I listened to Paul Rosenzweig talk about this today on TV. He said that he hoped that Trump will not cause the destruction of the Republican party. He talked about how sad it has been to see such a loss of conservative values in the party.
And I was not surprised to see that George Conway was the point man on this.
I wonder what their conversations are like in the evening.
This is not getting a lot of traction i see
Republicans will never turn on Trump.
Can you believe that George and Kellyanne could be so polar opposite and still live under one roof? Can you imagine their conversations and wonder…is it even remotely possible they’re civil? I’d love to be a fly on the wall and listen to one of them.
And this has what to do with…what?
Who is leading this charge? Oh…
Conway’s personal life is irrelevant.
Why would you bring it up?
Again I ask- what does this have to do with anything?
Personal/professional…are the two opposite sides of the same coin…which makes this scenario…twice as interesting. I’m sorry if you don’t see the relevance but…I’m used to that now.
Me too…I’m used to you bringing up irrelevancies as opposed to actually addressing what’s being discussed.
No no, we’ve been assured by so many Trump supporters that they are able to separate the personal from the professional, that as distasteful as Donald is to them as a person they support his policies and his presidency.
Unless…that’s just a bull ■■■■smokescreen?
Logical consistencies are only used by Trumpsters when needed. Otherwise they’ll go full hypocrite in an attempt to make whatever feeble point they feel they need to make. They’re good slaves.
“We have not just a political candidate open to receiving foreign assistance to better his chances at winning an election, but a current president openly and privately calling on foreign governments to actively interfere in the most sacred of U.S. democratic processes, our elections.”
But it’s okay - I support the policy, not the person!
The question is if the US has an interest in Ukraine uncovering corruption, especially in relation to US citizens and the granting of aid.
If yes, then that is the end of the question of legitimacy.
It is ridiculous to say that if a politician may have an ulterior political motive to their actions, it is abuse of power. Washington would be emptied out.
The question is whether Donald asked a foreign power to help destroy a political opponent in order to better his chances at winning an election.
Let’s drop the bull ■■■■notion that he did it out of some noble sentiment of “uncovering corruption,” when he’s one of the most corrupt individuals ever to hold political office.
When there is not a single instance that can be brought forward of the President asking for foreign assistance to investigate “corruption” of anyone OTHER than his potential direct opponents for the election…when instead of using official channels he goes outside of them (and then it turns out that two of those outside people are in legal hot water that might actually be directly connected to the “investigation” they’re helping with)…and then fires and smears an individual who insisted on using the properly established (by treaty) channels…then that is a problem.
Thia is some of the boatloads of context you are leaving out.
Those two probably have a steamy bedroom life …rage sex every night, lol
Trumpism in a nutshell.
But on a serious note, of course people can disagree in just about everything on how the world should be and still like or even love each other on a human level. That’s why the Ellen/George W. Bush thing isn’t a bit controversial to me.
One can ignore something without being ignorant of it…or maybe…some can?
That’s fine, I didn’t want breakfast this morning anyway.
