Trump getting criticism on all sides for his performance in summit with Putin


#41

Tell me Dave, if the Cohen raid turns up evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, you ok with that, do the ends justify the means?


#42

There’s a qualitative difference between someone hacking a computer and an LEO agency getting a search warrant and seizing documents that are OBVIOUSLY subject to attorney-client privilege then making them public…or don’t you believe in attorney-client privilege?


#43

So the ends don’t justify the means, or just when it’s the President you support?

As far as your question. Of course, I believe in attorney-client privilege. I know a Special Master was appointed and went through the items seized and held some back and released the rest. I guess he was part of the “deep state” too, right?


#44

NO communication between a client and his attorney should be released to the public…period. No “special master” has such authority to DO that, either.


#45

I can’t put my finger on why, but this reads like doubletalk.

Since being discovered in their meddling not only negates the effects of said meddling but also reduces their (admittedly already compromised) credibility in the eyes of the world, yeah, they do too care.


#46

Only an unmitigated fool would ever believe that the Democrats–suddenly and only in the last two years–were “enemies” of Russia or their predecessor the USSR. The Democrats haven’t been anti-communist ever…not even under JFK…though to his credit he did thwart their plans to post ICBM’s 90 miles off of our coastline–an exercise in SELF-preservation more than to prevent the U.S. from embracing socialism or communism.


#47

The Left always oppose free speech and their reason is always claimed to be “protecting the poor morons who cannot tell the truth from lies”, the next election will be similar to the last in one way; Russia will have zero effect on the outcome.

Conservatives don’t fear speech, of course conservatives are not lying about the reasons we support the things we support; so that helps.


#48

If somebody is THAT STUPID, they shouldn’t be voting anyway.


#49

/facepalm

So now we should have tests of intelligence to vote? Where is that in the Constitution?

Can you see the potential danger or something like that (probably not)?

That has to be the lamest answer to anything I’ve ever written on this site. And you call yourself a patriot?


#50

Actually, it’s probably a cogent comment. If you’re too stupid to know when and where to cast your vote, you probably SHOULDN’T be voting because chances are EXCELLENT that you’re also too stupid to properly assess the candidates. As proof, think of all of the idiots who voted for Hillary in 2016 even KNOWING that she was corrupt to the core and about as qualified as my pet Yorkie.


#51

Again, where in the Constitution, that you and others like you pretend to love so much, say that people that people that you deem are too stupid to vote because of the possible interference of (as given in my example) a hostile foreign power that uses various forms of communication to mislead people into missing their opportunity to vote.

Ironically, if that power was using its influence to mislead Republican voters, I’d bet the farm you’d be singing a different tune.

And I’ll laugh my butt off at these comments when (if) Russia uses its influence to do just that.


#52

Hey, Sparky . . .

Consider this:

I witnessed this scene at a local polling place here in Arizona.

Some guy was pushing a wheel chair with an ancient frail lady, with an oxygen line, a blanket, and tremors (she looked like she was near death) up to the booth. He announced to everyone in line, with a grin (he was probably her great grandson) that the last time she had voted, it was the FDR era. He also announced that it was her “right” to vote . . . as if all it takes is to be warm and breathing (barely in this case).

Some people in the line clapped. I thought to myself, “Hell, this poor old lady doesn’t even know what century she’s in, much less what country. THAT’S EXACTLY THE KIND OF PERSON WE DON’T WANT VOTING.” A literacy test would have solved that issue.

If you can’t add, subtract, multiply, or divide whole numbers, tell what state you’re in, and at least write a coherent sentence to express yourself, you certainly cannot grasp the issues.

Now I’m not necessarily saying understanding the issues will make you conservative (although I think it should), but how in the heck can you VOTE on the issues if you don’t even have the capacity to understand them?

There have frequently been discussions on here about “low information voters”, and with good cause.

And BTW, the fact that we disagree (substantially) DOES NOT make me any less of a “patriot” than you. I am a VietNam vet and resent your implication.

I served my country . . . how 'bout you?

Back to what you likely call “voting rights” (a common misperception encouraged by your brethren on the left . . . voting is a . . . PRIVILEGE).

I suppose then in your patriotic fervor you would endorse the vote of that brain dead old lady? Why not crowd the polls with Alzheimer’s patients?


#53

No different tune here, young man.

I don’t care if it’s the right or the left (and I suspect PD thinks the same), if you’re so easily mislead, it’s good you went to the wrong polling place and you’re vote didn’t count.

Question for you: Do you think convicted felons should be able to vote?


