Russia connection died today no news covered it though

[Robert]

Huckabee Sanders Nails Press for not Covering New Russia Dossier Testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWzRVeADhE


Now how about the investigations on the Clintons,Comey and the rest of the swamp

[Chrisj CMA]

I think our President is capable of making the right thing happen. He needs to do a little more swamp draining first I suspect 

[baldo]

I think our President is capable of making the right thing happen. He needs to do a little more swamp draining first I suspect 

He needs to stop stocking it........

[Robert]

He needs to stop stocking it........

I totally agree with you but I can imagine its a bit hard when that is all that's available. I would hate to have to make the hiring choices he has to make.

[dinosnake]

I think our President is capable of making the right thing happen. He needs to do a little more swamp draining first I suspect 

He needs to stop stocking it........

That, and more.  The problem with too much of America is the people who dream about being rich but, themselves, have actually never been around truly wealthy people to understand how they work.

I have.  I have pretty much worked with the ultra-wealthy, or been in the general population areas of wealth, most of my working life.  Trump is acting in typical wealthy-person fashion - it's all about me, which is how they accumulate their vast wealth in the first place - yet, somehow, we are to expect something different somehow.  Just because.

Won't happen. 

We tried to warn you.  9 years ago it was 'don't trust a city slicker!', but you voted one in to the presidency anyway.

[Rams]

All I'm gonna say is, if you don't like what you got, you should have offered up a more acceptable alternative.   Ya got what ya got cause the alternative was a worse disaster in the making.

[dinosnake]

All I'm gonna say is, if you don't like what you got, you should have offered up a more acceptable alternative.   Ya got what ya got cause the alternative was a worse disaster in the making.

Absolutely not true, you forgot the pre-election candidacy primaries system - the reason that you didn't have a "better alternative" is because you voted down all the other possibilities earlier on in the process. 

Leaving you with the dregs.  We're supposed to vote down the dregs and leave the cream, not the other way around.

[Gavin_Sons]

All I'm gonna say is, if you don't like what you got, you should have offered up a more acceptable alternative.   Ya got what ya got cause the alternative was a worse disaster in the making.

Absolutely not true, you forgot the pre-election candidacy primaries system - the reason that you didn't have a "better alternative" is because you voted down all the other possibilities earlier on in the process. 

Leaving you with the dregs.  We're supposed to vote down the dregs and leave the cream, not the other way around.

I think he was referring to Hillary. But that is not totally the liberals fault, she did cheat and lie her way into the candidacy.

[Wizzard]

He absolutely was referring to Hillary

[Rams]

All I'm gonna say is, if you don't like what you got, you should have offered up a more acceptable alternative.   Ya got what ya got cause the alternative was a worse disaster in the making.

Absolutely not true, you forgot the pre-election candidacy primaries system - the reason that you didn't have a "better alternative" is because you voted down all the other possibilities earlier on in the process.  

Leaving you with the dregs.  We're supposed to vote down the dregs and leave the cream, not the other way around.

I think he was referring to Hillary. But that is not totally the liberals fault, she did cheat and lie her way into the candidacy.

Gavin is correct.   The fact is, my favorite candidate did not survive the prelims.    That does not mean Candidate Trump had my vote locked in (had the Dems offered up a candidate I could have supported.   Trump beat all that came forward including the RNC.   On the other hand, the DNC did all they could to derail the Sanders candidacy.   (Not that I could have supported Bernie.)   But, the DNC is corrupt and most Dems won't admit that.

While I don't pretend to like everything President Trump says, the direction he is trying to take us is very similar to the views I hold.    

Reference your view of the wealthy, I also have significant experience with quite a few wealthy and powerful individuals, I find them no different than most less financially secure people.   They (the wealthy) simply have a greater ability to take advantage of good "financial" opportunities where the less fortunate folks don't.   Everyone is interested in what's good for me.   To think otherwise is BS IMHO.

Edited:  I assume you don't consider Hillary as one of those dregs?   There were Dem alternatives but, they didn't have a chance against the "Clinton Foundation" and the DNC.  
But, this is old news and nothing is gonna change what happened in the past.   Doesn't do a bit of good pointing fingers.   Next election, I hope the Dems offer up someone that is Conservative and has some integrity.   That person "could" have my support.    I sincerely doubt President Trump will run for re-election.  I fully expect that VP Pence will be the next Republican candidate and don't see a single Dem that can beat him at this point.

[Willow]

Just an observation on the condemnation of the wealthy -  wasn't Harry Truman the last, and one of the few, Presidents who wasn't incredibly wealthy.

