White House admitting to collusion now?

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
I thought Trump's firm stance, since even before he took office, was that there was "zero collusion" with Russia. But today (on Fox and Friends), Kellyanne Conway seems to be taking a different tack:

Even the goal posts have been moved. We were promised systemic — hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion that not only interfered with our election process but indeed dictated the electoral outcome.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/14/kellyanne-conway-just-set-the-modern-record-for-political-spin/?utm_term=.971c7581d739

So, yeah -- it's no longer that there was "zero" collusion, but that there is no "hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion that not only interfered with our election process but indeed dictated the electoral outcome." I guess anything less than that must be OK then?

Yup, that is indeed moving the goalposts.
 
Last edited:

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,816
USA
Whether it affected the outcome is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not there was collusion. If it DID affect the outcome - that's extremely bad. But it's still pretty bad that there was any collusion.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,816
USA
I'm learning Chinese, you guys are ****ed.
Are you also a 400lb guy living in your mom's basement. And those aren't my words... ;)
[doublepost=1500068533][/doublepost]
"She's not in the picture anymore. Get over it."
No need to get over it. But I would think people might be more concerned with those currently in power vs those that aren't. But that's just me
 
  • Like
Reactions: ouimetnick

DrewDaHilp1

macrumors 6502a
Mar 29, 2009
578
11,573
All Your Memes Are Belong to US
Are you also a 400lb guy living in your mom's basement. And those aren't my words... ;)
[doublepost=1500068533][/doublepost]

No need to get over it. But I would think people might be more concerned with those currently in power vs those that aren't. But that's just me
I voted Trump for SCOTUS nominations and to throw a wrench in the gears of the same politicians that have been in power since before I was born. So far so good in my opinion.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,609
34,816
USA
I voted Trump for SCOTUS nominations and to throw a wrench in the gears of the same politicians that have been in power since before I was born. So far so good in my opinion.
Ok. But I'm pretty sure the pendulum is going to swing to the other end of that spectrum. Not a fan.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
814
15,173
I thought Trump's firm stance, since even before he took office, was that there was "zero collusion" with Russia. But today (on Fox and Friends), Kellyanne Conway seems to be taking a different tack:

Even the goal posts have been moved. We were promised systemic — hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion that not only interfered with our election process but indeed dictated the electoral outcome.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/14/kellyanne-conway-just-set-the-modern-record-for-political-spin/?utm_term=.971c7581d739

So, yeah -- it's no longer that there was "zero" collusion, but that there is no "hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion that not only interfered with our election process but indeed dictated the electoral outcome." I guess anything less than that must be OK then?

Yup, that is indeed moving the goalposts.
Oh she moved it the other day with her flash cards when she said there was no collusion....yet.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
Trump is the result of the pendulum swinging too far one way by one party pretending they are two separate ones.
yeah, but that's the equivalent of having a severe leak and being pissed at the exorbitant rates Plumbers charge - so instead, you hire a Barrista. Great, you've stuck it to the "system". How's that leak though...?
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
I got a SCOTUS Judge, so far greaaat.
I'll grant you that. Here's the thing though...Judges (especially those seated for life) are not Politicians. CJ Roberts didn't end up being what GWB and gang had in mind...so, who knows? There's a Texas case about racial Gerrymandering that could have implications for Texas being a "red" state and for other states as a matter of precedent that will probably be seen by the SC...not that we'd disagree on gerrymandering per se...
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEK

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,310
29,739
Catskill Mountains
Ok. But at what cost? At some point it's entirely possible and plausible, that what you lose will be greater than what you gained.

IE - A kid excited he found a quarter in the middle of a wasps nest ;)
Well, speaking of costs, the White House is apparently more than content to have made a $736 billion accounting error in its budget offerings...
Gotta love the opening of the piece. It's already well known there's no love lost for Trump at VF:

As the fast-moving train wreck that is the Trump administration hurtles toward a multitude of cliffs, it is useful to remember that officials within said train are still attempting to run a functioning government, however poorly. Today, America was treated to yet another example of the administration’s truly remarkable incompetence when the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the White House, once again, had made an enormous, nearly trillion-dollar math error.
WH had figured with their budget they’d by up by $16B, they’ll really be down by $720B, but what’s a trillion bucks or so among Republicans? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's answer to that probably lies in his original response to news of some to him undesirable details in Trump's budget: "We don't generally pay a lot of attention to presidential budgets."

Anyway what the administration is actually thrilled about is that the CBO did confirm that the WH budget would knock down expenditures by $4 trillion in the next 10 years, although mostly by taking it out of the hides of the infirm and children.

The CBO, however, was not thrilled to have read in the newspaper some statements attributed to it by the White House that the CBO did not make. Per a piece in the Washington Post cited by VF:

The White House seized on this element of the CBO's assessment in its initial response. “We are thrilled that CBO confirms that the President's proposed Budget resulted in the largest deficit reduction they have ever scored,” White House Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Meghan Burris said. “CBO agrees that this is the largest deficit reduction package in American history. This Administration is committed to making the necessary investments to restore our military, secure our borders, and modernize our infrastructure.”

The CBO did not stipulate in its assessment that the White House's plan would be the “largest deficit reduction package in American history,” as Burris stated. A CBO official said later that it did not do a historical analysis of the White House's plan. Many Democrats and Republicans often cite the budget deal cut between the Clinton administration and Republicans in Congress as being the largest in recent decades, in part because it eliminated the deficit and created a budget surplus.

And the lyin' beat of Trump's White House goes on...
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 6502a
Dec 17, 2015
890
4,859
Red Springs, NC
I was approached by a Russian woman, just before the election, that say she'd let me grab her by the pussycat, if I voted Trump.:eek:

No, really, how did Russia change so much as one vote?

I'll be waiting..........
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpietrzak8

jpietrzak8

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 16, 2010
1,053
6,082
Dayton, Ohio
No, really, how did Russia change so much as one vote?

I'll be waiting..........
EXACTLY! This shows just how idiotic the Trump clan really is; they've thrown away every last bit of credibility they might once have had, now that we know they tried to get the Russians on board with their campaign. They had meetings with Russians, they hid the fact that they had meetings with Russians, and they lied (and are continuing to lie right now) about their meetings with Russians.

And for what? The Russians were, in my opinion, wholly ineffective in manipulating this election. Trump could have won without them. He should have won without them. The collusion his campaign engaged in with the Russians only serves to bring into question an election win that Trump and the Republicans could otherwise have been proud of...