Do you like Trump?

[The Lurker]

They're basically about as problematic as the MSM in the other, anti-establishment direction, and I absolutely hate the way they white wash Russia/Putin/Assad and other such opposing institutions/countries.

There are certainly gems amongst the drek they publish, but I'd rather seek out sources where I don't have to sluice through as much garbage.

I forgot to reply to this part of your post.

Global Research doesn't white wash Russia or Putin or Assad. What they do is counter the narrative that the mainstream media presents, which is that Russia, Putin, and al-Assad are these bad, can-do-no-good entities that must be stopped. Edit: Same goes with other "opposing" institutions and countries that don't necessarily align with the US.

And you don't have to go far to find a gem because a lot of the articles at Global Research are great and talk about stuff that the mainstream media refuses to talk about.

 

[MAGAnificent]

No, that's what Trump and Republicans have claimed. The fact is, Comey is a conservative. Before him, Mueller served after 9/11 for the whole Bush Presidency and the first years of Obama. Somehow those two guys have turned into Democratic operatives as of 2017 when Trump took over.

I do not judge either one of those two by which administrations they served under. I judge them by their actions. Comey's behavior during Hillary's email scandal and since does not pass the smell test and he may have been involved in that phony dossier scandal. he may have served honorably during the Bush administration, however he was part of a corrupt Justice department at least in the last year or two of the obama administration. As for Mueller, as soon as he was appointed...he goes out and hires basic nothing but Clinton donors and Trump haters. I don';t care how well he may have served while with the FBI, his investigation is utterly biased.

The head of the DOJ is Jeff Sessions aka...under the control of a Republican appointed by Trump himself.

I am a big fan of Jeff sessions. he was my senator and I personally met him. With the exception of unnessarily recusing himself from the Russia investigation, I think he is doing a great job.

The only politicization you see of the DOJ and FBI is by Republicans explaining away their incompetence and corruption by claiming it's because everyone is out to get them.

Now you are making it up according to your own partisan prejudices. There is no doubt that the Justice department, the FBI, and the CIA were all politicized under the Obama Administration, especially in the time period from Trump becoming president elect and the inaugeration.

 

[Surrealistik]

I forgot to reply to this part of your post.

Global Research doesn't white wash Russia or Putin or Assad. What they do is counter the narrative that the mainstream media presents, which is that Russia, Putin, and al-Assad are these bad, can-do-no-good entities that must be stopped. Edit: Same goes with other "opposing" institutions and countries that don't necessarily align with the US.

And you don't have to go far to find a gem because a lot of the articles at Global Research are great and talk about stuff that the mainstream media refuses to talk about.

I disagree; yes there are two sides to every story, and Putin and Assad have their own strategic objectives, and reasons for pursuing them.

That said, Global Research is a reliable publisher of apologists and whataboutisms that seek to excuse things like the Crimean annexation; for example here it tries to do so by citing the convoluted and tumultuous albeit ultimately legal and lawful transition of Crimea to Ukrainian control, with the entire article dripping with the conceit of its bias: https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-...nnexed-crimea-we-the-people-of-crimea/5573750

Yes, Crimea had a strong desire for independence that was outmaneuvered and stifled within the confines of the law, but independence is resolutely not Russian annexation, nor does this stifling justify said annexation.


Here, it tries to excuse the annexation with tired 'whataboutisms' as though the improprieties of the States justifies those of Russia with a heavy dose of falsehoods: https://www.globalresearch.ca/crime...n-truth-behind-the-u-s-russia-rivalry/5374452

Again, the tone of the writing positively drips with pro-Russian, anti-Western bias that is so extreme and one sided as to be absolutely comical, including glowing, rambling appraisals of the USSR and asserting absolute falsehoods and Kremlin talking points like the idea that Ukraine's government was 'fascist dominanted', and other drek like Russia would be ousted from the Black Sea naval base or that Ukraine would be folded into NATO (assertions that were never validated; at no point was the Black Sea base's future ever seriously questioned, nor did anyone in the Ukraine govt seek NATO membership until _after_ the annexation and Russian support of eastern separatists for obvious reasons).


That having been pointed out, I challenge you to find a single article on GR that is substantively critical of Russia's annexation of Crimea or its involvement with the eastern separatists; just one. GR is not a good source.

 

[The Lurker]

I disagree; yes there are two sides to every story, and Putin and Assad have their own strategic objectives, and reasons for pursuing them.

