Just curious if anyone has changed their opinion of Trump after this meeting. All of the news show that I've seen have been negative. Even fox!
In what regard are you referring to? I've never been a Donald J Trump fan. But my opinion didn't change because of thIs meeting either way. After all the crap Obama and the Clintons pulled, I don't see what you're talking about... Honestly Trump called it when he said the media was not our friend.... Do you really think the press is going to praise him?
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-16-2018).]
I'm not an Obama or Clinton fan either. For the most part the news shows seemed to be concerned that Trump was taking the word of a communist over the word of our own intelligence. I've been suspicious of Trumps relationship with Russia and I think that there might be a reason why he isn't showing his tax returns. I understand that he got Russian financing after his bankruptcies prevented him from US financing. I wonder if he might be indebted to the point where they have some control over him. Nothing written in stone here. I don't have any access to secret information and I'm always seeking other viewpoints than my own. Just be gentle.
If Trump had called Putin a liar, the news services propaganda purveyors would have been all over him for instigating nuclear war. Trump was diplomatic in an impossible situation.
Of course we must keep in mind that the Russian "troll farms" are no more a part of the KGB than Evergreen Air is a part of the CIA.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 07-16-2018).]
Fox has never been a fan of Trump either. During the election they were pretty consistently in the never Trump camp. They are still far from cheerleaders. They are, however, closer to reasonable than anyone else. The leftist media is total BS and still hasn’t learned from Trumps victory. I mean please, call me a racist AGAIN. It really makes me want the Bern!
As usual, the left is more concerned with what President Trump says rather than what he does.
In contrast, let's look at what Obama actually said, and did:
After his re-election, Obama almost immediately betrayed 2 U.S. allies; Poland and The Czech Republic, by killing the missile defense agreement we had with them......exactly as he had secretly, (he thought), promised Russian President Medvedev and incoming President Putin.
Simply put, Obama gave the Russians what they wanted as payment for helping him get re-elected. That is textbook *Collusion*
Actions speak much louder than words, especially when it comes to traitors like Obama.
House Democrats will now bluster about drafting a silly bill of impeachment thinking that they have support from some Republicans.
They're wrong.
It's not going to happen because there is nothing to charge the President with and in 2 weeks or less the left will be distracted onto their next fake "outrage".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-17-2018).]
Oh man, I changed my mind. Just kidding. You lefties are still nut jobs. I'm hoping Liberalism gets named as the mental disorder that it really is soon so you guy can get some serious help.
FOX said something negative about President Trump? :Gasp: Breitbart says negative things about President Trump all the time. It's about being honest with what is good, and what is bad. You wack jobs are so far out in left field it doesn't matter what they say, you will just make up whatever you want to believe that day.
Hey and guess what, even when President Trump does something that even the Right goes nuts about... He still comes out with even more supporters. It's like he can't lose.
As usual, the left is more concerned with what President Trump says rather than what he does.
In contrast, let's look at what Obama actually said, and did:
After his re-election, Obama almost immediately betrayed 2 U.S. allies; Poland and The Czech Republic, by killing the missile defense agreement we had with them......exactly as he had secretly, (he thought), promised Russian President Medvedev and incoming President Putin.
Simply put, Obama gave the Russians what they wanted as payment for helping him get re-elected.
Actions speak much louder than words, especially when it comes to traitors like Obama.
House Democrats will now bluster about drafting a silly bill of impeachment thinking that they have support from some Republicans.
They're wrong.
It's not going to happen because there is nothing to charge the President with and in 2 weeks or less the left will be distracted onto their next fake "outrage".
This is a precise example of what I was talking about in my query to Dratts about the Obama and Clinton administrations. Follow the money and you will quickly see how both of those "Presidents" were very Un-Presidential.
There's a lot I don't like about Trump but, he was the best choice the system gave me to choose from. Just imagine the corruption had Hillary won.
Agreed Rams! I was sure that Hillary would be worse. And yes the left will jump all over this and if there is a way to exaggerate someone will. I keep hearing the word 'treason' come up. I'm not an expert on what complies treason but I kind of thought that in order for there to be treason we have to be at war.
