Only under pressure of questions before congress did they admit this fact. — raza

And they also said when speaking to Congress that Russia sought to help Trump win. And the Senate Intelligence Committee have said the same.

You're just being a hypocrite in accepting what they say when it suits your agenda but not when it doesn't.

The Democrats are hypocrites. Obama, as well as Bush, did the same thing and nobody was outraged. At that time, the Democrat scams were elsewhere, hiding these facts. This is all political theatre, since the Democrats have no real power and the only way that feel they can change this situation, is to ignore all Trump's accomplishments and any positive impact on women and minorities. They also try to sour public opinion with gossip and hypocrisy. Trump is too smart and is able to neutralize the entire Democrat team. It reminds me of the movie Sparta, where a small force of Spartans takes on armies due to a strong defensive position at a pinch point. The Democrats are in a pinch point.

This is really a distraction away from the corruption within the Obama Injustice Department and Obama's FBI, as outlined in the IG report. The second special investigation, which may appear, will have the IG report as a road map. The Republicans can model their special investigation on the Mueller investigation, since the Democrats set the precedent? For example, Trump's special investigator can hire only Trump donors who are politically biased, just as the Mueller team is all Hillary donors. That is fair. The second tram can put people in jail for lying about anything, which may mean the entire Democrat party. One of Trump's campaign promise was lock her up. He likes to keep his promises. He can use procedure crimes. .

Independent voters will see the Democrat hypocrisy on display. They can also see how the Democrats act like a gang of bullies, with the gang picking on one person. This has resulted in Trump becoming more favorable to the majority of independents and those who seek fairness and not two sets of rules. This tactic is backfiring on the Democrats, who have nothing positive to offer. Their message is all negative, hostile or tired, which is not fun to be around. Trump is light, positive and new.

Trump's decision to change the practice of separating and housing the children of criminal trespassers was influenced by two women; his daughter and wife. This is good for the reputations of his wife and daughter who have been targets of the bullies. The great champions of women; Democrats attacked two women just for be related to Trump. This is their true colors.This move by Trump, it is not good for Trump's position as the misogynist and chief, since true a misogynist, as the left points out, would not listen to women. Trump may lose his membership in the women haters club, just in time for the midterms.

Once again the left was outsmarted. If the left continues to harp, due to a prolonged brain washing spin cycle, those on the political fence will further see their true colors. The question I have is, why didn't Obama do what Trump just did? Isn't he the great humanitarian? Why did Obama leave the practice of separating families in place?

And they also said when speaking to Congress that Russia sought to help Trump win. And the Senate Intelligence Committee have said the same. — Michael

No evidence of either has been presented.

The DNC server has not been inspected for it's evidence and then presented.

Evidence of Russia-Trump collusion evidence has been presented.

They have said there is not Russia-Trump collusion in Mueller's report.

Anything else said is politics. With regard to law, nothing.

Evidence of Russia-Trump collusion evidence has NOT been presented.

(CORRECTION)

And it came after the Stormy Daniels fail.

Why did Obama leave the practice of separating families in place? — wellwisher

Obama had the media on his side.

Corporate media for Government Corp.

I think the only way to avoid being a hypocrite these days is by not succumbing to false dilemmas. The fact that Trump is a lying, manipulative con artist whose vision for America is unworthy of support does not preclude the possibility that the "establishment" he rails against is also full of lying, manipulative con artists whose vision for America is also unworthy of support. That's been my basic position from the start, and I think it gives one a bit of critical distance from which to observe and judge the situation as impartially as is humanely possible.

The fact that Trump is a lying, manipulative conman whose vision for America is unworthy of support does not preclude the possibility that the "establishment" he rails against is also full of lying, manipulative con artists whose vision for America is also unworthy of support. — Erik

But then, it’s just hopelessness. Not even worth commenting about. No critical distance there, just simple nihilism.

Yes, it IS nihilism. That's where we're at IMO.

So when will it ever be a post - post 9.11 world? — Benkei

I am sorry Benkei, I don't know the answer to that question.

Even children grow up and stop hiding under the blankets some day. — Benkei

I wish it were that simple but that is my cross to bear.

I think overcoming nihilism would/will involve a rejection of both sides in this conflict. No racist and nationalistic nonsense but also no longing for the days when our system melded together corporate, political, and military power all backed by a largely complicit media.

I refuse to think these are the only available options.

The United States has been very generous to the world community, especially during and after World War 2. The US took over the expensive role of world policeman, in the 1940's, which allowed these war wounded countries not to have to spend large sums of money on their military. More resources were available for social services in these broken countries, due to the war. The US also gave favorable trade status to many nations to help them rebuild and to help develop poor countries.

All this is not needed any more. These countries are on their feet, again. Now is it time to pull back and let the patients walk on their own. Therapy is not an eternal pact. It is supposed to be temporary and 70 year of therapy is plenty. America is like a nurse that is burnt out from the prolonged caring of patients who can walk. She needs to think of herself until she feels full again. This is Trump's vision. After that she will want to work on new patients.

