|
Post by robeiae on Feb 23, 2018 14:36:59 GMT -5
Do you think anyone in the Trump campaign in fact cooperated with the Russians to influence our elections -- by, e.g., accepting or attempting to accept information from them? I think it's 100% accurate to say that people in the Trump campaign met with people (and/or tried to meet with them) from Russia in the hopes of getting info/dirt on Clinton (or other Dems). But such actions should not be characterized as "Russia/Putin influencing elections," much less as "Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election." Because if one wants to argue that the above characterizations are fair, then one could apply them to Clinton, her campaign, and other pols, as well. Really, they'd all be in the "colluded with England" camp, which--because Steele obviously used Russian contacts--would circle right back to Russia. So, "colluding with multiple foreign governments"? Mueller has indicted 13 ham sandwiches in typical special prosecutor fashion, as a means of demonstrating that he's got something going on, imo. I still want him to complete his investigation, but I sure as hell hope he has a better end game than Starr had. Because right now, nothing's blowing my skirt up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 14:49:22 GMT -5
I honestly don't even know what to say to anyone who thinks that the investigation has been a nothingburger.
Honest to god.
That blows my goddamn mind.
Mueller has spent far less time than Starr did so far, and has come down with several indictments and guilty pleas, including prominent people in the Trump campaign.
I just... Really? Nothing is blowing your skirt up here?
I'll tell you what. You folks need not take a break on account of me. I'm gonna take a break myself. I honestly just can't.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Feb 23, 2018 15:24:57 GMT -5
Did we just get sent to our rooms?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 23, 2018 15:56:04 GMT -5
As you will. As I said, I think the investigation should continue, but this willful blindness for all bad/questionable behavior for people not associated with Trump is as bad as the willful blindness for all bad/questionable behavior that involves Trump, imo. You seriously can't see a problem with condemning Trump's people for supposedly dealing with and meeting with "foreign agents," while simultaneously pretending that Clinton's people and other Dems weren't doing the same thing? News flash: Richard Steele IS A FOREIGN AGENT. And an actual "agent," at that. And Adam Schiff--as you must know--got jerked around by a couple of comedians in Russia who promised that they had naked pics of Trump. Schiff was begging for the info and pics. And why wouldn't he? That info could have destroyed a political rival. But the fact that he took the call--and had his staff keep following up--isn't some sort of crime, any more than the meetings Trump, Jr. had with the Russian who promised dirt on Clinton. So take a break. Really--based on what's in the Parkland thread, as well--maybe everyone should. Because if people can't hear a different point of view without responding with something like the above, maybe this experiment has run its course. If the site is gone tomorrow morning, you'll know why.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 23, 2018 20:40:38 GMT -5
Wow, I just read the latter part of this thread.
I haven't been around much lately due to the death of my aunt closely followed by my 10 year board recertification test that I took last Tuesday. 160 questions, 5 hours, and the tightest security that made me feel like either a criminal or a secret agent. But it's over, and now just when I have time to participate again, the board might be removed?
I do think the vast majority of this group here does a great job of discussing tough subjects without personal attacks, and makes a clear effort to contribute opinions that are valuable and interesting. the above post by Cass is concerning. The whole point of this forum was for people of divergent views to be able to discuss things rationally and intelligently and calmly. For the most part, we do. It is sad to think Robo's experiment would mirror greater society at present and fail. I would hope we could be better than that.
Anyway, I for one would be sad if the forum came down. I've learned a lot from people here. And I like a lot of the people here and would miss them.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 24, 2018 15:14:24 GMT -5
If the site is gone tomorrow morning, you'll know why. Well, we're still here, so I'm hoping that cool heads have prevailed. I think it's important to note that, even if nothing ever really connects back to Trump, getting to the bottom of how and to what extent Russia has attempted to disrupt our democracy should still be a major concern and focus of Mueller (and all of us, really). I was already skeptical of many things I see on the internet, but now I'm constantly catching myself being super-skeptical of any story, post, or even internet comment I see that even has a whiff of fishiness to it. My intuitive response is to now suspect that it's some Russian troll or bot. And, that's not good. It's not good for me to knee-jerk see all dumb things on the internet through "Communist-Red-Colored glasses" but it's also not good to realize that my hyper-skepticism is also rooted in a kernel of truth. Even if Trump gets somehow removed from office for whatever reason, if this nonsense with Russia isn't uncovered and stopped, we're still fucked in the long term because, in the "age of outrage culture" public opinion can easily be swayed by just a few strategically-designed, manipulative tweets or "fake news" stories.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Feb 24, 2018 16:39:05 GMT -5
I'm also glad we're still here. I hate it when I break things.
