Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
1…163164166168169…332

Comments

  • Options
    #4952
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,948 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    What happens when the trump accusation more than likely is proven wrong ? His twitter account is his biggest hinderence. I say that because if you say something verbally you can dispute the substance of it. If you write it down you can't.


  • Options
    #4953
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    What happens when the trump accusation more than likely is proven wrong ? His twitter account is his biggest hinderence. I say that because if you say something verbally you can dispute the substance of it. If you write it down you can't.

    Hasn't stopped him before.

    Looks like the FBI aren't happy with him because of it.


  • Options
    #4954
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Is it because one answer is obviously silly and the correct one makes Trump look bad? Is that the reason a yes/no is not appropriate?

    No because it is a witch hunt to condemn Trump and try to link him with dealings with Russia that never happened. Lets have a full investigation that shows Dems and Republicans meeting with Russian officials when they had no business doing so. It was the Republicans and the Democrats that imposed sanctions on Russia for who knows what reason in any case trying to pursue Trump at every available turn only makes the Dems even more disgraceful in the eyes of the voters.


  • Options
    #4955
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    What happens when the trump accusation more than likely is proven wrong ? His twitter account is his biggest hinderence. I say that because if you say something verbally you can dispute the substance of it. If you write it down you can't.

    There's been talk that Obama could sue trump for libel. He would almost certainly win.

    There used to be a rule that presidents could defer lawsuits until their term was complete but the republicans scrapped the rule in a effort to hurt bill Clinton.


  • Options
    #4956
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    Thomas__ wrote: »
    You´re quite right there and I see it the same way as you do. I really don´t get it how people can be so blinded and deluded by the cheap and clumsy performance of this worst of the worse U.S. Presidents ever. Trumpists are very keen to find every excuse for him, even when it is as feeble as it can be. Trump can´t be trusted and I am not getting blinded by this chap even when he eats tons of chalk to sound and appear "presidential" which he never will be because in every way, at any rate and by all means he totally lacks any substance on that. He´s just putting up his Show and wants to have the people believe his crap, but for that he is a very very bad actor.

    It is just a matter of (a short) time until he bursts out again and shows his true colours, the colours of a nasty man with a very big ego to feed. The whole person is really insufferable.

    It seems inevitable that there's more to come on this. I have to wonder what new allegations we'll be digesting this time next week. The thing is, even the most damning, unequivocal evidence of Trump-Putin collusion (think One Night In Paris-style footage with the players switched out *shudder*) will never be enough for his core support. For all their talk of freedom and soaring eagle analogies, the reality is that a sizeable proportion of Americans would be happy to see an authoritarian like Putin in the White House. Some of the same folks who argue for their right to bear arms against a tyrannical government are cheerleading attacks on the media and calling for the arrests of political opponents.

    It's been said before of course that Trump will need to convince more than his grassroots supporters. Let's hope the Republicans find a red line before they sell out their democracy in the name of marginal tax cuts for billionaires.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4957
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 8,003 ✭✭✭Christy42


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    No because it is a witch hunt to condemn Trump and try to link him with dealings with Russia that never happened. Lets have a full investigation that shows Dems and Republicans meeting with Russian officials when they had no business doing so. It was the Republicans and the Democrats that imposed sanctions on Russia for who knows what reason in any case trying to pursue Trump at every available turn only makes the Dems even more disgraceful in the eyes of the voters.

    Except you ignore the POTUS libellous a private citizen as "tricks". The president of the United States breaks the law and it is a trick.

    The Democrats (politicians, I am aware posters have gone further) have been calling for investigations instead of making assertions. I mean with so many of Trump's campaign team meeting with Russians, many lying about it after. Trump attempting to repeatedly deny the Russians attacked the dnc (how would he know), declaring he had proof of their innocence and not showing it before finally admitting it was the Russians. Stone has admitted a connection with the guy who released the same info hacked by the Russians (potentially from a different source though the Assange has worked for Russian propoganda before) and Trump's unwillingness to release his tax returns?

    Certainly I agree there is no proof there but there is enough evidence that I would want an investigation and a lot of details revealed. On the Obama tapping we have - the word of a serial liar. If you like we can have an investigation there too but I would insist that Trump stop declaring Obama guilty beforehand.


  • Options
    #4958
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Well... here's the problem with that one.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/02/claire-mccaskill/claire-mccaskill-says-she-never-met-russian-ambass/

    Senator McCaskill is now delving into nuances of context in order to clarify her position. Goose/gander, and all that. I suspect that the other Senators are shutting up to avoid any further foot/mouth interfaces.

    Happily for Ms McCaskill, the NYT, at least, has deleted her original comments from their article. http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1362411/1362436/www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/jeff-sessions-russia-trump-investigation-democrats.html

    Here is here tweet:

    "I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years.No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com."

    No if she were under oath you could argue that the middle two sentences were misleading (even though she herself provided context to these statements.)
    She wasn't under oath, she was on twitter so the comparison is invalid. Sessions stated only that he did not communicate with any Russians. That is a lie and that is a felony.
    His excuse that he said it in context is irrelevent to the felony.

