The problem I have with the above is that it seems nit picky to me. Expecting anyone to watch every word they say and then attack them for saying something on the spur of the moment is what has led to leaders like Biden and Obama. President Trump is trying to re-establish reasonable relations with Russia. This can only be a good thing.
Trump's been doubling down on it today, Greg, additionally calling Zelenskyy a dictator. It wasn't some slip of the tongue.
Any relations built with Russia by blaming Ukraine for the war, portraying Zelenskyy as the bad guy, and throwing Ukraine to the Russian wolves aren't "reasonable" and a "good thing."
A skillful and ethical mediator will be wary of any power imbalance between the parties mediating. Unskilled or unethical mediators will lean on the weaker party just to get a settlement. Apparently, President Trump falls in the latter, in addition to his weakness for Putin.
President Trump should rapidly increase aid to the Ukraine and, when its war effort grows stronger, then try to get Putin to the table.
Did anyone hear Bill O'Reilly twist himself like a pretzel trying to beat down the criticism of Pres. Trump? I didn't know Mr. O'Reilly was so flexible. He puts to shame all Yoga masters.
O'Reilly spun a mealy-mouthed narrative that Pres. Trump's "He should have never started IT" remark was a reference to Pres. Trump's remark several minutes prior that Zelenski could have simply prevented the invasion of the Ukraine by a negotiated settlement. O'Reilly claimed that is proof that Pres. Trump did not mean that "the Ukraine invaded Russia." But despite his whining and by showing the complete context of Pres. Trump's remarks, Mr. O'Reilly conclusively showed that either Pres. Trump misspoke or he thinks that Zelenski is responsible for the invasion. (HINT: O'Reilly did NOT say what Pres. Trump meant when he said Zelenski "started it.") Pres. Trump had ample time to "clarify" if it was a misstatement and, as Daly said, he appeared to double-down on that remark.
It's obvious that Pres. Trump thinks that Zelenski's actions or inactions somehow caused Putin to invade the Ukraine - similar to a rapist blaming his victim for dressing provocatively. Putin probably tattooed that on Pres. Trump's brain . This wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Putin is probably the only world leader - friend or foe - who Pres. Trump has not dumped on at one time.
In an early 2017 interview, O'Reilly tried to get Pres. Trump to say something negative about Putin. Finally, O'Reilly said something like "but he [Putin] kills journalists and dissidents." Drawing an equivalency, Trump replied "Do you think we're so good?" - not an exact quote but close enough. O'Reilly did not say much in response. If Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden had said that, O'Reilly would be nonstop screaming from the hilltop.
I hope today's naked dissembling by O'Reilly impresses his consumers to be wary when speaks. He is frequently thought provoking and sometimes gives information not commonly reported, but consumers should not relax their critical thinking.
<In response to a press question about Russia’s interference in our 2016 election, as concluded by Trump’s own FBI and other federal agencies, Trump answered, “President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be.”
<He continued: “I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”>
I think it was someone on Pres. Trump's staff who later tried to "clarify" by saying that Pres. Trump meant to say "I don't see any reason why it should NOT be." But that defies the context of his remark.
On Chris Cuomo's show last night, O'Reilly again tried to defend President Trump's remark about Zelenski "starting it" by saying that President Trump is trying to flatter Putin in order to get him to negotiate. Further, O'Reilly claimed that proof that Trump's efforts are softening Putin is that Putin says it's OK with him if the Ukraine joins the EU. He said that was a major concession on Putin's part. Yah right!
But on his show, O'Reilly said that Putin has to negotiate because his troops are wiping out.
I caught that too. Cuomo does say he,Stephen A., and Bill O. disagree on the Trump agenda and methodology, but they come together to discuss, which is fun to watch.
Bill O. had a fantastic description today, Sunday, in his essay of his insights; Stephen A. challenges Bill, who is quick on his feet with answers. The ' trio' is an informative watch, for sure!
At a press conference this morning, Peter Doocy (sp?) asked Michael Waltz, the NSA guy, who was more responsible for the invasion, Putin or Zelenski. Mr. Walz filibustered but never addressed the question. Then Doocy moved on to other questions including a softball about Pres. Trump and a game between the U. S. and Canada. I wonder why Doocy has lost his edge.
I think that may be the secondary reason. I think the primary reason is that Doocy's corporate masters want Fox News to shine up to President Trump (without being blatantly obvious, if possible) and perhaps Doocy himself is in Pres. Trump's camp.