This whole Russian bot thing, to me is ridiculous. Whats that saying? Something about throwing rocks when living in a glass house?
The whole idea behind the internet is to get views. Don't matter the country you're from.
I believe our own two party system shoulders the over whelming blame for the dysfunction we see today in our politics. Blaming Russians for Trump, is like me blaming the pretty girl walking down the street in front of my house for me not paying my electric bill on time. Yeah I was distracted by her good looks, but...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 16:09:42 GMT -5
I had thought about leaving this thread alone. I probably should. But I can't. Here's what I meant.
If you mean that so far you don't think Mueller has yet proved beyond any doubt that Trump himself deliberately colluded with the Russian government to throw the election, okay.
I'll note that (1) Mueller isn't done yet, and (2) there is significant reason to believe, from what has been demonstrated, that Trump may have been up to something (or many somethings) pretty damn hinky. But okay, I won't say "WTF, I can't even" at that limited statement. Fine.
It's this that made my head explode:
Um. Okay, I cannot remotely agree with you on your characterizations of those 13 Russian indictments as merely "13 ham sandwiches" and no big deal, but let's take that aside. It's the last sentence that got me.
Taking the Russian indictments quite aside, so far:
Papadoupolos pleaded guilty. Flynn pleaded guilty. Gates pleaded guilty. Manafort has been indicted and is facing a pile of new charges.
These aren't long ago business associates, and they aren't being indicted for ancient offenses. These are people who were moving in Trump's inner campaign circle and his transition team. Hinky stuff was happening DURING the campaign, and DURING the transition. That's freaking huge. Explaining WHY it is huge, to me, is like explaining why water is wet or why Trump's hair is weird. That's not blowing your skirt up, and you don't think there's a pretty decent likelihood that maybe, just maybe, Trump had an oar in it? That's what I don't get. That's what I find mind-blowing.
There's also pretty ample evidence Trump went to pretty ridiculous extremes to shut the whole Russian investigation down. You don't think there's a pretty decent chance that it amounts to obstruction? (One need not be successful at obstructing to be guilty of the attempt.)
And rest assured, Mueller isn't done. He's moving forward quite methodically, and it seems pretty clear more is going to turn up. We know Trump's son and son-in-law met with Russian money launderers and agents of the Russian government. There are emails showing they were eager to get information from the Russians. We know Kushner was trying to set up a "back channel" with the Russians while Obama was still president. Kushner and a pile of others connected with the Trump campaign/team have shady big money connections and dealings with Russians connected to Putin. A ton of people connected with the Trump campaign "forgot" to disclose their Russian connections. Trump won't let us see his tax returns. He refuses to implement sanctions Congress passed with an overwhelming veto-proof margin. And that's not even all.
To note, "collusion" is not the only thing Trump could do that is yuuugely problematic for our POTUS. And if you think that money laundering and hinky dealings with the Russians (a problem all by themselves) aren't a red flag that there might be some collusion connected to it... well, again, I don't know what to say because to me it seems completely obvious and self-explanatory.
He doesn't even have to have set out to deliberately have colluded or knowingly commit a crime. Nor, indeed, does he have actually have had to commit a crime to have acted incredibly improperly and in a way that makes him unfit for office. Indeed, while I do think he's a total grifter, as I noted above, I actually tend to think he bumbled into the Russian thing rather than setting out to collude. My guess is Putin played him and/or his campaign team, not the other way around. That doesn't make it not a problem.
It stinks to high heaven. This is so far beyond Starr's sad little blowjob in the oval office it isn't funny. Mueller has justified this investigation a hundred times over already, in my view. Indeed, I feel certain that were we back in, say, 1974, there would be impeachment proceedings well underway.