That said, Global Research is a reliable publisher of apologists and whataboutisms that seek to excuse things like the Crimean annexation; for example here it tries to do so by citing the convoluted and tumultuous albeit ultimately legal and lawful transition of Crimea to Ukrainian control, with the entire article dripping with the conceit of its bias: https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-...nnexed-crimea-we-the-people-of-crimea/5573750

Yes, Crimea had a strong desire for independence that was outmaneuvered and stifled within the confines of the law, but independence is resolutely not Russian annexation, nor does this stifling justify said annexation.


Here, it tries to excuse the annexation with tired 'whataboutisms' as though the improprieties of the States justifies those of Russia with a heavy dose of falsehoods: https://www.globalresearch.ca/crime...n-truth-behind-the-u-s-russia-rivalry/5374452

Again, the tone of the writing positively drips with pro-Russian, anti-Western bias that is so extreme and one sided as to be absolutely comical, including glowing, rambling appraisals of the USSR and asserting absolute falsehoods and Kremlin talking points like the idea that Ukraine's government was 'fascist dominanted', and other drek like Russia would be ousted from the Black Sea naval base or that Ukraine would be folded into NATO (assertions that were never validated; at no point was the Black Sea base's future ever seriously questioned, nor did anyone in the Ukraine govt seek NATO membership until _after_ the annexation and Russian support of eastern separatists for obvious reasons).


That having been pointed out, I challenge you to find a single article on GR that is substantively critical of Russia's annexation of Crimea or its involvement with the eastern separatists; just one. GR is not a good source.

Firstly, you're not really going into detail about where the faults lie. Again, if you could go into more detail on how these articles are bad, I could help you on this. And secondly, they come from news sources that aren't originally from GR. And thirdly, all Global Research does is give the other side to the story. If you want to see reliable publisher of apologists, look at how the mainstream media has treated U.S. foreign policy. How do you know that Crimea's transition to Ukrainian control was "lawful?" Even you said that it was "convoluted" and "tumultuous." Where are you getting your sources from? The Guardian? The Washington Post? The New York Times? You still haven't gone to one of the cruxes of my posts, which is that the mainstream media got us into the Iraq war. Again, what makes it "anti-Western?" What's wrong with having an appraisal of the USSR? And why are you only giving me two examples of GR articles when there's a whole multitude of them out there?

Finally, if you have such a problem with GR, then just find another alternative news source. I can even give you some pointers.

Either way, it's at least better than the mainstream media. You still haven't convinced me that it isn't. Edit: What makes GR worse than the mainstream media? You don't explain this.

 

[Surrealistik]

Firstly, you're not really going into detail about where the faults lie. Again, if you could go into more detail on how these articles are bad, I could help you on this. And secondly, they come from news sources that aren't originally from GR. And thirdly, all Global Research does is give the other side to the story. If you want to see reliable publisher of apologists, look at how the mainstream media has treated U.S. foreign policy. How do you know that Crimea's transition to Ukrainian control was "lawful?" Even you said that it was "convoluted" and "tumultuous." Where are you getting your sources from? The Guardian? The Washington Post? The New York Times? You still haven't gone to one of the cruxes of my posts, which is that the mainstream media got us into the Iraq war. Again, what makes it "anti-Western?" What's wrong with having an appraisal of the USSR? And why are you only giving me two examples of GR articles when there's a whole multitude of them out there?

No, from the facts of the transition as they stand. I would go so far as to call some of the maneuvers Ukraine employed underhanded even, but the bottom line is that no matter my opinion of this annexation, it was done within the confines of the law as opposed to military force, and moreover does not in any way justify a Russian annexation of the territory as the writer appears to state.

And yes, I'm aware it's an aggregate of sources and tries to present the other side, but I don't want a slew of propaganda from the other side of the aisle.

Second, I'm again not a defender of the MSM; my contempt for it and its lies of omission and tone are about on par with the average of GR's articles; I was critical of it all throughout the Iraq War (especially the censoring/firing of contrarian reporters) which I thought was a phenomenally stupid and counterproductive idea, and I'm critical of it to this day.

I don't mind a slant or bias, but I do mind painfully partisan accounts and borderline propaganda or worse.

Finally, if you have such a problem with GR, then just find another alternative news source. I can even give you some pointers.

Either way, it's at least better than the mainstream media. You still haven't convinced me that it isn't. Edit: What makes GR worse than the mainstream media? You don't explain this.

