Trump

[pinstripers]

Really? One is a president wanting time to negotiate to have political capital in his country. The other is a candidate seeking help from a foreign government in getting elected. One is a negotiation to try to mutually benefit both countries, the other is to benefit one country and one individual. Still not seeing a difference?

Don't see it the same way, I guess. O was promising to delay weakening our defenses till after the election, cause he knew it was against the wishes of the American people; knew he couldn't get re-elected if he did it prior. This seems FAR worse to me. I don't understand your use of "mutually benefit" at all, either.

[ShockCrazy]

Don't see it the same way, I guess. O was promising to delay weakening our defenses till after the election, cause he knew it was against the wishes of the American people; knew he couldn't get re-elected if he did it prior. This seems FAR worse to me. I don't understand your use of "mutually benefit" at all, either.

Wait where did he say he was weakening defenses? He precisely said he wanted to wait until after the election to address missile defense to have more room. Do you really think that if Obama had negotiated then rather than after the election it would have been better for America? Even with Putin knowing he would have leverage due to the upcoming general election? It has zero to do with it being against the wishes of the American people, it's because in the time leading up to an election EVERYTHING is going to be scrutinized that the president does, and in our polarized climate Obama could have said he just wanted to save puppies and kittens and the Republicans would find something to be angry about. And it's going to be no different heading into 2020 in reverse.

[pinstripers]

Wait where did he say he was weakening defenses? He precisely said he wanted to wait until after the election to address missile defense to have more room. Do you really think that if Obama had negotiated then rather than after the election it would have been better for America? Even with Putin knowing he would have leverage due to the upcoming general election? It has zero to do with it being against the wishes of the American people, it's because in the time leading up to an election EVERYTHING is going to be scrutinized that the president does, and in our polarized climate Obama could have said he just wanted to save puppies and kittens and the Republicans would find something to be angry about. And it's going to be no different heading into 2020 in reverse.

the conversation spoke to that, read about it. I think if he had caved to Putin prior, Romney would have beaten him. (and yeah, that would have been better for America, sure)

[ShockCrazy]

the conversation spoke to that, read about it. I think if he had caved to Putin prior, Romney would have beaten him. (and yeah, that would have been better for America, sure)

Did the conversation speak to that? That article certainly didn't say so. The negotiations don't indicate that given that we continued expanding defense after these talks(completing Romania, planning of the Qatar system and the system in South Korea), despite Russia's opposition to all 3 of these. So saying he wanted to weaken our defenses is contrary to ALL evidence. Also I'm not discussing a hypothetical about election results. I am saying all things being what they are if Obama had negotiated then versus Obama after the election, which is better for America?

[jdmee]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

Even if Trump campaign officials had happily accepted damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russians -- and there is no evidence that they did -- so far there has been nothing to prove that they engaged in illegal activity through their interest in obtaining the material. It might be morally and politically objectionable to gather dirt about your campaign opponent from an enemy of the United States, but the mere acceptance and use of the material would not be illegal.

The idea that this is some kind of campaign finance law violation doesn't fly either. The statute requires campaign solicitation of cash or a "thing of value" from a foreign national. Information about Hillary Clinton is not what the law had in mind. The exchange of information is a core First Amendment/free speech concept, and Americans are free to accept ideas and information from US citizens and foreign nationals alike, even if the information is damaging to a political opponent.

[jdmee]

The question is quickly becoming how this will affect Trump's ability to work with Congress. 2018 is rapidly approaching and there is reason to believe some incumbent Republicans are in shaky elections where support of Trump could be a factor in their re-election.

If only a few Republicans find it to their advantage to create some distance from Trump, then the Republicans effectively lose control of Congress. That would create a Congress unable to actually accomplish much of anything.

.... I see some similaerities between what the Repubs did with Benghazi to what the Dems are now doing with Russia.

The posts about, "if there was a crime, then prosecute" could be applied to Benghazi. The investigations into Benghazi went on for years and years without prosecution. Now that the tables are turned and there is suspicion of the Republican side engaging in questionable activities, why would the Dems not pursue it well past the "beating a dead horse" stage like the Repubs did with Benghazi

This is gone beyond the rule of law and is just more politics as usual.

[shockfan89_]

Did the conversation speak to that? That article certainly didn't say so. The negotiations don't indicate that given that we continued expanding defense after these talks(completing Romania, planning of the Qatar system and the system in South Korea), despite Russia's opposition to all 3 of these. So saying he wanted to weaken our defenses is contrary to ALL evidence. Also I'm not discussing a hypothetical about election results. I am saying all things being what they are if Obama had negotiated then versus Obama after the election, which is better for America?

I agree, but that's the same thing with Trump/Russia. Evidence is that Trump is harder on Russia than Obama ever was so why the continuation of collusion talk? Trump has been much more firm in Syria, Trump has improved rules of engagement so we can be more effective against ISIS, Trump has increased military spending, all these things Russia opposes. Russia was very successful getting what they wanted with Hillary as SoS, why wouldn't Russia want to continue that?

