M
Metis1
Guest
Maybe it’s best to reread what I actually wrote that includes the word “and”-- as “in addition to”.
- Status
S
sallybutler
Guest
Do you have the same philosophy towards all media, or just the NYT?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Obama chose not to bring it up because he and Hillary were the ones colluding duh…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
By golly, you have a point. I assumed mentioning the “meeting at Trump Tower” was meant to have some meaning. I see now that it was surplusage.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
All of it, but some more than others.
M
Metis1
Guest
Hey, if throwing insults is your thing, I guess you can just go for it. As for me, it’s not my cup of tea.
According to what was leaked, he was fearful that if he brought this all to light just before the election that this would cause a backlash against Hillary as he would be accused of meddling to try and influence the outcome because there would not be enough time to come forth with the evidence that was showing up, much of which had not been verified as being accurate.
According to what was leaked, he was fearful that if he brought this all to light just before the election that this would cause a backlash against Hillary as he would be accused of meddling to try and influence the outcome because there would not be enough time to come forth with the evidence that was showing up, much of which had not been verified as being accurate.
M
Metis1
Guest
As far as the issue of “collusion” is concerned, maybe read this from a non-political source: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials - Wikipedia
Now, whether any of this collusion was “criminal” is another matter. Also, if there was no collusion, why did six members of the Trump camp deny having any meetings with the Russians when it’s become established that they did. Honest people don’t need to lie, and an honest president wouldn’t try and stop an investigation by a man (Mueller) that both Democrats and Republicans have praised as being fair and honest. If I’m innocent, let the investigation continue so as to establish that I’m innocent.
BTW, Trump’s saying in one of his campaign speeches that if the Russians have Hillary’s e-mails that they should put them out, which they did right after that speech, that in and of itself may be viewed as “collusion”. If I ask you to do X, and then you do what I asked, that may be construed as collusion. And it could also even be construed as being “criminal” as it was encouraging a foreign power to meddle in our electioneering process by putting forth material to try and influence the vote, which they did.
Now, whether any of this collusion was “criminal” is another matter. Also, if there was no collusion, why did six members of the Trump camp deny having any meetings with the Russians when it’s become established that they did. Honest people don’t need to lie, and an honest president wouldn’t try and stop an investigation by a man (Mueller) that both Democrats and Republicans have praised as being fair and honest. If I’m innocent, let the investigation continue so as to establish that I’m innocent.
BTW, Trump’s saying in one of his campaign speeches that if the Russians have Hillary’s e-mails that they should put them out, which they did right after that speech, that in and of itself may be viewed as “collusion”. If I ask you to do X, and then you do what I asked, that may be construed as collusion. And it could also even be construed as being “criminal” as it was encouraging a foreign power to meddle in our electioneering process by putting forth material to try and influence the vote, which they did.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
A person would have to know the events you’re talking about, and the persons. For example, was jeff Sessions really compromised by having met with Kislyak along with other senators in a planned event of a diplomatic sort? It never seemed so to me.
Was Trump Jr somehow suborned by the Russians by meeting with Veselnitskaya along with Kushner and Manafort and others? Doesn’t seem so, and nothing criminal in connection with it was alleged against Manafort. Manafort would be charged with spitting on the sidewalk if Mueller could.
Trump has done nothing to stop Mueller for two years now. How much longer does it have to go on and how many people have to get entrapped by Mueller before enough is enough?
There is not the slightest reason to think Trump colluded with Russia. And wishful thinking on your part does not equal criminality on Trump’s.
Was Trump Jr somehow suborned by the Russians by meeting with Veselnitskaya along with Kushner and Manafort and others? Doesn’t seem so, and nothing criminal in connection with it was alleged against Manafort. Manafort would be charged with spitting on the sidewalk if Mueller could.
Trump has done nothing to stop Mueller for two years now. How much longer does it have to go on and how many people have to get entrapped by Mueller before enough is enough?
There is not the slightest reason to think Trump colluded with Russia. And wishful thinking on your part does not equal criminality on Trump’s.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You said “Who cares?” And then “Did it stop Kavanaugh?”. Too many questions without making a point.LeafByNiggle:
??? Not sure what you mean.
M
Metis1
Guest
It’s truly pathetic when one goes out of the way to show the facts from an unbiased source but then gets nothing back except just more “alternative facts”. Even if one knew nothing about the accumulating evidence that strongly implicates the Trump camp, their behavior of lies, obstructionism, deceit. deflection, etc. should speak volumes.