If Joe Biden had said Zelenski "started it," Doocy would be all over him, as would Bill O'Reilly.
I'm a moderate liberal, also a realist. The FBI wasn't in favor of Trump being elected in 2016, but it carelessly helped Trump win the 2016 election. The FBI's letter published in late October of 2016, about 10 days before the election, said that the FBI was reopening the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That letter dramatically changed the news coverage and was a tremendous body-blow to the Clinton campaign. At a critical time, it sent the Clinton campaign into a tailspin. Who wrote the letter, you ask? It was none other than then FBI Director Comey and the supposed Trump-hating Special Agent Peter Strzok (sp?).
They did this not to help Trump but because they mistakenly thought it was the responsible thing to do. The responsible thing to do was to keep their mouths shut and have agents working 24/7 on the e-mails. Apparently, they did the latter and exonerated Hillary a day or two before the election, after the damage was done. But the damage the FBI did to the Clinton campaign in undeniable to anyone at all serious.
Those who say the FBI and DOJ were biased against Trump are ignorant and/or dishonest. President Trump's boy, John Durham, spent more than three years investigating this issue. Although he was critical of the way the Crossfire Hurricane was handled and decisions the DOJ people made, he found no political bias. The GOP bigwigs were hopeful that Durham would show that the DOJ and FBI were anti-Trump. When Durham did not find this, the same GOP bigwigs acted as if the Durham report didn't exist and continued to irresponsibly spout off that the DOJ and FBI were weaponized against Trump - and the uninformed and the MAGA lemmings believe this.
Under President Biden, the DOJ has gone after just as many high profile Democrats as Republicans. The federal indictments against Trump were on target and were not politically motivated. In fact, many on the Left were highly critical of the DOJ for not indicting Trump earlier. Trump brought all that on himself. The NY state indictment might have been politically motivated but there is no evidence that that had anything to do with the DOJ.
Whoever said that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth puts on its boots was right, at least in this instance.
I do think Pres Trump has some great ideas, but his methods are questionable; time will tell. Ukraine?- he could care less, he does not care for Zelinskyy, remember Hunter Biden was there and their gov't really didn't cooperate with Trump wanting info., as well as giving info. with the Hillary Clinton saga? Trump holds grudges, he appeases Putin out of intimidation and competition I believe.
Trump will go with what ever Putin wants, just a matter of time Marco Rubio will catch on, and he's a very intelligent man, Marco will be in disagreement with Trump, and he will be fired; my prediction.
Rubio is indeed smart, and knows right from wrong, but I have no confidence in him to stand up to Trump on anything. He hasn't been THAT Rubio in a very long time.
I like Marco Rubio. But smart folks that consider the way Trump conducts himself have to know the risks of being in bed with him. Pence is a perfect example.
Common sense , and some articles I've read, and even Trump allies have publiclly spoken to the idea that Putin has some info and knowledge on Trump that is very embarrassing, and Trump talks nice and sweet re. Putin; makes sense. Trump was actually asked this question and refused to answer, so there you have it. A big secret " I gotcha". Remember, years ago Trump was trying to get his businesses into Russia, and something took place there, and Putin has that negative information on Trump. Most folks didn't know who Trump was then, I do, I'm from NY.
In Trump, I see a real fear of Putin, it's in his body language even, Putin may have a real dark secret that involved Trump from several years back; Trump is very leary of insulting or offending Putin, question is why? Million dollar question. That's my guy feeling.
I'm not shocked at all, this is Trump" Modus Operandi"again. He's so predictable to me, I saw his patterns for decades, it's psychology 101.
The problem I have with the above is that it seems nit picky to me. Expecting anyone to watch every word they say and then attack them for saying something on the spur of the moment is what has led to leaders like Biden and Obama. President Trump is trying to re-establish reasonable relations with Russia. This can only be a good thing.
Trump's been doubling down on it today, Greg, additionally calling Zelenskyy a dictator. It wasn't some slip of the tongue.
Any relations built with Russia by blaming Ukraine for the war, portraying Zelenskyy as the bad guy, and throwing Ukraine to the Russian wolves aren't "reasonable" and a "good thing."
President Trump trying to end the war. Give him time so you can understand why!
He's trying to "end" the war by sacrificing Ukraine to Russia. And we all know why.
With President Trump, the end was justify the means
Sacrificing Ukraine to Russia will be justified by falsely blaming Ukraine for starting the war?
