Wonder who the leaker is this time
https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...j-S9u1bnl_NZm5kOJeuQJDiPBg-SZUYxSWJ3A6W7tpI.A
NYT of today is a mere shadow of its former self, trafficking in anonymous sources and has been so wrong so many times lately. I Believe nothing they say...
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/...-senators-charge-in-opposing-appointment.html
Bolton Not Truthful, 36 Senators Charge in Opposing Appointment
NYT, so I thought byou'd be OK with the source
So, do you think being interviewed by the State Department inspector general is something that you forget about, or do you think Bolton is capable of lying?
Ok, I imagine there are a lot of people that hold that opinion. Nevertheless, the reporting may be true. If it is true, is that a problem for you, or is it still "meh?" If, by chance, you're dismissive of the allegations, indicating it isn't a big deal, why is there a need to be dismissive of the source that reported it?
If's and but's should not be a part of reporting the news. The American people shouldn't have to worry if a story "may be true." The fact that the NYT has had numerous reporting gaffs is enough for any rational person to doubt them as a trustworthy and respectable news source. Hell, even the liberal mecca of CNN called them out.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html
Edit: A simple Google search lists many more incidents.
When the Mueller investigation began, the hope of the TDS-ers was, "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire."
So you give those people smoke. It's easy and can be replicated infinitely. You will get them every time. Because they have no choice.
As for the personnel issue, the whole reaction to his election guarantees Trump's applicant pool is going to mostly be has-beens and never-beens. The Town has declared all-out war against him, and currently-established pros know Washington D.C. has a long memory. It would destroy their long-term careers to be associated with him. So they sit this dance out. It's the same reason Trump chose an evangelical wack-job from Indiana as running mate. There was literally no-one else available. Even Trump's friend Rick Scott from FL would not answer the call.
In retrospect, I cannot find much to criticize in this personnel strategy - nor much choice for him to do otherwise. When your agenda is as disruptive as Trump's, picking the kind of people he does actually has sort of an advantage. You actually need people who are disposable. When you're somebody like a George Bush, and your issue agenda is inimical to the interests of the average person, your security in the town comes from who you appoint, and how much the rest of the town approves of those people.
Trump is different. His strength, unlike most Presidents, does not in any way stem from the resume-quality of the people he appoints. And in fact, as I mentioned before, the so-called "best" candidates for those positions are essentially unavailable to him. His appeal is that he has about a third of the voters in this country so strongly with him, they would not abandon him if he dissected a puppy in Lafayette Square. And the GOP is therefore stuck with him, because if they alienate those voters, they have no hope of governing again in the short- to medium-term future. (They may not have it anyway; but pissing off those people guarantees failure). In this sense, the attitudes of these voters "count more" than the opinions of the professional elite, and it galls them immensely.
Trump appointees are going to provide a never-ending supply of smoke for the TDS-ers. And the President's detractors, in lapping this stuff up so eagerly, risk eventually tiring out the American public to where they could care less about this stuff. They're almost already there. If you went and stood next to the weenie-on-a-toothpick guy at Costco, and took a poll of people going by about whether or not America should _even_ be giving foreign aid to countries like Ukraine in the first place, I'd wager at least 60% of them will say, "Hell, no!" They do not even care about the underlying issue impeachment is _about_.
So I say, party-on, people. You're taking the one disfavorable thing you have about this President, and wearing it out to the point of apathy.
Ok, I imagine there are a lot of people that hold that opinion. Nevertheless, the reporting may be true. If it is true, is that a problem for you, or is it still "meh?" If, by chance, you're dismissive of the allegations, indicating it isn't a big deal, why is there a need to be dismissive of the source that reported it?
This seems like an impeachable crime to me:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bol...dered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1
Congress approved the military aid to the Ukraine, and the president froze it with the condition that it was announced the Biden's be investigated. Keep in mind it wasn't that the Bidens were investigated, but that it was announced that they were being investigated. The Ukraine could have just agreed to investigate the Bidens, and that should've been enough. The fact that it was required that it be announced indicates, at least to me, given that Biden is a potential presidential candidate, that the president was seeking a political benefit in said announcement. That, to me, is an abuse of power, and an impeachable event.