#54

What’s up champ?

I have no idea what any of that has to do with foreign state actors (or domestic for that matter) using tools of communication like the email and internet to mislead people into missing their opportunity to vote, perhaps by misstating when or where they are to vote. If enough emails and texts went out, you can guarantee that some percentage of the population would be fooled. I never made comments about people with Alzheimer’s, but it is funny how you’d apply a test to a Constitutional right, like voting and then point out the most egregious examples of people who, by all right you may be right, shouldn’t vote.

I’m curious, would you apply those same tests to firearm ownership?

If you can’t “add or subtract, multiply, or divide whole numbers, tell what state you’re in, and at least write a coherent sentence to express yourself, you certainly cannot grasp the issues.”

“Now I’m not necessarily saying understanding the issues will make you conservative (although I think it should), but how in the heck can you ̶V̶O̶T̶E̶ own a firearm if you don’t even have the capacity to understand …?”

Capture

BJ, the point is that you’re doing EXACTLY what the left does in trying to circumvent the Constitution because you believe you have a better way.

You bring up some excellent points that deserve to be debated but don’t conflate the issue I’m raising here, which is deciding who can vote, from who should vote.

As far as the patriot comment. I apologize. The level of hypocrisy here pissed me off and I knew that would be the equivalent of stoking a cat the wrong way. So again, sincerely, I’m sorry for saying that. I know you love this country just as much as I do.

My father served in Vietnam from 62’-74’ and while I didn’t serve myself, I sacrificed my father for this country. No, he wasn’t killed, but the man who came home was not the man that left.

I appreciate your service, even if figuritively, I’d like to kick your ass :wink: (please take that as the joke it was intended to be, the kick your ass thing, not the appreciation)

As far as the right to vote…

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any [federal or state] election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fifteenth states that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote” can’t be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can’t be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” in federal elections can’t be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects “[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote.”

Funny, the Constitution doesn’t use the word “privilege” anywhere with respect to voting…And I should remind you that the Constitution doesn’t often proclaim rights in the affirmative.

But if the Constitution has to say “here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person,” there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn’t say “every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion”, it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See? Look through the others you’ll see a similar pattern…


#55

Democrats already DO that. Nursing home workers get their charges to vote absentee and “HELP” them fill out their ballots. We discovered that the first year my MIL was in an assisted living center. We picked her up to take her to vote and discovered that she’d “already voted absentee.” SHE didn’t know that she had, BTW.


#56

I don’t recall him suggesting anything of the sort. In clarification, he did say that if someone can’t figure out where to vote, it’s just as well that they went to the wrong place and their vote didn’t count. That’s not the same thing as I.Q. tests (other than their own ignorance leading them to the wrong place) or circumventing the Constitution. I don’t like the idea of Russian meddling, but that particular variety (if it actually took place) would do little to influence people who dare to not let other people do their thinking for them and a lot to out themselves as meddlers.

By the way, I’m interested in seeing an answer to this:


#57

Where’s the question, FC?

Fact is, the Russians/Soviets have been “interfering” in U.S. affairs for a century…if not longer. Admittedly, their efforts have become a bit more sophisticated in recent decades. Russians have a reputation for being pretty ham-handed, but they CAN be quite devious and circumspect in their dealings with us. For all the “claims” of “Russian Interference” in the 2016 election, I have YET to see one iota of proof that it actually happened. That’s not saying there IS no proof…just that none has been made public and, given the predilection of “The Swamp” to leak like a sieve, if any proof existed, we’d KNOW about it by now


#58

I don’t see a question.


#59

It’s not a question per se, but it’s a challenge to your position as to the viability (and thus likelihood) of Russia doing what you’re saying they might.


#60

I think he did pretty well.

Without going through the entire thread (I’ve been busy lately, sorry), I would like to mention something:

In the not too distant past it was all the rage to question our intel when it was Republicans in charge.

Remember that folks?

How everyone on the left swore up and down that the intel leading to Iraq, and Afghanistan was wrong?
CIA was wrong? FBI was wrong? Military Intel was wrong? Allied nation intel was wrong?

So what happened? I know the answer!

See, Obama was in charge and he cleaned out all of the bad intel people, and replaced it with good intel people! He removed all of the bad people in the Dept of Justice, and left only the good people! He removed all of the bad military commanders (like Mattis) and replaced them with good military commanders!

Now Comrade Cheeto Asshat has removed all of the good people and we’re back to bad people again.

Oh my… the mind of a liberal is a dark, and disturbing place. Trying to find logic or common sense in there is painful at best.