President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Uncle Ted]

OMG...

Embedded Tweet

The Dems need to impeach him now! What are they waiting for? We can not put up with having lower unemployment than France! This is embarrassing.

[Commando]

OMG...

Embedded Tweet

The Dems need to impeach him now! What are they waiting for? We can not put up with having lower unemployment than France! This is embarrassing.

That wasn't my takeaway about what was embarrassing about that exchange, but to each their own...

[tooblue]

https://time.com/5704659/james-matti...d-trump-jokes/

'I Guess I'm the Meryl Streep of Generals.' James Mattis Takes Shot at Trump After President Called Him 'Overrated'

Embedded Tweet

[myboynoah]

The senior Senator from Kentucky sets the records straight.

Mitch McConnell: Withdrawing from Syria is a grave mistake

When the United States threw off the comforting blanket of isolationism in the 1940s and took the mantle of global leadership, we made the whole world better, but we specifically made it much better for the United States. If we abandon that mantle today, we can be sure that a new world order will be made — and not on terms favorable to us.

[Walter Sobchak]

The senior Senator from Kentucky sets the records straight.

Not quite. Pat Buchanan nails it... McConnell has no clothes.

“Putin is the New King of Syria,” ran the op-ed headline in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.

The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.

If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United States of America, 6,000 miles away?

Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats to denounce Trump’s decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.

But how long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?

And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey’s Incirlik air base to attack Turkish soldiers fighting in Syria?

If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war for them — against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran — why does Congress not declare those interests and authorize war to secure them?

Our foreign policy elites have used Trump’s decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values.

[myboynoah]

Not quite. Pat Buchanan nails it... McConnell has no clothes.

lol

Does anybody even care about Buchanan's binary blathering? Yes Pat, I guess the only options are to 1) pull our troops out of Syria or 2) declare war on Turkey, Syria, Russia, and Iran.

[YOhio]

lol

Does anybody even care about Buchanan's binary blathering? Yes Pat, I guess the only options are to 1) pull our troops out of Syria or 2) declare war on Turkey, Syria, Russia, and Iran.

Walter does. He loves Pat Buchanan.

[myboynoah]

Walter does. He loves Pat Buchanan.

Probably a proud contributing member of the Buchanan Brigade!

[Bo Diddley]

"Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand," Trump said, but added that some US troops would remain to protect oil in Syria, "and we'll be deciding what to do with it in the future."

Well as long as we protect the oil...!

[BlueK]

No way is Trump an aspiring dictator, right?

But then his own lawyer actually argues in a court case that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution for anything, even if he were to shoot someone on fifth avenue. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

There is nothing in the constitution that grants the president blanket immunity for prosecution of any action.

And the concept of not indicting the president is not even a law. It's a Justice Dept. policy that only applies to the feds and not to the states.

It's crazy that the administration's official position is that he's entirely above the law.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/polit...eal/index.html

[Commando]

It's all he's got. I would love to see this animal in a cage.

[BlueK]

It's all he's got. I would love to see this animal in a cage.

hey, but to say Trump wants to be a dictator is just crazy hyperbole, even after his own counsel in an official court proceeding argues that Trump could literally commit a heinous crime and be immune from prosecution.

[Eddie]

hey, but to say Trump wants to be a dictator is just crazy hyperbole, even after his own counsel in an official court proceeding argues that Trump could literally commit a heinous crime and be immune from prosecution.

Saying that Trump wants to be a dictator isn't necessarily crazy. I could easily believe that.

But that is much different than saying that he has a 25 step plan to become a dictator and is now on step 7 of this plan and you all better watch out because Hitler pulled it off and Trump isn't far behind so if you aren't careful he's going to pull it off too!

I'm sure Trump would love to be a dictator. I'm sure he'd love to do everything he wants without consequences and without law. He may even believe that he CAN do some of those things.

But saying Trump would love to be dictator and rule by executive fiat is different than saying he's working a plan to become dictator, which is also different than saying there is a pathway by which he might even be successful in his plan.

I still think anyone who thinks Trump is working on plans to become dictator and has any hope at all of being successful isn't smoking tobacco (if you know what I mean...)

[BlueK]

Saying that Trump wants to be a dictator isn't necessarily crazy. I could easily believe that.

But that is much different than saying that he has a 25 step plan to become a dictator and is now on step 7 of this plan and you all better watch out because Hitler pulled it off and Trump isn't far behind so if you aren't careful he's going to pull it off too!

I'm sure Trump would love to be a dictator. I'm sure he'd love to do everything he wants without consequences and without law. He may even believe that he CAN do some of those things.

But saying Trump would love to be dictator and rule by executive fiat is different than saying he's working a plan to become dictator, which is also different than saying there is a pathway by which he might even be successful in his plan.

I still think anyone who thinks Trump is working on plans to become dictator and has any hope at all of being successful isn't smoking tobacco (if you know what I mean...)

well, I didn't say what you just did above either. He's incapable of putting together much of a plan to do anything. We all know that.

But he would love to be, and that he orders his lawyers to make nonsensical arguments to essentially argue for it, is bad enough to hope he's out as soon as possible. I mean, essentially what is a dictator in practice if not a president who can commit any crime with no consequence?

[SeattleUte]

No way is Trump an aspiring dictator, right?

But then his own lawyer actually argues in a court case that the president has absolute immunity from prosecution for anything, even if he were to shoot someone on fifth avenue. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

There is nothing in the constitution that grants the president blanket immunity for prosecution of any action.

And the concept of not indicting the president is not even a law. It's a Justice Dept. policy that only applies to the feds and not to the states.

It's crazy that the administration's official position is that he's entirely above the law.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/polit...eal/index.html

This lawyer's argument has nothing to do with Trump wanting to be a dictator or that aim being accessible to him. The first thing a lawyer wants to try to argue is immunity from the claim or charge. This should be common sense even to a non-lawyer.

This kind of crazy hysterical talk may be the biggest obstacle to impeaching Trump now that there is a basis for it. Democrats themselves have little credibility left aft after all their frivolous claims and accusations.