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

Hank Scorpio

InTheTrees wrote: »

That's the trump administration spin isn't it?

You're omitting to say that he didn't just meet the Russians "as a senator", it was a member of the intelligence committee.

Except the intelligence committee weren't consulted, or invited or given a report afterwards. They knew nothing about it.

He was a senator but he was also on the trump transition team.

And then he forgot to mention any of it in his confirmation. Just plain forgot. Absent minded presumably. And then when he was called out on it he claimed he never mentioned the election to the Russian. Never said a word about it. So he's gone to meet the Russian ambassador and he's on the transition team and the subject of the election is never brought up? Seriously?

Just one more member of the trump administration meeting with Russian operatives and then...forgetting all about it. And then lying about it. Its the lying that's making these people look so sleazy and corrupt.

Horsepoo.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/02/get-real-democrats-there-is-no-good-reason-for-sessions-to-resign.html

"The conference was an educational program for ambassadors invited by the Obama State Department to observe the convention. The Obama State Department handled all of the coordination with ambassadors and their staff, of which there were about 100 at the conference.

Apparently, after Sessions finished speaking, a small group of ambassadors—including the Russian ambassador—approached the senator as he left the stage and thanked him for his remarks. That’s the first “meeting.” And it’s hardly an occasion—much less a venue—in when a conspiracy to “interfere” with the November election could be hatched."

"Sessions also apparently met with the Russian ambassador in September. But on that occasion, Sessions was acting as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. That’s why the meeting was held in his Senate office. His DOJ spokesperson, Sarah Isgur Flores, says they discussed relations between the two countries – not the election.

There was nothing unusual about this: Sessions met with more than two dozen ambassadors during 2016, including the Ukrainian ambassador the day before the meeting with the Russian ambassador."

Like I've said 10 times now, go after Flynn, but this Sessions angle is hilarious nitpicking. THE DAY AFTER Trump gave his speech they attacked, why are people so deluded by reality.

Billy86

And yet only two months ago you were trying to claim the FBI thought Flynn did nothing wrong, and all he was guilty of was being dishonest to Pence (even though it was public knowledge he was on the phone to Kisylak the same day as the sanctions were put in place, and nobody with half a brain cell would honestly think they were not brought up).

InTheTrees

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/03/02/get-real-democrats-there-is-no-good-reason-for-sessions-to-resign.html

That was just the third of three meetings Sessions had with the russians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-sergey-kislyak-mayflower_us_58c05639e4b0d1078ca37225

InTheTrees

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Like I've said 10 times now, go after Flynn, but this Sessions angle is hilarious nitpicking.

The ultimate hilarity is that Sessions has had to recuse himself from all matters pertaining to the russian investigations.

Ouch. That's quite a blot on a new attorney generals (or is it attorneys general?) record and not something he would have done if there had been any way for him to avoid it.

Christy42

Hmm can't find the tweet (maybe someone could oblige) but didn't Trump say his people would have proof Russia was not involved at all in the leaks. I mean sure it is normally up to the FBI to prove Russia were involved but he promised proof dang it. He gave himself a time limit of 90 days which should be up around now. Didn't even who his people were but he promised proof and should be held to that.

InTheTrees

Christy42 wrote: »

He gave himself a time limit of 90 days which should be up around now. Didn't even who his people were but he promised proof and should be held to that.

There's a growing list of promises about grandiose "plans" he's going to reveal, and they're always "next week".

aloyisious

Christy42 wrote: »

Hmm can't find the tweet (maybe someone could oblige) but didn't Trump say his people would have proof Russia was not involved at all in the leaks. I mean sure it is normally up to the FBI to prove Russia were involved but he promised proof dang it. He gave himself a time limit of 90 days which should be up around now. Didn't even who his people were but he promised proof and should be held to that.

Don forgetting that the only way to prove the Russians were not involved is through lack of evidence, not the reverse (image of Don waving document from Vlad "we were not involved", claiming here's the proof).

BabyCheeses

To nobodies surprise, Trump will be failing to fulfill a contract.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Don forgetting that the only way to prove the Russians were not involved is through lack of evidence, not the reverse (image of Don waving document from Vlad "we were not involved", claiming here's the proof).

Aside from the fact that that is not the only way to prove innocence, you should direct that comment towards Trump himself. He is the one that promised proof of Russia's innocence. Sure I thought it strange at the time for these reasons and that he was so confident of having said proof in that timeline but he said it so he gets held to it. At least tell us what "his people" found in their investigations. I mean I am presuming he didn't just say it to deflect the story to a later date and really had some mysterious people investigating this. If he has relevant information then he should come forward with it.

