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

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Bugged ? I know Truman had a recording system in the Oval Office and we all know about president Nixon who probably regretted putting one in. But do we know if there is still one in there today ?

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No, writing someone off based on a funny catchphrase is not something that I would subscribe to. Nor would I be mentally unstable enough to attempt to diagnose a complete stranger, on the internet might I add, as psychotic based on one or two things they may have said.

And I'm the psychotic one? You should stop assuming things based on such little information.

you mean make America great again ? Hang on who's calling anyone psychotic ?

One or two ? It's a litteny of utter rubbish and things that can be proven to be demonstrably untrue. Why are so defensive and so much of a defender of trump ?

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

I think he is a do whatever it takes to win guy, especially if it means keeping out of jail. Authoritarians generally use the same tactics. He had the Russian foreign minister and Russia's main US spy master Kysliak in the oval office to plan/suggest future strategies.
If there is a false flag attack and he consolidates power via marshall law and media clampdown then it really wont matter what anyone thinks.
IMO these possibilities need to be taken seriously. This is the trajectory the GOP are allowing him to go.

Agree with OscarBravo about mental illness. His poor ratings, rage at being unable to evade his criminality this time, are accelerating his deterioration.

The generals will never allow him to assume autocratic power. Deo Gratias.

demfad

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/exclusive-doj-won-t-say-if-sessions-is-recused-on-manafort-942096451556

The DOJ wont answer a query asking if Sessions has recused himself from any investment with Paul Manafort.

Somebody, had the following theory on twitter that might fit recent events.
(caveat: speculation)

Paul Manafort who has a list of 4-5 serious crimes potentially against his name (before treason is added) is talking to the FBI.
He has been the organiser of Russian western interest for years (+ stint in Ukraine) and organised the Trump job, knows everything including Jeff Sessions role.
Trump, Sessions didnt realise till recently. They panic, Sessions starts looking into Manafort knows Comey will kill them with what they have and sees firing Comey as the only way to stave the disaster off.
SEssions pushes and 'recommends' Comeys removal.
The lack of planning etc, reveals the panic.
Who knows..for now.

Overheal

Clapper clarifies to the media that saying there is "no evidence" of collusion is, well, less than accurate:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/james-clapper-james-comey-donald-trump-russia/

"There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."
When asked whether the FBI's Russia investigation is fake news, or a "witch hunt," as Trump called it this morning in another tweet, Clapper told MSNBC on Friday: "I don't believe it is."
"But that's kind of irrelevant," he continued. "I think what needs to happen here is to clear this cloud, a cloud that's hanging over the administration, over the President, over the White House. It would be in everyone's best interest to get to the bottom of this, and for the country. Otherwise this is going to continue to linger as a dark cloud, in my opinion, over this administration."

Overheal

Update: Trump jumps ship from the audit narrative, won't release returns period.

The back-and-forth between The Economist, Trump and several administration members is worth reading in full (emphasis ours):

The Economist: "If you do need Democratic support for your ideal tax plan, and the price of that the Democrats say is for you to release your tax returns, would you do that?"

Trump: "I don't know. That's a very interesting question. I doubt it. I doubt it. Because they're not going to…nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Oh, at some point I'll release them. Maybe I'll release them after I'm finished, because I'm very proud of them actually. I did a good job."

Hope Hicks, White House director of strategic communication: "Once the audit is over."

Trump: "I might release them after I'm out of office."

Three things are noteworthy about the end of this exchange. First is Hicks' attempt to prod Trump back on script about his IRS audit being the grounds for nondisclosure, and second is Trump's sidestepping of this cue. The most remarkable point is Trump's new position that he reserves the right not to release his tax returns until after he's left office.

This contrasts sharply with campaign messaging that saw Trump and his surrogates give more than a dozen excuses for why he was the first presidential nominee in nearly 40 years not to release his tax returns, with new reasons tacked on after he was elected.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

wonderfullife

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The dossier is garbage. Using an unverified document in an argument is a pretty rubbish argument.

Rod Rosenstein's memo to President Trump lifted an entire passage verbatim from a DNC election campaign document.

What are your thoughts on using unverified documents to make an argument again?

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

No, writing someone off based on a funny catchphrase is not something that I would subscribe to.

It's not funny. It's pathetic.

And I'm the psychotic one? You should stop assuming things based on such little information.

I didn't say you were psychotic. I said that I believe Donald Trump is mentally ill, and that you should think long and hard before mindlessly aping the ravings of a narcissistic sociopath if you want anyone to think you're capable of original thoughts of your own.

mcmoustache

oscarBravo wrote: »

You do realise that it's physically impossible to take any of your arguments seriously when you mindlessly parrot one of Trump's stupider phrases?

