Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Wow, Mc Cain would have to be seriously out of it to confuse Comey with Trump.
edited 8th Jun '17 9:39:42 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
Free drinks? Did I miss something?
Republicans obstructed Obama because he was bad for their branding. Democrats are obstructing Trump to prevent him from destroying the country. That said, Republicans enjoy majority positions in the House and Senate, so it's not Democrats who are blocking them from accomplishing things (the filibuster notwithstanding).
When Democrats had control of government, they passed a healthcare bill. Let us not forget that.
edited 8th Jun '17 10:40:15 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
![]()
As I said before, no matter how ambiguous the wording is out of context, in context he made sure that he would be alone for this talk (something you don't do if you don't think that you are doing something at least questionable) and this is actually not the point which is the clear obstruction of justice. The obstruction of justice comes in the moment he fires Comey because he doesn't follow his suggestions to state to the public that he is not under investigation and to leave Flynn along. Under normal circumstances you might be able to spin that towards "Trump felt that Comey was incompetent" except that Trump stated in an interview ON TAPE, that he did it because of the Russia thing. You can point to one aspect of the story and say "but that proofs nothing", but that doesn't just make the stuff which DOES proof something (in this case Trumps own admission) go away.
edited 8th Jun '17 11:29:26 AM by Swanpride
Trump wants to permanently renew Section 702.
. This is despite him rallying against it when Obama was president. Hypocrite much?
edited 8th Jun '17 11:38:32 AM by speedyboris
It's okay if you're a Republican. Obama bad. Rinse, repeat.
And yes, what we're seeing is just more and more proof of the same thing that's been true for months. There is more than enough evidence to move on Trump, but no one's going to because the right controls Congress too and they hold party over country. They're protecting him.
Until such a time as Congress is willing to move on Trump or Trump is no longer the President through natural elections, this investigation is purely academic. We don't need more evidence. We have plenty already. It's not even a matter of convincing people or changing minds as Mc Cain aptly demonstrated; he's repeatedly said that the Russian connections he keeps hearing about are "disturbing", but that didn't keep him from going to bat for Trump against Comey.
End of the day, the Right would sooner see America in the hands of Russia than Democrats. They've made this more and more clear with each passing month. Trump is a point of pride now; they can't afford to lose him, because it would mean the Democrats were right and that is far more unconscionable to them than having a malicious idiot in bed with a hostile foreign power as Commander in Chief.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.If the Democrats win congress, hopefully by a landslide, come next year, next election they will be all about the republicans who fought Trump and how they have made amends with the true part of the party whereas Democrats were incapable of pushing the madman Trump out
It's going to be cyclical
And also sad, since it'll probably work
edited 8th Jun '17 12:02:55 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesWhy not? An opponent of Trump, or at least one who can plausibly claim he was opposed to Trump all the time, is Mitt Romney, and he could likely be the face of "We're not Trump anymore" and I am plenty sure there's others. Don'think Romney is an electable choice? Just remember he lost 47.2 vs 51.1
And that's just one example I'm pretty sure there's more, better options
That's not a "safe" margin to call him "Unelectable", and even then, the republicans could put a number 2 pencil as their candidate that the same 40% that always vote republican would vote republican because most democrat and republican voters are republicans or democrats on principle, not on logic, analysis, or actual thought.
edited 8th Jun '17 12:25:17 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Electable? Sure, but frankly I don't see any (short to medium term) future candidates picking up the nominations without out fitting the Trump mold.
Or in other words I don't think Trump is going to become toxic enough for the Republicans to want to jettison any association with him, so the scenario of a "redeemed Republican Party" running its new found saintliness to the White House and Congress is not something I see happening.

edited 8th Jun '17 9:38:12 AM by Swanpride