dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » And I don't need to read any further than that. Do you honestly think I would read past this or even expect any points that weren't soapboxing and a party political broadcast? If you want people to engage, maybe try arguing instead of getting up on your little box, plug your ears and shout. Unless that was never your intention to begin with.
RIGOLO wrote: » Thats okay .. you didnt read past there. Its a free country , you and everyone else is free (to a certain degree) to choose what they want to read and whom they want to read. I did read past there, in fact I also read the article in the Examiner. Its Saturday morning, Id be the last to force anyone to read anything ...
everlast75 wrote: » You keep using the term "anti-tRumper" like its an insult. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being "anti-Trump". That term therefore is clearly an indication of sanity and decency.
pixelburp wrote: » Mueller testifying will be an anti climax, we have a full sense of the man's morals and he'll stick to the details of the report. He may have already even said as much. Perhaps in the questioning juicier items will come out but I really don't think Mueller's testimony will form any kind of silver bullet - beyond generating talking points to contribute to the resting continuous bad press this administration brings upon itself.
duploelabs wrote: » The Mueller testimony will give light to the 85% of the senate who haven't read his report
Danzy wrote: » Amazed people are still talking about the Mueller report, upon googling it I see several prominent Republican type commentators mentioning it, bigging it up, for their own reasons, their Trump supporters. Politically it is a dead end. 2 years wasted by the Democrats, it may well be enough to cost them the election.
Danzy wrote: » 2 years wasted by the Democrats, it may well be enough to cost them the election.
TomOnBoard wrote: » There was an initial FBI investigation into possible Russian infiltration of the Trump campaign, resulting from counter-intelligence concerns relating to information given by a drunk George Papadopolous. While that investigation was ongoing, the President fired the head of the FBI. Trump's own DoJ then set up the Special Counsel to continue the investigation and expanded it to investigate possible obstruction of justice by the President. Following an extensive investigation, Mueller produced his report. How was all that a 2 year waste by the Democrats?
Danzy wrote: » Amazed people are still talking about the Mueller report, upon googling it I see several prominent Republican type commentators mentioning it, bigging it up, for their own reasons, their Trump supporters. Politically it is a dead end.2 years wasted by the Democrats, it may well be enough to cost them the election.
PropJoe10 wrote: » If the Republicans weren't so brainwashed, Trump would be being forced by both the House and Senate to answer some very awkward questions. The Mueller Report was well worthwhile and it's not the fault of the Dems that the Republican Party is possibly the most spineless organisation on God's green earth.
looksee wrote: » I have no time for Trump and would entirely believe is an amoral philanderer and worse, but Alva Johnson needs to get over herself. If that kiss was a violation of her person or whatever she is claiming, then she has led a very sheltered life. It was a peck on the cheek in a pretty crowded, social situation from someone she had been working with for most of a year. Her claims are an insult to the people he has assaulted.
Igotadose wrote: » looksee wrote: » I have no time for Trump and would entirely believe is an amoral philanderer and worse, but Alva Johnson needs to get over herself. If that kiss was a violation of her person or whatever she is claiming, then she has led a very sheltered life. It was a peck on the cheek in a pretty crowded, social situation from someone she had been working with for most of a year. Her claims are an insult to the people he has assaulted. Yeah, it does seem like it's overexaggerated. Alva Johnson might have a few screws loose.
TomOnBoard wrote: » So, Sanders and Biden have thrown down the gauntlet over Medicare for All. Bernie wants all US (residents or citizens I dunno) transitioned to MFA over a 4 year period, while Biden wants any faults in Obamacare shored up and allow ppl to keep existing insurance if they wish. I reckon this is a policy issue that will sink Sanders for good and will also marginalise many other Democrat runners. There is no way that the US is anywhere near ready for MFA and it simply won't run as a mainstream Dem policy in a Presedential Election.
FartyBlartFast wrote: » Actually, polls show about 70% of Americans being in favour of this, including around half of republicans. Once you remove the word 'Obama' from the healthcare topic, opinions quickly change among many republicans on it. This is the type of topic that wouod be far more likely to get apathetic you Ger voters out rather than Bidens "dont worry, nothing will change" message. It is also far more popular among millennials which are what strategists should be tapping into. Their turnout in 2016 was low, yet despite that they made up 31% of the total vote, and by 2020 every millennial will be eligible to vote, as well as even some from whatever we'll be labelling the next (born post 2000) generation. Given they were tied in 2016, millennials by now comfortably outnumber baby boomers as a bloc - but they need to get otivated to vote. Tru p doing the awful stuff he has is certainly going to do that for a good few of them, but Biden ensuring people that "nothing will change" is not onky going to fail to build on that... it is highly likely to push many of those looking jj to voting in response to the last few years into thinking "what's the point anyway? They're all the same". Biden is too tone deaf to know that it will be the exact same again if he keeps pushing that message.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » Trump trashes to Iran deal to spite Obama. This is absolutely appalling. I'm disgusted, but not surprised. There are many theories why Trump ran for President. One is that Gwen Stephanie earned more than him on the Voice and this was a stunt to raise his profile, and the other because of the infamous 2011 WH dinner where Obama took the piss out of him. .
amandstu wrote: » How can it be shown that it was not a decision (extremely wrong,in my view) taken out of conviction (insofar as he is capable of it) and simply coloured or justified in his normal crude ,self serving manner)? I mean the ambassador's assessment is just his assessment .It would be very interesting if it could be stood up
amandstu wrote: » How can it be shown that it was not a decision (extremely wrong,in my view) taken out of conviction (insofar as he is capable of it) and simply coloured or justified in his normal crude ,self serving manner)? I mean the ambassador's assessment is just his assessment .It would be very interesting if it could be stood up . factually I would consider such methods of decision ,if shown to be the case to be in themselves grounds for impeachment . On a related point I wonder if the US's withdrawal from the Paris Accords would also amount to a crime against humanity (committed by we know who)
Ben Done wrote: » ^What's good about the leaks being published, apart from showing that normal, right-thinking people see exactly what we're dealing with in America, is that The Brexit Party seem to be tied in to the leaking of the cables. Richard Tice was straight out to bat after Oakeshott's first story last week, saying we need a Brexit-focused businessman to be the next US Ambassador, and that there was definitely no need for a police enquiry into the leaks. Turns out that Tice and the missus split last year and that he is currently shacked up with... Ms Oakeshott, Bad Boys of Brexit 'author'.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-richard-tice-darroch-18206347 Hopefully the police inquiry into the leaks can proceed at pace.
