'I think I’d take it' Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

Old Rosey was pretty chummy with Joe Stalin.

 

Hillary just paid for her foreign dirt up front, and by proxy. Comey put the official FBI stamp of approval on unverified foreign gossip and submitted it to FISA. There are zero standards for accepting "dirt" or utilizing it. No holds barred oppo research ... very progressive isn't it?

 

If democrats have taught us anything is that if someone has oppo on your opponent, you use it.

 

And even say it has been verified if it hasn't been --- to the FISA judge.

 

I seem to remember the issue being accepting help in exchange for something.

Backroom deals with foreign interests are bad.

Nothing wrong with free dirt...

 

Like paying for dirt on Trump by Russians.

 

Help from an enemy of democracy always extracts some price.

 

Trump is just playing with the MSM to give a boost to the Piss Dossier story that's coming out.

 

Why?

Do remember who Trump was running against. Even an 'enemy of democracy' would fear WW3. Given HillaBush's disposition, anyone with half a brain would want to help prevent her from accessing the red button. Thats more than reward enough.

 

You forget that Hillary Clinton once held a position of high power in the Obama administration serving as Secretary of State. She could have done a great deal of damage in that position if she was an agent of Russia, as Trump is. But, she is not and never was.

Now I feel that I have to sink down to the level of a first-grader and explain this to you in terms that you will be able to grasp? Okay, I'll give it a try.

Man #1 who is president of the largest democracy and greatest power in the entire world is given "information" from Man #2 who hates that democracy, wants to destroy that democracy, wants to cause trouble for that democracy, so he gives him some kind of made up crap "information" to Man #1 and Man #1 says "I love it".

Man #2 knows now that he can hold this over Man #1's head, and even blackmail him threatening to tell that he's the one that gave Man #1 this false information to help him win. So now Man #1 is scared of being caught colluding with a bad actor --Man #2 -- and because he's so afraid of being outed he gives Man #1 a lot of 'stuff' that he wants. Maybe it's selling him airplanes or missiles. Maybe it's top secret information that he has access to. Maybe it's giving him top secret US technology.

This doesn't end well for the country when this type of dirty business is conducted with a country that hates the US and wants it destroyed from the inside out.

 

History proves differently:
Russia offered to help Adlai Stevenson win the White House in 1960. In fact, at the time, Russian officials held a meeting with the Illinois Democrat to offer Moscow’s assistance.

Stevenson refused, left the meeting, went home, and documented every detail he could remember. He then quickly went to the authorities, explaining that a foreign adversary had just tried to intervene in American presidential election.

Eight years later, when Russia offered similar assistance to Hubert Humphrey, that didn’t go well for the USSR, either.

We can go back even further. Historian Michael Beschloss yesterday noted correspondence John Adams sent to Thomas Jefferson on December 6, 1787, about American elections, “You are apprehensive of foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence,” Adams wrote to his longtime rival. “So am I.”

-Steve Benen

 

You just described the Soviet Union. Even a first grader understands the problem with that analogy.

My previous statement regarding the liklihood that someone would happily offer free dirt for merely the reward of its effects stands regardless.

Also of note: you realize you're complaining about the revelation of truth, right?

 

When a politician accepts help from a foreign country, they are tacitly endorsing that country. This is not so much a problem with respect to allies like Israel and Britain. It is a huge problem with respect to adversaries like China, Russia, and N. Korea.

To put it simpler terms, if a President ever has to rally the country towards action against a foe, wouldn't it be better if said President had never accepted help from that foe? Of course it would be better.

 

Voters get the government the deserve, and oh boy, do they ever deserve Trump, especially those on the Left.

 

he's dragged the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief down to his level. He has trashed ethical standards. He has offended America's closest allies and arse kissed its most ardent opponents. He has squandered the government's intellectual capital. He has weakened America's global diplomatic footprint. He has placed commerce over the health and welfare of the populace. He has widened the wealth gap. He has massively increased the deficit. He has abdicated leadership in human rights, the environment, alternative energy, to name but a few of the major geopolitical issues. He has reneged on his countries international commitments.

And to top it all off, he has just clearly stated that he would definitely see nothing wrong and would in fact engage in the very behavior he has been savagely denyin' and lyin' about for the past two years of a vast democratic witch hunt. And not only that, he also just told the rest of the world that he is open to accepting dirt on his domestic political opponents - your PRESIDENT Making America great again, with a little help from its enemies. And he sees nothing wrong with that. Pathetic.

 

He not only would listen, he'd take it. And guess what, listening to info is taking it in. Its just one of the ways we humans communicate and learn.

ACtively pursuing it? By agreeing to it listen you are "active" in the pursuit of the info being offered. Acceptance is not a passive act, it is an decided action.

 

POE.

either that or a rare mind.

 

The news is not where i get my information on crime. That information should come from the DOJ.

 

Thoes are all your opinions.

Quite frankly getting out of the iran and climate deals were great. As was getting rid of the individual mandate on Obamacare.
Thoes things made America better.
His tax cuts immediately improved the investment outlook and you can say nothing bad about our current economy.
There is nothing wrong with giving out allies a wake up call once in a while especially thoes who avoided being taken over by communism because of our involvement and aid.

America is much better now than under Obama or Bush for that matter.

I'm sorry you don't like your president. I don't either but he isn't destroying the country he isn't trying to be a dictator. He is doing what he was elected to do.
Not a dictator, just an uncouth dick.

 

For many years I wondered how the German people during the 1930s, found Hitler so appealing. Now, I'm watching my fellow Americans supporting Trump in that same manner, & I'm just as mystified & confused by that. Due to their support of Hitler, the Germans lost their democracy. Are Americans going to allow Trump to destroy democracy in the U.S.? I never dreamed Americans would ever be dumb enough to support a mentally ill personality over their own Constitution. But, apparently I was wrong. Sad. . .VERY SAD.

 

The DOJ hasn't investigated him or indicted him yet.

Some of the things he has done is to jettison all traditional methods of work like consultation with the DOJ; say "the FBI Director is wrong"; repeatedly offending and disparaging allies while praising despots and dictators; holding secret meetings with adversaries and ordering the destruction of any notes taken; running a business catering to foreign dignitaries; nepotism; discussing political strategies daily with a news and entertainment network host (Hannity); skipping PDBs; calling people childish names if they disagree with him; making unilateral and grossly uninformed decisions followed by executive orders; welcoming foreign interference in our elections if it benefits him; lying about congressmen and congressional leaders (Pelosi "lost it" and "is a mess", etc.); ordering staff to obstruct justice by lying to, or refusing to speak to congress; etc, etc, etc.

Some of these are very unpresidential and some are crimes.

 

And those are all YOUR opinions. So that was an exchange of opinions. Here's one of mine: if you can't see that Trump is working to set himself up as a totalitarian despot, a dictator, an autocrat, or a tyrant (take your pick) then you just aren't looking.

Now, my last post above, #71 is not opinion, and I'm prepared to prove it by detailing out any of them for you.

 

So, let me ask you this, what happens November 2020 if he isn't re elected?
Is he gonna take over by military force?

Or are your comments about him just hyperbole.

Those are your only two choices.

Either he is trying to be a despotic dictator or he isn't.

 

The only issue is whether he can be stopped or not. And that depends on our two political parties.

 

That's not what happened. At all.

Do a little research. It'll save the terrible analogy attempts.