No trying to circle around it, he promised. The fact that it was a stupid promise is besides the point, to begin with most of his promises are stupid. He said it to deflect at the time and really some people should demand to know what he meant by this tweet now.

aloyisious

Christy42 wrote: »

Aside from the fact that that is not the only way to prove innocence, you should direct that comment towards Trump himself. He is the one that promised proof of Russia's innocence. Sure I thought it strange at the time for these reasons and that he was so confident of having said proof in that timeline but he said it so he gets held to it. At least tell us what "his people" found in their investigations. I mean I am presuming he didn't just say it to deflect the story to a later date and really had some mysterious people investigating this. If he has relevant information then he should come forward with it.

No trying to circle around it, he promised. The fact that it was a stupid promise is besides the point, to begin with most of his promises are stupid. He said it to deflect at the time and really some people should demand to know what he meant by this tweet now.

I was being slightly sarcastic. It's just his word on it. The only way to prove one's innocence is a cast-iron alibi and his Admin can't provide one that'll satisfy the public. His saying he'll provide evidence of Russian non-interference in domestic US politics & in his Admin's innocence is well-nigh impossible. There've been too many present Admin staff at meetings in the past to be able to blow away the smoke. His political promises have painted him in a corner & come back to bite him in the ass.

Maybe Julian Assange and Wikileaks will step forward and say "It was all us and our fake news creations" but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

I was being slightly sarcastic. It's just his word on it. The only way to prove one's innocence is a cast-iron alibi and his Admin can't provide one that'll satisfy the public. His saying he'll provide evidence of Russian non-interference in domestic US politics & in his Admin's innocence is well-nigh impossible. There've been too many present Admin staff at meetings in the past to be able to blow away the smoke. His political promises have painted him in a corner & come back to bite him in the ass.

Maybe Julian Assange and Wikileaks will step forward and say "It was all us and our fake news creations" but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Apologies, misread your previous post.

FatherTed

Brilliant:

[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]"Ten times Trump asked [German chancellor Angela Merkel] if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, 'You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU,'" the official said. [/font]
[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]They continued: "On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, 'Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.'"[/font]
[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]Merkel reportedly told her cabinet members that Trump had "very basic misunderstandings" on the "fundamentals" of the EU and trade. [/font]
[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]The exchange occurred when Merkel met with Trump last month and reportedly convinced him to negotiate with the EU as a bloc after attempts by his administration to deal with individual countries were declined. [/font]

[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4[/font]

Water John

Brilliant, is the right word indeed.
She kept the message simple!!!

Sam Russell

He equally misunderstood how Nato is funded. Handing Merkel a bill for $ billions was a demonstration of his total ignorance - not only of Nato but also of diplomacy.

Christy42

FatherTed wrote: »

Brilliant:

[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4[/font]

Interesting that that article says the Trump administration has realised that logically the UK will be at the back of the queue when it comes to a trade deal. This is of course logical due to market sizes but something that is against where the administration was before (not that a Trump u turn on anything is particularly surprising).

Valord

FatherTed wrote: »

Brilliant:

[font=Georgia, Times, sans-serif]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-eu-2017-4[/font]

This is remarkable only in how unsurprising it is. I really resent the fact that so much of the sensationalism around Trump during the election focused on his outrageous one-liners and not on his complete ignorance regarding any topics related to the actual job he was applying for.

Sam Russell wrote: »

He equally misunderstood how Nato is funded. Handing Merkel a bill for $ billions was a demonstration of his total ignorance - not only of Nato but also of diplomacy.

I believe that story was later found to be apocryphal (or "FAKE NEWS" to use the parlance of the day), but the sentiment is about right in that he does think other countries owe literal debts to America for not increasing their own military spending.

aloyisious

His "understanding" might be due to his advisers. I'm looking at Nigel Farage in particular.

Water John

Farage looks to have been the courier between Trump and Assnage when the heat was on and electronic monitoring was high.
Pure chance that he was spotted going into the Ecudorian embassy.
Followed by the releasing of Vault 7.
If Trump had any hand in it, he is toast.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/23/when-nigel-farage-met-julian-assange

Manic Moran

Valord wrote: »

I believe that story was later found to be apocryphal (or "FAKE NEWS" to use the parlance of the day), but the sentiment is about right in that he does think other countries owe literal debts to America for not increasing their own military spending.

