Trump's pupil misfunction

[JimL]

Why am I not surprised that your specious claims are long on insult and terribly short on backup?

Cambridge Analytica is British, CP, and guess who hired them to do opposition research. It's legal, get out of the bubble and do your own research.

[Cow Poke]

Cambridge Analytica is British, CP, and guess who hired them to do opposition research. It's legal, get out of the bubble and do your own research.

You're late to the party, Jim - check out post #90

Pay particular attention to the word FALSE

[Starlight]

FACT CHECK: Did Republicans Pay For The Trump Dossier?

CP, if you read your linked article, they confirm JimL's statement was correct.

The fact check is (super-dubiously) trying to split hairs of whether the acknowledged facts of...

During the Republican presidential primary, an unknown Republican “client” funded Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump...

Steele [later, under the pay of Hillary's campaign] “authored” the Trump-Russia dossier that Fusion GPS produced using a “compilation of reports” he worked on while at the firm

..when taken together do or don't mean that "The Steele dossier was research funded first by Republicans, then by Democrats". The fact check is (pretty dodgily) arguing that you can't arrive at this conclusion by combining the two acknowledged facts in the box.

So the fact check itself takes for granted the correctness of JimL's claim here.

[Cow Poke]

CP, if you read your linked article, they confirm JimL's statement was correct.

The fact check is (super-dubiously) trying to split hairs of whether the acknowledged facts of...

During the Republican presidential primary an unknown Republican “client” fund[ing] Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump...

Steele [later, under the pay of Hillary's campaign] “authored” the Trump-Russia dossier that Fusion GPS produced using a “compilation of reports” he worked on while at the firm

..when taken together do or don't mean that "The Steele dossier was research funded first by Republicans, then by Democrats". The fact check is (pretty dodgily) arguing that you can't arrive at this conclusion by combining the two acknowledged facts in the box.

So the fact check itself takes for granted the correctness of JimL's claim here.

I know what I posted --- the Steele Dossier, which is what I was talking about, was NOT funded by Republicans. Sure, they were paying GPS, but, as the article indicates, that was PRIOR to the Steele engagement.

(Trying to find the video of the Dem operative who bragged that THAT was the difference between what the Democrats did and what Trump did)

You're such a funny funny boy ---- he was boasting about the Steele Dossier, so if it was LEGAL, then why did they go through such trickery and deceit to obtain it?

[JimL]

You're late to the party, Jim - check out post #90

Pay particular attention to the word FALSE

That doesn't even answer to the post to which you are replying. Cambridge Analytica is a British firm, hired by Trump to do opposition research. Point is, it's legal!

[Cow Poke]

That doesn't even answer to the post to which you are replying. Cambridge Analytica is a British firm, hired by Trump to do opposition research. Point is, it's legal!

This started by my referring to a video I watched where a Democrat operative was comparing the two, and was fumbling all over the place trying to equate "paying a foreign operative" (the British guy).... I was mocking his weak attempt at justifying involving a foreign country's operative in US elections.

Since I can't find the video (yet), I'll let you pretend you won this argument.

[JimL]

This started by my referring to a video I watched where a Democrat operative was comparing the two, and was fumbling all over the place trying to equate "paying a foreign operative" (the British guy).... I was mocking his weak attempt at justifying involving a foreign country's operative in US elections.

Since I can't find the video (yet), I'll let you pretend you won this argument.

No need to pretend, CP. Point is it's legal, as opposed to what Trump did which was illegal, unConstitutional, an abuse of power, possibly treasonous, and definitely wrong.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm old enough to remember when Obama was mocked for wearing a tan suit. But we're just going to brush over Trump going out in public like this?

I'm old enough, but I don't remember that.

I do remember his "mom jeans."

[DivineOb]

I'm old enough, but I don't remember that.

I do remember his "mom jeans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_...it_controversy

Kudos to the article author who even included a reference to Trump which I hadn't anticipated!

The Barack Obama tan suit controversy occurred on August 28, 2014, when Barack Obama, then–U.S. President, wore a tan suit while he held a live press conference on increasing of the U.S. military response against the Islamic State in Syria.[1] Obama's appearance on television in the tan suit sparked significant attention and led to large amounts of media and social media criticism. The issue remained prominent in the media for several days with the issue being particularly widely discussed on talk shows.[2][3][4][5][6]

While the controversy itself was trivial, it became notable in the context of Obama's presidency because such a trivial matter could spark such intense criticism. The scandal particularly contrasted with the presidency of Donald Trump that followed, and became a metaphor for the different standards to which Obama and Trump were held.[1][6][7]

[Starlight]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_...it_controversy

Ah, the tan suit.
And the asking for dijon mustard.
And the latte salute.
And putting his feet on the desk.
And, yes, the mom jeans.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Back when the country had real scandals that made America an international laughingstock because of them.

[Starlight]

Good grief, I can't stand the lot of you Trump-haters and your petty whining about everything!

Guess this means Moss is going to stop whining about Trudeau and the liberal decline of Canada!?!

[JimL]

Guess this means Moss is going to stop whining about Trudeau and the liberal decline of Canada!?!

[rogue06]

I'm old enough to remember when Obama was mocked for wearing a tan suit. But we're just going to brush over Trump going out in public like this?

Wow! You are "old enough to remember" something that took place all of a whole six years ago. Slow down there old timer, you don't want to go and break your hip now.

[simplicio]

Wow! You are "old enough to remember" something that took place all of a whole six years ago. Slow down there old timer, you don't want to go and break your hip now.

The amazing part is how few are old enough to remember, or else developed memory loss, those very important and significant issues of Obama's presidency.

As an proud and patriotic American, I am happy to report that this great nation weathered the controversy, and still emerged through it as a great and resilient nation. Never again will a President sully this nation's prestige by wearing a tan suit.

[simplicio]

Ah, the tan suit.
And the asking for dijon mustard.
And the latte salute.
And putting his feet on the desk.
And, yes, the mom jeans.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Back when the country had real scandals that made America an international laughingstock because of them.

You ferners don't really have a concept of what it means to be an American, proud citizens of the greatest nation on earth.

We set aside our beloved French Fries, out of a sense of patriotic duty and self sacrifice (something Kiwis and Frogs don't get), substituting them for American fries, signalling to the world that we reject the pusillanimous French. American values demand we reject dijon mustard. Which is why I only use French's Mustard (available on Amazon and made in America), to show my disdain for the French.

As leader of the nation, the President has a responsibility to project strength and resolve in the face of adversity. Which is why swooning before Putin is understandable.