Agreed Rams! I was sure that Hillary would be worse. And yes the left will jump all over this and if there is a way to exaggerate someone will. I keep hearing the word 'treason' come up. I'm not an expert on what complies treason but I kind of thought that in order for there to be treason we have to be at war. edit: Sorry for the double post. It must be my laptop.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 07-17-2018).]
If Trump had been just the opposite in his demeanor to Putin during the presser, the MSM would be howling about Trump trying to start WWIII. The Progressive Left is running scared, as they circle around the drain they created.
I wonder if Mueller will take Putin up on his offer to send investigators to Russia....
Can someone show me where Trump said, "I believe Putin", "Putin is right", "The Russians did not interfere", "Our intelligence is wrong" or something to that effect?
Chuck Schummer mentioned "sycophancy" when referring to President Trump. "Demanding" a hearing on what was said in Helsinki.
Mr. Obama gave a speech in South Africa damning our President. All while Michelle Obama danced in the streets of Paris as migrants torn down the city. Even Macron is seen with Putin laughing it up, and shaking hands in glee.
Did I mention what is happening to Paris as we speak? Nearly 1,000 burnt vehicles, looting, destruction, fires, etc.
Currently, in Chicago...
Year to Date Shot & Killed: 244 Shot & Wounded: 1284 Total Shot: 1528 Total Homicides: 296
Since when has the FBI, CIA or NSA ever said anything that was proven truth. They all lie as much as the criminals their supposed to be catching. Ive had my own experiences with 'honest' law enforcement. Putin is a proven criminal too. I dont see any distinction. Anyone can believe anyone they want.
Chuck Schummer mentioned "sycophancy" when referring to President Trump. "Demanding" a hearing on what was said in Helsinki.
The word "sycophancy" doesn't appear even once in the law.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The terms; "adhere" and "aid and comfort" have no construction in the law. In other words, the 2 terms have no meaning or definition in law.
Throwing around the charge of "treason" is simply juvenile, leftist hyperbole.
Schmuckie Schumer knows this and that is why, instead of treason, he is trying to be clever and cute and is using the nonsense word "sycophancy", (which also has no construction in law).
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-17-2018).]
The one thing the media hasn't mentioned in their coverage of the meeting concerns Putin's comment about $400 million and the Clinton's...... Why would that be? 🤔
I'm not an Obama or Clinton fan either. For the most part the news shows seemed to be concerned that Trump was taking the word of a communist over the word of our own intelligence. I've been suspicious of Trumps relationship with Russia and I think that there might be a reason why he isn't showing his tax returns. I understand that he got Russian financing after his bankruptcies prevented him from US financing. I wonder if he might be indebted to the point where they have some control over him. Nothing written in stone here. I don't have any access to secret information and I'm always seeking other viewpoints than my own. Just be gentle.
Can you imagine Putin throwing his hands up and saying "You got me, you caught me lying and now I must tell the entire truth..........". Look Trump knew (just like millions of other people ) that Putin is not going to tell the truth. And I might add, neither will the hilary team, so I guess that is why Trump has not been so hard on them either,.........BUT are the Democrats and media demanding answers from Trump on her scandals? To answer your question,..no I have not changed my mind. I still think Put in is lying and will not give ANY American President answers unless it helps USSR.
The word "sycophancy" doesn't appear even once in the law.
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
The terms; "adhere" and "aid and comfort" have no construction in the law. In other words, the 2 terms have no meaning or definition in law.
Throwing around the charge of "treason" is simply juvenile, leftist hyperbole.
Schmuckie Schumer knows this and that is why, instead of treason, he is trying to be clever and cute and is using the nonsense word "sycophancy", (which also has no construction in law).
How many times is collusion mentioned in a law? Collusion was a major factor in the fisa report that started this entire circus.
It's interesting to watch stuff like this. The Left leadership is really working to get it's base fired up so as to take Congress and the White House back. I don't mind the effort so much but the tactics and lies are what most of us would deem unethical. But then, I guess ethics is a foreign word to most Progressives.
.. I've been suspicious of Trumps relationship with Russia and I think that there might be a reason why he isn't showing his tax returns. I understand that he got Russian financing after his bankruptcies prevented him from US financing. I wonder if he might be indebted to the point where they have some control over him. Nothing written in stone here. I don't have any access to secret information and I'm always seeking other viewpoints than my own. Just be gentle.