Indeed untrue. http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/28/trump-merkel-nato-bill/

It's not that he thinks they owe the US a debt. The sentiment is that many of the EU nations are not contributing their agreed-upon share to an organisation's purpose. (i.e. a percentage defense spending). As a result, the two competing opinions in the US right now are either (a) to realise that the defense of NATO (particularly EU) countries is in the US interest regardless of if those countries are willing to lift their own weight to help themselves, or (b) to conclude that if the EU countries aren't sufficiently concerned about NATO to meet their own spending guidelines, then the US shouldn't be concerned about NATO either.

This whole 'not spending enough' deal is an attempt to split the difference: To prod the other 23 NATO countries (Of 28, five are actually making the 2% mark) into spending more, without outright abandoning the organisation off the bat. As the German defense minister said about two months ago, Trump has a point.

I'm beginning to see some significant differences between Trump's outward actions and statements, and the work being conducted behind the scenes by his administration. As the BBC article yesterday on the release of Aya Hijazi observed, his administration likes to do the major work behind the scenes, and many of his staff are quite competent. It may be telling that on the airplane sent to pick up Ms Hijazi was the, Arabic-speaking, Egyptian born deputy National Security Advisor with a reputation as a dealmaker (Dina Powell).

I'm wondering if the governments have figured out to treat the Trump administration a bit like, say, a government treats a US Ambassador who is a political appointee. Let them have the trappings of power, invite him/her to all the public functions, but when any real work needs to be done, talk to the professional behind the scenes (Deputy Chief of Mission, who is usually a career civil servant)

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Indeed untrue. http://www.snopes.com/2017/03/28/trump-merkel-nato-bill/

It's not that he thinks they owe the US a debt. The sentiment is that many of the EU nations are not contributing their agreed-upon share to an organisation's purpose. (i.e. a percentage defense spending). As a result, the two competing opinions in the US right now are either (a) to realise that the defense of NATO (particularly EU) countries is in the US interest regardless of if those countries are willing to lift their own weight to help themselves, or (b) to conclude that if the EU countries aren't sufficiently concerned about NATO to meet their own spending guidelines, then the US shouldn't be concerned about NATO either.

This whole 'not spending enough' deal is an attempt to split the difference: To prod the other 23 NATO countries (Of 28, five are actually making the 2% mark) into spending more, without outright abandoning the organisation off the bat. As the German defense minister said about two months ago, Trump has a point.

I'm beginning to see some significant differences between Trump's outward actions and statements, and the work being conducted behind the scenes by his administration. As the BBC article yesterday on the release of Aya Hijazi observed, his administration likes to do the major work behind the scenes, and many of his staff are quite competent. It may be telling that on the airplane sent to pick up Ms Hijazi was the, Arabic-speaking, Egyptian born deputy National Security Advisor with a reputation as a dealmaker (Dina Powell).

I'm wondering if the governments have figured out to treat the Trump administration a bit like, say, a government treats a US Ambassador who is a political appointee. Let them have the trappings of power, invite him/her to all the public functions, but when any real work needs to be done, talk to the professional behind the scenes (Deputy Chief of Mission, who is usually a career civil servant)

Trump seems to have left the give out about NATO line behind at least (since Bannon got shifted off to one side) though I suppose he could switch again. Granted his previous statements with regards Germany have a point but the ones directed towards the poorer eastern European countries were worrying.

The US are largely stuck with NATO in any case. A military alliance is in their favour and given their own level of spending and the fact that it mostly works on a deterrent basis, they would gain little from Germany spending more. Theoretically they could spend less on the military in this case but that is not going to happen no matter what Germany do.

Igotadose

Lowest ratings of a President in 72 years: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-worst-approval-rating-since-1945-barack-obama-higher-foreign-policy-jobs-hillary-a7697381.html. Up from the all-time low he hit a month back. Ratings have gone up some since the rocket's red glare over Iraq, err, Syria.

On the night of the WH Correspondent's dinner, which he's not attending, he's going to be at a rally in Pennsylvania. Needs that ego feed, after all.

aloyisious

I'd like to think that McMaster has had some influence in getting rid of self-seeking political hacks from the crowd of "advisers" to give Don genuine "real-time" facts and critical advice from people who have no agenda, for Don to base his decisions on, instead of personal whimsy and loose sand from lackeys.

ECO_Mental

Water John wrote: »

Farage looks to have been the courier between Trump and Assnage when the heat was on and electronic monitoring was high.
Pure chance that he was spotted going into the Ecudorian embassy.
Followed by the releasing of Vault 7.
If Trump had any hand in it, he is toast.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/23/when-nigel-farage-met-julian-assange

Farrage must be quear stupid....Surely that embassy of all embassies atm is under constant surveillance either by the CIA and British intelligence no one goes in and out of that embassy without these lads knowing about it. Thinking he can rock up with his cap pulled down over his face and just saunter in without anybody noticing is just plain stupidity on his part. The lucky part here is just us Joe Public find out about it by chance but be sure the Intelligence lads know.

