corruption, praised the most corrupt dictators in the world, asked embattled leaders of other countries to announce investigations of his political opponents and obstructed the investigation of his misdeeds.

The Trumplican defense is LOUD and LOUDER or Dumb and Dumber as directed by the Farrelly Brothers and played by the Trumplican Reps, but no substance or exculpatory evidence.

And that's the last choice for defense of the guilty, after you've moved the goalposts to the edge of the ocean.

Other than resigning..........

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And will be until the Senate trial, when unless McConnell conducts a sham trial and allows no testimony, we will see evidence.

the case for impeachment is pathetically weak...why waste everyone's time?...though I am rooting for a long process with lot's of witnesses

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

the case for impeachment is pathetically weak...why waste everyone's time?...though I am rooting for a long process with lot's of witnesses

Pretty good case for one that has been so thoroughly obstructed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Pretty good case for one that has been so thoroughly obstructed.

no obstruction...tump is perfectly within his right to not cooperate with the lunatic democrats, if they don't like it they can take him to court...ironically it's the lunatic democrats that are abusing power...no surprise