Is just a little competence too much to ask?

[Spock]

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert: “We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion.”

Perhaps someone might have explained to her that the D-Day invasion is probably not the best way to illustrate our strong ties with Germany. --Bob

Obviously, some here are looking for any reason to be offended by this administration. I doubt that the modern German polity is much offended by references to D-Day.

[silverscreenselect]

Obviously, some here are looking for any reason to be offended by this administration. I doubt that the modern German polity is much offended by references to D-Day.

No, here's what, or rather who offends modern German polity:

In a striking contrast, 56 percent of respondents in Germany thought US-German relations were bad whereas 42 said they were good. Donald Trump's approval rating at home may not be much to boast about, but in Germany it's abysmal. A mere 11 percent of Germans asked expressed "confidence in the US president," confirming the results of other public opinion studies. That immediately dragged the percentage of Germans who had a favorable view of the US down from 57 percent in 2016 to 35 percent after Trump took office in 2017.

http://www.dw.com/en/americans-like-ang ... a-42769570

[tlynn78]

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert: “We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion.”

Perhaps someone might have explained to her that the D-Day invasion is probably not the best way to illustrate our strong ties with Germany. --Bob

Obviously, some here are looking for any reason to be offended by this administration..

Ya don't say!?!?!?

[Bob78164]

The reaction here is definitely reminding me of the reaction to this valedictorian's speech a short time ago.

Speaking of which, I'm off soon to watch Sparky graduate from high school. Bye! --Bob

[Bob78164]

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert: “We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion.”

Perhaps someone might have explained to her that the D-Day invasion is probably not the best way to illustrate our strong ties with Germany. --Bob

Obviously, some here are looking for any reason to be offended by this administration. I doubt that the modern German polity is much offended by references to D-Day.

It's not that.

Early in the Obama Administration, President Obama did or said something having to do with veterans (I no longer remember what it was) that was pretty stupid. It became a subject of discussion here on the Bored -- I'm sure someone who's sufficiently motivated can find it. I agreed that what President Obama had done or said was stupid. I also said that I could understand how a relatively new President could make a mistake of that nature but that it was fair to measure him by whether he continued to make similar mistakes. I further predicted that he would not.

The responses I'm seeing here are different. No one on the other side seems willing to acknowledge how mind-blowingly stupid it is for a State Department representative to use D Day as an example of our good relationship with the German government. Or even in the same paragraph. And that's a problem because if no one is willing to agree that it was a mistake, there won't be any pressure to prevent similar mistakes.

We're seeing that phenomenon in larger measure with the swamp. No one seems willing to admit that any of Donny's cabinet appointments are misusing their government posts for personal gain, small or large. And if there's no public pressure to make him stop, he won't. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Stuff like this is why I sometimes despair over the hyperpartisan nature of our times. It shouldn't be hard to admit this was a screw-up. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I really would hope we can reach general agreement on stuff like this. --Bob

When you continue to claim Trump was asking the Russians to hack Clinton's email and then you post this, you continue to show your hypocrisy around all things political.

Where's your proof that it was a joke? I don't want opinion, I want your proof as to his state of mind. --Bob

See, there you are with YOUR hyperpartisan nature. You deny your own Whataboutisms (because your situations are "different") and your own hyperpartisanism. That is pure hypocrisy.

You want proof as to his state of mind? So, you don't need proof of anyone's state of mind to state your opinions, but everyone else need's to prove states of minds. Again, hypocrisy.

[Beebs52]

Could one also take the statement as yay, we have a strong relationship lo these many years, so don't fuck it up?
Still in your face but perhaps meant.

[Estonut]

Stuff like this is why I sometimes despair over the hyperpartisan nature of our times.

Where is that despair when you're fostering the hyperpartisan nature of the Bored?

[Bob Juch]

State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert: “We have a very strong relationship with the government of Germany. Looking back in the history books, today is the 71st anniversary of the speech that announced the Marshall Plan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the D-Day invasion.”

Perhaps someone might have explained to her that the D-Day invasion is probably not the best way to illustrate our strong ties with Germany. --Bob

Obviously, some here are looking for any reason to be offended by this administration. I doubt that the modern German polity is much offended by references to D-Day.

We don't have to look far.

[silverscreenselect]

I see that Donald Trump is really showing them who's boss at the G-7 summit.

[BackInTex]

I see that Donald Trump is really showing them who's boss at the G-7 summit.

He is showing who is our (the USA’s) boss. It’s us, not them. As it should be.

[Bob Juch]

I see that Donald Trump is really showing them who's boss at the G-7 summit.

He is showing who is our (the USA’s) boss. It’s us, not them. As it should be.

Us? I didn't know you were Russian.

[Spock]

I doubt that SSS and the Bobs would be offended if the Vietnamese TPTB made reference to April, 1975.

[BackInTex]

I see that Donald Trump is really showing them who's boss at the G-7 summit.

