m308gunner

Thank you for the list. Are you assuming my previous contention that certain women exist is nullified by this list? *enters troll mode* Out of curiosity, could you whip up a list of Bill Clinton's accusers? I'd like to compare sizes. *exits troll mode*

Embarrassing? Not really, given Trump's penchant for being outrageous. We didn't hire a politician, we hired a showman and a bully. After Scott Adams predicted that Trump would win, he also predicted that Trump would change the very nature of politics in this country, and then predicted that Trump would change how we think about impeachment. I have a hard time arguing with the man. But that's a WHOLE other thread... See my description of Trump Supporters in my response to MrWunderful.

Well thank you sir... I think :P. But I am not a Trump supporter, at least not in the way most would think of the term. I'm too conflicted to fully hang my hat on that hook. I mostly just rent it from time to time. I think many in this thread are selling Trump supporters short if they believe he has that level of influence over them though. In fact and in contrast to your own observed experiences, all the Trump supporters I know (most of whom I work with and can out think and talk me any day of the week, and there are A LOT) all seem to know that he is full of hot air most of the time and not to be believed from a factual point of view. I'm sure there are a fair number like the kind you've encountered, but I honestly haven't seen many of that variety. If Trump really wanted to act like a dictator this would be bush league. He tweets (and retweets) too many people and references a few different media outlets (mostly Fox News) to be considered, in my estimation, to be trying to gain a monopoly on public his supporter's trust. And can any of us REALLY say we trust our government, given the number of scandals, revelations, waste and reported blunders over the past... our own lifetimes? Heck, just limit it to the past three administrations. You really put much stock in THAT monstrosity? I know public memory is pretty short, but I would hope it's not THAT short. Would it surprise you if I said I haven't watched Fox News in the past 5 years (and that's being conservative)? So if I'm not getting my points from Fox would that make my points a bit more listenable? And just for anyone who doesn't want to read through this entire thread for my opinion on the moral leadership of the president, see my summary of the government a few lines above. The president is a glorified paper pusher (or should be) and should no more guide one's moral choices than your accountant or selectman. Oh, lastly, if I am glossing over anything, and you have the time/inclination to summarize them, I would welcome the chance to sharpen my points.

Well, to be fair and in context, he was throwing the intelligence apparatus under the bus, which still doesn't look great. Not sure how an individual not directly related to said organizations would feel anything though. I can't speak to Trump's genuine beliefs on the issue (as no one who isn't a mind reader can), but I saw a few snippets from a Carter Page interview that could lend a bit of credence to the idea. I think it could be safe to assume that both things are true at the same time; Trump believes in the deep state (to some degree), and he's using it as a persuasion tactic with his base (and probably some moderates).

Well we know from a few sources that Trump apparently loves chaos, stemming from his professional career, so I think it would be fair to say that competency (on the part of his subordinates) and satisfaction (Trump's) aren't synonymous. I suppose I wouldn't expect the special prosecutor to ignore crimes unrelated to the initial objective of the investigation, but is sure doesn't help from an optics angle. 2+ years and how much money to come up with some of those charges? I'm not arguing against the veracity of said convictions, just looking at it from a persuasion standpoint (which is how Trump will probably come at it from). Heh, well the North Korean line is subjective. Funny, but subjective. Especially if things turn out favorably for him on that front. I think the last line should be interpreted in the context of a time when Trump was apparently under the assumption that the "deep state" was after him, right or wrong. And given the FISA court's... I'm not sure what you'd call it... admonition of Comey he might have some reason to believe that.

Mmm, I can't 100% agree that the company one keeps in a professional/political environment is an accurate reflection of one's own character. Horrible people are often wicked competent in any given field. Besides, what does the company we keep on this site say about us One would hope that a special prosecutor would dig up dirt related to the subject at hand, not tangentially related offenses, but we all know the score. I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your analysis, honestly. I'm of the personal opinion that it's a chip to be cashed in later, but more along the lines of a persuasion tactic Trump will use during his reelection. I mean, if nothing else, it is historically noteworthy - "remember that time the President of the US met with the Dictator of North Korea?".

My daughter of 8 still does, but i can see the gears turning. Won't be long before that slow slide into post-modern Christmas depression descends.

Ok. So you're subjectively defining where the line is and accusing me of something monstrous. We're done.

Given the number of people he has fired unceremoniously and the general turn around of his staff I'm not sure how significant an impact those around him actually have on his judgement. Do you deny that a special prosecutor has not or will not keep digging until they find something wrong, given the number of unrelated crimes people were prosecuted for during the Mueller Investigation? Wasn't Manafort convicted of of finance related crimes that dated from years before the campaign (and apparently right up to it)? Kilimnik looks reeeeaaally close to a process crime, though I'm surprised they didn't nail him for more serious crimes... Roger Stone is pretty much an open and shut case. Didn't the FISA court just reprimand Comey on something?... But prosecuting people for identity theft (Pinedo) and failing to register as a foreign lobyist (Patten) sounds just like a special prosecutor digging until they hit something. Fair point about the face-to-face, though I'd fall more in line with Tulsi Gabbard about engaging with foreign dictators. Not sure I agree with your characterization that no "master negotiating" skills were involved, given that Trump went from calling Kim "rocket man" to having some face time. Certainly not a "master"... maybe journeyman?

