DiscussMormonism.com

The White House and the Kremlin announced that the Putin-Trump BroFest will be held in Helsinki on July 16, 2018. Trump has yet to specify whether he will call for the banning of any Miss Finlands from the years 2005 to 2013 if Melania attends.

Perhaps we’ll dissolve NATO because Putin finds it to be provocative.

We’re good at being concessionary.

Was considering the various aliases that Trump has used in promoting himself. But what about the alias Trump uses in private to describe himself? In particular, I was wondering about his self-moniker Magnifico Giganticus.

Trump's tweet this morning:

Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!

He is not only taking the word of the Russians, he is promoting it in his tweets. He promotes the word of the Russians over the intelligence services of the United States, as he prepares to head for a Summit with Putin (or as Stephen Colbert put it, his annual employee review).

Does the President truly believe the word of the Russians over his own government? And if so, what does that portend for the future of our country?

MeDotOrg wrote:Trump's tweet this morning:

Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!

He is not only taking the word of the Russians, he is promoting it in his tweets. He promotes the word of the Russians over the intelligence services of the United States ...

Yes, but to his supporters, it doesn’t matter that Trump bows to Putin and disparages the nation’s top law enforcement organization. Their loyalty has been bought with a tax rebate of $3.50 a week and the chance to disparage brown folks.

Otherwise, this is sort of a big deal, isn’t it?

canpakes wrote:Otherwise, this is sort of a big deal, isn’t it?

i suppose it is as big of a deal among Trump supporters as it was to Obama supporters in 2014, right?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... nce-241547

subgenius wrote:

canpakes wrote:Otherwise, this is sort of a big deal, isn’t it?

i suppose it is as big of a deal among Trump supporters as it was to Obama supporters in 2014, right?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/ ... nce-241547

Obama never spent time publicly tweeting in support of Putin while simultaneously undermining the FBI or the conclusions of our own intel. That’s what is being discussed; are you not able to comprehend that, or are you just doing the usual dishonest distraction thing? ; )

canpakes wrote:Obama never spent time publicly tweeting in support of Putin while simultaneously undermining the FBI or the conclusions of our own intel. That’s what is being discussed; are you not able to comprehend that, or are you just doing the usual dishonest distraction thing? ; )

So Trump tweets contrary to conclusions and Obama just ignored the conclusions - and just now the whole mess is a concern, only because your candidate lost.
The comprehension bar is not set that high, but if pointing out partisan hypocrisy on a frivolous hair fire is "dishonest distraction", then yeah maybe that last option?

subgenius wrote:So Trump tweets contrary to conclusions and Obama just ignored the conclusions -

There you go again, with another demonstration of your comprehension diffficulties. Your link states that the Administration took some measures but also may not have believed that Russian efforts could present any serious threat. Not only is this not the same as what you are saying above, but it’s also not the same as publicly tweeting that the Russians did nothing and that the Intel Community’s investigation of same was a ‘witch hunt’. Sorry to see that you cannot understand a difference, or are too dishonest to acknowledge a difference.

subgenius wrote:and just now the whole mess is a concern, only because your candidate lost.

There you go again, with another demonstration of your comprehension diffficulties. We’re talking about a sitting President pushing the propaganda line of a foreign enemy and disparaging our own Intel Community for his own personal gain. Sorry to see that you cannot understand the difference, or are too dishonest to acknowledge a difference.

subgenius wrote:The comprehension bar is not set that high, but if pointing out partisan hypocrisy on a frivolous hair fire is "dishonest distraction", then yeah maybe that last option?

There you go again, with another demonstration of your comprehension diffficulties. There is no partisan hypocrisy here because there was never an instance of Obama pushing the propaganda line of a foreign enemy and disparaging our own Intel Community for his own personal gain. Sorry to see that you cannot understand the difference, or are too dishonest to acknowledge a difference.