President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[ScoopJahoop]

But this is exactly the problem with the current climate. Most reasonable voices are being marginalized and the unreasonable voices are pushing to the front. This is true on both sides and on almost all topics. Listening to the press coverage of the report has been exasperating to me. They are misstating and disclaiming all kinds of things either because they are biased, inattentive ro really just that stupid. I don't see much reason in validating any of those voices, whether they are right or wrong.

So, if thats what JL meant by his rhetoric, I guess the answer is "No one reasonable."

One side of this is much, much worse than the other. To pretend differently is just dishonest.

[Uncle Ted]

Mueller is pretty clear that there was no criminal collusion but leaves open the possibility of obstruction. But you would be charging someone with attempting to obstruct an investigation into a crime which the investigation found did not occur and the chief investigator is not claiming was impeded by any efforts to obstruct. That seems a little odd. ONe might suggest that the fact that Trump did try to obstruct, or acted that way, means there probably WAS collusion. Except we are talking about Trump, who sees anything about him that is other than overwhelmingly laudatory as an attack. So, who knows? For me, it is hard to get too excited about these claims of obstruction (firing Mueller? meh.) when he was cleared on the underlying crime. Obstruction seems more like a referendum on Trump's character and I already believed it was defective.

It seems unclear how much of this talk of obstruction is hearsay... e.g.,

https://video.foxnews.com/v/60281218...#sp=show-clips

Drumpf should have fired Mueller and save the good tax payers of this country $30 million. Of course, that would have been clearly obstruction and the dems would have enough "there there" to make the cool cat Mike Pence our president sooner rather than later.

[BigFatMeanie]

One side of this is much, much worse than the other. To pretend differently is just dishonest.

LOL. The old "If you don't share my viewpoint you must be dishonest" line of reasoning. Solid.

[Walter Sobchak]

One side of this is much, much worse than the other. To pretend differently is just dishonest.

Agree. Maddow is the new Glenn Beck.

[ScoopJahoop]

LOL. The old "If you don't share my viewpoint you must be dishonest" line of reasoning. Solid.

Yeah. It’s a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning in some cases. If we’re really at a point where, as a nation, we view this Donald Trump bullshit as just part of the game then it’s over. Turn out the lights. Or lock her up. Or whatever ya’ll feel like chanting.

[Bo Diddley]

Yeah. It’s a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning in some cases. If we’re really at a point where, as a nation, we view this Donald Trump bullshit as just part of the game then it’s over. Turn out the lights. Or lock her up. Or whatever ya’ll feel like chanting.

Fortunately the Founding Fathers put together a pretty good Constitution to separate powers and check each other. There are plenty of bad players within the system, but no one has broken it yet. The sky is not falling.

[ScoopJahoop]

Fortunately the Founding Fathers put together a pretty good Constitution to separate powers and check each other. There are plenty of bad players within the system, but no one has broken it yet. The sky is not falling.

No. Not yet. But the more Republicans who decide to put party before everything (and yes it is Republicans) the less effectively those checks and balances work. And eventually they become meaningless.

[Uncle Ted]

Agree. Maddow is the new Glenn Beck.

Or the new Alex Jones...

IMG_1687.jpg

[Walter Sobchak]

No. Not yet. But the more Republicans who decide to put party before everything (and yes it is Republicans) the less effectively those checks and balances work. And eventually they become meaningless.

Ok mods... check the IP address on this account. Definitely a BlueK dupe.

[frank ryan]

Walter, haven’t gotten your thoughts on Trump’s veto concerning military action in Yemen. You are usually outspoken about that stuff. Or efforts to secretly transfer nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia. Bolton and Trump don’t seem like peacemakers to me.
Does this change your thoughts on Trump and his foreign policy?

[Walter Sobchak]

Walter, haven’t gotten your thoughts on Trump’s veto concerning military action in Yemen.

It sucks. Trump is a doofus.

https://www.theamericanconservative....oreign-policy/

Trump’s veto gives him full ownership of U.S. support for the war on Yemen. He could have easily done what Congress demanded, and in doing so he would have put significant pressure on the Saudis and Emiratis to halt their campaign. That would have been the right thing to do, and it would have been popular as well. Instead, Trump has fought opponents of the war every step of the way, and during the debate his Congressional allies have used every procedural trick to delay final passage of the antiwar resolution that Trump just vetoed. It is significant that Trump won’t withdraw the U.S. from the one war where the benefit from doing so is most obvious and the costs are practically non-existent. When push comes to shove, Trump always ends up choosing the relatively more hawkish option because he foolishly fetishizes “toughness” and because he has surrounded himself with hard-liners with disastrous effect. He would rather act as the Saudis’ yes-man and the errand boy of weapons manufacturers instead of doing what is in the best interests of both the United States and Yemen, and that will be one of his main foreign policy legacies.

[YOhio]

Walter, haven’t gotten your thoughts on Trump’s veto concerning military action in Yemen.

lol like anybody cares what Walter thinks.

[Walter Sobchak]

lol like anybody cares what Walter thinks.

Super mean post.

[ScoopJahoop]

Ok mods... check the IP address on this account. Definitely a BlueK dupe.

I wish!

[frank ryan]

President "totally not under the influence of Putin" Trump is now supporting the Moscow-backed rebels in Libya over the US and UN-recognized government.

Trump praises Libyan general as his troops march on US backed government in Tripoli

President Donald Trump spoke with Libyan general Khalifa Haftar Monday, praising his role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya's vast oil resources even as Haftar's troops continue their offensive against the UN and US-backed government in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

Trump "recognized Field Marshal Haftar's significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya's oil resources, and the two discussed a shared vision for Libya's transition to a stable, democratic political system," the White House said Friday in its official readout of the call.
The statement made no mention of Haftar's offensive on Tripoli, and Trump's praise for the rogue Libyan general signals a departure from previous administration statements condemning Haftar's march on the capital.

While the US has primarily backed the UN recognized Government of National Accord which is based in Tripoli and led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj, American diplomats and military officers have maintained contacts with Haftar whose Libyan National Army controls much of eastern and southern Libya.


As a result of Haftar's offensive, in April the US military withdrew a small number of troops from Libya that had been performing diplomatic and counter-terrorism missions against ISIS, citing "increased unrest in Libya."
A one-time officer in former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's army who spent years living in exile in Virginia and later fought against Gadhafi's regime, Haftar, who is aligned with a parliament based in the country's east, has also reportedly received some support in the past from France, Russia, the UAE and Egypt.
The head of US Africa Command, Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, told Congress last month that the Russians were backing Haftar in part to secure influence in a strategic area on NATO's southern flank.



Behind the scenes there's no doubt about the fact they've supported the (Libyan National Army) with all kinds of equipment, people, training and the like and they've supported Haftar, who has moved now from the east to the west and essentially has taking a lot of real estate to get into a good position for leverage for diplomatic talks," Waldhauser told the House Armed Services Committee.
Asked why Moscow was backing Haftar, Waldhauser answered: "It gives them influence and it gives him influence in a key location in the southern (Mediterranean) on the southern part of the NATO, if you will, and it allows them then to reinvigorate some old Gaddafi-era contracts in the oilfield weapon sales and the like. So there's a strategic interest for them to be behind both sides, but primarily really Haftar."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/polit...tar/index.html