And you don't know either. None of us do, until they come forward, which given the current shark tank like attitude towards Trump in the media I would assume it's now or never. Completely understand, know of, and agree that the power disparity can impact a victim's willingness to come forward. ... Are you actually accusing me of victim blaming or characterizing anything I said as such?!? Because that would be f#*&^% low man.

I'm going to be generous and say that you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying (though there's quite a bit of lip biting going on right now). I am not making a value judgement on what behavior Trump says he engaged in in that Access Hollywood tape. My original posting of Trump's quote was to help give full context of what he said. And context matters. In the context of Trump the celebrity stating he can "do what he wants" to what he describes as willing participants ("And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."), it brings into focus that the situation many would like to describe as naked sexual predatory behavior is not reflected in the situation described (albeit in Trumps words). Now let me state again as simply as possible. I am not condoning the behavior. I am referencing the Trump quote to give a fuller context to what seems to be an interaction of a sexual nature between two (apparently) willing parties, that I have only ever seen as a partial quote differently characterized. As to the credibility of statements a person makes, I challenge you to find a single solitary person who has ever said anything of worth AND has never said anything that would give you pause. To characterize a whole body of work off one statement is bafflingly naive. I'd almost say it's intentional, but again I'm trying to leave room for misinterpretation coloring the waters.

If not for the constant refrain from democrats and media for impeachment/outrage dating from before his inauguration I would be more inclined to agree that the Democrats are not still motivated by the butt hurt of 2016. I'd like to address the other points but my wife it standing at the door, baby in hand, waiting to go to a family Christmas party

Please read my post again and tell me where I condoned anything about the situation. And the "meaningless" was meant to highlight how obvious and moot it is to feel the need to say that there are and have been people who worship celebrities and who can and do allow said celebrities to have their way with them. It is so common knowledge and unsurprising that in the context of Trump's quote one's natural reaction should be "well no duh. Yeah women like that do exist". So if your trying to ignore all my previous posts by misinterpreting one of them and playing the outrage card I suppose that is your prerogative.

Toys for the kids, luxury items for the wife, gift cards for the folks.

Nice! That reminds me of my pipe dream CIB NES display board that I'll never get a chance to build. Now I'm sad.

Welcome to the new digs mang!

I'm sorry you feel that way, and question your interpretation of my posts, but wish you well.

I wanna know what love iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssss!

Badabump!

Trump apparently sent Giuliani to the Ukraine to look into the issue. I'm not making a value judgement on whether it was wise/legal or not, just stating what seems to be going on. I wouldn't characterize this situation as more insane than the last two years, honestly. And as I've stated before, whether or not this was a personal matter to him doesn't really concern me as long as it's also in our national best interest, which it is.

Ah, thank you for the clarification and context. That brings events into focus. Though if the Democrats were truly concerned about appearing fair I'm not sure they could have chosen a worse tactic, given the gravity of an impeachment and stream of leaks that all pointed in the same direction. But as you said, it did involve a foreign entity.

It looks like we're speaking past each other on this issue. I did not mean to infer that Trump only ever speaks to one audience and only one audience (be that the crowd in front of him or the foreign entities watching on TV), nor that he is above trolling the Democrats and media like he did with his call out to Russia (and China not too long ago). Those public statements can't be interpreted as legitimate calls to action unless you want to deliberately ignore the context and his love of trolling. When two world leaders whose countries are in a strained relationship meet I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are no transcripts, given the most likely sensitive nature of the conversation. Same with a letter, though that's got a more theatrical flavor to it. And I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I deny he keeps some meetings "close to the vest", as it were.

Trump cut foreign aid to Pakistan, and so that would seem to suggest he can do the same elsewhere. Congress does indeed sign off on spending and directs it's allocation, but the president can alter those plans. If Trump is interested in what he believes to be criminal activity in a foreign country that he also believes is rife with corruption, and he feels he cannot trust the usual channels, then I guess he can and would ask someone he trusts to look into it (Giuliani). The fact that I loosely described my understanding of governmental branch responsibilities does not mean I am out of my depth in other areas related to the topic at hand.

Ah ok, now I understand. I was not referring to his first "asking Russia for help" remark during his campaign, but addressing your contention (if I'm reading it correctly) that he would have continued that behavior behind closed doors, for which the Mueller Report would have more than likely found evidence for. We shouldn't discount that meeting with Kim, as their negotiating team has recently stated that they wish "the US were more creative" in their negotiations. They keep walking away, we keep walking away, and yet we're back at it. Scott Adams (you may have heard me mention him before :P) has gone so far as to suggest we surrender militarily to North Korea, in exchange for certain provisions that would guarantee they don't further their nuclear program. It's laughable at face value, but get's more interesting the more he explains it.

I'm not finding a reference to the Republicans setting the rules for the proceedings. What I am finding is that Pelosi appointed the Intelligence committee (and not the Judiciary committee, as per usual) to conduct the closed hearings, under the guise that the Intel committee usually deals with sensitive information and thus HAS to be under tighter security and away from the public eye. To my eye this alone should raise suspicions, but coupled with the fact that choice leaks and off the record remarks have been made (that all run in the same narrative direction) things start to look.... less legitimate. I'm aware that some Republican members of the committee(s) that were supposed to attend have been criticized for NOT attending, but the reports I read did not mention that senators could send surrogates in their places, and if it was the senators or their surrogates that did not attend. That looks a bit fishy too. But yeah, the whole barging in during the meeting was a political ploy, no doubt about it.