Isn't it all just a bit hypocritical to:

- Demand equal treatment for Rump with regard to Hilary in light of how Obama was treated during his two terms?

- Demand Samantha Bee be fired when Nugent was invited to the White House.

- Demand equal treatment for Nazis when the US fought to defeat that very ideology.

- Demand Hilary be prosecuted after nothing revealed in massive investigations, but Rump be ignored after multiple indictments.

I could go on, but if someone is upset that a FORMER politician wasn't caught for something get over it. I had to get over the theft of a Supreme Justice seat, untold days of birther bullshit and shiftless government while children were shot and killed while going to school. I thought Reagan, Bush (both), Cheney and Clinton (both) all got away with something, but it is silly to try to go back after those politicians. Rump is setting the land speed record for hypocrisy in office and doing a great deal of damage to the country. I'm sure there is more going on than the citizenry will realize, but to claim he is being treated unfairly is ridiculous. He is in office and subject to immense scrutiny. Either fly right and be untouchable because your deeds like Obama (no scandal), or be prepared for people to do everything in their power to take you down.

President Kennedy - and a lot of former presidents - was apparently quite the energetic fellow with other women besides his wife. President Clinton apparently can be included in this set. So what?

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, and a lot of things happened during her tenure - some that have possibly been bad choices. So what?

George W. Bush sat in a kindergarten classroom while the United States of America was under attack by an enemy agency, and he just kept reading that book. So what?

What previous officials did in Washington D.C. has nothing to do with Trump's behavior and actions during his reign. These stand on their own, not in a relational comparison, e.g., "President Johnson did this, that, and the other thing, and that was way worse than what Trump did."

Trump made hateful remarks when he was running; he made campaign promises that were going to be lies (as, granted, so many other candidates have); he publicly asked for Russian assistance; he had questionable actions and comments from his campaign team; and then, after he was elected, he doubled down on a lot of these or reinforced them.

Technically, he does not to have to stay consistent or tell the truth; I don't think that's part of the Constitution. But he lies regularly*, compromises national security regularly, contradicts his spokespeople and press secretaries regularly, and - so I observe - regularly violates his oath to support the Constitution.

I don't know him personally, and he might be a kind, generous, friendly person. I haven't followed every single action he's taken as president (although God knows it feels as if I have...) and he may have done many good things. All I know is what all f the American public knows; what he says, what he tweets, what's reported by White House sources. And by THOSE standards, it seems that he is, and always was, unqualified to be president.

If you know something different, please - point it out! I still want to know what's good about him. But don't tell me "Well, he didn't attack North Korea yet", because not doing vile acts doesn't make one a good person; it makes one a normal adult, who doesn't HAVE to be told to refrain from abominable acts. That's the "adult" part.

*Don't tell me he doesn't lie. When he says "apple" on Monday and "orange" on Wednesday, he's lying. Again - adults say something and mean it without waffling constantly. Well, sane ones do anyhow.

------

Many of these anti-Trump threads are started by JB on a JB board hosted by JB. If you don't want to read an anti-Trump thread, they're easy to skip. Questioning your post count has little to do with elitism, but questioning why your entire post count on a board devoted to an artist who expresses an anti-Trump sentiment is focused on defending Trump.

If you are a fan of JB, I think I would be looking at things we have in common, rather than focusing on a point we disagree on. I don't always agree with him, but our disagreements are not my singular focus on the board.

If your sole purpose is defending Trump, there are more interesting place to do that other than a John Byrne board.

——-

I don’t personally participate in those threads, but being dismissive of them, on a comic-centric board of comic book artist known for working on those characters is sort of weird.

——

If that’s the case, it makes the idea of a singular conspiracy even more ridiculous, because there’d be different factions countering each other. 

Clearly your interpretation of facts is different from mine and to illustrate this I will select one of the scandals you have listed; Solyndra. I think it is safe to assume you view Solyndra as a scandal because of the outcome and how the company folded abruptly in spite of receiving a great deal of government funding. The Department of Energy loan guarantee program was put in place by G.W. Bush and it would appear that Obama and Biden influenced Solyndra's participation in that program. I view their influence as part of a focus to quickly make the US more competative in the Green Energy Market that has been emerging for over a decade. An energy vertical that the US was lacking in and continues to fall behind in today. Solyndra was one of many companies that took advantage of that loan program during Obama's tenure and one of the few failures. There were more companies under the programe that succeeded under Obama's 2-term Presidency than failed. The fund was in the black as of the end of 2014!!!

You can continue to be outraged by Obama's activity and view it as a con job by one of many companies that participated in the fund, but you must ignore all the positive results to maintain your stance. You must ignore the fact nobody went to jail regarding Solyndra despite a great deal of investigation. you must ignore the fact that the fund is in the black. You must ignore the fact many companies had great success in entering the green energy market vertical that were funded at and around the same time.

I would ask if your scandal outrage is equal or greater in light of the F-35 over spending? Rump specifically spoke against that weapon system as reported on Fox.

Go look up what Rump has done to curb the F-35 spending, see how much more the program has cost the US tax payers and then compare that number you claim Solyndra has cost them. After you do that talk to me about how misplaced your outrage is or simply continue interpreting facts however you see fit.

"Why was an FBI plant/informant/spy placed in the Trump campaign without Trumps knowledge, and why wasn't one placed in Clinton's campaign as well?"

The FBI investigation into Russian meddling in the US election began as a counterintelligence one, not a criminal investigation. The use of a covert source is consistent with caution. An FBI counterintelligence operation seeks to monitor or neutralise foreign intelligence activity in the US. A criminal investigation seeks to identify a crime.

The FBI used an intelligence source so as to not raise any red flags with the Russians -- AND to protect the Trump campaign. The FBI could have directly interviewed those they suspected of having Russian ties, such as Papadopolous, and this would have most likely forced the Russian to back off once it became clear the FBI were watching. But it would also have put the Trump campaign in a terrible position. The media would have learnt that people from the campaign were being questioned, but as counterintelligence operations are classified, the FBI would not have been able to say why they were targeting Russia rather than the campaign itself.

In other words, the FBI were not looking for criminal wrongdoing in the Trump campaign at the time, so avoided creating any speculation that they were. They used an unintrusive method of information gathering -- a covert source -- not a spy or a criminal informant.

If you're looking for a double standard, there's the big question of why Comey took such unusual step against Hillary, such as publicly dressing her down instead of simply saying they weren't pursuing the email investigation any further, which is the FBI's standard policy.

I think its clear if they were seeking to conduct a very secret counterintelligence operation and were extremely fearful of leaks why they didn't tell Trump.

As for why there was no counterintelligence put into Hillary's campaign, why would they do this? They were seeking to thwart a hostile country's attempt to infiltrate Trump's campaign, an effort started because they had identified a number of people in the campaign with significant ties to Russia. No such people existed in Hillary's campaign. Should they have just stuck one there for the hell of it?