    His excuse holds no water as McCaskill showed. EVERY member of that committee admitted that they did not meet the Ambassador (had no cause to do so). It is evident that McCaskill remembers quite clearly what her meeting was about. Strange that the AG has 'no recollection' of the contents of his meeting.

    He is in serious trouble.

    1) I am unconvinced that there is going to be a huge swing in the mid-terms. In the Senate, the majority of seats up for grabs are D senators with narrow margins. Secondly, for all the public flubs that the Trump administration has done, Congress hasn't really done anything particularly controversial. Congress has ridiculously bad approval ratings as a whole, but folks are generally happy with their own representative. Trump's tweets may be embarassing and disturbing, but they do not make law, or particularly affect folks' day to day lives. If voters think that they're in a better position than two years earlier, they're going to ignore the tweets just as they ignored the pussy-grabbing.

    The ACA is a huge issue to voters as is collusion with Russia. See the town hall meetings if you disagree. The midterms will be a vote on Trump.

    2) I would be concerned that if the Democrats believe that 2020 would be a walkover (After all, who would vote for that madman yet again?), they won't take the threat seriously and will, again, nominate someone who is an absolutely terrible candidate. Who might even manage to lose again.

    Bannon and Co. had amalhamated a decade of investigative propaganda into Clinton. Films, books (Clinton Cash). The far right of the party even managed to force the ludicrous Benghazi select committee investigation.
    Remember also that the investigative media was strategically tied up in day to day dumps of emails. She was judged on all her husbands misdeeds. The far right propaganda machine created the 'crooked' image and TBH it stuck on everyone.
    Also remember that Trump was de facto finiished after #pussygate, he needed the 'October suprise' and Comey's letter which is also under investigation.

    They wont have this on the next candidate. The media will have all of Trumps history now: every tie to Russian criminality, Every dodgy loan from China or Deutche bank and all the collusion stuff.
    His only way out is to gerry mander/become authoritarian. He is trying to do this. If you are trying to judge the US current political situation with regard to 'normal' politics: youre predictions will be wrong.


  • Options
    #4959
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Working class voters gravitated towards him during the election

    Hillary beat Trump soundly among the population making less than $50K a year.


  • Options
    #4960
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Hillary beat Trump soundly among the population making less than $50K a year.

    A particularly revealing statistic: 94% of Black female voters voted against Trump. No blindness among that demographic.


  • Options
    #4961
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    His tapping phones story on Obama would normally be world wide news and everyone talking about it but really it is just The Donald and I barely even raised an eyebrow. That is a real sign of normalization now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4962
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    A Little Pony wrote:
    His tapping phones story on Obama would normally be world wide news and everyone talking about it but really it is just The Donald and I barely even raised an eyebrow. That is a real sign of normalization now.


    I would see it as abnormalisation.


  • Options
    #4963
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,372 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Trump is now calling the Head of the FBI a liar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/donald-trump-does-not-believe-james-comeys-insistence-trump/


  • Options
    #4964
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Trump is now calling the Head of the FBI a liar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/donald-trump-does-not-believe-james-comeys-insistence-trump/

    With Trumps rage i'm actually starting to wonder if there was perhaps a tap or an intercept. Legally on Russians in the tower (some oligarchs/spies live there).
    Or perhaps a DOJ warrant not relating to FBI and Comey.

    He clearly believes someone knows something that they could only have learned by listening into a phone conversation. If he rang a Russian, and said Russian told another then it would be heard...

    I am doubting its only the Breitbart story now.


  • Options
    #4965
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,453 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Have we a Paradigm Shift as to what constitutes normal?

    I would agree, considering the reports previously of requests to FISA. It probably is not of the nature that DT is saying. DT himself, was not under surveillance.


  • Options
    #4966
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    There's been talk that Obama could sue trump for libel. He would almost certainly win.

    There used to be a rule that presidents could defer lawsuits until their term was complete but the republicans scrapped the rule in a effort to hurt bill Clinton.

    Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

    Did Lynch (the politically appointed Attorney General) inform the White House of a decision to go to a FISA court for approval of the tapping of a political presidential opponent?

    Was there any discussion of this decision between the White House and the DOJ?

    Why did the Justice Department decide to go back to the FISA court in October for a second try at approval, and whose idea was it to proceed?

    Why was Trump's name included in the brief the first time but omitted in the second?

    Why on 12, January 2017 did the Obama administration suddenly broadly extend the powers of the NSA?

    The Obama spokesman said Obama, nor his surrogates in the administration, ORDERED the surveillance. Key word being ‘ordered.’ Can you say ‘plausible deniability?”

    We know according to WikiLeaks of Obama's extensive use of wiretaps. And it's a long list.

    The key points here will come down to whether Obama knew about this wiretapping. Who authorized it and where it came from... And when?

    Or will it come down to, in lovely Clintonian tradition, what the definition of "ordered" is?

