Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

• ppaw1999

  gut;1852022 wrote:RENEWING a program is a conflict of interest? Should we not give residence to rich foreigners that want to invest here, or just boot them out and make up the taxes on backs of the middle class?

  I think it is a conflict of interest when someone who is a member of the political inner circle uses it for their own benefit. Kushner should not be a part of that inner circle. Either that or cut all ties with his personal businesses.
• ppaw1999

  rocketalum;1852024 wrote:What I find frustrating is all the people taking a "nothing to see here" approach to Flynn, business ties, nepotism etc... would be flipping their collective shit if our current President had a 'D' after their name. This "team" mentality to politics is hypocritical nonsense. If there are two teams it's not D v R it's People v Government. As long as we continue to divide our team and root for someone on the other we will continue to go 0 for...

  I agree. A great post straight to the point.
• sleeper

  

  "If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundations of our democratic political system, this episode is it. I hope that the American people recognize the severity of this threat and that we collectively counter it before it further erodes the fabric of our democracy,"

  -Clapper, under oath, in response to the question of Russian interference in elections
  

  "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government — and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.

  -Comey, under oath
  
  But yes, nothing to see here. If you watched any of the Comey hearing or any of the Yates/Clapper hearing and you are an American, you would be seriously concerned for our Democracy. But nope, let's focus on unmasking, leaks, and Hillary's emails. The GOP, ladies and gentleman.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1852029 wrote:#MAGA
  
  Yeah Spicer and the Trump team(and Fox News, no surprise) keep blaming Obama for Flynn. I'm not sure what more Obama could do; he fired Flynn, warned Trump the day after the election in person about Flynn, his AG warned Trump that he was compromised, etc. What more could Obama do?

  
  He's the greatest, no wonder he is getting $400k per speech from big Wall St. banks ............
  
  
  The hypocrisy is immeasurable.
• sleeper

  

  [video][/video]
  
  Yate's completely owning Cruz.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1852036 wrote:He's the greatest, no wonder he is getting $400k per speech from big Wall St. banks ............
  
  
  The hypocrisy is immeasurable.

  What does this have to do with Flynn? GOP has to deflect because they are unwilling to enforce the law when it's one of their own. There's no defending this incompetence other than to distract and obfuscate the investigation.
• ppaw1999

  https://youtu.be/yJC8YJ_B0XQ
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1852031 wrote:-Sally Yates 5/8/17
  
  Said under oath.

  
  Her judgment/opinion ........... just another wrong in an 8-year run of wrongs by the obama admin.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1852038 wrote:There's no defending this incompetence other than to distract and obfuscate the investigation.

  
  
  Where were you for the last 8 years as the world was set on fire by the most inept administration in the history of the United States?
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1852047 wrote:Her judgment/opinion ........... just another wrong in an 8-year run of wrongs by the obama admin.

  Right, I'm sure she had zero evidence and just thought he was compromised on a whim. Grow up.
  
  And if her judgement/opinion were not valid, why did Trump end up firing Flynn for the reasons that were validated by Yates after the leaks? I guess her judgement/opinion is correct.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1852048 wrote:Where were you for the last 8 years as the world was set on fire by the most inept administration in the history of the United States?

  I was enjoying record low unemployment, stock market gains, transparency, class, and a massive improvement in health care.
  
  You really need to stop watching right wing propaganda. Also again, you are deflecting; this is about Trump not Obama.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1851995 wrote:Sorry but until the GOP actually does their job, via the will of their constituents, then they are complicit. Did you watch the Yates/Clapper hearing yesterday? The GOP is more concerned about leaks than election manipulation and potential coordination with a foreign power. The GOP is more concerned about Hillary's emails(still!) than why it took the Trump team 18 days to fire Flynn once he was compromised(fired Yates instead).
  
  The GOP owns this. This is what the GOP supports; party over country. It's really quite sick.

  I'm not saying the GOP isn't at fault for Trump. They nominated him.
  
  I'm also not saying that they are behaving competently (I didn't see the hearing, but what you say wouldn't exactly surprise me.).
  
  I'm saying that putting forth the notion that the only two options are either opposing Trump or putting party before country is a false dichotomy. One can genuinely like Trump, though I would oppose such a view.
  
  I was also suggesting that calling him a "travesty infecting [the] Oval Office" is hyperbole. Yes, he's a terrible president. Yes, he won the election. Let's not try to make our case by sensationalism. Let's put on our big boy pants and engaged the topic with some sober rationalism instead, eh?
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1852051 wrote:I'm not saying the GOP isn't at fault for Trump. They nominated him.
  
