He isn't their president so tough titties.

Americans voted him in however. — raza

Well this is a bizarre non sequitur.

Americans voted him in however.

That's ambiguous. More people voted for Clinton than Trump.

@raza If you knew anything about the UK you wouldn't even need a poll to know that a low class moron like Trump would have little to no support. Get over it, the sycophancy isn't worth it.

What the UK have become accustomed to, with regard to leadership, is constant instability.

They have a steep learning curve. Someone like Trump will eventually impact in the positive, but maybe only when the UK gain their own independence from the EU.

Someone like Trump will eventually impact in the positive — raza

Trump isn't positive by any reasonable measure.

Well that's ambiguous. More people voted for Clinton than Trum — Michael

The US has a proportional system to prevent a small number of states from dominating the rest.

Other countries, such as NZ, use proportional systems.

Trump isn't positive by any reasonable measure — Michael

US economy is a more than reasonable measure.

The US has a proportional system to prevent a small number of states from dominating the rest. — raza

I'm aware of how the electoral system works. I'm saying that it's ambiguous to say that Americans voted for Trump when he lost the popular vote. It would be more accurate to say that the States/Electoral College voted for Trump.

And Strzok was a senior investigator. It says enough. — raza

I see attempts by Goodlatte to badger him and his Democratic colleagues on a point that's really immaterial. — Benkei

I don't think it's immaterial. Here is a guy who has shown contempt for the electoral process, and has gone so far as to suggest that "We'll stop it" (referring to Trump becoming President). And give me a break, I'm not an idiot, I know fully well that "we" doesn't refer to the American people, as he blatantly lied to Congress. "We" refers to the FBI. He started the investigation into Trump because he hated Trump.

On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth all the while admitting to hurting his wife. Really, a despicable man, and I think he should be in jail.

On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth all the while admitting to hurting his wife. Really, a despicable man, and I think he should be in jail. — Agustino

Unironically said by a Trump supporter.

If you knew anything about the UK you wouldn't even need a poll to know that a low class moron like Trump would have little to no support. Get over it, the sycophancy isn't worth it — Baden

You allude to a class system. Elitism. This is why Trump succeeds. He appeals to those who are the actual backbone of nations. The one's who grow your food and fix your roads.

On top of that, he's an outright immoral character who lied and cheated on his wife, and then claimed to Congress that he ALWAYS said the truth — Agustino

It took until now to realize that's wrong? You'll stop supporting Trump now I take it.

Another non-sequitur. People who fix roads may be low class in your view. In mine they're working class. Trump is low class. Learn the difference. And if you think Trump is not the elite, you're deluded.

Another non-sequitur. People who fix roads may be low class in your view. In mine they're working class. Trump is low class. Learn the difference. And if you think Trump is not the elite, you're deluded — Baden

He's rich but not a snob. Compare that with British political elites and Obama and the Clinton/Bush cartel.

That's just the cherry on top of the cake, the main thing is that he's corrupt to the bone, and his moral character does nothing to change that perspective of him. At least if he was an upstanding human being who had a track record of self-sacrifice and unselfishness, then maybe we ought to be more lenient in the way we interpret his texts. But that's not the case.

What is even more despicable is the way the Democrats are trying to unfairly defend him.

Yes, but that matters little when he's serving the elites by putting them in his cabinet and giving them massive tax breaks.

I don't think it's immaterial. Here is a guy who has shown contempt for the electoral process, and has gone so far as to suggest that "We'll stop it" (referring to Trump becoming President). And give me a break, I'm not an idiot, I know fully well that "we" doesn't refer to the American people, as he blatantly lied to Congress. "We" refers to the FBI. He started the investigation into Trump because he hated Trump. — Agustino

Peter Strzok just gave a hard-to-rebut defense of the objectivity of the Russia investigation’s origins

In a written statement offered before he testified before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok pointedly noted that there was no effort on his part to keep Trump from winning the White House — and, further, that he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.

“In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

. At least if he was an upstanding human being who had a track record of self-sacrifice and unselfishness, — Agustino

Like Trump. :brow: Have you been drinking?

