yoink

Regardless of what I think about Trump and his policies and general behavior, I do believe he's been under more continuous and detailed scrutiny than any president before him. Every single thought, phrase, word and gesture is micro-analyzed and torn apart by media, politicians and armchair analysts like us - Not always fairly, I might add. The media in general has never been more popular and this style of reporting has grabbed the attention of America and the world. Look 4 or 8 years down the road - maybe a democrat is in office or maybe it's a republican, but I suspect that Trump's presidency has set a precedent for how OK it is to bait a president from now on, or how continuous news about every single action can be made more negative than it perhaps really is just to get ratings. Everybody, EVERYBODY, has skeletons in their closet. Everybody will make mistakes and not all of them need to be punished or put under the worlds biggest spotlight. You couldn't pay me enough to be president at this point - it's going to be absolutely impossible to get anything done until both parties unite behind a president, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

Why does a shark need a saddle if you're jumping it? Or are we supposed to be riding the shark now? I'm confused by your use of the phrase.

I'm not actually convinced how much pressure payments would actually have on Trump, to be honest. He's narcissistic enough to believe that any payments he received are simply deserved and that he doesn't have to reciprocate in any way. He's getting money and favors because he's TRUMP. We've also seen how willing he is to break any promise he makes anyway, and how he's happy to take services from contractors and simply not pay them. Why would his political action be any different?

Yes. You're wrong.

This is the cost of gun ownership and America has shown time and again that they're perfectly accepting of it. There's nothing to be learned here. Personally, I'm baffled why it's even a news story.

You quoted an interview on FOX. Just so we know, Washington Post, BBC, CNN are all unacceptable news outlets to draw news from. We should add FOX to that list? Which are the current believable news outlets of the day, rush?

Dear Ms. Barash, Thank you for your letter. We should make clear that by 'Christian', Mr. Trump means 'white person who votes for me', so you can see that the deportation of your father is completely in line with White house policy. I hope that clears up any confusion. Thank you for your vote! Please click this link to donate via paypal to the President Trump fund! Sincerely, The White House.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40250700 Not the news Mr. Trump needed right now, I'm sure. Again, not a smoking gun for impeachment, but more fuel for the fire.

This forum desperately needs a rolling-eyes emoticon. Actually, the democratic process is working precisely as it was set up to do both in the UK and the US. That people might not like the outcome isn't 'the democratic process breaking down'... Maybe you're looking for signs so hard you're seeing things that aren't really there? Sure. Why not. Whatever.

Not at all. You ignoring who was in charge is classic! You can't even come up with your own put-downs. I'm honestly waiting for the time you use 'I know you are, but what am I?' as a comeback.

The 'Obama did it first' argument. It's a classic.

I'm not going anywhere with this other than to point out that your typical response to any post from someone who you classify as a 'liberal' is a knee-jerk refutation of their position, even if the response you post is utter nonsense and has no bearing in reality or even makes sense. That's all.

Ok. I know this is hard for you. But I will try. Obstruction is the act of trying to stop or influence a criminal investigation. What crime, where evidence has been provided, is being investigated? You didn't even read the link, did you? "A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding." Nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a criminal investigation. This is a perfect example of rush in action. He has his beliefs - no matter how demonstrably wrong, and has absolutely no intention of even trying to read around them. Facts and evidence have no place in his world. It's more important to reply than it is to be right.

Who are understandably kinda busy right now, which leaves... The US. Well done on achieving pariah state status. One of the best things Trump has done so far. Precisely.

Makes sense. Great explanation! Thanks!

Wait until a bridge or dam collapses, killing a bunch of people then blame it on the previous administration. That's the plan.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/07/531882630/hawaii-signs-legislation-to-implement-goals-of-paris-climate-accord-anyway Hawaii signs legislation to adopt Paris Accord goals despite Trump pulling out of the accords. While I think the 'fuck-you' is hilarious, I'm a little surprised that a state can do this when it directly contravenes a presidential decision. Grey areas I get, but it's pretty clear the President didn't want the US to have anything to do with the accords...

So what? Are you really suggesting that because we've done something in the past we should be completely fine with it being done to us? I don't buy it.

You keep ignoring me when I ask this: Is it only a problem in your mind if it affected the outcome? Would you be OK with foreign powers manipulating your election process if there is no immediate discernible effect on the count? For example - Should attempted murder not be investigated because the perpetrator failed in their task?

Area of Beijing: 6336 sq miles. Area of China: 3,705 million sq miles. I suspect they'll find a sunny area somewhere...

Haven't you seen 'Who wants to be a Russian Informant?' It's the new thing.

We should set up a bingo board for his responses. Glad to see the president is spending his time well...

I don't understand why her political affiliation has anything to do with it? I also don't see that she's 'flaunting' the system... She's not breaking rules and getting away with it. It does seem obvious from that story that she doesn't particularly care about her career but that's her business. She'll be fired from her $170k a year job and the world will move on.

I am just wondering why his leadership needs him to be wrong so much during his speech? Does he make up his lies to support his position. Or does he use lies to form his position? What lies? Here you go - I've even been generous and called them 'factual errors' rather than 'lies'. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=factual+errors+in+Trump%27s+withdrawal+from+Paris+accords+speech

I am just wondering why his leadership needs him to be wrong so much during his speech? Does he make up his lies to support his position. Or does he use lies to form his position? What lies? There are a bunch you could Google. I don't have a lot of time so I'll just give you this two-for-one: 'The Green [Climate] Fund would obligate the United States to commiting potentially 10s of billions of dollars..' Obligate? That's a lie. There's no obligation at all in the Paris Accords. It's all entirely voluntary with no penalties for non-compliance. 10's of billions? Nope. That's a lie too... The US gave themselves a target of $3bn. $3bn is not ''10s of billions'. So there are two in just a single sentence of his.