If the only thing that will blow your skirt up here is a videotape of Trump accepting a check from Putin for services rendered, okay, I guess this won't blow your skirt up.
But ye gods, I just can't see, at all, how anyone can think for a minute that what Mueller has turned up so far is a nothingburger and doesn't already justify the investigation. I genuinely cannot.
Anyway, that's what I understood you to say, and it honestly floored me, at least out of you. To be clear, the reason it floored me out of you is because I don't think you're a Trump apologist, and I don't think of you as a kneejerk partisan. And I had a hard time understand how anyone who wasn't scrambling to come up with excuses for Trump or just not paying attention (and of course I know you are) could see all this as nothing. However silly it may sound to you, that honestly floored me. It was one thing when the investigation began, but now...I dunno, I think we have a pretty damn yuuuuuge somethingburger here, and obviously so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 16:54:39 GMT -5
As to this: I do think the vast majority of this group here does a great job of discussing tough subjects without personal attacks, and makes a clear effort to contribute opinions that are valuable and interesting. the above post by Cass is concerning. The whole point of this forum was for people of divergent views to be able to discuss things rationally and intelligently and calmly. For the most part, we do. It is sad to think Robo's experiment would mirror greater society at present and fail. I would hope we could be better than that. Show me where I name-called. Show me where I violated the forum rules. I'll wait. I got passionate, yes. And I stepped away (well, ran away) to catch my breath. But that's not against forum rules -- indeed, that's what we should be doing when we feel like we need to cool off (and yeah, I did). This forum was actually not designed so we could all be nicey-nicey to each other. The whole reason we put the rules in that we did was to allow for some heat and some passion, to allow maximum room to express and criticize viewpoints. (And I'm saying "we" because I helped draft the rules, and Rob and I discussed them at great length and have continued to do so.) We wanted to eliminate trolling, name-calling, and tiresome purely personal disputes, but otherwise let members go at one another with pickaxes. We didn't say "and you all have to be extra polite and calm and put in lots of smileys!" Surely you have seen Rob and I in an argument before. When we disagree on some issues (of course we agree on many), we often go at each other with two-by-fours. That's a feature of the forum, not a bug. I expect to get whacked right back. And I do. I'm not sure what you find "concerning." We've had plenty of heated arguments on this site -- some of the most heated being between Rob and me. If it's the mod thing, we've said about eleventy million times that mods are members in an argument. The same rules apply to us -- we have not bound ourselves to neutrality in arguments. If you're implying you're concerned about persecution, you've never been modded on this site, at all, in a thread or behind the scenes, and I doubt very much you ever will be. That's because you obey the rules, which is great. You've never had an opinion censored here. Actually, no one has, unless that opinion was a personal one about another member. Nor will they be. (Unless maybe we get a batshit beyond-the-pale troll here.) But this isn't supposed to be a sunshine and paradise butterfly kisses nicey-nice place where we all say "oh, I agree that your view is equally valid and I thank you for expressing it. I learned so much today! " This is a place where we often go at each other with two-by-fours and occasionally make silly jokes. I know Rob is tres annoyed at me and wants to hit me with a cast iron frying pan just now, and he just might do it (though, to note, if he literally did it, it would indeed violate the rules, and fyi, I've got a really excellent well-seasoned cast-iron frying pan myself at the ready). But I know he agrees with what I'm saying in this post. Or at least he did. If he now concludes he'd like to turn the site into one where no one gets heated, well, that is his prerogative. It's also his prerogative to unmod me if he likes, if he thinks I'm too opinionated or temperamental or uppity or he doesn't like my shoes or whatever. Or to ban me. Or to shut down the site. But I wager he'll likely agree I'm not breaking any rules, even if I am seriously pissing him off (and I am, I know). For the record, I both respect and like Rob a lot. That is why I go at him with two-by-fours. That, and sometimes he's just plain wrong and it is my civic duty to tell him. (kidding, kidding. sort of.) If there was a problem with my post, it's that I walked away without fully justifying why I was saying what I was saying, and we do expect people to support their points. That's why I came back. But the reason I ran off without doing so was because I felt that I needed to cool off before returning to the fray. (Partly it was the argument itself, but also some other factors outside it.) And I submit that's what people SHOULD do when they're in danger of losing their cool. ETA: I'll add this to Rob -- Rob, if you do disagree with my take here, and/or if you think I'm a problem, I can step down as mod or, hey, if you really want, I can leave. As you wish. (To use another Princess Bride reference.) It's your site. But please don't shut the site down (at least not because of me). That's not fair to the rest of the class.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 26, 2018 17:56:28 GMT -5
If Trump does somehow escape all of this unscathed, part of me thinks it'll happen in the same way that Reagan got out of Iran-Contra; by playing dumb and someone else taking all of the blame.
