MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Mister Sandman
New Member
But on the other hand, the reps f'd up when they didn't take seriously the orange threat.
You had some good candidates, although I do not agree with most of their ideas, I personally would have rather voted for a Jeb Bush than HC....
Jeremiahflex
Well-known Member
I figured even if this was true most likely you wouldn't post it. The problem is it says "create a prank" right at the top. Good one tho
Lol it has to be a prank, but I am sure soon enough it will become a real headline.
Got a chuckle out of that article haha.
f Comey had gone public in February, the defense from Republicans would have been that Trump just talks like that, and he wasn't trying to obstruct justice, and you shouldn't take him so literally.
And without Trump having taken a concrete step to obstruct justice, such as firing the FBI director, that defense would have worked.
And if Comey had resigned — or had given the president political license to fire him by breaking publicly with him on a high-profile matter — then Trump would have been able to replace him with a loyal supporter who could have sought to kill the Flynn investigation more quietly.
[The Ratings Will Be Bigly ...]
Did Trump really tape his conversations with Comey, or was he bluffing? If Trump does have tapes, would they really vindicate him—or would they support the story, reported by The New York Times, that he asked Comey for a loyalty pledge?
We now know that at least one person was keeping records of their conversations: Comey himself.
...
Comey has declined to testify to a closed Senate Intelligence Committee meeting, but on Tuesday, as news broke about Comey’s memo, Senator Lindsey Graham said he invited Comey to testify before the Judiciary Committee. “I think it would be good for him if he did,” Graham said. “It would be good for the country.”
If Comey consents, the Senate will demand more information about Trump’s alleged appeal for loyalty and his attempt to shut down the Flynn investigation—and that, in turn, will help resolve the ambiguity surrounding the purported tapes. And whether or not tapes exist, or contain any damaging information, the resolution of this ambiguity will be disastrous for Trump.
Did Trump really tape his conversations with Comey, or was he bluffing? If Trump does have tapes, would they really vindicate him—or would they support the story, reported by The New York Times, that he asked Comey for a loyalty pledge?
We now know that at least one person was keeping records of their conversations: Comey himself.
...
Comey has declined to testify to a closed Senate Intelligence Committee meeting, but on Tuesday, as news broke about Comey’s memo, Senator Lindsey Graham said he invited Comey to testify before the Judiciary Committee. “I think it would be good for him if he did,” Graham said. “It would be good for the country.”
If Comey consents, the Senate will demand more information about Trump’s alleged appeal for loyalty and his attempt to shut down the Flynn investigation—and that, in turn, will help resolve the ambiguity surrounding the purported tapes. And whether or not tapes exist, or contain any damaging information, the resolution of this ambiguity will be disastrous for Trump.
There are many who hope Trump’s supporters will hold him accountable. That they will insist he fulfill his promises about jobs or universal health coverage—and when those promises are broken, that their fervent support will turn into rage at having been duped, causing Trump anguish and eventually costing him re-election.
This is wishful thinking. Trump’s rise to power has followed a similar trajectory to that of quacks who peddle panaceas to the desperate—a bizarre and heartbreaking world I’ve long studied. Just like them, Trump will fail to deliver. But his supporters will find a way to exonerate him.
When people make big bets on miracle cures that fail to work, they rarely turn against the treatments or their merchants. Instead, they rationalize their misplaced faith, in order to save face, remain hopeful, and preserve an identity that’s defined by their courageous ability to reject the status quo.
The state of the Trump Presidency has been perpetual turbulence, which seems to be how the principal likes it. The latest vortex is over Mr. Trump’s disclosure of sensitive intel to the Russians—and whatever the particulars of the incident, the danger is that Presidencies can withstand only so much turbulence before they come apart.
The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.aeee41ceda80 (reported Monday night)that in an Oval Office meeting last week Mr. Trump relayed high-level “code word” classified material obtained from an ally to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Cue another Washington meltdown. The President took to Twitter on Tuesday morning to defend himself, claiming an “absolute right” to disclose “facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety.”
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster put a finer point on it at a Tuesday press conference, though without denying key details. He said Mr. Trump’s disclosure was “wholly appropriate” and didn’t expose intelligence sources and methods.
Presidents sometimes share secrets with overseas leaders—even to adversaries such as the Soviets during the Cold War—if they conclude the benefits of showing what the U.S. knows will aid diplomacy or strategic interests. From media accounts and his tweets, Mr. Trump said something about Islamic State’s laptop bomb threat to airlines. He may well have been trying to convince the envoys of the menace ISIS poses to Russian lives and foreign-policy goals, like the Russian airliner that exploded over Sinai in 2015.
