Trump pledges to move quickly to nominate new FBI chief

[darksidedog]

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Exactly how are "losers" not letting  him govern? Have they taken away the pen he uses to sign bills?

He can't sign bills, none of them have been passed! Worst President EVER!

[metisdead]

A grammar police troll post has been removed. 

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Get used to it if planning to keep responding to any thread on TVF with Trump in the headline. Abuse is the standard response to any post not attacking Trump. That's all the Trump haters have and it's making it pointless going on any Trump related thread. I guess if they just keep shouting down any opposing opinion till no pro Trump person posts they think they have won.

Expect any person proposed by Trump, no matter how qualified to attract a tirade of abuse from the Trump haters. The danger is that the best suited may not agree to serve, as not wanting the whole Democrat propaganda news cabal to attack them and everyone connected to them. I wouldn't blame them.

"That's all the Trump haters have"

 

                 Actually, what Trump-haters have; is mounting evidence that Trump and nearly every person who forms a wall around him ....are breaking several laws.    Probably the most grave law that Trump and his buddies have broken is allowing an adversarial country to seriously sway an important US election.  Some Republican congresspeople have equated that with "AN ACT OF WAR."   In other words; TREASON.

 

                      One of the most interesting outcomes of trump shitting on the Constitution is; the pendulum will swing widely in favor of Democrats getting elected.   After Trump, Dems may have a prez and majorities in both houses for many years.   Trump is leading the Republican Party down a rat hole that keeps getting deeper and shitier, week by week.    That's the silver lining in all this.    All but the most right wing rednecks will see clearly how Trump is throwing his shit in all directions - and it's sticking mostly to Republican politicians.

 

 

[whaleboneman]

15 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

He is right on with this.

 He won an election by proper process. But losers can not let him govern they criticize and do what ever possible to hamper him. It seems to me if the public thought some one else could do better he would not be in office.

 I hope he gets done ,what must be done and all the critics will eat humble pie.

There will be no pie while this numpty is president.

[whaleboneman]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would say you are wrong there, but it would certainly apply to the number of posters other than Trump haters that bother to post on any Trump related thread on TVF. So, once again, by attacking every poster that has an opinion not attacking Trump the Trump haters are left posting things that are only read by other Trump haters and the whole point of a forum as a place to have a discussion is lost.

I would point out that by dumping abuse on Trump at every opportunity and driving the other voices out of the discussion, the Trump haters don't "win" the argument, and actually harden the support for Trump, as most people don't like bullying.

There are many posters still on TVF,  but the ones on Trump threads are few, and always the same posters.

So, once again I'll not be participating on a thread and will leave it to the clique of Trump haters to chat among themselves.

We can't help it if Donnie gives us endless opportunities to dump abuse on him. This situation is "unpresidented".

[stevenl]

13 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

If you consider the list of candidates, it would seem a top cop isn't in the picture...

Ah, so you quote but the info is not applicable.

[Andaman Al]

21 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

Thanks guys now i know how Trump feels  about being personally attacked when his criticisers have no other option. or skills or intellect

 

Not sure how you have got to nearly 3000 posts on here with such a sensitive disposition. Even Thaibeachlovers keeps joining these threads and then telling us that he is leaving the thread because there is no point because 'Trump haters' won't listen to him   Trump hater is rather a strong term but I guess that Thaibeachlovers has most of us nailed. I can only speak for myself but to see a man trying to destroy the US constitution, making a mockery of the US military (whom I worked with on Ops for years), re-defining corruption and nepotism on a scale we have never seen before , threatening Global police and having the temperament of a spoiled child, yes, I for one hate him. By the way are you saying Trump has intellect? 

 

As for the job of FBI Director needing to be a cop, that might be true and I am waiting for Trump to nominate his ex bodyguard for the job. 

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, Andaman Al said:

I am waiting for Trump to nominate his ex bodyguard for the job. 

You may not have long to wait, since that is who delivered Comey's firing letter to FBI Headquarters

 

Certainly satisfies the loyalty mandate 

[boomerangutang]

Why not Eric Trump?   He would surely fit all the requirements for FBI chief, according to his daddy.

