Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[tshile]

Quote

Much has been made of the loyalty of Trump’s base as he bumbles and stumbles through the first months of his presidency. All things, however, have their limits.

 

On Friday, a new Reuters/IPSOS tracking pollshowed Trump with a job approval rating of 75 percent among Republicans, which may indicate storm clouds ahead.

The Hill notes that political professionals tend to categorize approval ratings from the president’s own party below 85 percent as worrying and “downright alarming if they go below 80 percent.”

 

Other polls support the general trend, though not with numbers quite as low as in the Reuters/IPSOS survey, which was conducted after the special counsel appointment to look into Trump-Russia connections.

...

 

http://themoderatevoice.com/trump-cost-taking-fbi/

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Oops wrong scandal thread

Edited May 23, 2017 by AsburySkinsFan

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It actually is, if true.

 

My law proprofessor says it's not...that and a five will get ya a Starbucks(maybe)

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

define pushback 

trying to get them to state there is no evidence is perfectly fine if you don't think there is evidence.(they are of course free not too)

officially there is none of collusion.

 

sounding out officials about possibilities is not obstruction.

 

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

You are so precious.

[twa]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

You are so precious.

 

Quote

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/20/dershowitz_calls_special_counsel_mueller_good_news_for_trump_hes_going_to_find_no_crime.html

 

Legal eagle Alan Dershowitz believes special counsel Robert Mueller will be good news for President Trump. 

"He's going to find no crime," Dershowitz predicted.

"Political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," he said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."

 

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I've read one article since this trip started about how Trump is continuing a relationship with a country that is committing atrocities in Yemen.

 

One.

 

The media chases every stick off the porch except for the ones that truly matter.

 

300 billion in arms so they can continue their bull**** in Yemen. I don't know if it actually qualifies for war crimes, but to me it would seem at best very close.

 

 

Very good point. It gets brought up as a side note maybe every once in a while. But that sort of thing takes more complex thought and isn't as easy to get enraged over as sensational scandals are. Don't get me wrong, Trump's rolling dumpster fire of scandals and straight up likely illegal **** is important stuff, but it is also easy to get upset about. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by visionary

[dfitzo53]

Trump is acting like a child who broke a lamp and is begging his kid sister not to tell mom.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

Very good point. It gets brought up as a side note maybe every once in a while. But that sort of thing takes more complex thought and isn't as easy to get enraged over as sensational scandals are. Don't get me wrong, Trump's rolling dumpster fire of scandals and straight up likely illegal **** is important stuff, but it is also easy to get upset about. 

Yeah, it's not like they shouldn't talk about the issues with trump.

 

It's just, with 3 major 24/7 news channels, twitter, and numerous blogs dedicated to 'informing' us, you'd think the president coddling someone potentially guilty of war crimes (not in the past, but currently - using our weapon and money) would at least get brought up.

 

It wasn't brought up much under Obama either (less we forget this issue predates Trump)

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Burgold]

Listening to the former CIA chief speak. Gowdy tried to corner him, asking repeatedly if he knew of any member of the Trump Campaign that had communicated with the Russians during the election. Eventually, the Chief decided to answer and said unequivocally that, yes, he has seen evidence of interactions between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. 

 

Gowdy was not pleased. He obviously wanted a "I can not comment on ongoing investigations" or a "no." He flustered for a bit and then asked the Chief to name them. That, of course, the Chief refused to do.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Is this the first time someone has dropped the T word at these hearings? 

 

 

We really need to start warming up the gallows. It we fried Ethel Rosenberg, the least we can do is hang some of these treasonous picks for selling our democracy. Sorry but I genuinely believe that. 

 

Our reaction to all of this is going to say so much about our future as a nation. 

[StillUnknown]

48 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Listening to the former CIA chief speak. Gowdy tried to corner him, asking repeatedly if he knew of any member of the Trump Campaign that had communicated with the Russians during the election. Eventually, the Chief decided to answer and said unequivocally that, yes, he has seen evidence of interactions between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. 

 

Gowdy was not pleased. He obviously wanted a "I can not comment on ongoing investigations" or a "no." He flustered for a bit and then asked the Chief to name them. That, of course, the Chief refused to do.

 

 

[DogofWar1]

I think we need twa to come in here and explain how Brennan is trolling us by using the T-word and how this definitely isn't him implying something bigger behind the scenes.

[twa]

9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I think we need twa to come in here and explain how Brennan is trolling us by using the T-word and how this definitely isn't him implying something bigger behind the scenes.

 

Simple, do you not grasp 'the path to' differs from the actuality?

Just as communication does not equal collusion.

 

Just yell if ya need more help ....I speak spook 

[DogofWar1]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Simple, do you not grasp 'the path to' differs from the actuality?

Just as communication does not equal collusion.

 

Just yell if ya need more help ....I speak spook 

And spooks just casually throw around the T-word, right?

 

And of course this is in the context of him saying at the same hearing that he saw evidence of communications between campaign and Russia.

 

If you really spoke spook you'd know these guys choose their words carefully.

[mistertim]

Yeah, if this were Trump or one of his cadre of inner circle nincompoops I could see dropping something as serious as the T word as just them being twits who are unaware of what they're really saying. But Brennan is a smart cookie and has been in the IC for a long time...he wouldn't drop a word like that without weighing it very carefully.

Edited May 23, 2017 by mistertim

[twa]

9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

And spooks just casually throw around the T-word, right?

 

And of course this is in the context of him saying at the same hearing that he saw evidence of communications between campaign and Russia.

 

If you really spoke spook you'd know these guys choose their words carefully.

 

yes he carefully avoided saying there was evidence of collusion or treason.

Old school sees any interaction with the

Ruskies as worthy of investigation, particularly in light of their increased efforts in our political sphere.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I want everyone to remember that twa is harmless and enjoys trolling you.

 

But I also want everyone to remember that on another level, he is totally serious and that he is just one of millions of the individuals making up the GOP base who absolutely do not give a **** about facts or reality or the damage that their party is doing to the country or how many people might get hurt when they carelessly rip up current policy and jam through a healthcare bill that every expert in the field says is terrible, etc, etc, etc.

 

There's just no sense in trying to reason or work with the GOP or it's mindless supporters. It's time for a good old fashioned quelling. Yes indeed. Nothing beats a quelling.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[DogofWar1]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

yes he carefully avoided saying there was evidence of collusion or treason.

Old school sees any interaction with the

Ruskies as worthy of investigation, particularly in light of their increased efforts in our political sphere.

Nice try guy, but still wrong:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgarland/status/867053721703854080

 

Of course he didn't say he saw evidence of legally conclusive things.

 

That's not his place, nor his job.

 

His job is intel.  He sees evidence of stuff "happening" which is completely separate from evidence of legal conclusions.

 

But nice obfuscation attempt bruh.

[twa]

Let me know which (evidence or intelligence)  is required for legal charges such as collusion or treason. 

 

Now if droning him was a option .....

[Burgold]

Brennan's testimony was the most damning I have heard so far. He was pretty clear and straightforward. Not much dancing or evasion at all. He didn't even use the excuse of the ongoing investigation to avoid harder questions. 

[twa]

9 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

There's just no sense in trying to reason or work with the GOP or it's mindless supporters. It's time for a good old fashioned quelling. Yes indeed. Nothing beats a quelling.

 

Yeah, I hear you Dems prefer no opposition to annointings or having to earn votes. 

you don't handle losing well