What a crock of crap you guys spread; Your TDS is dripping from your mouths; distateful
Rather than just screaming "TDS" every time someone criticizes Trump, how about offering an actual argument?
What specifically about what I wrote is inaccurate or unfair?
Blah blah blah Got your brown shirt in the closet? Report to your master right away. Touchy touchy. Hey guys this dude may be a Russian operative.
Orange shirt though....
Blaming Ukraine for somehow tricking Russia into invading it is a nit-pick?
You sound pretty gullible. If anyone actually believes what you just wrote, well, I have a bridge to sell you!
A skillful and ethical mediator will be wary of any power imbalance between the parties mediating. Unskilled or unethical mediators will lean on the weaker party just to get a settlement. Apparently, President Trump falls in the latter, in addition to his weakness for Putin.
President Trump should rapidly increase aid to the Ukraine and, when its war effort grows stronger, then try to get Putin to the table.
Did anyone hear Bill O'Reilly twist himself like a pretzel trying to beat down the criticism of Pres. Trump? I didn't know Mr. O'Reilly was so flexible. He puts to shame all Yoga masters.
O'Reilly spun a mealy-mouthed narrative that Pres. Trump's "He should have never started IT" remark was a reference to Pres. Trump's remark several minutes prior that Zelenski could have simply prevented the invasion of the Ukraine by a negotiated settlement. O'Reilly claimed that is proof that Pres. Trump did not mean that "the Ukraine invaded Russia." But despite his whining and by showing the complete context of Pres. Trump's remarks, Mr. O'Reilly conclusively showed that either Pres. Trump misspoke or he thinks that Zelenski is responsible for the invasion. (HINT: O'Reilly did NOT say what Pres. Trump meant when he said Zelenski "started it.") Pres. Trump had ample time to "clarify" if it was a misstatement and, as Daly said, he appeared to double-down on that remark.
It's obvious that Pres. Trump thinks that Zelenski's actions or inactions somehow caused Putin to invade the Ukraine - similar to a rapist blaming his victim for dressing provocatively. Putin probably tattooed that on Pres. Trump's brain . This wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Putin is probably the only world leader - friend or foe - who Pres. Trump has not dumped on at one time.
In an early 2017 interview, O'Reilly tried to get Pres. Trump to say something negative about Putin. Finally, O'Reilly said something like "but he [Putin] kills journalists and dissidents." Drawing an equivalency, Trump replied "Do you think we're so good?" - not an exact quote but close enough. O'Reilly did not say much in response. If Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden had said that, O'Reilly would be nonstop screaming from the hilltop.
I hope today's naked dissembling by O'Reilly impresses his consumers to be wary when speaks. He is frequently thought provoking and sometimes gives information not commonly reported, but consumers should not relax their critical thinking.
<In response to a press question about Russia’s interference in our 2016 election, as concluded by Trump’s own FBI and other federal agencies, Trump answered, “President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be.”
<He continued: “I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”>
I think it was someone on Pres. Trump's staff who later tried to "clarify" by saying that Pres. Trump meant to say "I don't see any reason why it should NOT be." But that defies the context of his remark.
New this morning: the United States is opposing calling Russia the aggressor in a G7 statement (on the anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war)
On Chris Cuomo's show last night, O'Reilly again tried to defend President Trump's remark about Zelenski "starting it" by saying that President Trump is trying to flatter Putin in order to get him to negotiate. Further, O'Reilly claimed that proof that Trump's efforts are softening Putin is that Putin says it's OK with him if the Ukraine joins the EU. He said that was a major concession on Putin's part. Yah right!
But on his show, O'Reilly said that Putin has to negotiate because his troops are wiping out.
I caught that too. Cuomo does say he,Stephen A., and Bill O. disagree on the Trump agenda and methodology, but they come together to discuss, which is fun to watch.
I wish Coumo would challenge O'Reilly more.
Bill O. had a fantastic description today, Sunday, in his essay of his insights; Stephen A. challenges Bill, who is quick on his feet with answers. The ' trio' is an informative watch, for sure!
At a press conference this morning, Peter Doocy (sp?) asked Michael Waltz, the NSA guy, who was more responsible for the invasion, Putin or Zelenski. Mr. Walz filibustered but never addressed the question. Then Doocy moved on to other questions including a softball about Pres. Trump and a game between the U. S. and Canada. I wonder why Doocy has lost his edge.