[Traveler19491]

22 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

Thanks guys now i know how Trump feels  about being personally attacked when his criticisers have no other option. or skills or intellect

 

 

"...personally attacked..."?????? WT literal F? Who attacked you personally? Names please. You were not attacked. Your opinion was disputed. When one voices an opinion, then that one should be prepared to withstand opposing viewpoints. You received precisely ZERO personal attacks. No ad hominem attacks, no assault on your intellect or reasoning abilities, no name calling, no profanity...so how, exactly, were you "personally attacked"? Your opinion was disputed. See, that's the thing with opinions. They are opinions, not facts, and therefore subject to alternative viewpoints. You have the right to state your personal opinion, the same as anyone else. But, and here's the thing, cupcake...EVERYONE ELSE HAS THAT SAME RIGHT, UP TO AND INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO STATE THEIR OPINION THAT YOUR OPINION IS RIDICULOUS AND TOTALLY UNFOUNDED.  That, cupcake, does not qualify as a personal attack. It qualifies as a divergence of opinion. You are grossly mistaken about what you experienced. What you experienced was the thinness of your own skin, and in that, you are exactly like your orange messiah. (And just so you are aware, the fact that you were incapable of discerning the difference between a personal attack and a clash of opinions would seem to inform the rest of us just who it is that is lacking in "skills or intellect".)

[mtls2005]

It seems, upon reflection, that firing Director Comey was very much an emotional decision, and that Trump really didn't think through what the results might be? And no one close to him can tell him what NOT to do, this is what you get.

 

Now any confirmation hearings of a new Director will take weeks or months, and make public even more of the "Rusher" (that's how Trump pronounces "Russia") issues, which he had hoped to tamp down or delay.

 

Supposedly there is a sealed indictment supporting impeachable offenses which has been filed for future use. He would be wise to get Pence's thumbs-up on a pardon sooner rather than later. Orange will clash with his spray tan.

[boomerangutang]

                         The Dufus in Chief prides himself on his heavy-handed management style. Thus far, he's fired 3 very capable people who were independently investigating his law-breaking.  All were done with zero warning.  Indeed, two of the firings were done shortly after Trump had personally assured them they would not be fired.  

 

                           It's bad enough that Trump acts in such a knee jerk fashion, without consulting with anyone who has the cojones to challenge him (all the people around him are cowed by him, and can only say 'yes' to him).  

 

                      What will be worse is if/when he starts wars in the same management style:  with little prior thought, no consultation with any intelligent people.   

 

                    Trump lives in a TV remote world.  He thinks he can just change the channel with a push of a finger, and the prior station will be gone.   Instantaneous channel changing.   It's bad when he fires good/capable people, but will be worse when he fires nukes.

[Langsuan Man]

12 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump lives in a TV remote world.

One that needs two tiny hands to operate I might add

 

[Traveler19491]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Get used to it if planning to keep responding to any thread on TVF with Trump in the headline. Abuse is the standard response to any post not attacking Trump. That's all the Trump haters have and it's making it pointless going on any Trump related thread. I guess if they just keep shouting down any opposing opinion till no pro Trump person posts they think they have won.

Expect any person proposed by Trump, no matter how qualified to attract a tirade of abuse from the Trump haters. The danger is that the best suited may not agree to serve, as not wanting the whole Democrat propaganda news cabal to attack them and everyone connected to them. I wouldn't blame them.

 

So, then, it is safe to assume that while Obama was President you never posted anything critical of him? You never disputed anyone who voiced an opinion in support of him? You never indicated your displeasure with anything he did? You never pointed out facts that felt illustrated your negative opinion of him? If so, then, using your standard, you were/are an Obama hater and going on any thread where there were people "hating" him would have been an exercise in futility because all of us who didn't post "hateful" things about him would just get shouted down (which is actually what happened). Correct? See, that's the thing about you blind supporters of Trump...you can't deal with the fact that there are opposing opinions. You have nothing concrete to support your support of him, as in his actually accomplishing something meaningful that would have the effect of substantively changing the lives of real people for the better, and he is so adept at providing ammunition for his detractors, that the best you can do is whine about people being "mean" to him...and by extension, to you.

 

This is a "man" (and I use the term in its loosest sense) who has dominant majorities in both houses and yet is completely incapable of getting anything done (fortunate for the country). He can't even get a simple victory before conservative courts because of his abysmal understanding of Constitutional principles. This is a man who humiliates himself by laughably trying to explain economics to a journalist from The Economist and can't even articulate the proper verbiage. He has managed to single-handedly keep the entire White House staff off balance and unable to voice a coherent message or put forth a meaningful agenda, for the simple reason that the instant they come out with something, the orange buffoon takes to Twitter or the airwaves and contradicts them. This is a man who has not even the most rudimentary understanding of the Constitution. This is a man devoid of the simplest grasp of the separation of powers. This pathetic excuse for a human being has no respect for anyone other than himself, feels that those around him are disposable, and has the ethics of a snake.

