That’s the prudent choice.
Rachel Maddow tonight was running down the list of compensations that Russia has received. The most recent that they will be coming here to participate in joint intelligence work.
Fine. Here is a recent and continuing improvement. He has Mexico working with the US to control the flood of illegals from Central America that built up under Obama.
Now why would I not go into details of what he has done good or bad? I say he has helped enforce our laws. Someone else will say “you mean its good that he won’t let poor people into the country who only want to feed their children”.
A discussion of what he has done “good” or “bad” is essentially covered in most other threads.
BTW, why not questions re immigration from CNN? Softballs for Dems.
I’ll see your “working with Mexico” and raise you a “separating toddlers from their parents”. Or “ordering the deportation of critically ill persons” because… why?
Believe it or don’t: most Democrats, elected or average Joe, want orderly, legal immigration. The policies mentioned above aren’t convincing anyone that Trump is interested in anything other than appealing to the more venal side of his base.
And as soon as Republicans and Democrats come to the table to achieve immigration reform through reasonable compromise, we’ll see that story on CNN. In the meantime, all we’re getting from Trump is wall, family separations, side-stepping Congress, and “can’t we shoot ‘em in the leg?” So that’s what we’re seeing on CNN.
Cnn made the same exact report
1 Like
Say no more…
Exactly what I was talking about. Each thing he does is either good or bad depending on your argument. Immigration alone is worth multiple threads and there will be multiple disagreements over whether what he did was good or bad.
And there are dozens of other issues the same way.
And I’m supposed to pick out “name something good he did”?
Nonsense.
I disagree. All things are not good or bad depending on my argument. Some things are objectively bad. To wit: did Trump, directly or through intermediaries, solicit the Ukrainian government to investigate his political rival? Based on public statements and (apparently) Congressional testimony from a growing number of career civil servants, he did. And opposition research unquestionably has value. So if he did, that’s objectively bad, because it’s against the law. No amount of spin can dislodge that fact.
Speaking of those civil servants, most of whose careers span Republican and Democratic administrations: who is more likely to be truthful, Fiona Hill or Rudy Giuliani? In my judgment, over the past three years, almost every appointee or civil servant who has come out against Trump or his administration has been called liar or traitor or worse. What is their motivation for discarding decades of service? Conversely, what is Trump’s motivation for unwavering denial, and stated refusal to accommodate lawful Congressional investigations, whether he considers them politically motivated or not?
You’re a reasonable guy. Cui bono?
1 Like
Are political rivals exempt from investigation? Apparently that wasn’t a problem with the anti Trump politicians for the last three years.
If there is a political motive to an official action does that make it corrupt? If so, then nothing could be more corrupt than the maybe an impeachment inquiry maybe not an impeachment inquire being orchestrated by Schiff and Pelosi.
No, political rivals are not exempt from investigation. That’s not what I said. You’re obfuscating. I’m talking specifically about soliciting a thing of value from a foreign agent for the purpose of influencing an election. That’s apparently against the law, and a growing number of people in a position to know say that he did it.
What is this “corrupt official action” of which you speak? I just cited a specific allegation of Trump breaking the law. Not some undefined “high crime or misdemeanor “ - an actual law. Exactly what statute or Constitutional provision are Schiff and Pelosi violating by investigating that allegation?
1 Like
What are you talking about? If they pushed the Russian collusion hoax they are the enemy of the people.
All those investigations into Obama and his Deepstate that you’re ignoring will bring light to who the enemy is.
Did Barr give you the results of all the Obama scandal investigations?
He knows there’s a bout a half dozen investigations into all those Obama scandals about to end, that’s whats coming.
Obama scandals?
Giuliani didn’t lie to the fisa court to spy on Americans!
Nothing wrong with a Lawyer defending his client the President during the Mueller hoax!
McRaven actually is a lib, but that’s besides the point. In this case, he’s right. Trump is destroying the bureaucracy, or at least exposing and damaging it.
Promises, promises.
So what?
McArthur
Patton
Bureaucrats are unelected.
Out of power? Might want to check the scorecard.
Who is evil?
