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

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

A hahaha hahaha.

Back to Trump can do whatever he wants cos Clinton.

But you know with every section of the government hating her guts and wanting her locked up they will still fail and yet not wonder why.

This is going no where. You will refuse to hold Trump to any standard due to your own biases. You have waltzed around different reasons but this is what it comes down to here. It makes a serious discussion on Trump impossible.

A serious discussion in a thread full of people who refused to read the Wikileaks emails because of Muh Russian fakes. Pull the other one.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They repeat everything the Democrats say as fact and ignore anything on the contrary. It's all about the narrative and tone. Schiff said multiple times there's evidence of collusion and it was plastered all over the media then weeks later when pressed he admitted there wasn't any.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/

Hank, you're linking here to a CNN report which states that:

- Schiff has said he has seen evidence

- Schiff declines to specify what the evidence is

- Nunes states that he has no idea what evidence Schiff is talking about and is baffled by what Schiff is saying

How is that bias? They are reporting the claims that Schiff makes, pointing to the weakness in the claims, pointing to the challenge to the claims that Nunes has made. I'm genuinely not seeing any bias here. How do you think they should have covered what Schiff said?

If you think it's bias for the media to report claims which later turn out to be baseless, then the media is massively biassed in favour of Donald Trump, whose many bizarre and baseless claims have received extensive coverage.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If they had anything on Trump or his associates that was substantial and damaging it would have came out before the election, the Intel agencies have there phonecalls, emails and so on since June of last year. It's not gonna happen.

Here's my take on that:

Trump, in his arrogant stupid way, immediately pissed the media and intel agencies off as soon as he became president. Those intel agencies would have kept a watching brief on Trump and on his links to Russia for the past 50 years. Now, I could be wrong, but given the nature of the man and his shady business dealings (e.g. unpublished taxes for 20 years), I am completely convinced that there is a lot of seriously compromising information held within the FBI in particular.

He has just hung a popular head (within the service) of the FBI out to dry. A head that will have intimate knowledge of the compromising information. Angry intel services and a vengeful media, combined with a very dodgy past, means that it is only a matter of time.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you think it's bias for the media to report claims which later turn out to be baseless, then the media is massively biassed in favour of Donald Trump, whose many bizarre and baseless claims have received extensive coverage.

Do you think Rachel Meadow claiming that Russian officials were killed because of the election or Chris Matthews of NBC saying that Putin told Assad to gas his own people to cover for Trump is a form of bias?

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's my take on that:

Trump, in his arrogant stupid way, immediately pissed the media and intel agencies off as soon as he became president. Those intel agencies would have kept a watching brief on Trump and on his links to Russia for the past 50 years. Now, I could be wrong, but given the nature of the man and his shady business dealings (e.g. unpublished taxes for 20 years), I am completely convinced that there is a lot of seriously compromising information held within the FBI in particular.

He has just hung a popular head (within the service) of the FBI out to dry. A head that will have intimate knowledge of the compromising information. Angry intel services and a vengeful media, combined with a very dodgy past, means that it is only a matter of time.

Fair stance, but I disagree. If that was the case what sense would it be firing Comey. A few shady business deals isn't going to bring Trump down. They need something major and I don't think they have it. Got to go, bye!

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

A serious discussion in a thread full of people who refused to read the Wikileaks emails because of Muh Russian fakes. Pull the other one.

Duck dodge and dive my friend. Duck dodge and dive.

dadad231

The man is unraveling before our very eyes ! someone was saying this is the biggest US political scandal since the Watergate.
I wonder how long before the impeachment ? and the same time I kind of want him to stay on so this circus can continue.

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Read between the lines for the Christ sake, or do you need to be spoonfed everything?

It's fecking obvious it wasn't down to Rosenstein. Did you actually believe that? Did any Trump supporter believe it? Did any Democrat? Why in the name of f?ck would Trump be defending HRC as a reason to fire Comey, the only reason was to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The report was used to add substance and backbone to the firing.

