"The chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives committee investigating possible ties between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Russian government downplayed claims on Monday that the White House had tried to influence reporting on the matter and insisted there was no need for a special prosecutor.
“What are we going to appoint a special prosecutor to do, exactly?” Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asked at a news conference."
This is on the front page of the NY Times as well. Just kidding - the dishonest liberal media and enemy of the government has decided to concentrate on fake news from anonymous sources as usual.
its not like the choice is either war with russia or to be putins biotch. I love the mental gymnastics of DJT supporters. HRC was a puppet of the Saudis or whoever! They were buying her with the Clinton foundation! LOCK HER UP!
When there is possible evidence of Trumps administration possibly having improper russian contacts its all fake news and we shouldnt even bother to look into it?
The voters went with someone with muscle, to go to DC, and stop this idiotic stuff. More idiotic stuff will not go over well with them, think it thru libs…
sessions is going nowhere and the dems are digging a deeper grave. there was zero impropriety. his contacts with russia were in his capacity as senator. his response to franken was not clearly worded, but not untrue. the question was about the trump campaign.
they keep playing this game of chicken in a game they cannot win. sad.
Sessions is probably not going anywhere. The actual question was whether he had any contact “about the election”, and he is claiming that his contact was in his capacity as a Senator. Even if this is not the case, it would be difficult to prove.
I don’t think Sessions is really that great - he is just some guy who was rewarded for endorsing Trump. In fact, a replacement based on the now strengthened consensus between the Trump administration and the Republican party would probably be more effective in the long term. So, I see this as potentially positive for their agenda, similar to how the new NSA person has moderated and even helped legitimize the administration. However, as mentioned, I think the probability of this happening is low.
The Far-Right needs to read history on what populism brings. Take a look at what populism causes by studying what happened to Latin America. Far-right’s playbook is not original and not unique. Please leave the GOP already.
I don’t really agree. US is not the same as Latin countries in a sense that separation of power is much stronger here. US has stronger checks and balances than almost any developed country as well, as in other countries, parliament majority also determines the Prime Minister. So, if the administration is to effect any incremental change, a much greater degree of motivation and ideological change would also be required. For instance, if Trump wants to decrease regulation by 5%, he must try for a 50% decrease. Indeed, this is what he is doing.
What makes the US more robust towards extremism in government is the strength of its democratic institutions, even if these same institutions have weaknesses, such as political gridlock. However, unfortunately, in today’s environment, an extreme right movement is required to create what I believe are some much needed reforms. So I do not think the overall effect is negative, even if I find some of the extreme views to be different ot even distasteful relative to my own beliefs.
Anyway, the alternative to Trump would have been a kind of “slow populism”, meaning slightly more redistribution, slightly more taxes, and slightly more government waste. It would not be a huge populist leap to the left, as would have happened if Bernie Sanders became President, but it would be progress towards that extreme nonetheless.
Also one thing, I think people are calling these guys “extreme right”, only because the democrats were 90% left, and the republicans 10% left. After a 50yr progressivism movement, yeah relative to that it seems extreme right. However their conservatism is NOT that extreme at all, I’d put them 50% right, with old school Taoism and Confucianism 90% right. The “alt right” are actually fairly moderate people.