Having said that, I also kind of doubt that Trump could engender enough loyalty out of people in the White House to prevent them from singing like canaries against him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 18:07:16 GMT -5
If Trump does somehow escape all of this unscathed, part of me thinks it'll happen in the same way that Reagan got out of Iran-Contra; by playing dumb and someone else taking all of the blame. Having said that, I also kind of doubt that Trump could engender enough loyalty out of people in the White House to prevent them from singing like canaries against him. Agree. Reagan was a figure who inspired personal loyalty. He also was a popular president across a fairly broad spectrum of voters. Trump, not so much. I can't see anyone but maybe Michael Cohen throwing themselves on their sword for him, if it comes to that. Maybe Manafort. I doubt it, but we'll see. And I think Trump has way, way, way more to hide than Reagan. Dude had a looong history before he ever planned to run for office.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 27, 2018 13:20:10 GMT -5
My "concerning" comment has nothing to do with inserting smileys. It pertains to the degree of Trump hysteria in a post that prevents one from even responding to a perfectly calm, valid, and rational analysis of what we know thus far of Mueller's investigation. Actually not just the inability to respond, but having to leave the entire forum for a 2 week break. The "I can't" sort of response, to me, indicates not that one needs to take a break, but that the post the "I can't" person is responding to is so stupid, so wrong, so ridiculous that there aren't words or even mental energy worthy of expending to discuss further. I know because it's a tactic that's been directed at my posts before, and it's a tactic I don't respect when pertaining to a rational post. And it is part of our society's problem currently in pretty much all things political. One doesn't have to be a knee-jerk partisan to have Rob's POV on the investigation thus far. But IMO a response DOES have to be knee-jerk partisan if it ONLY has TRUMP concerns in what has so far been uncovered. Thus far, the indictments are either of Russian nationals for interference in our election, or of a few Trump people on charges that aren't collusion, while some serious information is being uncovered that makes the Dems look FAR from innocent in collusion. As a matter of fact, they might come out looking worse than the Repubs in this. We shall see. But to have to take a 2 week break from the discussion because "I can't", when Rob, who is pretty danged calm and rational to a fault, simply says nothing yet has his skirt up regarding Trump, is extreme. I'm not arguing you're breaking any rules, and I'm not saying you can't write those sorts of posts, I'm just saying it mirrors our hyper-partisan American political discourse at present, and we all know that's not good. Do you see this? And the rest of your explanation? It's Trump Trump Trump. There is nothing in your initial "i can't" post or your later detailed explanation of your POV that acknowledges any concern about Russian meddling, or of the Dems' involvement. And that is what I meant about concerning. Your only consideration in those posts is bringing down Trump. There are serious aspects to this investigation, and Trump may turn out to be the least of them. The Dems seriously have to open their eyes about this. Remember back when Romney said Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat? And he was DERIDED by Obama? Have they not learned anything yet? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/22/barack-obama/obama-romney-called-russia-our-top-geopolitical-fo/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 14:16:02 GMT -5
You seem to regard being calm and polite as the cardinal virtue, or perhaps second only to supporting your party regardless of what they do. You seem to think that condemning something or someone -- at least something or someone in your party -- in itself proves bias and wrongness. As does anger. As do strong words.
In your book, therefore, speaking out strongly in condemnation of Trump -- getting angry about him -- is just bad and wrong. It doesn't matter why someone is angry and condemning him. The mere fact of anger and condemnation is wrong. (Or at least, wrong if the thing they're angry about happens to be something a Republican did.)