I'm well set but not included in the class of the really wealthy.  Honestly, I'd have a problem electing a president that had accomplished no more than I financially.  I suppose there is always the option of electing someone like a priest who has taken a vow of poverty, but short of that all the real options seem to be wealthy persons. 

[dinosnake]

Reference your view of the wealthy, I also have significant experience with quite a few wealthy and powerful individuals, I find them no different than most less financially secure people.   They (the wealthy) simply have a greater ability to take advantage of good "financial" opportunities where the less fortunate folks don't.   Everyone is interested in what's good for me.   To think otherwise is BS IMHO.

What the difference is, is that for the wealthy, everything is a profit-and-loss statement.

Even "friendships". 

For the true wealthy, their friendship is still analyzed on a strict cost-benefit ratio, and when that ratio is no longer exclusively in their favor...they'll drop you.

I have told other people, for years, to watch out for this, out of warning, whilst dealing with the wealthy.  They didn't believe me until it happened to them. 

Now, in the media every single day, you are witnessing this very thing: Trump and "loyalty".  For Trump, like almost all extreme-wealth people (nothing is a hard rule, so of course there are wonderful exceptions), "loyalty" is something given to them, but is only given when it suits the narrative.

There is a complex analysis of why this is true: everything from judging those of lesser economic stature simply 'not worthy' due to being of 'less' value as an individual (meaning that yes, wealthy people can indeed show true loyalty and friendship but usually only to those of equal or better economic standing); to simple ego in that their interests must be 'better', as their economic state proves that their values are inherently 'superior', so anyone else who does not see things the same way must, fundamentally and 'provably', be 'wrong'.

With all the statements from the conservative right about "Biblical values", they believe in the decision abilities, and value, of the wealthy but never seem to want to repeat the quote from the Bible:

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

- Matthew 19:24

[scooperhsd]

The BIG problem with our election process is that you have to be pretty well off to even have a chance. Either that, or you owe your office to the groups that gave you money to run the campaign (who expect you to work for them).

The way to solve this would be to make ALL elections publically financed. And restrict the availablity of outside funding. Good luck ever seeing this implemented.

"Our government - for sale to the highest bidder (campaign donor) " .


I too don't expect Trump to run for re-election (if he even stays that long - one would hope he is learning that the President can't ram legislation through Congress even if his party is the majority). He would do much better on coming up with corrections for Obamacare if he would WORK with both sides of the aisle, and accept some compromises instead of it being all about him and his ideas. (Hint - everybody accepts that Obamacare is not perfect - some corrections can probably be made  with compromise).

[Wizzard]

Well, I personally do not define "wealth" by the amount of money one has. I have seen people with money that I consider very poor. To me wealth is many things other than money.

[J.Mencalice]

Huckabee Sanders Nails Press for not Covering New Russia Dossier Testimony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgWzRVeADhE


Now how about the investigations on the Clintons,Comey and the rest of the swamp

Huckleberry Sanders looks to me to be constantly constipated; she's not gonna last any longer than Spicey at this rate.

[Willow]

What the difference is, is that for the wealthy,
...
everything from judging those of lesser economic stature simply 'not worthy' due to being of 'less' value as an individual ...

Dinosnake, I was tempted assess your value based upon your use of grammar, spelling and English language syntax but I pulled up short on that.  Before I can make a correct assessment I'm going to need to know, for comparison purposes, you economic status.

What exactly is your net worth?  What's your age? 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm going to abstain from the net worth talk. I suspect I'm in the bottom quadrant here. But to the OP's question. I think the media has a hard time keeping up with all the coverage of this administration. Between Trump trashing his Attorney General, his new Communications Director trashing his Cabinet members, then you throw in all the false statements about meetings with the Rooskies. I would think the media needs to double their workforce.

[Willow]

I'm going to abstain from the net worth talk. I suspect I'm in the bottom quadrant here. But to the OP's question. I think the media has a hard time keeping up with all the coverage of this administration. Between Trump trashing his Attorney General, his new Communications Director trashing his Cabinet members, then you throw in all the false statements about meetings with the Rooskies. I would think the media needs to double their workforce.

I guess you had to read dinosnake's diatribe to understand the joke.

I just get weary of people ranting about everything that has to do with an elected official for whom they did not vote.

I think the media, at least the "reporting" side of the media, is already over employed.

[scooperhsd]

If you want to quiet down the White House  coverage - take away Donald Trump's Twitter account !!!