I get my news from an aggregate of largely Canadian and British publications, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, and for domestic politics/political analysis, TYT and associated networks. They're not perfect individually, but collectively you get a pretty good cross-section, and they don't feature much of the propagandizing hyperbole/partisanship of most American MSM, particularly that of the cable networks.

Also I didn't say that GR is necessarily worse than most MSM, but I believe it is roughly on par with some of the worst in America; if that second article I linked doesn't make apparent why, one which I feel to be representative of much of its articles, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[The Lurker]

No, from the facts of the transition as they stand. I would go so far as to call some of the maneuvers Ukraine employed underhanded even, but the bottom line is that no matter my opinion of this annexation, it was done within the confines of the law as opposed to military force, and moreover does not in any way justify a Russian annexation of the territory as the writer appears to state.

And yes, I'm aware it's an aggregate of sources and tries to present the other side, but I don't want a slew of propaganda from the other side of the aisle.

Second, I'm again not a defender of the MSM; my contempt for it and its lies of omission and tone are about on par with the average of GR's articles; I was critical of it all throughout the Iraq War which I thought was a phenomenally stupid and counterproductive idea, and I'm critical of it to this day.

I don't mind a slant or bias, but I do mind painfully partisan accounts and borderline propaganda or worse.




I get my news from an aggregate of largely Canadian and British publications, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, and for domestic politics/political analysis, TYT and associated networks. They're not perfect individually, but collectively you get a pretty good cross-section, and they don't feature much of the propagandizing hyperbole/partisanship of most American MSM, particularly that of the cable networks.

Also I didn't say that GR is necessarily worse than most MSM, but it is on par with some of the worst in America; if that second article I linked doesn't make apparent why, one which I feel to be representative of much of its articles, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

Again, you're not going into detail on the "transition." How was it done within the "confines of the law?"

Secondly, they don't present propaganda. Again, you have to give me more than just two articles to work with here.

You've told me that you don't care for the mainstream media, but you haven't really explained to me why I should trust the mainstream media over GR.

Yes, you have your partisan articles on GR, but that does not in any way make what they say untrue.

You get your news from Canadian and British sources? And what makes them better than the American mainstream media? How is Bloomberg any better? Or Al Jazeera for that matter? Are you saying you actually watch TYT? I'm sorry, but you're talking about sources that are apart of the mainstream media. And if you're so concerned about partisanship, than TYT isn't a good place to start.

Again, how do you feel it to be representative of most of the articles? I don't think that you're explaining yourself. I've read many GR articles. You can't generalize them all. You especially can't generalize them all based on just one article (the second one in this case). They come from a variety of sources and touch a variety of topics and they don't have the same writer for every article.

 

[Surrealistik]

Again, you're not going into detail on the "transition." How was it done within the "confines of the law?"

The legality is an irrelevant aside given the point I'm making, and one I'm not interested in spending considerable time exploring; whether or not it was, or you or I believe it was, this does not ultimately support the thesis of the article's author which is that stifled Crimean independence somehow warrants Russian annexation.

Secondly, they don't present propaganda. Again, you have to give me more than just two articles to work with here.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think all GR articles are propaganda or hyper-partisan, but enough are that I wouldn't value them as a source/aggregator.

You've told me that you don't care for the mainstream media, but you haven't really explained to me why I should trust the mainstream media over GR.

I'm not trying to convince you to favour MSM over GR, and I don't think I can convince you even if I wanted to.

Yes, you have your partisan articles on GR, but that does not in any way make what they say untrue.

You're right; stating outright falsehoods like 'Ukraine's govt is dominated by fascists', and Crimea annexation was warranted by non-existent NATO interest and threats to Russia's Black Sea base however does.

You get your news from Canadian and British sources? And what makes them better than the American mainstream media? How is Bloomberg any better? Or Al Jazeera for that matter. Are you saying you actually watch TYT? I'm sorry, but you're talking about sources that are apart of the mainstream media. And if you're so concerned about partisanship, than TYT isn't a good place to start.

TYT is biased absolutely, but it openly acknowledges this bias and wears it on its sleeve as opposed to many other sources, MSM and non-MSM alike. Problematic partisanship to me is disregarding the facts, or fabricating lies outright in favour of a political bias or narrative as opposed to merely having a slant and a bias; TYT sometimes gets it wrong but they acknowledge when they do (at least to the best of my knowledge).