 

"...any person proposed by Trump" deserves to be attacked for the simple reason that he has yet to nominate anyone to his so-called administration who is genuinely qualified. DeVos for Education? Pruitt for the EPA? Sessions for Justice? Perry for Energy? Tillerson for State? There is not a single individual that I can think of who Trump has appointed to a position within his so-called administration that actually has the experience, knowledge, understanding, ethics, background, or credentials that actually qualifies them for that position with the possible exception of Mattis. The only reason they are approved is thanks to the Republican majorities in both Houses.

 

You continue to come on here and voice your opinions (which you have very right to do) and yet you get upset when people don't just blindly permit you to posit what, in many cases, are nothing more than fact-free, unsupported, inaccurate, often blatantly false statements of blind support for someone who is completely and totally undeserving of such. My suggestion? Carry through with your threats to leave and not comment anymore. Not because I don't want to read your comments. I enjoy reading them for the simple reason that they are so easily disputed and I derive a tremendous amount of pleasure doing so. No, I offer this suggestion for your peace of mind and to try to help you ease your frustration. Because if you find our opposition to your opinions bad now, well then, buckle up, Buttercup, 'cause you're in for a very bumpy ride over the next three and a half years.

[MaxYakov]

From the OP, a euphemism (or obfuscation) for a "conspiracy theory":

 

"Democrats cast the decision to fire Comey as an effort to obstruct the FBI's probe, a charge the White House has denied."

 

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

From the OP, a euphemism (or obfuscation) for a "conspiracy theory":

 

"Democrats cast the decision to fire Comey as an effort to obstruct the FBI's probe, a charge the White House has denied."

 

Well, clearly the evidentiary value of this denial is unimpeachable. I'm sure that if it had been part of such an effort, the Trump White House would have immediately owned up to it. Just as, in his letter firing Comey, Trump gave the honest reason why Comey was fired.

[MaxYakov]

38 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, clearly the evidentiary value of this denial is unimpeachable. I'm sure that if it had been part of such an effort, the Trump White House would have immediately owned up to it. Just as, in his letter firing Comey, Trump gave the honest reason why Comey was fired.

I'll have to recommend that, getting to know you (Reference this Link), you should have used a /sarc on this one.

 

Where's the "evidentiary value" supporting what you believe to be the truth? How many people are involved in this potential "conspiracy" besides Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein?

 

I understand that several previous DoJ Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General have made statements condemning Comey's actions, however try to find it in the MSM. Maybe this is another "conspiracy".

 

It's impossible that there is a "conspiracy" of the MSM to squelch news items that don't match the desired Democrat / Left / MSM narrative, yes?  /sarc

[elgordo38]

Donald if he is not willing to put his hand on the Bible and swear loyalty to you reject him. 

[elgordo38]

The people working in the FBI put forward a name they would have confidence in but of course you would question his loyalty to you which is paramount or paranoid in your case.

[ilostmypassword]

22 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

I'll have to recommend that, getting to know you (Reference this Link), you should have used a /sarc on this one.

 

Where's the "evidentiary value" supporting what you believe to be the truth? How many people are involved in this potential "conspiracy" besides Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein?

 

I understand that several previous DoJ Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General have made statements condemning Comey's actions, however try to find it in the MSM. Maybe this is another "conspiracy".

 

It's impossible that there is a "conspiracy" of the MSM to squelch news items that don't match the desired Democrat / Left / MSM narrative, yes?  /sarc

Actually, a conspiracy would require at least 2 people to be in on the plan.  Why would Trump need anyone else?  Whereas the kind of press conspiracy you hint at, would require an enormous number of people to carry it out.

[mtls2005]

Mike Rogers seems to be the leading candidate. But he does have the baggage of having been on the Trump transition team, albeit briefly before he was purged. Then he was a bit critical of the Trump transition, so that will be held against him.

 

Sen. John Cornyn and Ray Kelly seem like viable candidates.

 

All this assumes Don Jr, Eric, Tiffany or Jared won't get the job.

[JHolmesJr]

On 14 May, 2017 at 10:53 AM, boomerangutang said:

".......by proper process" ?!?!  ummm yea, if you consider proper process getting an adversary country to intensely spread lies about your opponent.  

in certain asian countries you'd be sued and made bankrupt for saying that.

 

without any conclusive proof whatsoever.