Biden’s what? Son? Butler? Housekeeper?
This seems like an impeachable crime to me:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bol...dered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1
Congress approved the military aid to the Ukraine, and the president froze it with the condition that it was announced the Biden's be investigated. Keep in mind it wasn't that the Bidens were investigated, but that it was announced that they were being investigated. The Ukraine could have just agreed to investigate the Bidens, and that should've been enough. The fact that it was required that it be announced indicates, at least to me, given that Biden is a potential presidential candidate, that the president was seeking a political benefit in said announcement. That, to me, is an abuse of power, and an impeachable event.
When the Mueller investigation began, the hope of the TDS-ers was, "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire."
So you give those people smoke. It's easy and can be replicated infinitely. You will get them every time. Because they have no choice.
As for the personnel issue, the whole reaction to his election guarantees Trump's applicant pool is going to mostly be has-beens and never-beens. The Town has declared all-out war against him, and currently-established pros know Washington D.C. has a long memory. It would destroy their long-term careers to be associated with him. So they sit this dance out. It's the same reason Trump chose an evangelical wack-job from Indiana as running mate. There was literally no-one else available. Even Trump's friend Rick Scott from FL would not answer the call.
In retrospect, I cannot find much to criticize in this personnel strategy - nor much choice for him to do otherwise. When your agenda is as disruptive as Trump's, picking the kind of people he does actually has sort of an advantage. You actually need people who are disposable. When you're somebody like a George Bush, and your issue agenda is inimical to the interests of the average person, your security in the town comes from who you appoint, and how much the rest of the town approves of those people.
Trump is different. His strength, unlike most Presidents, does not in any way stem from the resume-quality of the people he appoints. And in fact, as I mentioned before, the so-called "best" candidates for those positions are essentially unavailable to him. His appeal is that he has about a third of the voters in this country so strongly with him, they would not abandon him if he dissected a puppy in Lafayette Square. And the GOP is therefore stuck with him, because if they alienate those voters, they have no hope of governing again in the short- to medium-term future. (They may not have it anyway; but pissing off those people guarantees failure). In this sense, the attitudes of these voters "count more" than the opinions of the professional elite, and it galls them immensely.
Trump appointees are going to provide a never-ending supply of smoke for the TDS-ers. And the President's detractors, in lapping this stuff up so eagerly, risk eventually tiring out the American public to where they could care less about this stuff. They're almost already there. If you went and stood next to the weenie-on-a-toothpick guy at Costco, and took a poll of people going by about whether or not America should _even_ be giving foreign aid to countries like Ukraine in the first place, I'd wager at least 60% of them will say, "Hell, no!" They do not even care about the underlying issue impeachment is _about_.
So I say, party-on, people. You're taking the one disfavorable thing you have about this President, and wearing it out to the point of apathy.
If's and but's should not be a part of reporting the news. The American people shouldn't have to worry if a story "may be true." The fact that the NYT has had numerous reporting gaffs is enough for any rational person to doubt them as a trustworthy and respectable news source. Hell, even the liberal mecca of CNN called them out.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html
Edit: A simple Google search lists many more incidents.
If you hold this opinion, then it shouldn't be beyond criticizing the POTUS in the same way; as he too has had numerous gaffs and told numerous mistruths.
This seems like an impeachable crime to me:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bol...dered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1
Congress approved the military aid to the Ukraine, and the president froze it with the condition that it was announced the Biden's be investigated. Keep in mind it wasn't that the Bidens were investigated, but that it was announced that they were being investigated. The Ukraine could have just agreed to investigate the Bidens, and that should've been enough. The fact that it was required that it be announced indicates, at least to me, given that Biden is a potential presidential candidate, that the president was seeking a political benefit in said announcement. That, to me, is an abuse of power, and an impeachable event.
Wonder who the leaker is this time
https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...j-S9u1bnl_NZm5kOJeuQJDiPBg-SZUYxSWJ3A6W7tpI.A