That's just the cherry on top of the cake, the main thing is that he's corrupt to the bone, and his moral character does nothing to change that perspective of him. At least if he was an upstanding human being who had a track record of self-sacrifice and unselfishness, then maybe we ought to be more lenient in the way we interpret his texts. But that's not the case.

What is even more despicable is the way the Democrats are trying to unfairly defend him. — Agustino

Unironically said by a Trump supporter.

Yes, but that matters little when he's serving the elites by putting them in his cabinet and giving them massive tax breaks — Baden

All workers got the tax break. This upset his political opponents because they want to keep their supporters on the plantation.

I don't think it's immaterial. — Agustino

What's material about the number of people he spoke to when the start of the investigation was already established? The number was immaterial and only latched on to perform the show.

I don't presume to know what someone meant exactly on the basis of ambiguous language in a medium that isn't used accurately. At that point in time it could've referred to Americans, or at least that portion that voted Democrat, e.g. meaning Hillary would stop him or the people voting for her. So since that's a plausible explanation and I assume some form of standard of proof is necessary, you don't really have anything to go on as you can't read minds.

So what you're demonstrating again is your personal bias by assuming his guilt.

@Agustino You must admit your comments are a little bizarre considering your history of support for Trump and your excuses for his despicable behavior towards women. Strzok pales in comparison.

Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

Of course. The obvious point being he had nothing to derail him with, in regard to Russia/Trump collusion theory.

And still not.

Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

Of course. The obvious point being he had nothing to derail him with, in regard to Russia/Trump collusion theory.

And still not.

You must admit your comments are little bizarre considering your history of support for Trump and excuses for his despicable behavior towards woman. Strzok pales in comparison. — Baden

There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump tried to obstruct justice, and use state agencies in order to further ideological goals without regard for the rule of law. Here is a guy who WROTE that he and the FBI will stop Trump - what better evidence do you want?!

How absurd. The working class got a tiny tax break, some as little as five dollars a week. The rich got huge amounts, for those earning over a hundred thousand, it amounted to thousands. So, the policy you support rips the working class off. The tax policy I and other social democrats would support would reverse the tax breaks for the rich elites and give the working class more in tax relief. If you were not on the elites side you would support that. So, do you?

So since that's a plausible explanation and I assume some form of standard of proof is necessary, you don't really have anything to go on as you can't read minds. — Benkei

Sure, it is a possibility, but a highly unlikely one given the context. He was not Hillary, so "We" cannot be Hillary. It must be a group that includes him. Granted that he worked for the FBI, AND they were working on a Trump investigation, the "we" most likely refers to the FBI. You are a lawyer. Do you deny that this is the most plausible explanation, especially given the animosity he displayed towards Trump coupled with his not so upstanding character?

Non-sequitur. You focused on moral character specifically adultery. Plus, he said in a personal text, "we" will stop him not specifying "we". And you take that as enough evidence for a conspiracy. It's so laughably ridiculous. I mean it's one word in a private text. Have you even considered that he was just sounding off? Trump on the other hand told Comey to "give Flynn a break". Even Giuliani admitted that in an interview recently. That is asking for corrupt behavior. And he's the President. Don't you think he has more influence than this nobody in the FBI? Again, you're so partisan and hypocritical, it's honestly bizarre.

But let's go back to moral character with regard to women because you brought it up. At least tell me this, who seems the worse offender to you, the pussy grabbing, porn star fucking, alleged sexual abuser, Trump or this random FBI agent who cheated on his wife? If you can't answer that honestly you know the reason why we can't persuade each other. Look in the mirror.

5.6k
But let's go back to moral character with regard to women because you brought it up. At least tell me this, who seems the worse offender to you, the pussy grabbing, porn star fucking, alleged sexual abuser, Trump or this random FBI agent who cheated on his wife? — Baden

With regard to this particular side of their character, equally bad.

However, at least Trump appears to be more honest and stick to his values and points with regards to the other issues (immigration, tax cuts, Obama care, etc.).