President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[BlueK]

Yep... Pence has nothing to lose but everything to gain.

Pence will be a better president. But it's a low bar. A trained blind monkey would be too.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Had enough of Trump's nonsense, but just can't get past the abortion issue? Welcome to the Democratic Party:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...st-on-abortion

[Moliere]

Had enough of Trump's nonsense, but just can't get past the abortion issue? Welcome to the Democratic Party:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...st-on-abortion

Ha! We now have a GOP president that pretty much openly supports abortion and now the Dems are being flexible on the issue. At what point do Dems start advocating for tax cuts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

Unemployment at 4.3% and the S&P ready to crack 2,500. #MAGA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frank ryan]

Ha! We now have a GOP president that pretty much openly supports abortion and now the Dems are being flexible on the issue. At what point do Dems start advocating for tax cuts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um, he's pro-life now.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Ha! We now have a GOP president that pretty much openly supports abortion and now the Dems are being flexible on the issue. At what point do Dems start advocating for tax cuts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zoltar.jpg

[Walter Sobchak]

Hope the president stands his ground here:

Donald Trump Is Pressed to Send More Troops to Afghanistan

By Dion Nissenbaum
Updated Aug. 3, 2017 8:29 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s top national-security advisers are searching for a way to overcome the commander-in-chief’s reluctance to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan as divisions on the National Security Council complicate strategy for the 16-year-old war, officials said.

The president’s reluctance to embrace an open-ended commitment has resurrected discussion of other options, including proposals to scale back the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan or to hire private contractors to play a bigger role. Top Trump administration officials met to discuss the options Thursday after Mr. Trump asked his team for alternatives, according to current and former Trump administration officials.

The search for a strategy for Afghanistan comes amid upheaval at the NSC following the removal of three staff members by H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser. The three officials were hired by his predecessor, Mike Flynn, before he was forced to resign after 24 days in the post.

The removals were welcomed by supporters of Mr. McMaster who saw the three as disruptive in pushing some unorthodox ideas backed by the president. The moves were decried by allies of the three as a purge designed to rid the team of Trump loyalists.

(Of course, I recognize that President Obama rode a wave of anti-interventionism/anti-war into the WH and then promptly did fuck-all about it.)

[BlueK]

Hope the president stands his ground here:

Donald Trump Is Pressed to Send More Troops to Afghanistan



(Of course, I recognize that President Obama rode a wave of anti-interventionism/anti-war into the WH and then promptly did fuck-all about it.)

Why doesn't Trump just get us the hell out of Afghanistan then?

[BlueK]

Not really. As I understand it, it tells the president that he cant change sanctions without congressional approval. No other president would approve of that approach to foreign policy. Of course, no other president would likely have drawn such a bill.

Then he should have vetoed it and then defended his decision to Congress and in the public arena.

[BlueK]

Frank, this is an incredibly patronizing question/comment.

But, since you have raised this issue numerous times, I would like to ask you to tell me, using only primary sources (IOW testimony from congressional hearings or final reports from investigations, etc., as opposed to reports of such things) what, exactly, the Russians did in the election. Given that you hold yourself out as being better informed than most, what precisely do the primary sources show? Becasue apart from this, the rhetoric on the issue is so politicized on both sides that it has virtually no value. My impression is, however, that precious few specifics are known and most of the commentary is specualtion, hyperbole or both. My mind is open but I want actual information, not commentary full of guesses masquerading as reporting.

Let's just say the convincing evidence and proof eventually comes out that Trump's campaign worked with the Russians to try to win the election.

Would you or Trump supporters care? I say most would not care even if it's proven to be true.

[creekster]

Let's just say the convincing evidence and proof eventually comes out that Trump's campaign worked with the Russians to try to win the election.

Would you or Trump supporters care? I say most would not care even if it's proven to be true.

I very well might care. I think it is worth investigating. But the media has lost its bearings on BOTH sides. I was listening to CNN today and blitzer and some others were listening to trump's speech from yesterday and they were being incredibly stupid about what was and what was an inaccuracy. It was like they had never heard a political rally speech before. And we are barraged with stories about russia this and russia that and teased with suggestions that there really is a smoking gun if we just use better sources but, you know what? I havent seen a smoking gun. Now if it is there, and I am pretty sure we will find out, then it will likely matter a lot. But in the mean time we should really get on with governing the country (and that applies to Trump, too, who cant seem to leave it alone) and stop wallowing in half-baked and unproven theories abotu foreign interference like a drunk trying to pretend his latest disaster didnt happen and it wasnt his fault.

Trump is a buffoon. I hate it every time I see him representing the country. That said, he won the election and I udnerstand why so may people voted for him. And all the wishifying about russia will not change that. If we worried more about what the country needs rather than how he won, we would all be a lot better off.

[creekster]

Then he should have vetoed it and then defended his decision to Congress and in the public arena.

At which point you and many others would have screamed that it PROVED he was in collusion with the Russians becasue he just vetoed a veto proof bill on sanctions against Russia! I think that he did waht he had to do, sign the bill, not spend political capital on something he cannot win, and state his objections whcih are, in this case, based in reasoned analysis.

[frank ryan]

Let's just say the convincing evidence and proof eventually comes out that Trump's campaign worked with the Russians to try to win the election.

Would you or Trump supporters care? I say most would not care even if it's proven to be true.

That because it doesn't rise to the level of Hillary using a private server for email. Trump's people coordinating with Russia is no biggie.

[Walter Sobchak]

That because it doesn't rise to the level of Hillary using a private server for email. Trump's people coordinating with Russia is no biggie.

I love the "But her emails..." retort; as if it wasn't a big deal either.

[All-American]

I love the "But her emails..." retort; as if it wasn't a big deal either.

Hillary:emails::Capone:Tax evasion.