President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

An FBI agent, like everyone else, has a right to opinions, including political opinions.

And, he also has the responsibility to recuse himself from the investigation if he is unable to carry out his duties or remove himself if his involvement could be perceived as conflicted. I’m not saying he felt he couldn’t have done his job, I’m saying if he knew he had sent the texts in question and he must’ve felt they wouldn’t somehow become an issue. He was a fool. Talk about arrogance.

All of us have political opinions, but we set them aside when we do our jobs. We are professionals. How arrogant it is for these GOP congressmen to suggest this agent is unable to have a personal opinion and still act in a fair and professional manner in his job.

Also, your premise seems to be that we would ALL put aside our personal politics to do our job, if that’s what you’re saying, what is the evidence that supports this? We know that we aren’t supposed to steal cars, but some of us do. We know we shouldn’t embezzle, but some of us do. It’s kind of arrogant of you to simply suggest that someone finding this troubling is anything but appropriate. Put the shoe on the other foot, if this were Benghazi or liberal centric investigation, you really think Dems would be sitting on their hands and eating popcorn?

As for the tax cut, experience tells us that corporations will use this extra money to pay dividends or buy back outstanding stock. As far as capex goes, big companies tend to enhance automation when they have extra earnings like they are now anticipating. And, not to put too fine a point on it, we are essentially at full employment now at around 4.1%. Anecdotal evidence may vary, but the economists are telling the politicians that this "jumpstart the economy" stuff is bilge water.

And, I answered the question from a perspective of small to midsize businesses, which is my professional area of expertise and then noted my current experience. I wasn’t talking about public companies as most sm to mid-size biz are not publicly owned. But, they are where lots of job creation occurs.

[Bernie Brewer]

This is becoming a pattern, even when Democrats try to do the right thing by correcting a news story or admitting to sexual misconduct (or in this case, firing a partisan investigator), it's never good enough for the right wingers (who refuse to apologize for their own sometimes heinous actions). The fact that Peter Strzok was FIRED for his partisanship means nothing to the Fox News faithful and Trump supporters in general. They want blood.

It is as if you think your sainted Democrats would do anything else, where it not politically expedient.

[Bernie Brewer]

Following up on your thoughts...there was a guy on television this morning who said the American people found Donald Trump "not guilty" of sexual assault in November 2016. The idea of claiming this issue was decided by the election is pathetic to me.

If we must connect the two, however, one thing is clear. The Electoral College may elect the President, but questions of innocence and guilt are left up to the popular vote.

You’re not really saying what I think you’re saying, are you? I’ll assume the first sentence renders the second as sort of absurd.

No, you’re not!

[cardboardbox]

Trump and his minions spend the last several months slagging the US intelligence services, and just to show Cheeto who's really in charge in this relationship, Putin smacks him on the nose with a newspaper.



WaPo Mail alerts...

I fail to see whats wrong with this quote. Isnt this a good thing?

[Redbirds Fan]

That guy is your team's newest Senator--Doug Jones

No. The guy I'm talking about literally said the people found Trump not guilty, that it didn't happen. Jones is trying to spread oil on the waters, while the guy I saw was gaslighting us. There's a big difference to me.

[Redbirds Fan]

You’re not really saying what I think you’re saying, are you? I’ll assume the first sentence renders the second as sort of absurd.

No, you’re not!

Gee, Bernie. It's getting to where I feel the need to spell everything out.

Okay. It is stupid and pathetic to say that the election constituted a finding of "not guilty" on the issue of whether Trump has engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct toward these various women who have accused him. Hard stop. (Parenthetically, it is similarly stupid and pathetic to suggest, as Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeatedly does, that Trump's victory constitutes an endorsement by the American people of whatever particular Trump policy she happens to be promoting that day.)

EVEN IF WE WERE TO ASSUME that the election constituted a finding on the issue of whether Trump is a sexual predator of some type (which it does not, per above), Trump won only the Electoral College and not the popular vote. It is thus ironic his supporters would claim validation by the election, since the jury analogy only works when juries vote numerically in your favor and the jury/electorate did not vote numerically in Trump's favor. To emphasize the irony and stupidity of it, I stated it forcefully in the affirmative instead of the negative. You know that I was being ironical because the first sentence clearly states that the idea of claiming that the issue was decided by the election is pathetic. In addition, the second paragraph begins with the local conditioner "If we must connect the two...."

It is exhausting having to explain what I think is really pretty clear. No, the election did not resolve Trump's sexual assault issues, as much as he and his supporters want that to be the case. Even if one were to agree that an election were somehow like a jury verdict, which could find someone "not guilty" of something, the majority of the jury did not vote for Trump. More questions?

[Redbirds Fan]

And, he also has the responsibility to recuse himself from the investigation if he is unable to carry out his duties or remove himself if his involvement could be perceived as conflicted. I’m not saying he felt he couldn’t have done his job, I’m saying if he knew he had sent the texts in question and he must’ve felt they wouldn’t somehow become an issue. He was a fool. Talk about arrogance.

Also, your premise seems to be that we would ALL put aside our personal politics to do our job, if that’s what you’re saying, what is the evidence that supports this? We know that we aren’t supposed to steal cars, but some of us do. We know we shouldn’t embezzle, but some of us do. It’s kind of arrogant of you to simply suggest that someone finding this troubling is anything but appropriate. Put the shoe on the other foot, if this were Benghazi or liberal centric investigation, you really think Dems would be sitting on their hands and eating popcorn?