This revelation is serious, one of Trumps best buds off meeting Jullian Assange, one of, if not, the CIAs and NSAs No.1 wanted person atm...crazy

God I hope Trump goes down soon and he gets jail time the whole lot of them (that pretty boy Kushner as well :P). Wouldn’t you just love it if we got some “Perp Walks” the yanks love them.

Igotadose

Trump gives an interview with the AP. It's, well, Trump in his full on routine, even offers the interviewer a Coca Cola.

Everything is 'People are saying' and "I shouldn't be telling you this but..." "We'll have the greatest <blah>" "So and So <of some import, like the Japanese PM> said to me ...."


Amusing exchanges like this one:
--
AP: So in terms of the 100-day plan that you did put out during the campaign, do you feel, though, that people should hold you accountable to this in terms of judging success?

TRUMP: No, because much of the foundation's been laid. Things came up. I'll give you an example. I didn't put Supreme Court judge on the 100 (day) plan, and I got a Supreme Court judge.

AP: I think it's on there.

---
TRUMP. It's massive. And every agency is, like, bigger than any company. So you know, I really just see the bigness of it all, but also the responsibility.
--
--
On tax cuts:
AP: Do you have any details on that in terms of rates?

TRUMP: Only in terms that it will be a massive tax cut. It will be bigger, I believe, than any tax cut ever. Maybe the biggest tax cut we've ever had. ...
---
TRUMP: ... "You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism."
---
TRUMP: Absolutely. If they don't treat fairly, I am terminating NAFTA.

AP: What's a timeline for that decision?

TRUMP: It's a six-month termination clause, I have the right to do it, it's a six-month clause.
----
AP: Can I just ask you, though — do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange?

TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision, but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
----
AP: A lot of the DREAMers have been hoping to hear something from you. I don't want to give them the wrong message with this.

TRUMP: Here is what they can hear: The dreamers should rest easy. OK? I'll give you that. The dreamers should rest easy. ...
----

Bigness, yep. Biggest tax cut we've ever had. No terrorism prior to 1949. My base wants a wall, I can do it for $10 bn. Etc.

Bonkers. The man's bonkers, crashing under pressure

https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

Leroy42

I understand that people are feeling disenfranchised, the 'populist' movement so called is looking for the leaders to change, to start telling it like it is. Gloves of, no more PC nonsense. We are adults, we deserve to be treated with respect and the truth.

And then they go and elect a man that seems to embody the very opposite of all of that. He has no vision, cannot tell the truth, is clearly willing to go with the plans of those around him without any understanding of it, lacks any ability to communicate detail.

And yet, and yet, people are willing to forgive and excuse all of that on the promise, no, actually on the insinuation, that he will be different. He never actually said he would be, but that is what they seem to have grasped onto.

Take the recent Session remark about Hawaii. I said at the time that they would come out and say he was factually correct, ignoring what he actually meant (he used it as a put down, now apparently all he was doing was giving people a geography lesson).

People are fed up with politicians lying to them. So the best way to deal with that was to elect a compulsive liar?

InTheTrees

That AP interview is shocking.

He is barely capable of completing a sentence. Maybe 80% of what he says is gibberish.

Zubeneschamali

InTheTrees wrote: »

Maybe 80% of what he says is gibberish.

But he will pivot from gibberish to practical politics any day now.

Also, he will surround himself with experienced operators, like his daughter and her husband.

Also, the Republican leadership will really be in control, and they are a competent, savvy bunch.

The clincher - Hillary had these emails, see...

BabyCheeses

InTheTrees wrote: »

That AP interview is shocking.

He is barely capable of completing a sentence. Maybe 80% of what he says is gibberish.

Never read Trump. People think this is a good speaker who tells it as it is. If that is how it is it explains a lot about their minds.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But he will pivot from gibberish to practical politics any day now.

Also, he will surround himself with experienced operators, like his daughter and her husband.

Also, the Republican leadership will really be in control, and they are a competent, savvy bunch.

The clincher - Hillary had these emails, see...

He'll switch after the primaries election inauguration re-election.

Professor Moriarty

InTheTrees wrote: »

That AP interview is shocking.

He is barely capable of completing a sentence. Maybe 80% of what he says is gibberish.

Which speaks volumes about the society that elected him. Sadly.

Peregrinus

Well, they elected George W. Bush, who was also barely capable of completing a sentence, remember?

"Articulate" is not a quality that the Americans necessarily require in a President.