Obviously, it is to avoid getting booted out of the press invites, wrong questions asked get punished.
I think that may be the secondary reason. I think the primary reason is that Doocy's corporate masters want Fox News to shine up to President Trump (without being blatantly obvious, if possible) and perhaps Doocy himself is in Pres. Trump's camp.
If Joe Biden had said Zelenski "started it," Doocy would be all over him, as would Bill O'Reilly.
Back in 2016, the FBI and other federal agencies wholeheartedly supported President Trump’s election. If y’all believe this, you’re liberal leftist.
What are you talking about? The FBI doesn't "wholeheartedly support" any political candidate. Nor should they.
John, you know not that you know not.
Yoda?
Day drinking, Conrad?
And you know not what you know not, and you care not. You sound like a MAGA lemming.
I'm a moderate liberal, also a realist. The FBI wasn't in favor of Trump being elected in 2016, but it carelessly helped Trump win the 2016 election. The FBI's letter published in late October of 2016, about 10 days before the election, said that the FBI was reopening the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That letter dramatically changed the news coverage and was a tremendous body-blow to the Clinton campaign. At a critical time, it sent the Clinton campaign into a tailspin. Who wrote the letter, you ask? It was none other than then FBI Director Comey and the supposed Trump-hating Special Agent Peter Strzok (sp?).
They did this not to help Trump but because they mistakenly thought it was the responsible thing to do. The responsible thing to do was to keep their mouths shut and have agents working 24/7 on the e-mails. Apparently, they did the latter and exonerated Hillary a day or two before the election, after the damage was done. But the damage the FBI did to the Clinton campaign in undeniable to anyone at all serious.
Those who say the FBI and DOJ were biased against Trump are ignorant and/or dishonest. President Trump's boy, John Durham, spent more than three years investigating this issue. Although he was critical of the way the Crossfire Hurricane was handled and decisions the DOJ people made, he found no political bias. The GOP bigwigs were hopeful that Durham would show that the DOJ and FBI were anti-Trump. When Durham did not find this, the same GOP bigwigs acted as if the Durham report didn't exist and continued to irresponsibly spout off that the DOJ and FBI were weaponized against Trump - and the uninformed and the MAGA lemmings believe this.
Under President Biden, the DOJ has gone after just as many high profile Democrats as Republicans. The federal indictments against Trump were on target and were not politically motivated. In fact, many on the Left were highly critical of the DOJ for not indicting Trump earlier. Trump brought all that on himself. The NY state indictment might have been politically motivated but there is no evidence that that had anything to do with the DOJ.
Whoever said that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth puts on its boots was right, at least in this instance.
I do think Pres Trump has some great ideas, but his methods are questionable; time will tell. Ukraine?- he could care less, he does not care for Zelinskyy, remember Hunter Biden was there and their gov't really didn't cooperate with Trump wanting info., as well as giving info. with the Hillary Clinton saga? Trump holds grudges, he appeases Putin out of intimidation and competition I believe.
Trump will go with what ever Putin wants, just a matter of time Marco Rubio will catch on, and he's a very intelligent man, Marco will be in disagreement with Trump, and he will be fired; my prediction.
Rubio is indeed smart, and knows right from wrong, but I have no confidence in him to stand up to Trump on anything. He hasn't been THAT Rubio in a very long time.
Great point, Rubio hasn't stood up since the debates I suppose, but I see a "clash" in the future,in all probability.
I like Marco Rubio. But smart folks that consider the way Trump conducts himself have to know the risks of being in bed with him. Pence is a perfect example.
I agree
Common sense , and some articles I've read, and even Trump allies have publiclly spoken to the idea that Putin has some info and knowledge on Trump that is very embarrassing, and Trump talks nice and sweet re. Putin; makes sense. Trump was actually asked this question and refused to answer, so there you have it. A big secret " I gotcha". Remember, years ago Trump was trying to get his businesses into Russia, and something took place there, and Putin has that negative information on Trump. Most folks didn't know who Trump was then, I do, I'm from NY.
My gut feeling.
In Trump, I see a real fear of Putin, it's in his body language even, Putin may have a real dark secret that involved Trump from several years back; Trump is very leary of insulting or offending Putin, question is why? Million dollar question. That's my guy feeling.
Now apparently he has blocked NY cities congestion law. Where does he have right to do this?
Interstate versus intrastate