Like the NeverTrump conservatives, I am bashing Trump because I believe he deserves it, because I think he's an obvious, proven grifter and liar who is atrocious for the country -- and because most Republicans (who might actually be able to do something about it) are instead enabling it.
In my book, that's something to get angry about. And I've said, here and elsewhere, why I think it.
And I don't actually see you coming up with reasons I'm wrong about him he being a grifter, a liar, etc. Instead, you seem to be saying (1) he's in my party so I will defend him no matter what or at least limit myself to an "oh, dear", and (2) "you have spoken strongly and angrily on this subject therefore you are wrong." Oh, and (3) you go back to the "still no videotape of Trump himself actually colluding with Putin yet so no problemo!" argument. Well, it's also the case we have no evidence he's murdered anyone. In fact, I'm sure he never did murder anyone. Fine. That doesn't mean everything is hunky-dory. What we DO have is a shitpile of evidence he and his cronies acted in a ton of ways that are unethical at best and illegal at worst and certainly bumbling, incompetent, and embarrassing on a regular basis, and are altogether, in a hundred ways, utterly unbefitting our country's chief executive. And yes, I think that is obvious. So would you, if this were Hillary Clinton we were talking about.
Do you really think calmness and supporting your party no matter what and turning a blind eye or excusing obvious wrongdoing and shady conduct in the name of some policies you like are supreme virtues?
If so, I not only disagree with that viewpoint, I cannot respect it. IMO, it is what enables inept, corrupt leaders to gain and retain power. I think it is an evil* and an abdication of our responsibilities as citizens.
Instead of shaking your finger at me for being angry, why not explain why I'm wrong about Trump and his indicted colleagues being grifters and liars? Hey, why not answer Nighttimer's long-ago question about how you can reconcile this guy with your Christian values? He's baaaack, you can answer now. He's even asked you to do so, more than once. How 'bout it?
Other things I disagree with you on:
-- there are not always two equally valid sides to everything.
-- it is not always the case that there is always equal wrong-doing on both sides, nor that it is inevitably equally problematic (e.g., wrong-doing on the part of serving government officials is a bigger deal than that of private citizens or former officials).
-- it is not always the case that strong criticism, condemnation, and yes, even rage, are simply gauche and uncalled for.
Can't you see this? No. No, you can't.
(By the way, want to defend Trump and the GOP on supporting and championing Roy Moore, too? Would you have voted for him?)
It's hard for me to take you seriously when you've more or less admitted that your defense of Trump et al. is purely partisan, and when it's fairly clear at this point that you'd defend him no matter what.
You think that attitude a virtue. I think it's dangerous and a threat to our republic. I won't temper that statement one bit -- I think it's true.
On the "dems involvement" thing -- oh, don't you worry. I'll be going back to the infamous "Memo" thread. I'll save my fire for that.
ETA:
* to clarify, lest you jump all over my use of the word "evil":
I am not saying, nor do I think, that YOU are evil. To be clear, I do not think so at all. I believe in your good intentions (as you may not believe in mine), and that you think that championing Trump is good for the country because it might further conservative policies.
Nonetheless, I think that particular attitude -- the "my party 'tis of thee, through grift and bigotry, of thee I sing" -- is AN evil -- i.e., not a good thing, something that is ultimately harmful to our country.
To me, the paramount virtues include (but are not limited to) holding our elected officials -- especially those of our own party -- accountable.
I also, for what it is worth, think that you're wrong that Trump is good for conservatism or the GOP. Short term, you won an election. Ultimately, I think you've lost the soul of the party, maybe forever. I think that's bad, too, because I think a strong center-right party is important for the country, just as a strong center left party is. Countries without a strong center right party tend to have their whacko right wing fringe get out of hand -- just as we have happening here.
But the GOP is NOT a center right party anymore. Nor, taking that aside, is it dominated by principled, dignified figures like Mitt Romney or Jeff Flake. The kookball populist fringe of your party -- who don't actually give a damn about real conservative principles -- have taken control and shoved the more moderate, principled figures aside. They boo naturalization services and war heroes at CPAC. They defend child molesters as candidates on the grounds that "hey, Mary the mother of God was only 14," and "hey, it was a long time ago." You think the NeverTrump Republicans are traitors -- whereas I think they're standing firmly by their actual principles rather than the mere shell of the name of their party, and I respect the hell of them for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 14:25:20 GMT -5
By the way? I took a two day break, not a two week break. And I was honest about why.