And you seriously don't consider Bloomberg a less problematic source than Fox, or MSNBC?

I'm absolutely confident CBC and BBC are nowhere near as biased or disingenuously partisan as the US cable news networks, or even the likes of the NYT/WaPo, especially since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

Again, how do you feel it to be representative of most of the articles? I don't think that you're explaining yourself. I've read many GR articles. You can't generalize them all. You especially can't generalize them all based on just one article (the second one in this case). They come from a variety of sources and touch a variety of topics and they don't have the same writer for every article.

I'll be blunt; I'm simply not interested in doing a systemic top to bottom review of GR's articles to demonstrate the serious and recurring problems with anti-western/pro-Russian bias it has, especially when you seem to be pretty solidified in your convictions. Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I can handle partisan sources. GR hosts conspiracy theories. That, I cannot abide with and thoroughly ruins its credibility.

It is anti-US, anti-West, pro-Russia, and some of the anti-Israel (antisemitism) articles approach the vitriol of Rense and Mondoweiss.

 

[The Lurker]

The legality is an irrelevant aside given the point I'm making, and one I'm not interested in spending considerable time exploring; whether or not it was, or you or I believe it was, this does not ultimately support the thesis of the article's author which is that stifled Crimean independence somehow warrants Russian annexation.



You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think all GR articles are propaganda or hyper-partisan, but enough are that I wouldn't value them as a source/aggregator.



I'm not trying to convince you to favour MSM over GR, and I don't think I can convince you even if I wanted to.



You're right; stating outright falsehoods like 'Ukraine's govt is dominated by fascists', and Crimea annexation was warranted by non-existent NATO interest and threats to Russia's Black Sea base however does.



TYT is biased absolutely, but it acknowledges this bias and wears it on its sleeve. Problematic partisanship to me is disregarding the facts, or fabricating lies outright in favour of a political bias or narrative as opposed to merely having a slant and a bias; TYT sometimes gets it wrong but they acknowledge when they do (at least to the best of my knowledge).

And you seriously don't consider Bloomberg a less problematic source than Fox, or MSNBC?

I'm absolutely confident CBC and BBC are nowhere near as biased or disingenuously partisan as the US cable news networks, especially since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.



I'll be blunt; I'm simply not interested in doing a systemic top to bottom review of GR's articles to demonstrate the serious and recurring problems with anti-western/pro-Russian bias it has, especially when you seem to be pretty solidified in your convictions. Ain't nobody got time for that.

You need to explain yourself: how is the premise of the article unwarranted?

You're entitled to your opinion as well.

And no, you couldn't convince me to favor the mainstream media over Global Research, but that's basically what I'm talking about: what makes GR worse than the mainstream media?

Even if there was a non-existent NATO interest or a non-existent threat to Russia's Black Sea base and so and so forth, that still wouldn't make the vast majority of what they say false.

TYT to my knowledge was a Clinton shill during the 2016 election. They're partisanship is definitely there. And if the bias in GR is truly so blatant, couldn't you just shrug that off as them "wearing it on their sleeve?"

Just because Bloomberg isn't as bad as CNN or Fox or MSNBC doesn't mean much.

I'm not familiar with CBC, but BBC was showing a lot of partisanship against Assad on their coverage of the Syrian "civil war." I've heard that CBC sucks up to Justin Trudeau, but I'm not sure on this point. I did a Google search, and it appears to have a liberal bias, at the very least.

If you can't give me a lot more than two articles to mule over, then we've got nothing left to talk about. Two articles isn't enough, especially compared to the vast majority of GR articles out there.

With that said, I hope that we will bear no ill will towards each other.

 

[The Lurker]

I can handle partisan sources. GR hosts conspiracy theories. That, I cannot abide with and thoroughly ruins its credibility.

It is anti-US, anti-West, pro-Russia, and some of the anti-Israel (antisemitism) articles approach the vitriol of Rense and Mondoweiss.

For the last time, Global Research does not host conspiracy theories. Neither is it anti-US or anti-West or pro-Russia or anti-Israel. I will say that I've seen articles that are against Zionism, but that isn't the same thing as being anti-Israel. And I have NEVER seen anything approaching anti-semitism. Lastly, being anti-Israel is not anti-semitic.

Edit: I hope both of us won't let this conversation get to us, Rogue Valley. With that said, let's all be respectful to one another in the future.

