The important thing to remember here is that Canadian drugs aren’t cheaper because they went on a medical vacation to Canada. They are cheaper because Canadian socialized medicine works.
Americans have been traveling to Canada for drugs like insulin when the cost is too high to obtain them in the U.S. This plan would ostensibly make it easier for Americans to obtain cheaper drugs without having to cross the border.
Hey, remember the last republican president? The one before Obama.
He used the military as a campaign prop. He politicized national intelligence. He made it office US policy to torture people. He used pardons to keep his advisors out of jail. He blocked investigations. He used shill media. He complained that the media was unfair. All of it.
If you pretend this all started with Trump, you’ll never be able to actually address the problem, let alone fix it.
Is Gríma Wormtongue looking for a new job?
You know the worst thing about Republicans? Republicans always want credit for some shit they supposed to do. A Republican will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A Republican will say some shit like, “I cooperated with the investigation” You’re supposed cooperate, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant obstruction of justice shit is that? “I ain’t never colluded with Russia!” What do you want, a cookie?! You’re not supposed to collude with Russia, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!
Republicans love to NOT know. Nothing make a Republicans happier than not knowin the answer to your question. Just ask a Republican a question. Any Republican! “Hey, Republican, who was the president right before Obama, the one who lied us into war, crashed the economy, allowed the use of torture and was rewarded with a second term by a Republican majority?” “I don’t know that shit! Keepin’ it real!” Republicans love to keep it real… Real dumb!
Act one, the turd arrives
Act two, the turd must be made to shine
Act three, we realize it was still just a turd.
Here’s a list of all the ongoing government investigations that could spell legal trouble for Trump, regardless of whether he’s president, and the people and entities associated with him.
The reaction is exactly what one might predict.
On October 19th 2016 Hillary Clinton stated this during her debate with then Candidate Trump:
It’s pretty clear, you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.
So here’s the thing. If you break this down, statement by statement you can see that from what we know of the Mueller report and the released Barr letter, she was correct about most of it.
“you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America”
Well this is true. We now know that Russia engaged in the cyber attacks and Trump was told this. But even at Helsinki, he was still unwilling to admit it. The Mueller indictments establish that case. In addition, we now know that there were multiple attempts by Russia to reach out to Trump and his campaign. They didn’t contact the FBI. They invited them to Trump tower.
“that you encouraged espionage against our people”
There was that famous “Russia are you listening” moment. The Mueller indictments document that the Russian active ops stepped up. Clearly they listened. What’s important is that this occurred after Trump was warned that Russia was looking to interfere.
that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do,
This is a wash. It looks like Trump’s campaign changed the GOP platform, blocked sanctions congress enacted and did a host of other suspicious things, not because of a quid pro quo but because Trump really likes Putin and is looking to be his buddy? Ok. I don’t see why thats better but lets give them both partial credit here.
you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race
Again. the Mueller investigation and the Barr letter establish that Russia was looking to help Trump.
So my point is that almost everything she said about the hack during the debate on the was correct: ” of those points, Hillary was 100% right about points 1,2 and 4. And 3 is well, embarrassing for Trump.
Hillary has been exonerated.
I bet Trump will be really upset that his full exoneration is being kept from the American people.
If you aren’t familiar with the show Three’s Company, let me give you a quick synopsis: It was a 1970s sitcom where every episode revolved around some misunderstanding; often suggestively sexual in nature, that existed largely as a vehicle to put Don Knott’s supernatural facial reactions on your TeeVee. Literally the only thing I remember about that show was Don Knott’s face.
Let me now propose that any time someone is defending the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia and the repeated lies about contact with Russia and the 37 people indicted and the five people who have plead guilty about lying to investigators and suggests that this is all a hoax, a big ol’ misunderstanding; that’s the Three’s Company defense. I know it sounds like someone was doing you know what but in reality Janet was just about to sew a button on Jack’s pants.
And at this point it is no longer credible.
- Why did Trump deny having deals in Russia when saying something to the effect “I do business all over the world and likely have deals or could have deals in Russia. Why would anyone think that any one deal anywhere would be so important when I have so many deals everywhere?” would have had everyone shrug off the Trump Tower Moscow deal as a nothing burger?
- Why deny the Trump Tower meeting rather than say something like “We had many meetings with many others and this is done by campaigns all the time and has never been a big deal”
- Why deny wanting to get dirt on Hillary if it were no big deal and everyone does it?
- Why not say something like “we had no reason to think the information they would give us would have been have come from illegal actions, why would we?”
- Why change the story of that meeting multiple times if were no big deal?
- If this is all a rigged Witch Hunt, why paint Cohen as a rat rather than a victim of an investigation gone bad? Why not say something like “Mr. Cohen is now lying because the investigation will attempt to use those lies against me” rather than suggest Cohen is credible because the “Witch Hunt” caught him?
If Trump and his campaign had made statements such were given in the above example, wouldn’t it sound much more like just a big misunderstanding? So that is in fact possible. So with that in mind, a person offering “Three’s Company Defense” of Trump owes you that explanation: why the lies, why the changing stories and why the pattern of behavior that has gotten people tossed in jail? What’s the credible explanation that makes this all just Janet needing to sew a button on Jack’s pants?
If they can not provide that alternate explanation they should at least give you a full on Don Knotts level bug-eyed WTF expression.
Either the Mueller investigation report will show “collusion” or it won’t.
Either the Mueller investigation reort will link the president to criminal actions or it will not.
Expect spin regardless of the outcome. Maybe not at first. There will be debate and then they will agree on talking points.
If it shows direct collusion between the campaign and Russia with Trump’s knowledge and involvement, they will claim it everyone does it and it is no big deal. They will attempt to minimize the crime with a “so what if he colluded, it’s a technicality, everyone does it. Why are we still wasting time on this?”
If it shows direct collusion between the campaign and Russia without Trump, they will claim it exonerates Trump and defend pardoning the members of the campaign who conducted criminal acts.
If it shows no direct collusion by Trump but evidence of others crimes they will they will claim it exonerates Trump and proof that it was a rigged witch hunt. They will not be willing to discuss why those same crimes were worth impeachment of Bill Clinton and not Trump.
If it shows no direct collusion but evidence of others crimes, without Trump they will they will claim it exonerates Trump without any comment on why so many people in the campaign were willing to lie about contacts with Russia.
Do not expect any honest here.