Here's a question, what happens if Trump just outright fired him out of the blue? No reasons or citation given. Christ lads, I know you can be slow at times but try using your brains sometimes.

So when the media question Trump's motivations and the accuracy of the Whitehouse statements, this is 'media bias', but you have just come out and said that only an idiot would accept Trump's reason for why he fired Comey.

When everything Trump says is likely to be a lie, then how can you attack the media for speculating about what the truth is?

Trump's political acumen is laughable. His way of doing business is to lurch from crisis to crisis with no preparation, no planning, no coordination amongst even his inner circle and his PR staff.

Hank Scorpio

dadad231 wrote: »

The man is unraveling before our very eyes ! someone was saying this is the biggest US political scandal since the Watergate.
I wonder how long before the impeachment ? and the same time I kind of want him to stay on so this circus can continue.

What's he going to be impeached for exactly? He's not under investigation and there's no evidence of any collusion from his campaign aides.

The media is cancer.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/05/11/2017/executive-business-meeting-1

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do you don't think the overwhelming MSM in the US has a liberal bias?

Are fox news not the highest rated news network by a massive margin?

They have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined

It is laughable to claim that the 'main stream media' are against you when you have the biggest news organisation on your side, and you have local news owned more and more by conservative leaning corporations like the Sinclair group.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/321629-fox-news-beats-cnn-msnbc-combined-in-feb-ratings

Overall, Fox News had 13 of the top 15 programs in cable news....

February 2017 was the network's 182nd consecutive month as the most-watched cable news channel in total viewers. It was also the network’s highest rated month since November 2016.

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Politician's spin things, news to me.

Bottom line, Comey was toast when he refused to say Trump wasn't under investigation.

Thats your opinion (and even this reflects very poorly on Trump)

There are other options out there, such as the possibility that Trump is panicking about the investigations he knows are taking place and wants to shut them down, or get someone into the FBI who will whitewash them.

Hank Scorpio

Akrasia wrote: »

So when the media question Trump's motivations and the accuracy of the Whitehouse statements, this is 'media bias', but you have just come out and said that only an idiot would accept Trump's reason for why he fired Comey.

When everything Trump says is likely to be a lie, then how can you attack the media for speculating about what the truth is?

Trump's political acumen is laughable. His way of doing business is to lurch from crisis to crisis with no preparation, no planning, no coordination amongst even his inner circle and his PR staff.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for Wikileaks exposing major news outlets being in bed with the democrats. It wasn't that long they were reporting he had less than a 5% chance to win the election.

He has said some stupid shít and should rightly be called on it, but saying everything he says is a lie is just complete exaggeration, it's all blown out of proportion.

Two things he should have never said once he got in was the voter fraud allegations, and using the word wiretapping over the unmasking of the Trump campaign. The rest, meh.

He does bring it on himself though, he hits back when he gets attacked and there's probably nothing the media and Democrats alike want more than to bring him down no matter the cost, and that's shown in the desperation of their reporting and the calling for impeachment.

But yet, at the very bottom of it all, of all the shouting and hysteria, no evidence of wrongdoing.

Mr.Micro

dadad231 wrote: »

The man is unraveling before our very eyes ! someone was saying this is the biggest US political scandal since the Watergate.
I wonder how long before the impeachment ? and the same time I kind of want him to stay on so this circus can continue.

He looks to me like he is having great fun. The power has certainly gone to his head. To me, he acts like a person who is very confident and reckless, or completely ignorant of the consequences of his actions. I am not sure which at this point. This Whitehouse soap is proving hugely entertaining for the worlds media, with lots more to come.

Leroy42

I note a subtle difference in the wording of the answers about Russia.

It has moved away from Team Trump being under investigation, to seemingly being centered on whether Trump himself is being investigated.

IMO, Trump will have had no direct links regardless of what went on. His associates would have done the running. A candidate from POTUS cannot be seen to be having dinner with Putin, but his campaign staff (such as Flynn) well that achieves the same aim but gives sufficient distance.

The fact that Trump has been backed into such a corner where he has given up pretending that there is nothing to investigate in terms of Team Trump to try to focus on just him.

