The difference is I see both his strengths and his weaknesses, while you excuse obvious faults with inane platitudes like "he's just not politicaly correct". No, that's not it at all, and you're wilfully blind if you actually believe that.
Fair enough.... However, it's a pretty bad position when you depend on your opponent to make a mistake before you can possibly have any advantage...
That's not at all what I said.
BTW, He's been showing remarkable restraint with a number of issues from my perspective. All I'm really seeing from him are hiccups which are a result of his not caring about political correctness.
Your bias is clearly preventing you from coming to an accurate assessment of the situation. Your evaluation of Trump may be affected by the a Halo effect, because impulsiveness seems to be one of Trump's defining character traits. Note, despite what I wrote, don't actually think Trump is stupid*, but I won't be surprised if he gets caught committing a larger crime while trying to cover up (or punish) some other lesser transgression.
* I do think he's a corrupt, vindictive, and petty narcissist who cares very little for his country. Sure, he loves the adoring crowds, but he seems to have little interest in the actual business of running the country from everything I've seen and heard from both his friends and his enemies. But he's clever enough to manipulate both his partners and his opponents to get what he wants, most of the time, and to generally leave someone else holding the bag when things fall apart.
Aligned interests is not collusion.
Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
How does Nixon convincing the North Vietnamese to continue the Vietnam war until after the election, in order to secretly influence the results of that election, not meet the definition of collusion?
I suggest you put away the partisan glasses and at least consider the possibility that Trump isn't stupid, nor has he done what you clearly think he has...
I don't know what you think that I think he's done, but I think Trump has poor impulse control and that's why he may get caught up in a process crime.
Even that article says there is no actual evidence of any pay-for-play, and then they complain that there may be the appearance that there could have been.
Ever consider that the obvious liberal media might have been attempting to tilt the Republican field to have the least desirable candidate come out on top? Not such a difficult thing to do with such a large field. Have the best candidates lose support early, when the monetary support was still spread thin.
Yes, and it doesn't hold water. The media just has a love-hate relationship with Trump because he's outrageous. It was Republican primary voters, who mostly don't watch the liberal media anyway, who executed all of Trump's opponents one after another.
According to the law:
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
I suppose it depends on whether you think colluding with the North Vietnamese to prolong the war meets the definition of "giving them aid and comfort".
So, how will the dismissal of Comey have any effect on grand jury subpoenas that have already been issued?
On the one hand, it might be an attempt to prevent any further subpoenas, on the other hand it might be pay-back for not stopping them, and a warning to others about what happens to you when you don't do what Trump wants you to do.
I have yet to see any of the "nothing to see here, move along" partisans come up for an explanation for why Kristian Saucier [dailymail.co.uk] is serving hard time for having classified information on his unsecured, unauthorized cell phone - despite zero intent to distribute them - while Hillary remains free.
Because he had intent to distribute them, and he was explicitly warned before taking the pictures that what he was doing was illegal?
While we are at it, can anyone "name one legal thing" that Trump "has been found guilty of in a court of law?"
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia's summary of Trump's legal affairs the only thing he seem to have actually been convicted of appears to be "circumventing casino financing laws". Trump appears to have settled almost every other case against him with gag orders to prevent the plaintiffs from discussing the settlement and without publicly admitting fault.
This isn't going anywhere... Trump isn't stupid enough to get caught up in a process crime and the FBI isn't finding anything after all their looking.
On, the contrary, I think Trump is exactly that stupid, but time will tell...
Did you just admit that, although Comey indicated that the Trump Campaign WAS under investigation for more than a year, that he is NOT NOW under investigation?
Your reading comprehension is astonishingly lacking. He admitted that Trump has claimed that Comey told Trump that Trump is not under investigation. A claim that many people dispute is based on any factual basis.
Are we ready to admit that this whole Russian Collusion charge was (to coin a phrase) "trumped up"? That the investigation is over and has turned up nothing over at the FBI?
Absolutely not. Only a god damned fool would say "I guess they didn't find anything" immediately after the man being investigated fires the man investigating him.
Do a search for "Hillary pay to play" and you'll see plenty of evidence. There was even an NYT bestseller on the topic in the last months before the election.
I did the search and I see accusations, let's see they're posted on a site, donaldjtrump.com, seems to me like a totally unbiased source for information on Hillary Clinton... Of course, there's also a denial from the FBI that there is any evidence of pay-to-play, but we don't trust the FBI unless they agree with our pre-determined views, right?
I think Trump wanted to get rid of him and was happy (well his handlers were happy to agree with his random thought to maybe fire him) to have a reason that the media would support. Yes.
Of course, the real reason Trump wanted to get rid of him is because he hasn't stopped the investigations into Trump's ties with Russia...
Some people pray for more than they are willing to work for.