And, I answered the question from a perspective of small to midsize businesses, which is my professional area of expertise and then noted my current experience. I wasn’t talking about public companies as most sm to mid-size biz are not publicly owned. But, they are where lots of job creation occurs.

This is just bullshit, Bernie. Neither an agent (nor a prosecutor) is required to recuse because someone on the side of the party being investigated or prosecuted perceives him to be conflicted. He sent texts to his girlfriend. Mueller went above and beyond what was required by kicking him off the team.

My evidence is the screening, training and experience which goes into this agent getting and keeping his job. As I have said here before, FBI agents are the best of the best in law enforcement. It takes a special kind of arrogance for these GOP Congressmen to advance the lame argument that these emails somehow invalidate the Mueller investigation.

[Redbirds Fan]

Even though Bernie and I disagree on the issue of the FBI agent emails, I admire the fact that he is the guy who stepped up and answered the tough questions I put out there. That's what moves the ball forward, in my opinion...staking out a position and then being able and willing to defend it. Thanks, Bernie, for trying to keep us from becoming an echo chamber.

[Bernie Brewer]

Even though Bernie and I disagree on the issue of the FBI agent emails, I admire the fact that he is the guy who stepped up and answered the tough questions I put out there. That's what moves the ball forward, in my opinion...staking out a position and then being able and willing to defend it. Thanks, Bernie, for trying to keep us from becoming an echo chamber.

Damnit. Ya shoulda seen my response that I gave up on posting.

Look, what I’ll add is this, I get just as frustrated reading some of the highly partisan lefty leaning posts on here and I understand that the righty leaning ones are not frustration free zones by any means. It’s a very frustrating political environment. The whole fricking Trump Presidency frustrates the living crap out of me and I get that my level is only about 25% of the level of frustration the left leaning people are feeling. But echo chambers aren’t helping. Calling people out for “bullshit” doesn’t help. Belittling someone for thier experiences and opinions doesn’t help. In fact, all of that causes people to clinch their fists tighter, fight back harder and become more entrenched and emotionally invested in thier positions. It ceases conversation, stifles understanding and perpetuates disrespect and much worse, sadly. So, let’s just talk to each other (or write, as it were) instead of screaming at each other. This too shall pass, and if we think the Union will fail because of this then we aren’t the students of history we claim to be. It’s all going to be OK. It is going to be a bumpy ride, no doubt, but this too shall pass.

[Redbirds Fan]

I agree that things are more partisan than ever before, and there is a reason for that. Donald Trump, more than any President since Nixon, sees the world around him as ever-shifting coalitions of enemies out to topple him from power, and his only strategy is to attack, attack, attack as viciously as possible.

What people seem not to realize is that this twisted perspective is not a bug of Trumpism, but a feature. In fact, it is the only consistent philosophical underpinning.

Anyone who thinks I am off the mark here, please jump in and explain how this is not correct. In doing so, please point out how his conduct is consistent with anything else.

[Hornsby]

Apparently public humiliation is their Kryptonite...

U.S. district judge nominee Matthew Petersen withdrew his nomination in the wake of an exchange with Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) last week that went viral after Petersen was unable to answer rudimentary questions about the law.

The White House confirmed he has withdrawn his nomination but had no further comment.

Petersen is a commissioner with the Federal Election Commission, and a clip of his exchange with Kennedy quickly garnered a lot of attention online and stoked speculation that his nomination could be at risk.

WaPo email Alerts

[gcstomp]

While it is obvious that the country is more partisan than ever, I have issue with a seemingly obsessive need to look for ways to make something political, and in finding some connection that could be attributed as somehow related to one party, null that as being partisan. I am thinking of the climate change reality, and the grasping at straws to make it balanced by giving weight to what should not have weight. This is settled science, but media approaches this area with giving equal time to "both sides" as if the science of it is somehow a political pawn.

Same way, multitudes of issues do have a right and wrong, but now we have to play this game of tiptoe around facts, around truth, around right and wrong, reducing everything to politics, and in that reduction spit out that on any particular issue both sides have 50/50 weight.

[TranaGreg]

While it is obvious that the country is more partisan than ever, I have issue with a seemingly obsessive need to look for ways to make something political, and in finding some connection that could be attributed as somehow related to one party, null that as being partisan. I am thinking of the climate change reality, and the grasping at straws to make it balanced by giving weight to what should not have weight. This is settled science, but media approaches this area with giving equal time to "both sides" as if the science of it is somehow a political pawn.

Same way, multitudes of issues do have a right and wrong, but now we have to play this game of tiptoe around facts, around truth, around right and wrong, reducing everything to politics, and in that reduction spit out that on any particular issue both sides have 50/50 weight.

good post.

[baldgriff]

While it is obvious that the country is more partisan than ever, I have issue with a seemingly obsessive need to look for ways to make something political, and in finding some connection that could be attributed as somehow related to one party, null that as being partisan. I am thinking of the climate change reality, and the grasping at straws to make it balanced by giving weight to what should not have weight. This is settled science, but media approaches this area with giving equal time to "both sides" as if the science of it is somehow a political pawn.

Same way, multitudes of issues do have a right and wrong, but now we have to play this game of tiptoe around facts, around truth, around right and wrong, reducing everything to politics, and in that reduction spit out that on any particular issue both sides have 50/50 weight.

good post

[Fresno Bob]

science isn't and shouldn't be political
basic knowledge of the constitution and the law isn't and shouldn't be political
sexual harrassment isn't and shouldn't be political