Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
They had years.....YEARS....to develop a different plan.
Ok. Fine. But you're missing the point. Obama didn't provide a viable plan either as was said when he forced it and is now playing out. So, what you are pointing out is irrelevant to the point being made. Obama. Failure.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.
In the Hillary case the FBI didn't "leak" that there was an investigaton. The actual head came forward and made a statement. In this case the FBI made a statement of innocence on Flynn while intelligence agents selectively leaked information that put daylight between him and the vice president. Based on current reporting Flynn isn't gone because of "shady dealings" with Russia. He is gone because during the process of doing his job he stated something that wasn't true and damaged the Vice President's credibility. Could there be more to it then that? Sure...but at the moment nobody knows anything more then that.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.
In the Hillary case the FBI didn't "leak" that there was an investigaton. The actual head came forward and made a statement. In this case the FBI made a statement of innocence on Flynn while intelligence agents selectively leaked information that put daylight between him and the vice president. Based on current reporting Flynn isn't gone because of "shady dealings" with Russia. He is gone because during the process of doing his job he stated something that wasn't true and damaged the Vice President's credibility. Could there be more to it then that? Sure...but at the moment nobody knows anything more then that.
That's not the current reporting, that is the story that the administration is trying to sell. From what I gather most news media isn't buying that, and I can't blame them for not trusting what this administration is peddling.
And I'm wondering if you have an excuse as to why Flynn would lie?
Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
They had years.....YEARS....to develop a different plan.
Ok. Fine. But you're missing the point. Obama didn't provide a viable plan either as was said when he forced it and is now playing out. So, what you are pointing out is irrelevant to the point being made. Obama. Failure.
That's not the point that I was trying to make. Whether you agree with ACA/Obamacare (same thing, by the way. Some people actually don't understand that.) or not, it was a start to provide healthcare to all Americans. Did I think that it would be altered later on? Yes. Does it have flaws? Of course. Most acts/laws are updated over time, that's nothing new.
The thing that irks me is that all Republicans did was complain about it for years...and YEARS. They wasted that time by complaining instead of coming up with updates/changes to ACA.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Yup, congressional investigations, treasury, CIA, NSA and FBI are all investigating because I just plain make shit up. Flynn wasn't ensnared as much as he was duped. This is what happens when your version of "brilliance" meets brilliance and cunning a la Putin. Flynn's ties go beyond phone calls to the Russian ambassador. Bank transactions and travel records are being looked into. Sure, I make shit up. And if the cash on the tarmac was so illegal, where are the multiple republican committee investigations of democrats and criminal investigations and charges? Who's making shit up now? But love how you revert to criticism of the Obama Administration as a defense of your untenable candidate and administration. You own this shit storm. You can follow your wishful thinking. I'll follow the money right through impeachment and removal from office.
Wrong regarding my thoughts on FISA as I already know there's no expectation of privacy anymore, mostly due to corporate interests. Try reading those user agreements you check off on to use a website or get a credit card or place an order. And I've got nothing to hide and I don't usually yak on the phone. But nice try trying to paint me with your Bush is Hitler brush. Never said or thought that. Did think bush was in over his head and Cheney called the shots. And they both should be tried for war crimes. I stand by that. Trump is a fascist though. You are the company you keep.
From what I'm gathering, her days might be numbered. I'm afraid that this administration is going to go into fight or flight mode very quickly with the Bannon/Miller faction becoming the dominant force. If Reince leaves soon, it's over. That's when I think congressional republicans swarm and investigations intensify.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.
Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.
In the Hillary case the FBI didn't "leak" that there was an investigaton. The actual head came forward and made a statement. In this case the FBI made a statement of innocence on Flynn while intelligence agents selectively leaked information that put daylight between him and the vice president. Based on current reporting Flynn isn't gone because of "shady dealings" with Russia. He is gone because during the process of doing his job he stated something that wasn't true and damaged the Vice President's credibility. Could there be more to it then that? Sure...but at the moment nobody knows anything more then that.
That's not the current reporting, that is the story that the administration is trying to sell. From what I gather most news media isn't buying that, and I can't blame them for not trusting what this administration is peddling.
And I'm wondering if you have an excuse as to why Flynn would lie?
It is the current reporting. Other then stories additional stories on "contacts" during the campaign there has been no evidence presented that anything was done wrong. Again...more may come to light but there just isn't anything else there at the moment.
In terms if why would Flynn lie...I have no idea and won't make an excuse for him. We actually don't have access to the transcripts to the call to know what the lie even was? Was it a clear nefarious lie or was it a simple use of words. The reporting I have seen said the Russia's brought up sanctions and Flynn said with no commitment that everything will be revisited once in office. Flynn might have not considered that statement to be a "discussion" on sanctions and therefore blew that point off when instead he should have said "sanctions were discussed" even if it was essentially meaningless. The point is we don't know...all we have is the FBI stating that his conversation was ok. I'm not closed minded to the fact that there could have been something more but no agency has said this yet.
I think optimism is speaking in this thread recently.
I'm not so sure Trump has one foot out the door, folks.
I hope he stays all 4 years because he is obviously a disaster and this is the best thing to ever happen to the progressive movement in North America...
The best part of this fiasco is that it is destroying their credibility and agenda...
But honestly... I want this orange bully to be proven to be a traitor in bed with the Russians and do the perp walk out of the White House.
it's all fun and games until a nuke goes off
I'm of the same thinking. I want his 4 years of nonsense to destroy the republican far right, but at the same time, how much damage is he going to do if he's in office that long.