Hank Scorpio

Akrasia wrote: »

Thats your opinion (and even this reflects very poorly on Trump)

There are other options out there, such as the possibility that Trump is panicking about the investigations he knows are taking place and wants to shut them down, or get someone into the FBI who will whitewash them.

Only time will tell I suppose. I'm just trying to look at it logically, it's been almost a year since the investigation began and yesterday we find out Trump isn't one of the people under investigation, then a few days ago Feinstein, who's a Democrat, said there's no evidence of any collusion with associates.

If they're investigating people like Alex Jones for being a Russian agent they must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Sonics2k

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Read between the lines for the Christ sake, or do you need to be spoonfed everything?

It's fecking obvious it wasn't down to Rosenstein. Did you actually believe that? Did any Trump supporter believe it? Did any Democrat? Why in the name of fúck would Trump be defending HRC as a reason to fire Comey, the only reason was to show the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The report was used to add substance and backbone to the firing.

Here's a question, what happens if Trump just outright fired him out of the blue? No reasons or citation given. Christ lads, I know you can be slow at times but try using your brains sometimes.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Do you think the deputy attorney general who's a career politician and an Obama appointee is a Trump Stooge and is putting his career, along with Sessions, on the line? It was his recommendation Comey was fired, he was approved some 94-6 in the senate. As of today there's still no evidence of any collusion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/comey-fbi-memo-rod-rosenstein.html

"Mr. Rosenstein, who served as the US attorney in Maryland under Presidents George W.Bush and Barack Obama, has a reputation as a by the book nonpartisan prosecutor."

I'll take your bet if you want, if you want to name a price. Was happy to bet on Trump in November

So, which is it Hank. Rosenstein's recommendation or not? Apparently it's pretty obvious.

Sonics2k

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If you can run a pay for play operation out of the state department and get away with it, and not even be questioned about it, why should I care about morals in the White house? Why should I care if nobody was fired over the email scandal, why should I care if nobody was fired over the IRS scandal and the targeting of Conservative groups? It seems without double standards, the democrats would have no standards at all.

Comey was nothing more than a compromised political hack and the only reason there's so much hysteria is because the fake Russian narrative is coming to roost and without Comey there's nothing there anymore to protect them, they're fecked and they know it. It's the same story day after day about Russian collusion and there's no evidence, Trump wasn't even under investigation.

Oh look, more pay for play hot off the press. Yeah standards dude, standards.

http://circa.com/politics/clinton-pressured-bangladesh-prime-minister-personally-to-help-foundation-donor

I remember back before the election happened, I was actively defending your posts despite totally disagreeing with you.

I remember saying how at least you're honest in your belief about Trump, and clearly you're an educated and smart guy with a genuine knowledge and not some redneck racist who just hates the Mooslims.

But here we are, 7 months later and page after page you insist on going back to Hilary and how bad she is.

We get it, Hilary was crooked as hell, but that does not excuse Trump from being crooked, especially when he ran on a platform of 'draining the swamp' which he has not done.

He has now fired the man directly in charge of an investigation in to himself, and it's gotten so bad that now the F.B.I is going to continue the investigation and refuse to report to Trump because of how blatantly corrupt he is.

You yourself said you would stop supporting him when he stopped supporting LGBT rights, which he has done.

Trump has put a man who denies climate change in charge of the E.P.A and another man who doesn't support Net Neutrality in charge of the F.C.C.

But you still go on about Clinton because she had the outright audacity to get paid to speak at a conference to some rich people.

Kitsunegari

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Here's my take on that:

Trump, in his arrogant stupid way, immediately pissed the media and intel agencies off as soon as he became president. Those intel agencies would have kept a watching brief on Trump and on his links to Russia for the past 50 years. Now, I could be wrong, but given the nature of the man and his shady business dealings (e.g. unpublished taxes for 20 years), I am completely convinced that there is a lot of seriously compromising information held within the FBI in particular.

