The Trump Presidency

[thethe]

The primary responsibility should be to govern. You can maintain your core principles while recognizing there are people just as smart and qualified as you are with different opinions. So you work together. The failure to do so and insistence on finger-pointing is what helped create the environment for the **** show we have now.

But am I to just submit for the sake of compromise when I have no clue what the compromise was? Maybe walking away from the table was completely justified.

[thethe]

Hawk is ok with all of it. I'm still a little fuzzy on how the specifics of how electing a manifestly unqualified grifter to the Presidency is going to fix our civic ills, but he's assured us that there is a master plan. So far it seems like:

1. Demystify the office by decoupling the Presidency from historical (and often specious and hypocritical) norms. So far, so good.
2. Hold the media and the political opposition to the same historical norms.
3. ????
4. Profit

You forgot fix the economy and get people working again. That might be something that ends up helping no?

[bravesnumberone]

But am I to just submit for the sake of compromise when I have no clue what the compromise was? Maybe walking away from the table was completely justified.

Considering members of both parties had problems with how it went down, I think that's unlikely.

I believe the loudest voices on this when a deal does get done (and it will because Trump has to go to Florida for a fundraiser and golf) will be people like Tom Cotton screaming "AMNESTY!!!!!!"

[Hawk]

Yea. "rumored...." lol.

Usually things are rumors until they actually, you know, come to fruition.

[Hawk]

Hawk is ok with all of it. I'm still a little fuzzy on how the specifics of how electing a manifestly unqualified grifter to the Presidency is going to fix our civic ills, but he's assured us that there is a master plan. So far it seems like:

1. Demystify the office by decoupling the Presidency from historical (and often specious and hypocritical) norms. So far, so good.
2. Hold the media and the political opposition to the same historical norms.
3. ????
4. Profit

A) Okay with what? Specifically. I'll ask you again what I asked you a month ago; are you prepared to prosecute? If not ... stop whining.

B) "historical norms" -- now that's lol-worthy.

C) What

D) Wha

E) I give up.

[bravesnumberone]

Usually things are rumors until they actually, you know, come to fruition.

Except there's a well-documented "connection," which is what I was saying.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/29/d...nk-753780.html

Whether or not a crime or crimes were actually committed remains to be seen but for the millionth time, it's important to investigate it when you're talking about a world leader.

If you don't give a ****, it's on you I guess.

[Hawk]

Except there's a well-documented "connection," which is what I was saying.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/29/d...nk-753780.html

Whether or not a crime or crimes were actually committed remains to be seen but for the millionth time, it's important to investigate it when you're talking about a world leader.

If you don't give a ****, it's on you I guess.

Can you see why I find it ... just a little bit suspect ... that you are tying your claims together using an article the title of which ends in '?' with a Russian blackmail scheme involving the President of the United States?

I see the 'dots' ... I've seen them spread out, bit by bit, over months. But I haven't seen them connected in any salient form or fashion. That onus falls on you.

You can't link me to that story and expect that all the holes that exist in the grand Trump collusion 'theory' are going to automatically fill in.

[Julio3000]

A) Okay with what? Specifically. I'll ask you again what I asked you a month ago; are you prepared to prosecute? If not ... stop whining.

B) "historical norms" -- now that's lol-worthy.

C) What

D) Wha

E) I give up.

I'm trying to rationalize your perpetual stanning for Trump, which you've characterized as hard work but somehow revolutionary. Help me understand.

What, have you not said that you view the decoupling of the Presidency from historical norms and conventional tropes as a positive?

Not taking about Russia even a little bit. Think you're crossing wires.

[Julio3000]

Can you see why I find it ... just a little bit suspect ... that you are tying your claims together using an article the title of which ends in '?' with a Russian blackmail scheme involving the President of the United States?

I see the 'dots' ... I've seen them spread out, bit by bit, over months. But I haven't seen them connected in any salient form or fashion. That onus falls on you.

You can't link me to that story and expect that all the holes that exist in the grand Trump collusion 'theory' are going to automatically fill in.

What if there isn't a grand, unified theory? Do we just chuck the whole thing?

[Hawk]

I'm trying to rationalize your perpetual stanning for Trump, which you've characterized as hard work but somehow revolutionary. Help me understand.

What, have you not said that you view the decoupling of the Presidency from historical norms and conventional tropes as a positive?

Not taking about Russia even a little bit. Think you're crossing wires.

I thought we were talking about immigration, actually, but somehow you've resorted to the old "Trump is incompetent" fallback.

[bravesnumberone]

Can you see why I find it ... just a little bit suspect ... that you are tying your claims together using an article the title of which ends in '?' with a Russian blackmail scheme involving the President of the United States?

I see the 'dots' ... I've seen them spread out, bit by bit, over months. But I haven't seen them connected in any salient form or fashion. That onus falls on you.

You can't link me to that story and expect that all the holes that exist in the grand Trump collusion 'theory' are going to automatically fill in.

Again, that's what the investigation's for. By people who are a lot better trained and seasoned at it than I am. I believe there's enough there to at least pursue, and it goes way beyond that one article.

You obviously don't. It must get tiresome carrying that water for Trump.

[thethe]

Again, that's what the investigation's for. By people who are a lot better trained and seasoned at it than I am. I believe there's enough there to at least pursue, and it goes way beyond that one article.

You obviously don't. It must get tiresome carrying that water for Trump.

At a time where items from the investigation have leaked we have not heard one iota of real evidence. But sure, go on your wild goose chase to divert the focus from all the corruption from the prior 8 years.

[Hawk]

What if there isn't a grand, unified theory? Do we just chuck the whole thing?

No, but a good start is to stop treating these individual morsels/evidences as conclusive proof of malfeasance (that extends to every sector of the Presidential administration and agenda). That’s legitimately my only plea.

[Julio3000]

No, but a good start is to stop treating these individual morsels/evidences as conclusive proof of malfeasance (that extends to every sector of the Presidential administration and agenda). That’s legitimately my only plea.

I think that's fine and an eminently reasonable request. I'd say that a correspondingly fair request would be to call a spade a spade once in a while.

[Hawk]

Again, that's what the investigation's for. By people who are a lot better trained and seasoned at it than I am. I believe there's enough there to at least pursue, and it goes way beyond that one article.

You obviously don't. It must get tiresome carrying that water for Trump.

Because I question you I obviously don’t care?

Doesn’t compute.

[bravesnumberone]

Because I question you I obviously don’t care?

Doesn’t compute.

You didn't even bother to even read the article and I'd like to hear your thoughts on those connections outlined, your thoughts on the NRA news from yesterday and the fact Simpson mentions the NRA in his testimony. Etc.

[thethe]

You didn't even bother to even read the article and I'd like to hear your thoughts on those connections outlined, your thoughts on the NRA news from yesterday and the fact Simpson mentions the NRA in his testimony. Etc.

Well if Simpson said it has to be true

[bravesnumberone]

At a time where items from the investigation have leaked we have not heard one iota of real evidence. But sure, go on your wild goose chase to divert the focus from all the corruption from the prior 8 years.

What "iota of real evidence" has there been the prior eight years? Do you even listen to yourself?

[bravesnumberone]

Well if Simpson said it has to be true

Kind of like if Fox News says it, it has to be true?

[thethe]

Kind of like if Fox News says it, it has to be true?

I think you'd be very surprised with how little Fox News I actually watch in a given week. There is something called the internet that provides you with information