 

[Puigb]

I have never liked Trump, even back when he was a Democrat. He's always been an asshole, but he has gotten worse over the years. Watch his interviews when he was younger and compare them to now. He was more sane, and dare I say more intelligent back then as well. Today, he's a just a clown who can barely put together a coherent sentence.

 

[Gaea]

For one, I would not trust Justices picked by Hillary on any 1st or 2nd Amendment issues. In fact, I would not trust them on any issues as they would in all likelihood be activist justices who would legislate from the bench. The intent of the founders was that the justices would interpret the law according to the US Constitution rather then according to their own political leanings.

I was looking for something more specific than "being an activist judge". What are some specific examples of issues you're worried they'd be activist on? (apart from 2A, that's pretty self explanatory)

 

[Gaea]

Well. it tht's an open question and anyone can answer; I have a few concerns about liberals once again running the Supreme Court.

Gun control; if the court were mostly liberal they could make it so hard to own a gun that it would be a virtual ban.

I'm curious what precedent you're basing this off.

Land ownership; the EPA has been getting ever more aggressive in telling people what they can do on their own land, and eminent domain has been extrapolated way past what it was designed for. Now people can have their beach house seized because some corporation wants to build a beach front condo on that beach, and the city says it will bring in more tax money so it's OK. Or a mom and pop drug store loses their prime location by way of eminent domain, only to see a chain drugstore go in the re-developed property. These things happened in liberal run cities with liberal judges.

Regarding eminent domain: Donald Trump said during the presidential debates that he loves it when the govt exercises eminent domain.
Regarding EPA: do you agree that externalities are an existential economic issue?

You would also see an end to the death penalty, unrestricted abortion, draconian prohibitions against any kind of religious symbols or prayers at public gatherings, and unions being able to force people to join in order to work. Just to name a few things a liberal court would do.

Again, I'm curious what experience you've had that would lead you to think that these are things that liberals even want to have happen.

(By the way, unions can already force you to join them in order to work at a particular business, speaking from personal experience.)

 

[Oborosen]

For the record, I'm not trying to attack you, Rogue Valley. I hope that we can have a polite discussion about this.

Good luck with that, most of these debates devolve into personal attacks and I'll give you one guess as to which lean are the ones to usually exemplify this.

 

[iliveonramen]

I do not judge either one of those two by which administrations they served under. I judge them by their actions. Comey's behavior during Hillary's email scandal

You mean when he released a press report that he was re-opening the investigation into the emails because of new evidence a month or so before the election? Some weaponized arm of the Democratic party...

he may have been involved in that phony dossier scandal. he may have served honorably during the Bush administration, however he was part of a corrupt Justice department at least in the last year or two of the obama administration.

This is something that always annoys me. When it comes to the Obama administration, Conservatives tend to say thing that people should somehow take for granted. The DOJ was crooked under Obama, Hillary was being paid by the Russians and a host of other allegations WITH NO EVIDENCE OR CONVICTIONS to base it on. The Republican Congress "Investigated" Obama for nearly his entire 2 terms in office!! Nothing.

On the other hand, after a few months Trump has had multiple indictments against his staff including two higher level members. Conservatives say that the 5 or so months of investigation is too long and these indictments (actual grand jury indictments) are "nothing burgers".

Sorry...but you may believe the DOJ was corrupt or whatever under Obama but I don't. They weren't. They were the same as any DOJ under any other President.

As for Mueller, as soon as he was appointed...he goes out and hires basic nothing but Clinton donors and Trump haters. I don';t care how well he may have served while with the FBI, his investigation is utterly biased.

So...despite his decades in service including military and civilian, his stainless record...it's him not the skeezy NY developer that is the issue here.....yeah...right..

Now you are making it up according to your own partisan prejudices. There is no doubt that the Justice department, the FBI, and the CIA were all politicized under the Obama Administration, especially in the time period from Trump becoming president elect and the inaugeration.

There is no doubt in your mind because Fox News and the sources you get your news from has treated it like fact.

Once again, politicizing the DOJ results in a lot of borderline to obvious illegal activity. I'm curious how a Republican Congress with oversight power of the DOJ allowed that to happen for 6 years. It's weird how they go on TV and hem and haw about the corruption all over the agency but throw up their hands like 'but what can we do?

You're congress, it's your job. They would of loved to indict or bring down the Obama Presidency. So why didn't they with this obviously politicized DOJ?

