It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Diver43 wrote: »
This was being discussed by some folks at work today. It seems that many feel that after receiving briefings Trump understands or at the least has an idea of how deep Government corruption goes. If Hillary or the Clintons were arrested and prosecuted they would bring down 3/4s of Washington and most high level State Governments. The deal is to let them go do what they do and carry on. I don't like it, but it kind of makes sense.
NCFUBAR wrote: »
While the Clinton should be investigated and very likely prosecuted Trump better worry about the economy, security and SCOTUS along with some other things before he stirs a bee hive. The Art of The Deal kinda makes me think he and his actions will likely follow the Clinton decision on other campaign promises ... do we really think he'll build a wall?
Varmintmist wrote: »
One promise down
horselips wrote: »
For cryin' out loud folks, RELAX. Geeezus. Give it a rest. Chill. He's not even inaugurated yet, and why he's even bothering talking to the press during this very busy transition period is a mystery to me. If I were Trump, I'd be telling the media, "don't call me, I'll call you, when I'm damn good and ready."
tubabucknut wrote: »
Jayhawker wrote: »
john9001 wrote: »
Trump is not even sworn in yet, and already the negative waves.
breamfisher wrote: »
When he said it at the debate, some of his opponents said it was the typical action of a petty, self-absorbed, vindictive individual to use the federal justice system to go after his vanquished opponent. I don't believe I saw that here, I might have, but it's something I saw from several sources. Not just Democrats, but some "Never Trumpers."
Now that he's won, he may be backing off on that, and some of the same people who had a problem with it for the above-listed reasons... are mad because he's "broken a promise."
I actually cringed when he said it, because I thought it was the typical action of a petty, self-absorbed, vindictive individual to use the federal justice system to go after his vanquished opponent - reminiscent of Idi Amin, Qaddafi, Duvalier, or any other tin-pot despot. I was actually hoping it was just political tough-talk. Trump is a BSer. It's what they do. If he does elect not to go after Clinton... it's a turn to the Presidential in my mind. Chasing after her after he won would never look good to at least half of the country. Yeah, we're not supposed to let appearances and public opinion dictate how we administer the law, but if you believe that's not the case, I have a bridge to sell you.
bisley wrote: »
It is one of the many broken promises that are going to become evident, soon. Get used to it and decide how many there has to be before you start calling him 'just another lying politician.' At least some of us who voted for him had our eyes wide open and knew he would not even attempt to do some of the things he promised. We just have to salvage what we can out of the promises he does keep, and try to imagine what it would have been like if he had not won.
Wambli Ska wrote: »
There is no winning by him driving a prosecution of Hillary. Half the country will see it as him abusively chasing after the "poor, defenseless woman" and the other half will probably give him a hard time about wasting time on a vendetta when much more important issues need his attention. Now, as the end of the SAME story in FoxNews pointed out,Trump's decision not to pursue charges against Clinton would not prevent congressional Republicans from opening investigations and referring them to the Justice Department for charges.
Sooooo, much like his comments on Roe Vs. Wade, where he said he'll appoint conservative judges and let them deal with it, Trump is pawning off an unpopular course of action into the hands of other's to hopefully the same effect. If the "aide" had said Trump would personally block any prosecution by the Justice Department, then I'd be worried but this could also be a play to give Hillary a false sense of assurance and allow Obama to slither out of the WH without pardoning her so she is still accountable. Way to many options here so I'll just stay tuned to developments rather than opinions, because again, crystal ball is broken...
And BTW I agree with you. My glee for Hillary not making it into the White House does not mean I have a completely rosy outlook of what we have. The government is one massive beast that is not easily brought under control and it is a TALL task to ask of any one man. SO, like you I'm cautiously optimistic about the future and my pounding of local and state level officials will be relentless on an ongoing basis.
DanChamberlain wrote: »
There are a few ways to drain a swamp. One, is to cut a channel and watch it flush. Another, is to stop the inflow and let it dry up.
It took 60 years to get here. I think it's unreasonable to expect it can be fixed in the time between election and inauguration.
There's a new sheriff about to take over justice. We'll see what "HIS" FBI decides to do. The president does not prosecute! It's not their position on the Trifecta. To expect that a president would "go after" a political rival using the law enforcement bodies is simply "unreasonable." It's not done. It's up to Sessions! The President will remain neutral on the subject and if it comes to that, will express dismay at the depths of corruption identified.
Trump is not the smartest bulb in the chandelier. But he knows that he needs architects to build hotels. So he needs experts to run his government. He's doing a pretty good job picking architects so far. Give him a break, or you're really no better than the snowflake reactionaries who are crying on youtube.
Temporary Price Reduction
Give a Gift
PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE
Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.