He has just hung a popular head (within the service) of the FBI out to dry. A head that will have intimate knowledge of the compromising information. Angry intel services and a vengeful media, combined with a very dodgy past, means that it is only a matter of time.

I disagree. Surely if their was information on Trump; Comey could have used that as leverage against Trump? It's quite clear that the evidence the intelligence community has is extremely poor otherwise we wouldn't be at this point. There is a lot of wishing and hoping involved here.

Hank Scorpio

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, which is it Hank. Rosenstein's recommendation or not? Apparently it's pretty obvious.

I wrote that but I didn't believe it was the main reason Trump fired Comey, I used it as a argument to defend Trumps decision since that's what it was intended for.

I've be saying it since election day the Russian collusion story is fabricated so I'll take what I can get to try and disprove it.

Sonics2k

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I wrote that but I didn't believe it was the main reason Trump fired Comey, I used it as a argument to defend Trumps decision since that's what it was intended for.

I've be saying it since election day the Russian collusion story is fabricated so I'll take what I can get to try and disprove it.

Wait, what?

So you wrote a post to defend something which you believed to not be true? Are you aiming for a career in politics yourself?

Sonics2k

The Donald seems to be under the belief that Healthcare in the US costs just $15 a month.

The state governments are in much better position to, you know, help people. In terms of, you know, just the size, the mere size of it. But we’re putting in $8bn and you’re going to have absolute coverage. You’re going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You’re going to have it if you’re a person going in…don’t forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you’re 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you’re 70, and you really need it, you’re still paying the same amount and that’s really insurance.

http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript

No but seriously, how can his hardcore supporters really back a guy who is so far detached from the reality for actual people.

B0jangles

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/862602998891073536

Those sneaky Russians!!!

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

If they had anything on Trump or his associates that was substantial and damaging it would have came out before the election, the Intel agencies have there phonecalls, emails and so on since June of last year. It's not gonna happen.

This is complete and deliberate disinformation.

There were many many articles about Trumps ties to Russian criminals, about the money laundering through Trump Soho and other Trump projects, about campaign manager Paul Manafort's ties to Yanukovitz, Firtash and Putin, about accusations sexual assaults against multiple women and children, about atleast one FISA warrant against the Trump team etc. etc.

It was drowned out by the Hilary email dumps and by Trump and his team using Russian active measures by amplifying those emails real and fake.

Any time big news comes out, you and posters like you deliberatly post disinformation to drown out real debate here. You have said multiple times without substantiation now that no evidence of collusion with Russia exists.

You wont succeed in what you are trying to do on this thread.

Call me Al

B0jangles wrote: »

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/862602998891073536

Those sneaky Russians!!!

Smiles all around too in pretty much every single picture.
I wonder what Angela Merkel said to him since she obviously didn't have the same impact.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I note a subtle difference in the wording of the answers about Russia.

It has moved away from Team Trump being under investigation, to seemingly being centered on whether Trump himself is being investigated.

IMO, Trump will have had no direct links regardless of what went on. His associates would have done the running. A candidate from POTUS cannot be seen to be having dinner with Putin, but his campaign staff (such as Flynn) well that achieves the same aim but gives sufficient distance.

The fact that Trump has been backed into such a corner where he has given up pretending that there is nothing to investigate in terms of Team Trump to try to focus on just him.

First of all Trump's associates will fold and betray him when faces with decades in prison. Secondly a man like Trump thinks he is invincible, he could be and was caught on tape.

But first consider this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/332939-the-feds-have-trump-tapes-akin-to-nixons-watergate

To understand the potential political and legal time bombs that might be out there, consider the following: Every time we read a public name of a Russian individual who had some contact with anyone associated with Trump, from Russian government officials or shady characters with ties to Russian intelligence, there is an above-average probability that their conversations were recorded and emails were monitored.

When "Russian A" talked to "Russian B" about "Trump associate C", if that conversation was recorded, it would reveal information about what Trump associate C was saying or doing.