Students work hard all year and many get burnt out by the summer. They get a vacation to recharge their batteries. Trump is leading America to its long needed vacation from world work, so the US is fresh to face new world challenges.

The Democrats do not wish to let the patients go, since to them it is about money and feeling a sense of control over others. They love dependency and using that as a leverage to manipulate for personal gain. This is the real reason Trump is being resisted with weekly scams. If the world and domestic patients leave therapy, the Democrat client list decreases. There are thousands of international lobbyists in Washington, lobbying based on the therapy status quo. This is big bucks for politicians as they sell out America under the old guise of post WW2, humanitarian need. Nobody wants that to change but the nurse needs a rest.

I am curious to know why someone who wants to make America Great Again has so much opposition. My view is that those who do not like President Trump's policies start attacking his character. As I remember this type of thing is called an Ad-Homein argument. A lot of the opposition I have heard, has never been opposition of policy, which itself can only be opposed on ideological grounds, but an opposition based on morality of the person advocating the policy. I can give examples.

I am curious to know why someone who wants to make America Great Again has so much opposition. — FreeEmotion

You're repeating a campaign slogan as if it bears some relation to reality. You realize that's just political marketing, right?

Pretty sure those who dislike Trump personally also find fault with his policies. So the two things are seen as being essentially related, with his proposed policies on (e.g.) immigration, tariffs, alliances etc. all being expressions of his deeply flawed character and ultimately designed for his personal enrichment. That's how I've seen it pitched at least.

Oh, and his willingness to lie about even the most trivial things is taken to be corrosive to our political system (it is), as is his constant attempt to undermine trust in the media.

I am curious to know why someone who wants to make America Great Again has so much opposition. My view is that those who do not like President Trump's policies start attacking his character. As I remember this type of thing is called an Ad-Homein argument. A lot of the opposition I have heard, has never been opposition of policy, which itself can only be opposed on ideological grounds, but an opposition based on morality of the person advocating the policy. I can give examples. — FreeEmotion

Ideology is subjective. If it was objective, we would all infer and deduce the same conclusions. There would be one ideology. Accomplishments, on the other hand, are an objective measure. If I run the mile in 5 minutes this is not subjective or based on an opinion. It is what it is. It is a fact and not a subjective premise or conclusion.

The Democrats can't and don't argue against the facts of accomplishment; economy, since this will be noticed as being deceptive. If the official stop watch says 5 minute, and I argue 6 minutes, this is easy to see as being deceptive.

If your political approach is from a subjective angle, like being base on character or ideology, you are never be wrong no matter how deceptive you get, since there is no objective measure. You set the ruler; assumptions and premises, to favor you own opinion. Some will agree and some will not. This is not the same as the stop watch. Even if you hate me, 5 minutes is the fact.

The definition of character has to do with molding behavior based on morality; fixed set of underlying principles. If the left believe in relative morality, then character becomes subjective. Character can only become objective if we all followed the same rules. This is not the case. Fake news is not based on character using traditional morals.

I prefer looking at accomplishments and disregarding quirks in personality, since only the former is objective and scientific. Trump has quirk that can make me laugh as well as make me cringe. I am not perfect, so I may react but I do not judge based only on this. Instead he gets things done even while having to carry a herd of jackals in his back. That is not easy to do by any objective measure.

You can't see any irony? — raza

I have my doubts you even know what irony is.

The last thing the Comey lead FBI wanted to do was compromise their relationship with Clinton — raza

Were you awake during the 2016 election? Comey basically handed the presidency to Trump on a silver platter. He was not worried about compromising his relationship with Clinton. In fact Trump was all pro Comey, until it became clear Comey would not be another Trump yes-man.

Do you have any evidence at all to support any of your speculations? Have you, yourself, seen this evidence? All that quibbling you did over evidence suddenly disappears when it comes to you spinning your fantasies.

I don't respect conspiracy nuts; they are the lowest of the low on the intellectual ladder; the very bottom rung. You have zero creditably with me, and I don't plan on wasting a bunch of time fact checking your nonsense.

Some people read between the lines so much that they end up writing their own story.

In the world of relative morality, character becomes subjective. The objective person should stand clear of using this as a measuring gauge. For example, in traditional Catholic morality there are the seven deadly sins; pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. A man of character will have to avoid these things.

The Democrat party morality, accepts some of the seven deadly sins but not others. Character is not one thing for all. The Democrats hate greed, but can accept lust. Gluttony can go both ways, with being overweight not a sin even of due to too much eating, but big gulp drinks are taboo. Bill Clinton can have babes on the side but he can;t start a successful business and maintain character. Character is not a good way to go, if you consider yourself objective.

The Democrats are full of wrath, which shows lack of character in a traditional sense. But they may define wrath as not a deadly sin that can define lack of character, Character is too easy to scam so a scientist will not go there, even if half the people will agree.