And as far as "hyper-partisan" goes, well...
One of us is on record as having furiously criticized candidates from her own party, has stated that she has voted for candidates not of her party, and has warmly praised and defended politicians not of her party for their characters and actions. One of us has routinely gotten into heated arguments on such things with members of her own party, and taken heat for her views on them. One of us was a registered independent for a while. (Still might be, as a matter of principle, but it's a downside in New York, since you can't vote in primaries.)
That person is not you.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 27, 2018 16:36:01 GMT -5
By the way? I took a two day break, not a two week break. And I was honest about why. And as far as "hyper-partisan" goes, well... One of us is on record as having furiously criticized candidates from her own party, has stated that she has voted for candidates not of her party, and has warmly praised and defended politicians not of her party for their characters and actions. One of us has routinely gotten into heated arguments on such things with members of her own party, and taken heat for her views on them. One of us was a registered independent for a while. (Still might be, as a matter of principle, but it's a downside in New York, since you can't vote in primaries.) That person is not you. That person used to be you. I remember her. It is no longer. I know it seems like I'm always defending the GOP. That's because my contribution to this discussion forum is providing an alternative viewpoint. This forum has a lot more attacks on Trump and the GOP than praise, so I step in when I think those attacks are wrong. Have I ever defended Trump when he's clearly out of line? I defend his policy choices I agree with. That's it. And I have criticized members of the GOP. I have said it was unseemly and unfair (though clever) of Mitch McConnell to not allow Obama to appoint Judge Garland. I have criticized Trump's Tweets and behavior here as well. I "liked" Opty's post "Oh for fuck's sake" about Trump thinking he would run in with a gun to save the students. I have praised Obama's character and sense of humor, and I have said he was more presidential than Trump. I have even defended Clinton against attacks on her as a wife, her pantsuits, and her voice, as being unfair. I have never slammed her character except in what I think are her lies covering up her email scandal. I don't know enough about the Clinton Foundation to know what hand she had in it, and I have never brought that up as a criticism. I've even praised her more "hawkish" view as Secretary of State in some instances. I've never hated her like some Republicans do. I just think her policies would have been more of Obama's, and I didn't like where our country was heading. And I HAVE answered NT. On more than one occasion. For all of you who don't think I have, I will briefly recap: Trump does not have the temperament or character that I would have hoped our POTUS would have, but honestly by the time someone makes it to POTUS, I think they have thrown a lot of character out of the window in pursuit of power. That's not good, and it's sad, and it's not ideal, but it's reality. And another reality is that I would rather have a POTUS of poor character who implements policies that help our country, than a POTUS of excellent character who is either not a good POTUS, or implements policies which harm our country (see Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama). In that case, I look at the macro not the micro. Unfortunately, our party could not put up a better candidate, and we have Trump. But he is our duly elected POTUS, and IMO, what he's done so far is better than what Clinton (or God forbid Sanders) would have done so far. It also surprises me sometimes, how much of my posts you either misinterpret or misread. Where did I say anger is not OK? Or that people must remain calm? I think it's better to be calm in a lot of situations, yeah. But that's not what I'm calling you out on. My "concern" above is blindness about anything other than Trump's faults, with regards to the Mueller investigation. I think the Russia involvement is really concerning and is a by-product of Obama's ineffectual approach towards Russia throughout his presidency, and I think the Democrats have dirty hands in a lot of this as well. Why haven't you voiced any concern about that? As far as Trump, Here's an article that might be of help for some. www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/donald-trump-presidency-twitter-protests-useless-unhealthy/We are stuck with him until either his term ends, he dies, or he's impeached. And so far it doesn't look like he's done anything impeachable. Sorry. So it just seems healthier to me to accept he's POTUS. That's the reality. And I will criticize him when he deserves it (or agree with others), but I won't criticize him for having a paper with notes on it for a meeting, or for bumbling through some things because he's not a career politician, or for implementing policy changes I am happy about.
|
|