That would mean Russia would want America to succeed, doing the things Trump has done wouldn't you say?
Dratts keep a skeptical eye to all news, but honestly, watching less of the garbage being pushed lately wouldn't hurt.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-18-2018).]
I Google searched: putin john mccain lindsey graham chuck schumer The search returned almost 60,000 hits, some of them back to 2013. Other names were also associated in the search results. I'm growing really weary of big name 'Republicans' who are willing to bed down with the left.
They have no reservations as to what they will do to destroy Trump. Many Republicans still don't know why he won the election and are acting with Democrats to de-legitamize those results. They are using this 'shiny object' to blur the focus on the Justice Dept. fiasco.
Originally posted by randye: As usual, the left is more concerned with what President Trump says rather than what he does.
In contrast, let's look at what Obama actually said, and did:
After his re-election, Obama almost immediately betrayed two U.S. allies, Poland and The Czech Republic, by killing the missile defense agreement we had with them......exactly as he had secretly, (he thought), promised Russian President Medvedev and incoming President Putin.
Simply put, Obama gave the Russians what they wanted as payment for helping him get re-elected. That is textbook *Collusion*
Actions speak much louder than words, especially when it comes to traitors like Obama.
House Democrats will now bluster about drafting a silly bill of impeachment thinking that they have support from some Republicans.
They're wrong.
It's not going to happen because there is nothing to charge the President with and in 2 weeks or less the left will be distracted onto their next fake "outrage".
Something that was brought into this discussion... kind of a sidebar or secondary issue.
I think different. The Obama administration did not "betray" anyone on European missile defense. There were tradeoffs, and changes from the plans that were inherited from the previous (Bush 43) administration. But not any kind of betrayal. That's just overheated and misleading rhetoric that has been eviscerated of meaning by the common malady of ideologically contrived oversimplifications. Hose down that oil-starved sucker until it's cool enough to inspect, and then have a closer look.
"Obama Is Getting Missile Defense Right in Europe" Sean Kay for the Huffington Post; May 8, 2012.
... it is asserted that the Obama administration "abandoned America's allies in Europe" and made "concessions to Russia" in its reset of U.S.-Russian relations. Actually, the new concept for European ballistic missile defense is based on an alignment of threats and capabilities which increases the security of American allies most likely to be in range of hostile ballistic missiles. The Bush plan, which included interceptors and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, left most of southern Europe uncovered -- a problem the Obama plan seeks to fix. Meanwhile, the Bush plan was accepted in Poland mainly to get U.S. support troops there, not out of excitement for missile defense. The Czech public overwhelmingly opposed the concept from the beginning. The Obama plan -- which focuses on Aegis cruisers at sea, and then deploys similar systems on land, provides a credible foundation for a new look at NATO collective defense -- relevant to all allies. Making NATO collective defense credible is hardly a "concession" to Russia.
The Open Mic gaffe was when Obama was asking the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, to quiet the complaints that were coming from the Russian side about U.S. missile defense systems in Europe, which the Russians were objecting to. Obama was asking that as a favor from the Russian side, because he did not want this to be a hot button issue during his reelection campaign for a second term as U.S. President. Was that "collusion"..?
I don't think it was a violation of the Logan Act, because Obama was already an elected U.S. President.
Obama promised or hinted to the Russian president that there would likely be some accommodation of the Russian side on this issue, if he won a second term as U.S. President.
It was kind of a Quid Pro Quo, or Obama talking to the Russian president in a Quid Pro Quo kind of way, but I think that any prosecutor would have a hard time making a case that Obama had done or been planning anything that was illegal. It would be too vague; too arguable about whether Obama was coloring inside or outside of the lines, as they were legally defined. I think this is an observation that Pennock's member randye wants to put front and center, that the Obama-Medvedev "open mic" interchange was a collusion without a crime.
This is part of something that I put up on this forum some years back (2012), as part of a discussion "Talking sense about missile defense." It's an Archived discussion: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...323-6-095903.html#p0
Here is another part of that same discussion:
quote
The Polish president Komorowski recently accused the U.S. of betraying Poland in 2009 when Obama canceled the Bush-era missile defense plan, but I suspect that Komorowski is leveraging this idea (U.S. betrayal) as a way to gin up support for his efforts to build a Polish national missile defense system with help from France and Germany.