[ShockCrazy]

I agree, but that's the same thing with Trump/Russia. Evidence is that Trump is harder on Russia than Obama ever was so why the continuation of collusion talk? Trump has been much more firm in Syria, Trump has improved rules of engagement so we can be more effective against ISIS, Trump has increased military spending, all these things Russia opposes. Russia was very successful getting what they wanted with Hillary as SoS, why wouldn't Russia want to continue that?

Name a real actual way Trump has been harder on Russia? Because evidence seems to be contrary: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-adm...231301145.html and http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whit...russia-n767406 Indeed Putin was thrilled with Hilary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/wo...-protests.html

A budget did increase spending so there's that, although I think military budget was never inadequately funded, just far too much over paying on contracts to defense companies.

[WuDrWu]

Pray tell what policies? I'm aware of no significant actual changed policy. What has been passed? We are headed for the 3rd most ineffective session of Congress despite the Republicans having full control, the two less effective were Republican Congresses under Obama.

Jesus Christ, are you living in Rachel Maddow's cooter? What the hell does that even mean?

We're barely 6 months into a congressional session. Define "ineffective" please. What are the measuring devices? And if effective means passing new laws and spending money, awesome. I love ineffectiveness.

Asking for a friend.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

First of all Trump's policies are quite good. Jobs are up. My 401k is actually making money again. We have a good SCOTUS Justice. I think he should quit tweeting and Yada, yada, yada ive said what I don't like many times.

Just as many others have already asked, I will do the same. What Trump policies are you talking about? Why do you claim your 401k did poorly under Obama?

If there is an answer that is more nuanced than what I hear from most Trumpkins with #MAGA, I'd love to hear it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Jesus Christ, are you living in Rachel Maddow's cooter? What the hell does that even mean?

We're barely 6 months into a congressional session. Define "ineffective" please. What are the measuring devices? And if effective means passing new laws and spending money, awesome. I love ineffectiveness.

Asking for a friend.

You make a good point that "ineffective" is often used when people mean "few laws changed". This isn't necessarily a bad thing as not every congressional action leads to positive change. Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing harm.

With that said, @shockmonster claimed Trump's policies have been really good and have led to wonderful improvements. @ShockCrazy (and I too) wants to know what policies he's talking about. Virtually nothing of significance has changed to lead to jobs, stock market rise, etc.

What are we missing here?

[shockfan89_]

Um the U.S. bombing Syria in response to use of chemical weapons when Obama did nothing at the request of Putin. The U.S. shooting down a Syrian fighter jet and angering Russia so much that they ceased coordination with the U.S. in Syria. Those are real actual things opposed to "talking" about lifting sanctions. If Obama would have stood up to Putin we might have about 500,000 more Syrians alive today.

[ShockCrazy]

Jesus Christ, are you living in Rachel Maddow's cooter? What the hell does that even mean?

We're barely 6 months into a congressional session. Define "ineffective" please. What are the measuring devices? And if effective means passing new laws and spending money, awesome. I love ineffectiveness.

Asking for a friend.

Effective refers to policy enactment, has nothing to do with spending money, some policy can reduce spending. Here is the data: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics At this point in the legislative session roughly 1/8 of all policy that will be passed(we are 1/4 of the way through the session, more is passed towards the end). So yes we are on pace for a historically low effectiveness. For reference Republican icon Ronald Reagan's congresses passed on average 663 laws per session. We are on pace for sub 350.

[ShockCrazy]

You make a good point that "ineffective" is often used when people mean "few laws changed". This isn't necessarily a bad thing as not every congressional action leads to positive change. Sometimes, doing nothing is better than doing harm.

With that said, @shockmonster claimed Trump's policies have been really good and have led to wonderful improvements. @ShockCrazy (and I too) wants to know what policies he's talking about. Virtually nothing of significance has changed to lead to jobs, stock market rise, etc.

What are we missing here?

Certainly doing nothing could be valid, but again if everything Obama did was bad and we need to fix it all... One would think that leads to more laws.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Certainly doing nothing could be valid, but again if everything Obama did was bad and we need to fix it all... One would think that leads to more laws.

Or even "fewer laws", as in, just removing ObamaCare from the books. The R's can't even "get stuf done" by repealing stuff. Total embarrassment, and largely due to a complete lack of White House leadership. A President with his head on straight would be leveraging this position of strength (R's rarely have this much power in Washington) and would rallying R's to push his agenda. Trump spends his time attacking R's, distracting from policies, and leaving congressional republicans without a leader, thus the factions and in fighting, and nothing ultimately gets agreed upon and passed.

Can you imagine President Rubio and Speaker Ryan joining together to push an agenda, rather than Trump attacking Ryan all the time? Conservative policies would actually be getting pushed forward.