  I'm also not saying that they are behaving competently (I didn't see the hearing, but what you say wouldn't exactly surprise me.).
  
  I'm saying that putting forth the notion that the only two options are either opposing Trump or putting party before country is a false dichotomy. One can genuinely like Trump, though I would oppose such a view.
  
  I was also suggesting that calling him a "travesty infecting [the] Oval Office" is hyperbole. Yes, he's a terrible president. Yes, he won the election. Let's not try to make our case by sensationalism. Let's put on our big boy pants and engaged the topic with some sober rationalism instead, eh?

  The sad reality is there no sensationalism in my posts. This is the reality. And the GOP and its voters have rubber stamped this incompetent, corrupt administration. It truly is party over country and its absolutely disgusting.
• Heretic

  

  O-Trap;1852051 wrote:I'm not saying the GOP isn't at fault for Trump. They nominated him.
  
  I'm also not saying that they are behaving competently (I didn't see the hearing, but what you say wouldn't exactly surprise me.).
  
  I'm saying that putting forth the notion that the only two options are either opposing Trump or putting party before country is a false dichotomy. One can genuinely like Trump, though I would oppose such a view.
  
  I was also suggesting that calling him a "travesty infecting [the] Oval Office" is hyperbole. Yes, he's a terrible president. Yes, he won the election. Let's not try to make our case by sensationalism. Let's put on our big boy pants and engaged the topic with some sober rationalism instead, eh?

  When someone's gimmick is to be the left-wing QQ, the bolded is incapable of happening. The worrisome part, to me, is that he has to take his act to hilarious levels just to reach QQ's honest opinions.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1852052 wrote:The sad reality is there no sensationalism in my posts. This is the reality. And the GOP and its voters have rubber stamped this incompetent, corrupt administration. It truly is party over country and its absolutely disgusting.

  A false dichotomy fallacy is not factual. In fact, it is the opposite, as demonstrated.
  
  Moreover, there is indeed sensationalism, unless his biological composition has been rearranged such that he has the capability of infecting things in a literal sense.
  
  Also, I don't think "travesty" means what you think it means. He's not a misrepresentation of what's in the Oval Office. He's actually there, and despite his lack of competence and credentials, he is there as a result of the same election process that put Obama in there for two terms.
  
  I must give you credit. If your effort was to cast off all credibility by donning the persona of someone whose political leanings are determined by sensationalism, then bravo. You've done a masterful job.
  

  Heretic;1852053 wrote:When someone's gimmick is to be the left-wing QQ, the bolded is incapable of happening. The worrisome part, to me, is that he has to take his act to hilarious levels just to reach QQ's honest opinions.

  I know, but he keeps championing "facts" as though he has any grasp on them.
• sleeper

  

  A false dichotomy fallacy is not factual. In fact, it is the opposite, as demonstrated.

  When the overwhelming amount of Republicans still condone and support this radically corrupt administration, then it is not a false dichotomy. They are complicit with their latest action of a vote and further their now inaction in contributing positively to democracy.
  
  This ends when Trump is removed from office along with his GOP cronies obfuscating the path to justice.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1852061 wrote:When the overwhelming amount of Republicans still condone and support this radically corrupt administration, then it is not a false dichotomy. They are complicit with their latest action of a vote and further their now inaction in contributing positively to democracy.
  
  This ends when Trump is removed from office along with his GOP cronies obfuscating the path to justice.

  Are you ever going to explain your political 180? This new progressive you has been on the scene for a little while now and there's been no explanation as to how your political leanings changed so dramatically in such a short period of time. What brought it on? Really - I'm curious. Your schtick on here used to be the money-making, chick-banging bro who hated poor people. Now you've become a champion of the downtrodden that hates Trump and the GOP. There must be a story there.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1852061 wrote:When the overwhelming amount of Republicans still condone and support this radically corrupt administration, then it is not a false dichotomy.

  Um ... yes, it still is. You're assuming intent by leveling the accusation that they're necessarily doing so because they put party over country.
  
  I already demonstrated that it was a false dichotomy by pointing out a third option. That necessarily makes it a false dichotomy along the same lines of 'W' saying that anyone who opposes the war is with the terrorists.
  

  sleeper;1852061 wrote:They are complicit with their latest action of a vote and further their now inaction in contributing positively to democracy.
  