He is showing who is our (the USA’s) boss. It’s us, not them. As it should be.

Us? I didn't know you were Russian.

Just quit it. The ONLY collusion with Russia was the DNC paying for that fake dossier.

[christie1111]

Bit of a difference between a slip of the mind occurring toward the end of a long campaign and what's been going on here. --Bob

With you, there is always a difference.

I also don't think the two are comparable.

Put politics aside and answer from your own knowledge of the types of mistakes we've all made. Which one of them do you think is more likely to be a genuine slip of the tongue: saying one number when you meant to say another number, or citing a time when two countries were at war in order to demonstrate the close ties between those two countries?

Which of the two can you imagine yourself doing? Have you ever called one of your kids by the wrong name, and did it mean you didn't actually know your kids names?

I have called my kids the names of my cats that died a long time ago. When I did it, I just reember my grandmother doing a list of kids until she got to the right one.

[Bob78164]

He is showing who is our (the USA’s) boss. It’s us, not them. As it should be.

Us? I didn't know you were Russian.

Just quit it. The ONLY collusion with Russia was the DNC paying for that fake dossier.

You can't possibly know that there was no collusion. The most you can possibly say is that you haven't seen evidence that persuades you there was collusion. And as for the dossier, you have your facts wrong in a number of ways -- it was originally paid for by Republicans seeking opposition research on Donny, and it wasn't fake; to the contrary, significant portions (though not the most salacious parts) have been borne out by future events.

You can't reach sound conclusions if your basic facts are wrong. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Just quit it. The ONLY collusion with Russia was the DNC paying for that fake dossier.

I've got to get some system organized so that I can bring back quotes like this from you, Flock, and the like in a few weeks when the indictments and arrests start to roll in.

[silverscreenselect]

The most you can possibly say is that you haven't seen evidence that persuades you there was collusion.

And for many on the right, that's in large part due to their propensity to cover their ears when they hear something they don't like and yell "Fake News" at the top of their lungs.

[BackInTex]

And as for the dossier, you have your facts wrong in a number of ways -- it was originally paid for by Republicans seeking opposition research on Donny, and it wasn't fake; to the contrary, significant portions (though not the most salacious parts) have been borne out by future events.

You can't reach sound conclusions if your basic facts are wrong. --Bob

You are wrong.

Please show where Republicans paid for any of the dossier. Sure, a Rubio supporter (probably a Republican (non-plural), though not acting as an agent of the party) hired Fusion GPS, but ended that relationship when Trump won the nomination, and BEFORE Steele was hired.

Steele was hired AFTER the DNC, an official representative of the Democrats, hired Fusion.

After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.

There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians.

If these facts or out of date and wrong, provide your evidence.

[Bob78164]

And as for the dossier, you have your facts wrong in a number of ways -- it was originally paid for by Republicans seeking opposition research on Donny, and it wasn't fake; to the contrary, significant portions (though not the most salacious parts) have been borne out by future events.

You can't reach sound conclusions if your basic facts are wrong. --Bob

You are wrong.

Please show where Republicans paid for any of the dossier. Sure, a Rubio supporter (probably a Republican (non-plural), though not acting as an agent of the party) hired Fusion GPS, but ended that relationship when Trump won the nomination, and BEFORE Steele was hired.

Steele was hired AFTER the DNC, an official representative of the Democrats, hired Fusion.

After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.

There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians.

If these facts or out of date and wrong, provide your evidence.

We've learned quite a bit more since October 25, 2017, when the article you linked was published. I agreed that the salacious stuff has not been borne out (at least, so far). (And Steele, by the way, didn't report it as fact.) We've learned a lot more about coordination since then. For one example off the top of my head, we now know that Guccifer 2.0 was Russian Intelligence. There's lots more that I'm sure you can find. If you want someone else to do the work for you, perhaps SSS or another interested party on the Bored might care to do so. I'm still crazy busy at work so I don't have time to pull together the research. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

Today's news should put an end to this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/special ... -news.html

[silverscreenselect]

Today's news should put an end to this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/special ... -news.html

I wonder how this Russian got out of the country when he was under FBI investigation.

[Bob Juch]

Today's news should put an end to this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/special ... -news.html

I wonder how this Russian got out of the country when he was under FBI investigation.

When did he leave? Apparently his whereabouts are unknown.

[BackInTex]

There's lots more that I'm sure you can find. If you want someone else to do the work for you, perhaps SSS or another interested party on the Bored might care to do so. I'm still crazy busy at work so I don't have time to pull together the research. --Bob

If you can't back up what you say, then quit saying it. You try to get everyone else to show proof (even someone else's state of mind), yet you provide nothing. You are nothing but a mouthpiece.

[BackInTex]

Today's news should put an end to this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/special ... -news.html

Put an end to what? The original indictment on Manafort had nothing to do with Trump or the campaign. The fact that he may have tried to tamper witnesses related to that charge still has nothing to do with Trump or the Trump campaign. Nothing.