    And perhaps it’s just not Trump who should be worried about legalities in the latest brouhaha...

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/


  • Options
    #4967
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Trump is now calling the Head of the FBI a liar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/donald-trump-does-not-believe-james-comeys-insistence-trump/

    And if (although it's feeling more like an inevitable when) the FBI produce damning evidence against Trump's campaign, he'll double down and say "look! Told you! They're all liars".


  • Options
    #4968
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Amerika wrote: »
    The key points here will come down to whether Obama knew about this wiretapping. Who authorized it and where it came from... And when?

    I would have thought the main point would be was there a wire tap?

    This could be a biggest victory and inauguration crowd again.


  • Options
    #4969
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    demfad wrote: »

    I am doubting its only the Breitbart story now.

    Didn't they just get their story from one of those nutter right wing radio shows?


  • Options
    #4970
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 8,003 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Amerika wrote: »
    Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

    Did Lynch (the politically appointed Attorney General) inform the White House of a decision to go to a FISA court for approval of the tapping of a political presidential opponent?

    Was there any discussion of this decision between the White House and the DOJ?

    Why did the Justice Department decide to go back to the FISA court in October for a second try at approval, and whose idea was it to proceed?

    Why was Trump's name included in the brief the first time but omitted in the second?

    Why on 12, January 2017 did the Obama administration suddenly broadly extend the powers of the NSA?

    The Obama spokesman said Obama, nor his surrogates in the administration, ORDERED the surveillance. Key word being ‘ordered.’ Can you say ‘plausible deniability?”

    We know according to WikiLeaks of Obama's extensive use of wiretaps. And it's a long list.

    The key points here will come down to whether Obama knew about this wiretapping. Who authorized it and where it came from... And when?

    Or will it come down to, in lovely Clintonian tradition, what the definition of "ordered" is?

    And perhaps it’s just not Trump who should be worried about legalities in the latest brouhaha...

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

    This is not the first time nor the last that Trump has blown hot air. As has been said, put up or shut up time for Trump on this. Given he seems unwilling to provide evidence I am going with hot air.


  • Options
    #4971
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    demfad wrote: »
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Trump is now calling the Head of the FBI a liar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/donald-trump-does-not-believe-james-comeys-insistence-trump/

    I am doubting its only the Breitbart story now.
    Well that story did quote Kellyanne Conway as saying he got it from a "credible news source". So clearly more than just brietbart then. :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4972
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    BabyCheeses wrote: »
    I would have thought the main point would be was there a wire tap?

    This could be a biggest victory and inauguration crowd again.
    If there wasn’t, where do you think all these leaks came from that was reported on in The New York Times and the BBC about the surveillance? Mars, maybe?


  • Options
    #4973
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,453 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Ah, when it comes to backing your story, these are now very credible sources. Not just enemies in the MSM.


  • Options
    #4974
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 8,003 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Water John wrote: »
    Ah, when it comes to backing your story, these are now very credible sources. Not just enemies in the MSM.

    Hilariously they don't even back Amerika's story. Just mention that investigations and measures are being taken against some of those in Trump's team that have been shown to have some dodgy ties like Manafort.

    None have anything about Trump towers or Trump being bugged. Note also that these stories have been out there for several months and are only now using them to conclude that Obama had Trump bugged now that Trump said it.


  • Options
    #4975
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    Amerika wrote: »
    If there wasn’t, where do you think all these leaks came from that was reported on in The New York Times and the BBC about the surveillance? Mars, maybe?

    Werent BBC and NYT called fake news by Trump?


  • Options
    #4976
    demfad
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Water John wrote: »
    Have we a Paradigm Shift as to what constitutes normal?

    I would agree, considering the reports previously of requests to FISA. It probably is not of the nature that DT is saying. DT himself, was not under surveillance.

    The evaluation from John Schindler (ex CIA) is that there is Intel of many Russian conversations confirming collusion. If an independent investigation were held, there is enough out there for impeachment/trials.
    Knasher wrote: »
    Well that story did quote Kellyanne Conway as saying he got it from a "credible news source". So clearly more than just brietbart then. :P

    He's acting cornered now so. Danger is he lashes out or tries a big diversion. There is literally no-one at home in the State department, if there is a crisis there is no-one there to argue for diplomacy.


  • Options
    #4977
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal

    I wonder if this is what he was trying to distract from. New Yorker. Iran and Azerbaijan. Not Russia.


  • Options
    #4978
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,453 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Link not working, Calina.


  • Options
    #4979
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,477 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Water John wrote: »
    Link not working, Calina.

    working for me:confused:


  • Options
    #4980
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Water John wrote: »
    Link not working, Calina.

    It will if you copy paste it. I am on a phone outside Ireland and dont appear to be able to create a hyperlink.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4981
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,948 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Water John wrote: »
    Ah, when it comes to backing your story, these are now very credible sources. Not just enemies in the MSM.

    Breitbart is a credible source now ? Jesus wept. What enemies in the MSM ? The press are reporting Donald trumps own words.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement