Collusion

[richard burch]

how about some good ol' groping?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...weinstein.html

[richard burch]

Just wondering....if a broadcast network, national, cable or other, went on the air everyday with the sole purpose of bringing down the POTUS and the u.s. government, is that OK under the 1ST amendment?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by richard burch

Just wondering....if a broadcast network, national, cable or other, went on the air everyday with the sole purpose of bringing down the POTUS and the u.s. government, is that OK under the 1ST amendment?

You mean..kinda like Fox did for the previous 8 years?

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You mean..kinda like Fox did for the previous 8 years?

I'm not mentioning names as we know who is affiliated to which party. The question pertains to ALL political parties. Just wondering if that is "legal" under the Amendment or should it be removed from the airwaves as some form of terrorism.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The truth has finally come out about the terrible collusion between Trump and Russia. This sounds like some serious collusion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/u...adopoulos.html

[jms62]

Certainly has

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

[casp0555]

Originally Posted by jms62

Certainly has

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Certainly has

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

That is Bannon's opinion. How is his opinion any more relevant that anyone else's, when it comes to his opinion of the ethics of Trump Jr meeting with the Russians. If Bannon tells us things that happened at the White House, that is relevant and/or interesting. But his opinion about the meeting is irrelevant. His knowledge of the details is relevant. But his opinion is not important. I think everyone pretty much has the same opinion on it any way. Everyone thinks the meeting was a bad idea. Trump Jr used extremely poor judgement.

I think the things that Bannon says have to be taken with somewhat of a grain of salt, since he is very angry at Trump for being fired. Don't get me wrong. I believe alot of what he says. I believe that most of the people working at the White House such as Priebus and many of the others thought that Trump was a nut, as Bannon said in the book. Apparently Tiller thinks Trump is an idiot. When you have that many people saying the same thing, there has to be some truth to it. I personally think Trump is a buffoon. I always knew he was a little nutty, but it turns out he is much worse than I was expecting. I knew he was somewhat volatile, immature, and undisciplined, but he is far worse than I was expecting. Despite that, I would still rather have him as President than Obama or Hillary.

Based on Trump's personality and disposition, I don't think he is particularly fit to be President. Despite that I still think we are way better off with him than Obama or Hillary. I certainly don't like someone in the White House who is a little bit crazy. But I'd rather have someone a little crazy than someone with terrible policies.

Going back to the original story, both the Trump campaign and the Hillary campaign were trying to dig up dirt on each other. I don't think either side cared who they got the dirt from, as long as they could find some dirt. Hillary's team did the same thing as Trump's team. They actually paid foreign enitities to come up with that phony dossier on Trump. Both sides did the same thing. It's wrong in both cases. But when you really think about it, what Hillary's team did was worse. They paid a foreign entity to dig up dirt. It's not as if Trump's team hired anyone. They simply said, "If you already have some dirt, we would love to see it." That is not nearly as bad as hiring a foreign entity to produce a phony dossier.