Question For Republicans

[*michaelsean*]

(05-14-2017, 10:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm not a Democrat, not by the longest of shots, so maybe that gives me some credibility. The answer to your question is easy from that standpoint. Your president just fired the man leading an investigation against his transition team. The reason Rosenstein gave, although maybe honest, and the reason some Democrats used to give for their wish of firing Comey, was not Trump's reason. Trump himself said it - when deciding to fire Comey, he was thinking of that whole Trump and Russia thing and how it's a made up story.
Now no matter if you believe this narrative or not (Democrats completely made up the Russia story as an excuse - which honestly seems incredibly unbelievable) doesn't really matter. The optics are bad on that one. Even worse when hearing Trump wanted Comey to pledge his loyalty towards him. Not the country or the constitution. Him.

Now you can focus on the Democrats and not see this bad optics at all. But I feel that's a waste. Your dislike of the other side clouds your vision, I'd say. We in Europe have strong party affiliations, too, but if anyone pulled something like Trump did here, everyone would at least be alarmed. Only the blindest loyalists wouldn't, and you said yourself, you're not loyal to Trump. So why go with his deflection? This doesn't have to do with Democrats in the first place.


You get outraged about hypotheticals. ("Stairs", "bribery", things that aren't reality). That's the first thing. The second thing, that the political opponent tends to exaggerate things is not news. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. My impression from way abroad always was that the Republicans are even worse, this might not be true, but the opposite certainly isn't. We took notice about 8 years of open obstruction by Republicans, we saw some taking side with the birther movement, we heard them say Obamacare implements death panels, we heard claims Obama behaves like a monarch, doesn't love his country. So there's just fairness. I can understand if you consider every politician's word as irrelevant, but to specify it like you did is not the entirely accurate conclusion. But the partisan one.

Has anyone read the book about Hillary and the election?  I hear in the book, they did exactly that right after the loss.  They  may have not created the entire story, but their decision was to push hard that Russia cost them the election.