  This ends when Trump is removed from office along with his GOP cronies obfuscating the path to justice.

  
  
  You can blame those who voted for someone for the ills brought about by his/her presidency. That's fine.
  
  However, that still doesn't justify the tossing out of logical fallacies or hyperbole and then pretending that you're the one using facts.
• QuakerOats

  O-Trap;1852051 wrote:I'm not saying the GOP isn't at fault for Trump. They nominated him.
  

  
  Trump, as it turns out, is the only one who could have beaten Clinton, and did.
  
  Appears the GOP did the right thing, even if they weren't trying to.
  
  
  Best
• Heretic

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1852071 wrote:Are you ever going to explain your political 180? This new progressive you has been on the scene for a little while now and there's been no explanation as to how your political leanings changed so dramatically in such a short period of time. What brought it on? Really - I'm curious. Your schtick on here used to be the money-making, chick-banging bro who hated poor people. Now you've become a champion of the downtrodden that hates Trump and the GOP. There must be a story there.

  To be a good troll, you have to have some sort of minority opinion. This site is loaded with party-before-brains GOP-types who have the same negative opinion of poor people as his old act did, so he changed it in order to get under their skin.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1852071 wrote:Are you ever going to explain your political 180? This new progressive you has been on the scene for a little while now and there's been no explanation as to how your political leanings changed so dramatically in such a short period of time. What brought it on? Really - I'm curious. Your schtick on here used to be the money-making, chick-banging bro who hated poor people. Now you've become a champion of the downtrodden that hates Trump and the GOP. There must be a story there.

  It's probably a number of things including living in DC, being surrounded by smart people that I respect, and the election of Trump. I still make plenty of money, still bang chicks, and still don't really like poor people. However, the reality is, I've gained EMPATHY for poor people. I also view the GOP becoming more and more radical and that moved me from being libertarian leaning/right leaning all the way "left" although I still consider myself a moderate.
  
  I view Trump and those that elected Trump as the greatest threat in history to our Democracy and health of this country. These people are the new 'poor people' and I still pity them for being so downright ignorant and brainwashed.
  
  Also, there is no schtick.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1852072 wrote:Um ... yes, it still is. You're assuming intent by leveling the accusation that they're necessarily doing so because they put party over country.
  
  I already demonstrated that it was a false dichotomy by pointing out a third option. That necessarily makes it a false dichotomy along the same lines of 'W' saying that anyone who opposes the war is with the terrorists.
  
  
  
  
  
  You can blame those who voted for someone for the ills brought about by his/her presidency. That's fine.
  
  However, that still doesn't justify the tossing out of logical fallacies or hyperbole and then pretending that you're the one using facts.

  I am not interested in your semantics and philosophical approach to commentary. Let me know when you want to contribute positively to this conversation.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1852078 wrote:It's probably a number of things including living in DC, being surrounded by smart people that I respect, and the election of Trump. I still make plenty of money, still bang chicks, and still don't really like poor people. However, the reality is, I've gained EMPATHY for poor people. I also view the GOP becoming more and more radical and that moved me from being libertarian leaning/right leaning all the way "left" although I still consider myself a moderate.
  
  I view Trump and those that elected Trump as the greatest threat in history to our Democracy and health of this country. These people are the new 'poor people' and I still pity them for being so downright ignorant and brainwashed.
  
  Also, there is no schtick.

  Fair enough
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1852073 wrote:Trump, as it turns out, is the only one who could have beaten Clinton, and did.

  This is pure, unadulterated, 100%, good, old-fashioned conjecture.
  

  QuakerOats;1852073 wrote:Appears the GOP did the right thing, even if they weren't trying to.

  First, that would remain to be seen, would it not?
  
  Second, he's been hapless, at best. Not sure if this frying pan is worse than the fire we would have had with Clinton, but I won't disagree with the notion that she would have been just as problematic. I doubt I'd be any happier with her in office.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1852080 wrote:I am not interested in your semantics and philosophical approach to commentary. Let me know when you want to contribute positively to this conversation.

  I'm not being semantic. I'm merely holding you to the same standard of fact-based reason that you appear inclined to holding others to. You've been a classic example of hypocrisy in this thread.
  
  And let me know when you also wish to contribute positively to this conversation, as the sorts of fallacies and incendiary sensationalism you've been pitching thus far is hardly what I'd call positive contribution to a conversation.