According to a recent report from the Pew Research Center, Obama is still viewed favorably in Poland, and that hasn't slipped any since 2009.
Then there was this, from the Slovak foreign minister Miroslav Lajcak:
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney attacked President Barack Obama’s administration this week for abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic by altering plans for an American missile defense system in Europe.
But the Slovak foreign minister, in Washington this week for meetings with U.S. officials, said Thursday that Europe has fully embraced the new approach to missile defense and said Mr. Romney was dredging up settled debates.
“People have moved on,” said Miroslav Lajcak, the minister of foreign affairs and deputy prime minister, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “We are in a different situation now. We are discussing a different project. I see no reason to revisit discussions from three years back.”
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-19-2018).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think different. The Obama administration did not "betray" anyone on European missile defense. There were tradeoffs, and changes from the plans that were inherited from the previous (Bush 43) administration. But not any kind of betrayal. That's just overheated and misleading rhetoric that has been eviscerated of meaning by the common malady of ideologically contrived oversimplifications. Hose down that oil-starved sucker until it's cool enough to inspect, and then have a closer look.
Definitely a ""perspective" or, point of view issue. Those who were hoping for/depending on the US for that missle defense system may not agree with you. I know that had I been one of those folks, I would have felt very betrayed.... YMMV
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-19-2018).]
Thanks, Rams, for a cordially worded and Posting Rules compliant response. An uncommon example of "Keeping it civilized." Which is Rule #1, if memory serves me.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-19-2018).]
Thanks, Rams, for a cordially worded and Posting Rules compliant response. An uncommon example of "Keeping it civilized." Which is Rule #1, if memory serves me.
My take on the whole thing probably won't be popular. So what if the Russians/Putin tried and or did try to influence the election allowing President Trump to win. How many times has our own government tried to or successfully done the exact same thing, all for the better "good".
dan
[This message has been edited by bonaduce (edited 07-19-2018).]
My take on the whole thing probably won't be popular. So what if the Russians/Putin tried and or did try to influence the election allowing President Trump to win. How many times has our own government tried to or successfully done the exact same thing, all for the better "good".
dan
Popular or not, it's the truth!
Keep in mind most of what any Democrat says is designed to rile up their base of voters, who pay little attention to the background stories behind current events....
This whole episode was great. Democrats really... I mean... really just went ape-**** all over the place. Democrats were crapping their pants and drooling on live TV.
In the end, nothing changed.
Democrat "leadership" really need to come to terms with exactly what they want from their constituency (see how I said that). Democrats are too easily manipulated and use emotion in all of their decisions. They are creating a constituency that's truly mentally unstable.
I'm so glad that on the Republican side, we are now voting for who WE want, not being groomed to vote for what we're "supposed" to want.
This is part of something that I put up on this forum some years back (2012), as part of a discussion "Talking sense about missile defense." It's an Archived discussion: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...323-6-095903.html#p0
1. Other than ONE brief comment by "spark1", that entire thread was just YOU insanely jibbering to yourself.
2. You didn't know WTF you were jibbering about 6 years ago any more than you do now.
For example: Miroslav Lajcak was the foreign minister of SLOVAKIA, not the Czech Republic. He wasn't speaking on behalf of the Czech government and he sure as hell has no authority to speak on behalf of all of Europe.
Yeah, yeah, I know your excuse, it was a WSJ article, not your words, but the fact is it was YOU who stupidly used it as support for your nonsense.
You also want to point to HuffPo ?!
It's not like they weren't rhetorically licking Obama's nut sack at every opportunity and trying to be nonpartisan and factual in 2012 was it?
Back to your drooling insane thread from 6 YEARS AGO, it's manifestly obvious on the face of it that you were simply trying to disparage candidate Mitt Romney and Republican political platform points as much as you could leading up to Obama's re-election, no surprise there, but in typical leftist fashion you expressed NO PROBLEM with this, (and you still don't):
NOW you leftist morons are screaming RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA
You have ZERO credibility around here Ronald.....and you're still a liar.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 07-20-2018).]