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

in certain asian countries you'd be sued and made bankrupt for saying that.

 

without any conclusive proof whatsoever.

you mean like claiming  the previous president had you wiretapped?

[MaxYakov]

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, a conspiracy would require at least 2 people to be in on the plan.  Why would Trump need anyone else?  Whereas the kind of press conspiracy you hint at, would require an enormous number of people to carry it out.

You are aware that Deputy AG Rosenstein's memo/letter went to AG Sessions who wrote his own concurring recommendation, attaching Rosenstein's memo/letter and forwarding them both to the President. The President admitted in the NBC Holt interview that he was going to fire Comey anyway. So we have three high-level individual agreeing that Comey had to go? Wouldn't that be a "conspiracy" by your definition rather than just a "coincidence"?

 

Actually, in case you haven't noticed, there is an enormous number of people inside and outside the MSM that are capable of carrying out "fake news" (aka yellow journalism) and, AFAIC actually are doing so. Yellow journalism is and has been alive and well in the USA. A denial of this is pure naivete as a displayed ignorance of the history of MSM.

 

Fake News [Wiki Link]  (of course, Wiki, itself, could be "fake news", huh?)

 

Extract from Above Wiki Link:

 

"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via the traditional print, broadcasting news media, or via Internet-based social media.Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically, often with sensationalist, exaggerated, or patently false headlines that grab attention."

 

Fake news websites in the United States [Wiki Link]

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

You are aware that Deputy AG Rosenstein's memo/letter went to AG Sessions who wrote his own concurring recommendation, attaching Rosenstein's memo/letter and forwarding them both to the President. The President admitted in the NBC Holt interview that he was going to fire Comey anyway. So we have three high-level individual agreeing that Comey had to go? Wouldn't that be a "conspiracy" by your definition rather than just a "coincidence"?

 

Actually, in case you haven't noticed, there is an enormous number of people inside and outside the MSM that are capable of carrying out "fake news" (aka yellow journalism) and, AFAIC actually are doing so. Yellow journalism is and has been alive and well in the USA. A denial of this is pure naivete as a displayed ignorance of the history of MSM.

 

Fake News [Wiki Link]  (of course, Wiki, itself, could be "fake news", huh?)

 

Extract from Above Wiki Link:

 

"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via the traditional print, broadcasting news media, or via Internet-based social media.Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically, often with sensationalist, exaggerated, or patently false headlines that grab attention."

 

Fake news websites in the United States [Wiki Link]

It would only be a conspiracy if the intentions of all three had been to obstruct justice.  If that was Trump's intent alone, then it's not conspiracy.  

[MaxYakov]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It would only be a conspiracy if the intentions of all three had been to obstruct justice.  If that was Trump's intent alone, then it's not conspiracy.  

No! It's got to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice [MSNBC Story Link] because more than one person was involved in Comey's firing and it definitely was to stop an alleged Russian ... something or other ... investigation, right?  /sarc

 

Or are you not buying the leftist / Democrat narrative on this one?

 

PS: Actually, it looks like the MSM is avoiding using the "CT" words, probably so as to not be accused of pushing them and being accused of promoting them. The MSM often lets the nutters such as Pelosi and McCain do the mouthing of the ridiculous stuff. In the above MSNBC link it was Ted Lieu (D) Rep. CA with the stuff. No dearth of leftists out there, obviously.

[JHolmesJr]

55 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

you mean like claiming  the previous president had you wiretapped?

stick to the topic.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, JHolmesJr said:

stick to the topic.

you mean like your post about "certain asian countries"?

[JHolmesJr]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

you mean like your post about "certain asian countries"?

how certain asian countries would interpret wild claims like the ones being made in the fbi firing case…still on topic.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, MaxYakov said:

No! It's got to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice [MSNBC Story Link] because more than one person was involved in Comey's firing and it definitely was to stop an alleged Russian ... something or other ... investigation, right?  /sarc

 

Or are you not buying the leftist / Democrat narrative on this one?

Once again, you should try google.  I went to it and look up "Trump conspiracy to obstruct justice" I didn't get any hits on that. What I did get hits on was variations of "Trump obstructing justice."  "Conspiracy" was conspicuously missing from the results.So it looks like you're making this one up or, as is more likely, getting this info from those dubious fever swamps of the internet and youtube that you apparently roam. I have no doubt that it is likely you could find a few with some serious searching, but it doesn't seem to be present in most discussions of Trump's possible obstruction of justice.