Part of the list of deadly sins in the Democrat party morality are; name calling, greed, independent thinking, not towing the party line, and liking anything about Trump. Trump likes himself, he has money, he name calls, he is not a democrat, so he cannot have character by this subjective list.

Religious morality is the epitome of relative subjective morality.

Religious morality is the epitome of relative subjective morality. — Jeremiah

Religious morality is based on the needs of the group, not the needs of the individual. It was developed before science, medicine and social programs. It was designed to minimize resources usage and maximize the group, since the group was poor and subject to various dangers. In that respect Character, was based on serving the group.

Look at the ten commandments, in the light of helping the group get along. Adultery or stealing may help some individuals benefit, but the group is placed under stress. The man of character, in this group, avoids these things, even if he has times of weakness when we would like to steal a bottle of wine and visit his beautiful neighbor. The group trust is not broken. If he did these things, there is ripple affect that impacts neighbors and families, some of which never heal.

In the "me" generations, the group became secondary, so these rules make less sense. However, the negative result of immorality, in the classic sense, needs to be supported by $trillions in social spending to mops up the mess. With the mess mopped up, we can create the illusion this is just as good. Old time morality did not need a mop, allowing even poor cultures to move forward.

If we go back to Trump, say Trump decides to cut back on the social mop. This will result in more of the mess, being left behind. This is the fear of the Democrats since the mess may lead to questing where it is coming from instead of why is ti not being removed. Then one would ask how can we reverse this mess making, without money? Traditional morality is one way.

The trolling is real.

By trolling do you mean logic and truth or propaganda slinging using emotional inductions? This is subjective based on any particular moral position. It is better to stick with facts.

I'm not sure anything meaningful can be said when one brings up an idealized driven concept of having the right character or morals for some job or position. And so ad hominems and straw manning ensue.

Have you noticed the title of this thread? It's about Trump. You appear to want to make it about anything and everything else. Why is that? I suggest you consider what you're about and your motives. To me, you appear to be just a troll. Prove me wrong and address the topic of the OP directly. If you want to love Trump, show him as lovable. If you think he's a great deal maker, tell about some of his great deals. If you think him an exemplar of anything, show him as that. If you cannot or will not, then please desist from trolling. It does more harm than you might think.

Were you awake during the 2016 election? Comey basically handed the presidency to Trump on a silver platter. — Jeremiah

This I have to agree with. I was very surprised even shocked that the announcement that the investigation would be re-opened came three days before the election, affecting the result. Is this not illegal? It should be. I expected Hilary Clinton to win. President Trump expected her to win, it is evident from his 'victory' speech. It's sad, in a way.

Apparently we all know how bad President Donald Trump is. Let's see his list of achievements:

See the small orange slice for "Promise Broken" in this Trump-O-Meter chart?

That's pretty good by any standards. And "stalled" what does that mean, that America still is a Democratic country? Stalled in congress obviously.

Or is USA not a Democracy since Russia put in the president it wanted?

Also this:

Fareed says Trump is right:

And This

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/harvard_study_extraordinary_media_bias_against_trump.html

Is this not illegal? — FreeEmotion

No, but against protocol, which is why the IG report criticised Comey.

We can learn a lot from Trump. Painful every step, but a lesson learned is a lesson gained; an education payed for is an education for life. (I wish I could say forever but evil won't allow it.)

It strikes me that among Trump's great sins is not taking responsibility. This sounds trivially obvious, but I find in it more than just a surface flaw. His policies are without responsibility. What makes this clear (among many things that make it clear) is that he is completely willing to harm children. As it happens, they did nothing to him, nor can do anything to him. If he makes a special pleading of a deeply cherry-picked history into the future by suggesting that these children will become gang-members, the real history of immigrants belies that lie.

The signal essence of a lie is that it cannot in itself be its own ground. It cannot mean anything. But it must mean something - the resolution is that what a lie means must be found outside of the horizon of the lie itself, of its content. It serves a purpose. But what purpose!?

To willingly and gratuitously harm children argues many things. Clearly a monstrousness that needs to be eliminated. But also an insensitivity that argues a compete failure of empathy; a psychopathy.

The right way to think about Trump is as a psychopath surrounded by monstrous and sick people - no doubt some of them corrupted by Trump. As a consequence, responsibility is transferred. We all become responsible. What are we to do about it? What can we do about it? We each have a voice - and most of us can vote. In our system, as tempting as a resort to violence can be, that in fact is the wrong way. But we must use our voice(s). It seems to me that for most of us, that is the only way to make clear our joint and several taking and reclaiming responsibility from this sick and evil man and his sick and evil servants. (And a special place in hell for Pence!) Speak! Vote!

Hi Michael, true, but as a dyed in the wool idealist I really think this was not fair. Not that I am saying things would be better with Mrs. Clinton in the driving seat. I mean how would she handle North Korea: "we came we saw he died (chuckle)"??