Then again, the Post story has Mr. Trump boasting about how great U.S. intelligence is and divulging the info on impulse to prove it. National security officials also asked the reporters to withhold specifics about the item in question, presumably because further disclosure could undermine efforts to counter the threat or endanger the lives of human assets.
Reports emerged on Tuesday that the ally that gathered the material is Israel, and the revelation could endanger this and other intelligence-sharing relationships. The Israelis may hold back if they think their dossiers will be laundered through the U.S. to the Russians and then get passed to their Iranian and Syrian clients, and other foreign services may lose confidence in the U.S.
Lt. Gen. McMaster said he disputed “the premise” of the Post story, which was that Mr. Trump had done something wrong or unbecoming. He confirmed that Mr. Trump made the decision ad hoc “in the context of the conversation,” not before the meeting. The problem is that even if the President’s conduct was “wholly appropriate,” the story’s premise is wholly plausible.
The portrait of an inexperienced, impulsive chief who might spill secrets to an overseas foe is one to which Mr. Trump has too often contributed. It was political mismanagement even to hold the Russian meeting, especially the day after he fired FBI Director James Comey amid the investigation of the Trump campaign’s alleged Russian connection.
This eruption shows why a President’s credibility is so important. If people don’t believe Mr. Trump’s words or trust his judgment, they won’t give him the benefit of the doubt or be responsive if he asks for support. Last week the White House spent two days attributing Mr. Comey’s firing to a Justice Department recommendation, only for Mr. Trump to insist in a TV interview that the pink slip came “regardless of recommendation.”
News broke late Tuesday of Mr. Comey’s contemporaneous notes that Mr. Trump asked him in February to “let this go,” referring to the FBI probe of axed National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The White House denied that account of the conversation, but that would be more credible if its previous statements were more reliable.
Mr. Trump’s strife and insults with the intelligence community were also bound to invite blowback. The Post report is sourced to “current and former U.S. officials,” which raises the question of how former officials are privy to “code word” information, defined as anything that could be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security if disclosed. In that case the public leaks about Mr. Trump’s actions, if true, will do more damage than whatever he said in private.
Mr. Trump is considering a White House shakeup, including cleaning out many of his top aides, but the White House always reflects the President’s governing style. If Mr. Trump can’t discipline himself, then no Jim Baker ex machina will make much difference.
Mr. Trump needs to appreciate how close he is to losing the Republicans he needs to pass the agenda that will determine if he is successful. Weeks of pointless melodrama and undisciplined comments have depleted public and Capitol Hill attention from health care and tax reform, and exhaustion is setting in. America holds elections every two years, and Mr. Trump’s policy allies in Congress will drift away if he looks like a liability.
Millions of Americans recognized Mr. Trump’s flaws but decided he was a risk worth taking. They assumed, or at least hoped, that he’d rise to the occasion and the demands of the job. If he cannot, he’ll betray their hopes as his Presidency sinks before his eyes.
Jeremiahflex
Well-known Member
Yea he kinda got me not gonna lie. Got a slight erection when I saw "FBI finds evidence of collusion"
Am i the only one that has a hard time believing any of these articles? I mean when you get caught over and over again pushing lies and wacky opinion pieces it makes it hard to believe anything these so called news outlets say. The safe bet would be to not believe any of it until there is actual proof. These tv news stations and news papers have proven to be no better than the national inquire with their "big foot" stories and "alien babies with 3 heads" stories. It's a shame what has become of news. They are no better than bloggers nowadays.
Jeremiahflex
Well-known Member
I think sometimes they jump the gun so they can be first to break a story, but they fail to check the credibility of the source.
Well, for example, just the other day multiple news outlets came out with a story claiming they had like 30 sources tell them Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to quit over the comey firing. All the top news outlets ran with that story. Turned out to be fake news. There are many examples like that. At what point do the followers of those news organizations begin to doubt whenever these so called journalists print anything? Like with the russian thing. Absolutely no evidence trump colluded with russia. Fbi and cia both said no evidence at all and they investigated for a year. Yet thess news organizations tell the story like as if it were the opposite. These news outlets have been proven wrong more times than not and yet when they break a story with "unnamed sources" people's still gobble it up when in fact it's more likely tbat the story is made up.
xy5jn0
New Member
Because it says so on Twitter. Must be true. Just ask scally. Lol
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
To Freeze or Not To Freeze: Lyophilized Peptides- Latest: poolshockguy
-
-