People thought his candidacy alone would destroy the republican party and yet they are more republicans in government then ever. The Flynn resignation certainly doesn't look good but there is no evidence that Trump is doing "damage". The policies he has put in place are still in line with what his voters wanted and I don't see that changing regardless how messy it appears. His campaign was messy...he had three different campaign managers until he found success. People will be hired and fired based on results and it's quite possible the removal of Flynn will be a blessing in disguise as there has always been tension between him and the intelligence agencies. Nothing that has happened so far has made the electoral terrain any better for the Dems in 2018. The question is when/if the messiness becomes electorally significant?
I think optimism is speaking in this thread recently.
I'm not so sure Trump has one foot out the door, folks.
I hope he stays all 4 years because he is obviously a disaster and this is the best thing to ever happen to the progressive movement in North America...
The best part of this fiasco is that it is destroying their credibility and agenda...
But honestly... I want this orange bully to be proven to be a traitor in bed with the Russians and do the perp walk out of the White House.
it's all fun and games until a nuke goes off
I'm of the same thinking. I want his 4 years of nonsense to destroy the republican far right, but at the same time, how much damage is he going to do if he's in office that long.
People thought his candidacy alone would destroy the republican party and yet they are more republicans in government then ever. The Flynn resignation certainly doesn't look good but there is no evidence that Trump is doing "damage". The policies he has put in place are still in line with what his voters wanted and I don't see that changing regardless how messy it appears. His campaign was messy...he had three different campaign managers until he found success. People will be hired and fired based on results and it's quite possible the removal of Flynn will be a blessing in disguise as there has always been tension between him and the intelligence agencies. Nothing that has happened so far has made the electoral terrain any better for the Dems in 2018. The question is when/if the messiness becomes electorally significant?
Can you tell me the policies that he put in place that are in effect today? I literally can think of zero. All of those EO's he signed were a bunch of marketing fluff.
It certainly isn't much so far but it is a sense of direction. Pipeline approvals aren't fluff. Removal of burdensome regulations is not fluff. A conservative supreme court judge is certainly not fluff. Add to that a direction of a better business environment through improving the tax code, eliminating Obamacare, continued removal of regulation. Add to that a focus on school choice. Add to the enforcing the rule of law. Add to that a harder stance in the war on terror and a tougher stance on Iran. These things are happening and will continue to happen with time.
He didn't do any of the things (outside nominating a SCOTUS). Did you read the Dodd Frank related EO? No substance. Read the first paragraph here:
While not unimportant, the order is largely aspirational as it sets out a broad outline for the reforms the Trump administration will seek in financial regulation. However, the order, in and of itself, does not affect any regulatory changes.
The order does, however, include a directive to the secretary of the Treasury, but that directive — produce a report — will not produce any meaningful changes either.
Has he changed the tax code (don't answer that because you well know that he cannot do that). Has he repealed Obamacare? He also has no power to do that. Rule of law? You mean the EO last week about that? Go ahead and read them and tell me what it actually does.
You are aware that I said "sense of a direction"? I know that he hasn't done these things but this is where policy seems to be moving. Like I said he will be judged on results.
I was reacting to this line "The policies he has put in place are still in line with what his voters wanted and I don't see that changing regardless how messy it appears." I can't find any of those policies. I find statements.
Not much Mrussel but an example where EO's actually have some practical effect.
The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great! This Russian connection non-sense is merely an attempt to cover-up the many mistakes made in Hillary Clinton's losing campaign. Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia. Thank you to Eli Lake of The Bloomberg View - "The NSA & FBI...should not interfere in our politics...and is" Very serious situation for USA
lol Bafoon's administration is crumbling and the Bafoonites wanna blame the leftists lol you can't make this up he's by far thee worst president to have been elected into office and we're not even three months into it lol !!!
The Russian prodding of America is just a smoke screen , let's keep focus on why this administration needed Russian involvement in our election to get Bafoon elected he & Putin are best of friends !!
I never thought I would see the day when conservative hawks became Putin sympathizers lol
i did. they are the negative party. you say it's raining outside. they say the sun is shining. you say Putin is a killer. they say Putin is a sexy man on a horse.
Comments
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.
And I'm wondering if you have an excuse as to why Flynn would lie?
The thing that irks me is that all Republicans did was complain about it for years...and YEARS. They wasted that time by complaining instead of coming up with updates/changes to ACA.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Please put it out.
http://www.spin.com/2017/02/trump-snl-steve-bannon-sean-spicer/
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
In terms if why would Flynn lie...I have no idea and won't make an excuse for him. We actually don't have access to the transcripts to the call to know what the lie even was? Was it a clear nefarious lie or was it a simple use of words. The reporting I have seen said the Russia's brought up sanctions and Flynn said with no commitment that everything will be revisited once in office. Flynn might have not considered that statement to be a "discussion" on sanctions and therefore blew that point off when instead he should have said "sanctions were discussed" even if it was essentially meaningless. The point is we don't know...all we have is the FBI stating that his conversation was ok. I'm not closed minded to the fact that there could have been something more but no agency has said this yet.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/14/irs-blow-to-obamacare-individual-mandate
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/donald-trump-aides-russians-campaign/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
He has a point about CNN being unwatchable.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
During the campaign, President Trump had suggested that such incidents show “how low we’ve gone that they can toy with us like that.” He said that Russian President Vladimir Putin should be warned in a phone call to stop and if the flybys continued then “when that sucker comes by you, you gotta shoot.”
He's nothing but a snowflake with a twitter app...
a treasonous tweeter LOL