Similarly, when Russian A (who was under surveillance) talked directly to Trump associate C (who was not), that conversation was recorded incidental to the eavesdropping on the Russian. If that conversation revealed that there was probable cause that the Trump associate was engaging in some form of wrongdoing, there could have been a warrant approved to eavesdrop on that Trump associate directly.

Let's take one publicly known example: It appears from public sources that when retired General Michael Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador, some or all of those conversations were recorded. We do not know exactly what was said, but the tapes will tell the story. How, if at all, was President Trump mentioned?

There is a second level of information that would comprise the Trump tapes. The Russian ambassador would report to Moscow his version of exactly what was said, as he usually would for all meetings he considered important, including meetings that are not public information today.

Every time there is news about another associate of Trump having contact with another Russian who is under surveillance, there are probably direct conversations between them that would be part of the Trump tapes. Those Russians would "report back home" to other Russians, describing their conversations, adding to the volume of the Trump tapes.

Social media and citizen investigators have been miles ahead of traditional media in the Trump investigation. Many of these have solid sources in Intel: US and foreign. (Caveat, not official media sources)

These sources are saying:

FBI have volumes of recordings showing collusion but this is not admissable in court with FISC approval.
However, foreign Intel (Brits, Germans, Ukranians, Russians, Estonians, Finns, Portugal and more) have provided US intel with all they need.

• 10 years of recordings of Paul Manafort.
• Recordings showing criminality of Trump children (not Barron, Tiffany).
• Recordings of Trump associates talking to Russians
• Recordings of Russians talking to Russians about these meetings, conversations.
• A recording of Reince Priebus accepting money laundered money from Russia.
• A recording of Paul Flynn showing knowledge and acceptance of this money laundering.
• A recording of Donald Trump telling a European politician (?) that he will kill the Russian investigations.
• Recordings of Carter Page PLAYING A TAPE where Donald Trump requests Russian aid for sanctions being dropped.

Watergate will look like a parking violation when this is done. Orin Hatch will be President.

Professor Moriarty

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I disagree. Surely if their was information on Trump; Comey could have used that as leverage against Trump? It's quite clear that the evidence the intelligence community has is extremely poor otherwise we wouldn't be at this point. There is a lot of wishing and hoping involved here.

I remain firmly convinced that the FBI will have extremely damaging information gathered on Trump over the past 50 years during what was a very shady career as a misogynistic, arrogant rich kid, failed businessman, celebrity 'billionaire' who refuses to reveal 20 years worth of taxes.

Comey was very popular within the service and apparently refused to be Trump's lapdog (which is why Trump dumped him in such a nasty way). Both of these facts speak to his character.

Consider this: Perhaps Comey is an honourable man who doesn't wish to bring further opprobrium on the FBI from the White House and the media. Perhaps his silence to date has been to protect the state and its governance. That doesn't mean that he and others aren't waiting in the long grass for the right time.

Leroy42

I'm not saying there isn't something there, just that I doubt Trump was directly involved.

Much like Enda Kenny didn't go to the Garda Commissioners house himself, he sent someone else, or the big boss in a crime gang doesn't handle the loot etc.

That doesn't mean they are not involved or that once the others are brought to account the whole thing doesn't fall.

ThisRegard

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not saying there isn't something there, just that I doubt Trump was directly involved.

Much like Enda Kenny didn't go to the Garda Commissioners house himself, he sent someone else, or the big boss in a crime gang doesn't handle the loot etc.

That doesn't mean they are not involved or that once the others are brought to account the whole thing doesn't fall.

That is direct involvement. Indirect would be a member of his team doing it for Trump's benefit without his knowledge at the time.

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's quite clear that the evidence the intelligence community has is extremely poor otherwise we wouldn't be at this point. There is a lot of wishing and hoping involved here.

I dont quite see how you make the jump from the length of time the investigations are taking to thinking that means they have "poor" evidence.

Well what is that you want? You want the investigations to stop and their evidence to be produced right now?

You want a time limit on investigations?

Leroy42

ThisRegard wrote: »

That is direct involvement. Indirect would be a member of his team doing it for Trump's benefit without his knowledge at the time.

Yeah, but how the hell do you prove that!