It was lying under oath.

About BJs.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I think it's more broadly lying to Federal investigators (bad whether or not it's officially under oath) and/or lying under oath before Congress or a grand jury. But deciding how big a deal to make out of that is often political. For example it's not hard to find more serious case of lying than Clinton lying about BJs. Yet he was impeached.

That is the biggest risk to Trump and his surrogates, though. They have no trouble lying to the media/public. I wonder if they're able to flip off that switch and use the Clinton-esque carefully parsed legal-ese (E.g. "I did not meet with those Russians.") when they need to.

Folks still don't get his base. His base is loving this. Senate republicans are largely despised by Trump's base, which is primarily anti-establishment. I too support the deal.

Also folks don't understand that Trumps' wall and daca policy positions were more statement of principle rather than policy. The wall was his way of saying, with a concrete example, "I will enforce immigration laws." If he says tomorrow, "illegal border crossings are hugely decreased and thus I don't think we should invest quite as much in the wall right now," his base will be fine. From reports I've heard, illegal border crossings have decrease greatly. Am I correct in this thinking?

I hope that Trump does a deal with Pelosi and Schumer to repair Obamacare. If Republicans are not going to repeal and replace as promised, then we are stuck with it and might as well get it working better. But Trump won't do that this year as he still wants the republicans to pass tax reform. If Congressional republicans don't pass tax reform this year, I expect Trump to do deals with dems on lots of subjects next year. And good for him as the republicans will have established themselves as useless.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Fake News!

drn92

Folks still don't get his base.

Also folks don't understand that Trumps' wall and daca policy positions were more statement of principle rather than policy.

The wall was his way of saying, with a concrete example, "I will enforce immigration laws."

I've now heard 5 different explanations from his base and each one has said "people don't understand his base." Then, each person will offer their "interpretation" of what Trump meant to say without him actually saying it, on one or more of his principles, or policies, or tweets or if he was kidding or being sarcastic or if he really meant it.

I don't think his base understands his base.

Finally, someone who has posted something in this thread that makes sense, and is accurate. Bravo, Bravo!!!

Now back to reading the usual suspects inaccurate analysis, of everything.

I think this pretty much covers it:


Again there are those who still find him a useful idiot in that he's simply not Hillary or whoever else that's worse, but there are other who keep juicing their panties no matter what he does, including some of the exact same shit they complained to no end about when it was Obama doing it.

How is working with Pelosi and Schumer in any way "anti-establishment?" That can't be any more "establishment." Schumer has been in Congress since 1981 and Pelosi since 1987. The only way that it's "anti-establishment" is that it's so incredibly establishment that it shocked the establishment. Which I guess is sort of anti-establishment.



That's a politician's smarmy politically-correct language you're using. A non-politician wouldn't say "more statement of principle rather than policy." The non-politician would use the simpler, more direct term: "lie." And Trump wasn't supposed to be a politician.

Stop. You can't talk sense to a Trumper. You just can't. Don't bother.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Finally, someone who has posted something in this thread that makes sense, and is accurate. Bravo, Bravo!!!

So you agree with Chuck and Nancy on increasing the debt ceiling without offsetting spending cuts?

I want a Trump supporter to come out and say they support Pelosi and Schumer because I need a new signature line.

P.S - I edited to change the names to Chuck and Nancy since you are probably pretty close.

It's pretty clear that the republicans don't want to work with him.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Are you serious? We disagree often, but you are usually well reasoned.

McConnell and Ryan are also part of the establishment by your definition (which I take roughly to be "been there a long time"). So by your reasoning Trump can do no deals with any Congressional leadership.

Do you feel that the country was served by the previous skirmishes between dems and repubs in Congress over the debt ceiling? How long has this been going on? Do you recall a previous debt ceiling skirmish where you can say the game played in Washington served important objectives? Which one comes to your mind as important?

Trump's base sees him as announcing to Congress, "I don't want to play this silly game, you guys do something serious." That is anti-establishment. Brilliant.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Not just that. They're talking about repealing the debt ceiling entirely.

I get it. Trump sees an opportunity from Harvey, Irma, and maybe Jose to get a lot of positive press. And part of that is getting a lot of money through Congress and quickly to Texas and probably Florida soon. And to do that quickly without making any other budget cuts in the upcoming budget negotiations, he needs to clear that ceiling out entirely.

Well this whole thing has changed my opinions of people and their thinking. You'd think that after getting beat over and over again, people would give some credit to their opponents capabilities. But no, they are still stuck in denial. Certainly there is a cult: the one that can't face reality.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

OK, I'm going off the basis that the "Trump base" is kind of the same as the "Breitbart crowd." Maybe I'm not totally on target there, but there's pretty high correlation I'd bet.

Check out this Breitbart article from just a couple weeks ago, about McConnell pledging to raise the debt ceiling.

The comments from self-described Trump supporters are pretty clear on this subject:

"TRUMP! VETO ALL Ryan/McConnell OMNIBUS SPENDING BILLS!"

"Hopefully President Trump you do the right thing here. VETO!"

"Other than his Mother, and a bunch of corrupt scumbag lobbyists, I can't image anyone thinking Mitch's job performance is worth a d @mn."

"All politicians need to be FBI investigated fairly and lock up the swamp creatures that are defrauding Crony Capitalism American and MAGA again with true capitalism. " (emphasis mine)

"Call for McConnell's resignation! Enough is enough."


Then Trump does it and it's brilliant! Nevermind about those calls to veto. We just weren't brilliant enough two weeks ago. Now it's cool --MAGA with no debt ceiling!

Then Trump does it and it's brilliant! Nevermind about those calls to veto. We just weren't brilliant enough two weeks ago. Now it's cool --MAGA with no debt ceiling!


Now you've done it, presented an argument that directly conflicts something they strongly believed during the Obama administration and in fact, up to the moment just before Trump worked with Nancy and Chuck.


Nancy, Chuck, Obama and the almost every single Democrat wanted an increase in the debt ceiling for years and the conservatives and every single Republican refused unless there were offsetting spending cuts.

You guys need fiscal conservatives and have to stop listening to the liberals. Trump, his supporters, Nancy and Chuck are going to bankrupt your country.

When trail says something, I always am interested. High respect for trail.

My proposition is as follows: the comments section of ANY web article may provide entertainment as may, on occasion, defecation, but after the laugh, flush the damn toilet.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Then Trump does it and it's brilliant! Nevermind about those calls to veto. We just weren't brilliant enough two weeks ago. Now it's cool --MAGA with no debt ceiling!


It really is a head scratcher and I still haven't heard a reasonable response from any Republican, which is why most are very upset. I am a fiscal conservative so am particularly dumbfounded as to why Trump is fine with increasing the debt. I can see Nancy and Chuck, they are proponents of big government but this makes no sense to me.

Maybe it's a good thing since it shows that Trump is far more similar to the Democrats than I thought and maybe things can get done as a result but of all the issues where a common ground could be reached, increasing spending and the debt is just not the one where I thought a compromise would be reached.


Trump is really risking getting things done though as a growing number of Republicans (I believe 90 are opposed to his love triangle with Chuck and Nancy) are now going to be tough to work with on tax reform.