As I said before, I think Mueller probably by now has a pretty good picture of what they did and didn’t do, so I’m willing to wait and see what his investigation presents. However, if this goes beyond the November election, I don’t have much doubt that Trump will fire Rosenstein and Sessions and Mueller, and then Kelly & Mattis may well resign.
As we’re seeing with Trump’s bizarre and dishonest Puerto Rico statements over the last two days, I gotta feeling that Trump is so unhinged that others may well abandon ship as well. But then, most of his base that excuses everything he says and does is likely to stay loyal to him and continue to defend his depraved statements and actions.
IMO, Gandhi said it so well: “To cooperate with evil is evil”.
As I said before, I think Mueller probably by now has a pretty good picture of what they did and didn’t do, so I’m willing to wait and see what his investigation presents. However, if this goes beyond the November election, I don’t have much doubt that Trump will fire Rosenstein and Sessions and Mueller, and then Kelly & Mattis may well resign.
As we’re seeing with Trump’s bizarre and dishonest Puerto Rico statements over the last two days, I gotta feeling that Trump is so unhinged that others may well abandon ship as well. But then, most of his base that excuses everything he says and does is likely to stay loyal to him and continue to defend his depraved statements and actions.
IMO, Gandhi said it so well: “To cooperate with evil is evil”.
Last edited:
U
ucfengr
Guest
If Mueller had anything, it would have been released, or leaked by now. Nobody in Washington could sit on anything as explosive evidence of actual criminal activity that can be tied directly to Trump.
What’s “bizarre and dishonest” about praising FEMA and other involved agencies for their work in the Hurricane Maria recovery? Or for calling out a phony report on the number of deaths that resulted from Maria?
M
Metis1
Guest
Such investigations take time-- a lot of time-- and Mueller is top-shelf even according to Republicans. Also, because there are so many involved, much more so than Watergate, it’s important for Mueller to connect the dots with all that might be involved. Already we’ve seen several plea deals, thus admissions of guilt, plus over 100 indictments.
M
Metis1
Guest
What you write above is so utterly appalling and disgusting and in more than just in one way. This from the WSJ: Trump Denies Heavy Death Toll in Puerto Rico From Hurricane Maria - WSJ
And this is from Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/2...rricane-maria-death-toll-from-64-to-2975.html
It’s sickening that some are so willing to politicize such a disaster that killed so many. Even “conservative” sources like the Wall Street Journal and Fox realize Trump’s fallacy.
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
Looks like we can expect Trump’s fan to start calling Fox “liberal” any minute now.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
So, it must not have caused permanent damage if we did it to our own people.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
There’s a poster that already said that Fox wasn’t only lightly right leaning. He can’t chime in for himself as he will be away from the forum until October though.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think one has to distinguish between the pundits on Fox, the “news” on Fox and the economics on Fox. Pundits like Hannity are very partisan, exclusively so. Tucker Carlson, however, has so many liberal apologists on his show that it seems there’s not much else on his show. Lou Dobbs is pretty severely conservative, but harshly critical of Republicans.
Maria Bartiromo, on the other hand, is pretty much all economics. So are some of the others. Even though she’s plainly conservative politically, her shows are not about politics, but about the markets. Her guests are not there for politics, but to let us know, e.g., how good a fit the oil pipeline companies are with the Permian Basin versus Powder River.
But the “Punditry” are very political, just as the “news” people are on the mainstream channels. The former admit it, though, while the latter do not.
Maria Bartiromo, on the other hand, is pretty much all economics. So are some of the others. Even though she’s plainly conservative politically, her shows are not about politics, but about the markets. Her guests are not there for politics, but to let us know, e.g., how good a fit the oil pipeline companies are with the Permian Basin versus Powder River.
But the “Punditry” are very political, just as the “news” people are on the mainstream channels. The former admit it, though, while the latter do not.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Fox News, as a journalistic enterprise, is pretty limited. A good many of the actual news pieces are just AP and other wire service pieces regurgitated. It certainly doesn’t have a journalism department like the New York Times or the Washington Post (but then again, to be fair, neither does CNN, which is just as awful).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s a shame, then, that the NYT and WaPo have opted to become house organs for the Dem party.
Different organizations have their particular areas of concentration. And most news organizations do rely on the wire services.
I will say that Fox is head and shoulders above other media when it comes to economic information. Yes, their regulars do talk about what they have read. But their guest information is unique; from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Um, as compared to Forbes and the Wall Street Journal? Yeah, I don’t really think Fox News is much good for anything. But again, I feel the same way about CNN.
- Status