Need to get a copy of Stormy Daniels book. Goes into graphic detail if you can stomach it, says it was the worst 60 seconds of her life.
1 Like
Fake news! It was 90 seconds.
1 Like
I wouldnāt believe a word she said about anything. I mean, she chose Michael Avenatti as her lawyer. Sheās not exactly well endowed in the brain or sense departments.
When youāve sat down to read a book like that, youāve already decided to suspend disbelief.
Me, thatās not my genre.
2 Likes
US citizens that want to feel confident that the president is making decisions in the best interests of the nation rather than putting his own personal business interests first care.
Youāre right, heās not obligated to. But as the leader of the free world, the decisions he makes affects peopleās day to day lives. Thatās a reason to care about it. Theyāve invested the future of the country in his leadership.
Some are willing to take what he says at face valueāsome no matter whatābut others are concerned about potential conflicts of interest from his business dealings.
Transparency would make people more confident in his ability to lead, and even better put an end to the witch hunt.
.
Schwartz was receiving serious heat for being a Nazi sympathizer when the media found out he was the ghost writer of the book. Supposedly Trump and him dislike each other now soā¦meh.
Completely agree. Iām glad youāre willing to stand up to Trump for his continued attacks on the free press and threats of retribution against journalists.
The only thing to clearly disagree w/ here off the bat is your claim that Iām smart.
Agree that Dems have better things to pursueāin my eyes theyāve learned nothing and continue to fixate on Trump at the expense of focusing on doing things that help people. But I donāt believe itās only the dems in the back and forth.
As far as the politeness thing, we could all be more civil in the way we debate, but letās rewind to what was the ugliest, least polite, most offensive political campaign in the history of America. So an appeal to civility from the party of grab em by the pussy, Pocohantas, libtards, congressmen interrupting a presidential addressāfor the first time in the nations historyāwith āyou lieā, etc prob isnāt gonna go very far. For a party that was loving 20 years of Rush Limbaugh, that appeal reads more like a demand to capitulate than a genuine desire for civility.
To be fair I havenāt paid much attention to the Barr case and Iāll take your word for it that itās politically motivated. But my two replies, for what its worth:
Iām not a partisan by any stretch. Iāll vote for any candidate based on the merit of their policies. The Dems now are pretty much 1980ās era republicans in their overall approach so I have no allegiance to themāespecially after running Clinton. Iām registered as a Democrat but certainly able to entertain ideas put forward by the GOP. So in the interests of breaking the partisan football match Iād appreciate if youād stop insinuating Iām unable to do so. Iām a big fan of the EPA (Nixon), tax on cigarettes in NYC (Bloomberg).
When the GOP start putting forward some ideas that help people, Iāll be first in line to vote for them.
As far as ends justify the means: Is there anything in the GOP that isnāt about that? Gerrymandering districts, obstructing voter registration, holding up Supreme Court nominations, outright obstructionism as policy. From what I gather, GOP supporters donāt seem overly concerned with partisanship when itās their interests. Any party running Trump as president is pretty solidly in the āanything goesā category. Glass houses. Stones. etc.
The fact that dirty politics is acceptable to the GOP but not their opponents is pretty telling here. This is an issue about who has the right to be rude to who.
hope all is well
1 Like
Donāt kid yourself, nothing ends the witch hunt. Not to say Iām not for transparency, I am. The Democrats have changed the tone from a polite debate between two sides where each side debates their carefully considered stance on issues to one of a battlefield mentality where anything goes and winning by any means necessary is justified. The ends justify the means.
The Democrats just found AG Barr in contempt, for not providing the complete unredacted version of the Mueller report. Something he canāt do by law, because it has Grand Jury material in it. He provided an almost completely unredacted version for them to view privately, which not one Democrat took the opportunity to do and they found him guilty of contempt in about 5 minutes flat, unlike the Republicans that took 6 months of going back and forth with AG Holder regarding Fast and Furious disclosures. It stinks, and you know it. The aim is to discredit the AG.
I would put it to you, the reason for that is they know they are on the clock. Youāre a smart guy and I think you have followed enough to know what the Republicans are alleging, which if you can suspend your disbelief for just a moment and entertain that possibility. I donāt think for a second, no matter how partisan you may be, you would want to be sure what the Republicans are alleging took place should never happen.
1 Like
Putting words in my mouth again? Thatās OK. I believe in free speech.
More interesting that whether they actually like each other or not or the usual culture war blar blar (no prizes for for guessing they dislike each other ) is the genesis of the book.
Tony Schwartz said that he came up with the title first and that was the key to its success . Itās a great book title.
Do you believe Trumpās intimidation of journalists, revoking press credentials for media sources critical of his policies, and threats of retribution against journalists are OK? Those are direct attacks on freedom of speech and the right to free expression.
Are you willing to say heās wrong to do that?
1 Like
Waitā¦are you calling Acosta a journalist? But seriously, the American press is free to criticize and attack Trump as much as it wants, and it does so all day every day. Do they look at all cowed to you? Give me a break. And Trump, of course, is free to criticize the press, which he does with gusto.
1 Like
I like that before the leaks we were all supposed to stick to the topic of Trumpās tax returns; WHAT IS HE HIDING? WHY??? WHERE???
Then the leaks showed that he simply had companies working at a loss (something that everyone already knew), so now the thread has become:āYeah taxes whateverā¦letās talk about other things that Sblombf has done or is doing!ā.
I completely agree with you that Trump is free to criticize the press.
However, revoking press credentials, threats and intimidation and stifling reporters with dissenting opinions is a different issue and a direct attack on freedom of press. Are you willing to say to heās wrong to do this?
1 Like
No, because thereās zero evidence that anything heās done has had any kind of chilling effect on freedom of the press. If anything, heās emboldened them. Watching pampered, narcissistic ājournalistsā like Acosta play the victim is just ludicrous.
1 Like
And donāt forget about Sblombf Jr.
yet you bag on Brexiteers like thereās no tomorrowā¦ :
āYeah, trump tax returns didnāt show anythingā¦BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS SON? WAS HE USING HIM TO HIDE SHADY STUFF??? MOAR SUBPOENAS!!!ā
Itās going to happen, we all know it.