 

[MAGAnificent]

You mean when he released a press report that he was re-opening the investigation into the emails because of new evidence a month or so before the election? Some weaponized arm of the Democratic party...

Comey did not release that report. Congress did.

This is something that always annoys me. When it comes to the Obama administration, Conservatives tend to say thing that people should somehow take for granted. The DOJ was crooked under Obama, Hillary was being paid by the Russians and a host of other allegations WITH NO EVIDENCE OR CONVICTIONS to base it on. The Republican Congress "Investigated" Obama for nearly his entire 2 terms in office!! Nothing.

On the other hand, after a few months Trump has had multiple indictments against his staff including two higher level members. Conservatives say that the 5 or so months of investigation is too long and these indictments (actual grand jury indictments) are "nothing burgers".

Partisanship is clouding your objectivity. Obama administration officials never faced indictment as the Obama justice department never allowed the appointment of an independent counsel, even though their was plenty to investigate, starting with the "Fast and Furious" scandal.. There was also the IRS scandal. Congressional hearings and investigations are usually not all that productive and are good for little more then news cycles and CSPAN, however the republican hearings on Benghazi did lead to the discovery of Hillary's private email server and the classified documents she sent and received through it. Though the investigation of it was an FBI/DOJ sham. They never intended to indict Hillary under any circumstances. Perhaps by now, they probably wish they had as it would have limited the damage to the democrat party and perhaps would have led them to nominating a far less flawed candidate for president.

Sorry...but you may believe the DOJ was corrupt or whatever under Obama but I don't. They weren't. They were the same as any DOJ under any other President.

Sorry, but I do not agree. Just how the Hillary email scandal alone was handled shows the Obama justice department to be corrupt.

So...despite his decades in service including military and civilian, his stainless record...it's him not the skeezy NY developer that is the issue here.....yeah...right..

Once again, a previous clean record does not excuse bad behavior now. There are at least a few convicted murderers who up until then had a spotless record. Mueller upon appointment as independent counsel immediately hired a team made up solely of big Clinton donors and visceral Trump haters. Not exactly an unbiased investigation. And their was the storm trooper like raid on Mannaforts home in the middle of the night despite the fact that Mannafort was cooperating with the investigation.

There is no doubt in your mind because Fox News and the sources you get your news from has treated it like fact.

The left's anti-fox news bias is cut, however wrong headed. Fox news is loaded with both left and right wing newscasters and hots. or do you think that Trump hater Shepard Smith is a conservative. Do you think Geraldo Rivera is a conservative? How about Juan Williams? The left's only real hangup with Fox news is that fox does not just fall in line with the rest of the MSM and act as a shill for the democrat party.

Once again, politicizing the DOJ results in a lot of borderline to obvious illegal activity. I'm curious how a Republican Congress with oversight power of the DOJ allowed that to happen for 6 years. It's weird how they go on TV and hem and haw about the corruption all over the agency but throw up their hands like 'but what can we do?

You are kidding, right? The republican oversight did what they could under the law and held hearings. It's up to the justice department to follow through and appoint an independant counsel. The Obama administration had no intention of allowing that.

You're congress, it's your job. They would of loved to indict or bring down the Obama Presidency. So why didn't they with this obviously politicized DOJ?

You obviously do not know the law or how government works. Congress and subpoena witnesses however they do not have the power to indict. all they really have is the means to publicize the hearings and hopefully push the justice department into acting. Congress is not a law enforcement agency or part of the judicial branch.

 

[Fenton Lum]

By this, I mean are you overall OK with his policies as President? Do you think he's done a good job? Are you not sure what to think of Trump's Presidency? Please answer in the poll.

I personally think he's no different from the Presidents that came before.

Goldman Sachs is all up in that white house, same as it ever was, and we are still subsidizing the corporate state aristocracy to the detriment of society as a whole.

 

[Former GOP]

I don't personally like Trump, I think he's an immature bully who plays the victim a little too well.

But nobody can argue that his being president has caused the stock market to rally. It has never been over 20,000 points until after he was elected. People who have any kind of investments aren't complaining. The economy is strong, perhaps not thanks to him but he and the republicans will benefit in 2018 and perhaps 2020 if the economy stays strong and there isn't a major catastrophe or scandal.

 

[SDET]

As a conservative, I'm happy to have "lucked into" some conservative policies under Trump. However, I don't like Trump's lack of focus. Given this generation's focus on free stuff, "political correctness" and cultural Marxism, Trump might be the best we can hope for. I wonder if Ted Cruz would have won PA, WI and MI.

 

[SDET]

I don't personally like Trump, I think he's an immature bully who plays the victim a little too well.

But nobody can argue that his being president has caused the stock market to rally. It has never been over 20,000 points until after he was elected. People who have any kind of investments aren't complaining. The economy is strong, perhaps not thanks to him but he and the republicans will benefit in 2018 and perhaps 2020 if the economy stays strong and there isn't a major catastrophe or scandal.

Trump not being part of a major scandal is like hoping for an inside STRAIGHT FLUSH.

 

[dorsai]

By this, I mean are you overall OK with his policies as President? Do you think he's done a good job? Are you not sure what to think of Trump's Presidency? Please answer in the poll.

I personally think he's no different from the Presidents that came before.

He was third from the bottom of my list of ALL candidates during the primaries. Unfortunately, it ended up a contest between the bottom of my list and third from the bottom. However, my misgivings have been "trumped" by the first year. Although there are still many items on my checklist that need attention, what has been done is making me more and more supportive.

• Size of government and the economy were at the top of my list by far. Cutting regs, hiring freezes, and tax reform were things I welcomed.
• I'm a bit hawkish and welcome this resurgence in support for the military and law enforcement.
• I have lamented the last 20 years of nominees for the judiciary and Trump Year One has quickly changed to a more conservative trend.
• I did not enjoy the demonization of financial success and glad to see "winning" is again associated with success in a capitalistic economy.

There have been other things that have made me not just more comfortable with Trump but an actual supporter. Status quo was not working.

His tweaking of the media is icing on the cake for me.

 

[worksforpigs]

I think he is thin skinned and obnoxious. A boor as some would say. I don't like the man.

He can be but the media have shown that it is much more than he is. They've been attacking him non-stop since he condemned their biased journalism, thus proving his point.

 

[iliveonramen]

Comey did not release that report. Congress did..

He "re-opened" an investigation and notified Congress of it when there was literally nothing investigated. He actually said he wasn't sure if the material would be significant.

It was a sham and yes, he sent the letter to Congress which is obvious that it would be widely disseminated. In addition, he wrote a letter to his "staff" explaining why which...I'm sure against his wishes was given to the press.

The thing was a sham and nothing but was a big hit close to the election.

Partisanship is clouding your objectivity. Obama administration officials never faced indictment as the Obama justice department never allowed the appointment of an independent counsel

Congress has the authority to appoint an independent counsel......

There was also the IRS scandal. .... (cut due to length restrictions)

Once again...Congress investigated and they have the power to go even as far as creating a special counsel to investigate. They didn't....why? Because they would rather have 5 unproven "scandals" that they can talk about constantly and make partisan statements about rather than to do an actual investigation. It was partisan theatre.

You wanna know what happens when Congress actually believes there's actual Presidential corruption? Look how fast a special counsel was put together by the DOJ under Trump. If they wouldn't of done it Congress would of done it. It took weeks after Comey was fired before calls for a special counsel were created.

Once again, a previous clean record does not excuse bad behavior now.....

Storm trooper like raid? Also, if you want to get documents you don't ask someone "hey, can you please provide me the bank statements showing you laundered millions for a Russian connected political group? Thanks!"

Everything you've stated about Mueller is like everything you've stated about Obama. Lots of yelling, screaming, kicking, and crying on Fox News and to reporters but for a Republican party that controls every part of government...they are not helpless! If it's a corrupt Mueller investigation they could easily replace him. If all those Congressmen on Fox news were serious they'd let Trump fire Mueller or hell, even intercede themselves.

It's political theatre.

The left's anti-fox news bias is cut, however wrong headed. ....

As for Shepard Smith, he's the only legitimate news person on that channel. You know he's editor of "Breaking News". Fox news pays him 10's of millions of dollars and he's there even though tons of viewers of that channel hate him and want him fired.

You know why he's still there? He's the only thing giving legitimacy to that channel. He's the only one that people can point to and say "see, we have real news". And the Fox news base hates him! Because he's a break from the 24 hour rightwing fantasy land created on that channel!

You are kidding, right? The republican oversight did what they could under the law and held hearings. It's up to the justice department to follow through and appoint an independant counsel. The Obama administration had no intention of allowing that.

Once again...Congress has the ability to appoint an independent counsel. The independent counsel was created after Watergate for the purpose of investigating high level officials in the White House.

The fact you got such a basic thing wrong which is pretty much the linchpin of why Congress just wouldn't go after that crooked Obama should show you something! You are getting bad information! That's an easy fact to check online within seconds.

You obviously do not know the law or how government works. Congress and subpoena witnesses however they do not have the power to indict. all they really have is the means to publicize the hearings and hopefully push the justice department into acting. Congress is not a law enforcement agency or part of the judicial branch.

One, appoint an Ind Counsel (which as mentioned above is in the purview of Congress)
Two Congress has multiple ways to reign in executive branch agencies outside of creating and independent counsel. They control the money and they legislate the power. Congress limited the EPA in the 1980's.

Either Republicans are completely stupid and ineffective (which is entirely possible) or they wanted to blow smoke up their voters while knowing that nothing real was going on.

Hell...they are riling up their base against Obama and Hillary and neither of them even hold an office! They know their base and they know how to manipulate you guys.

 

[MAGAnificent]

He "re-opened" an investigation and notified Congress of it when there was literally nothing investigated. He actually said he wasn't sure if the material would be significant.

It was a sham and yes, he sent the letter to Congress which is obvious that it would be widely disseminated. In addition, he wrote a letter to his "staff" explaining why which...I'm sure against his wishes was given to the press.

The thing was a sham and nothing but was a big hit close to the election.


Congress has the authority to appoint an independent counsel......


Once again...Congress investigated and they have the power to go even as far as creating a special counsel to investigate. They didn't....why? Because they would rather have 5 unproven "scandals" that they can talk about constantly and make partisan statements about rather than to do an actual investigation. It was partisan theatre.

You wanna know what happens when Congress actually believes there's actual Presidential corruption? Look how fast a special counsel was put together by the DOJ under Trump. If they wouldn't of done it Congress would of done it. It took weeks after Comey was fired before calls for a special counsel were created.


Storm trooper like raid? Also, if you want to get documents you don't ask someone "hey, can you please provide me the bank statements showing you laundered millions for a Russian connected political group? Thanks!"

Everything you've stated about Mueller is like everything you've stated about Obama. Lots of yelling, screaming, kicking, and crying on Fox News and to reporters but for a Republican party that controls every part of government...they are not helpless! If it's a corrupt Mueller investigation they could easily replace him. If all those Congressmen on Fox news were serious they'd let Trump fire Mueller or hell, even intercede themselves.

It's political theatre.



As for Shepard Smith, he's the only legitimate news person on that channel. You know he's editor of "Breaking News". Fox news pays him 10's of millions of dollars and he's there even though tons of viewers of that channel hate him and want him fired.

You know why he's still there? He's the only thing giving legitimacy to that channel. He's the only one that people can point to and say "see, we have real news". And the Fox news base hates him! Because he's a break from the 24 hour rightwing fantasy land created on that channel!


Once again...Congress has the ability to appoint an independent counsel. The independent counsel was created after Watergate for the purpose of investigating high level officials in the White House.

The fact you got such a basic thing wrong which is pretty much the linchpin of why Congress just wouldn't go after that crooked Obama should show you something! You are getting bad information! That's an easy fact to check online within seconds.



One, appoint an Ind Counsel (which as mentioned above is in the purview of Congress)
Two Congress has multiple ways to reign in executive branch agencies outside of creating and independent counsel. They control the money and they legislate the power. Congress limited the EPA in the 1980's.

Either Republicans are completely stupid and ineffective (which is entirely possible) or they wanted to blow smoke up their voters while knowing that nothing real was going on.

Hell...they are riling up their base against Obama and Hillary and neither of them even hold an office! They know their base and they know how to manipulate you guys.

My initial response was rejected for being too long by about 540 characters. I do not feel like going back and editing it. I will just point out that you do not know half of what you think you know. You are confusing independant counsel with special prosecutor. The law for the latter is long expired. And only the executive branch can appoint an independant counsel. Take care.

 

[iliveonramen]

My initial response was rejected for being too long by about 540 characters. I do not feel like going back and editing it. I will just point out that you do not know half of what you think you know. You are confusing independant counsel with special prosecutor. The law for the latter is long expired. And only the executive branch can appoint an independant counsel. Take care.

Special prosecutor, independent counsel etc is someone appointed to investigate and potentially prosecute a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. The different terminology is for the same thing....

What a special prosecutor does, how one gets appointed - Business Insider