I can understand Trump saying stupid, juvenile things - the man is mentally unwell (that's not just name-calling; I genuinely believe he's not sane). What I can't understand is people who are willing to make themselves look equally psychotic by echoing his drivel.

It happens because one's media bubble is full of people running around yelling "FAKE NEWS!!!" and it starts to seem normal. It's like the less common "nothing burger".

It's quite funny but you can get a pretty good idea of people's media bubbles by the language that they use. The same happens on the daft ends of the left.

jobbridge4life

This is all very distressing. I loathed and feared Trump from the get go. I'll admit I was temporarily placated to certain extent by his acceptance speech. I thought maybe he'll mutate into a standard Republican... it is increasingly clear (as though it weren't abundantly so before hand but anyway) that this is not the case. POTUS is acting and bellowing in the exact manner any of us might expect a dictator (or aspirant) to do. The Republican party seem totally castrated when it comes to challenging him.

All of this behaviour... literally every single day of his of Presidency to date has involved enough outrage to end the career of any of his predecessors yet he continues untrammelled.

Where will it end?

Kitsunegari

wonderfullife wrote: »

Rod Rosenstein's memo to President Trump lifted an entire passage verbatim from a DNC election campaign document.

What are your thoughts on using unverified documents to make an argument again?

I wouldn't use unverified documents to back up my argument. What part of Rosenstein's memo contains unverified evidence? Or are you just making a strawmans argument?

jobbridge4life

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I wouldn't use unverified documents to back up my argument. What part of Rosenstein's memo contains unverified evidence? Or are you just making a strawmans argument?

Yet the 'man' you are defending does so regularly and without compunction.

People like you are busted flush now. Devoid of argument and credibility. The only thing people like you cling to is blind fidelity (or payment).

If we make it out to the other-side there will be a reckoning.

Kitsunegari

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yet the 'man' you are defending does so regularly and without compunction.

People like you are busted flush now. Devoid of argument and credibility. The only thing people like you cling to is blind fidelity (or payment).

If we make it out to the other-side there will be a reckoning.

Again someone is making a lot of assumptions. I don't support Trump. Just because some people want tangible evidence before demonising the man doesn't mean that you support him. If Trump is guilty of collusion then I hope that comes out into the open I don't agree with the trial by media where accusations are continually thrown around with little evidence to support such claims. Everyone deserves due process.

jimmycrackcorm

Kitsunegari wrote:

Again someone is making a lot of assumptions. I don't support Trump. Just because some people want tangible evidence before demonising the man doesn't mean that you support him. If Trump is guilty of collusion then I hope that comes out into the open I don't agree with the trial by media where accusations are continually thrown around with little evidence to support such claims. Everyone deserves due process.

This is just the latest in a long list of trump incidents. It's being very convenient to just focus on this while avoiding the wider picture. We still have to get back to the Muslim ban and the great wall of America paid for by Mexico.

And we still have yet to look forward to the coming litany of stories about people doing because they can't get insurance, probably then followed by how much richer trumps buddies become after the tax cuts.

Lots of juicy stuff to come yet.

jimmycrackcorm

jobbridge4life wrote:

All of this behaviour... literally every single day of his of Presidency to date has involved enough outrage to end the career of any of his predecessors yet he continues untrammelled.

It's like having a virus, you build up an immunity to the point that the symptoms become normal.

Christy42

Overheal wrote: »

Update: Trump jumps ship from the audit narrative, won't release returns period.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

It should be pointed out with the absolute ridiculousness of the stuff that has come out. How bad are those tax returns that he won't release them.

Given every candidate has released them for decades it seems fair enough assumption that you would only refuse to release them if there is something seriously dodgy going on. Especially as he has point blank lied about the reason and continued with that lie after it was pointed out to be utter rubbish.

We know he can avoid taxes so that isn't it. He admitted it in a debate. So the question has to be asked and asked repeatedly what is in them?

Anyone who defends him without wanting to see these tax returns is actively burying their heads in the sand attempting to avoid any evidence that would take him down.

aloyisious

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again someone is making a lot of assumptions. I don't support Trump. Just because some people want tangible evidence before demonising the man doesn't mean that you support him. If Trump is guilty of collusion then I hope that comes out into the open I don't agree with the trial by media where accusations are continually thrown around with little evidence to support such claims. Everyone deserves due process.

So how do you feel about Don's treatment of Hillary during the presidential debate [Trump, embracing the spirit of the “lock her up” mob chants at his rallies, threatened: “If I win I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation – there has never been so many lies and so much deception,” he threatened]?

What would you classify his behaviour as with his threats, given he won the election and has been blaming the Dems and Hillary for his "Russian ties" woes?

jobbridge4life

Christy42 wrote: »

It should be pointed out with the absolute ridiculousness of the stuff that has come out. How bad are those tax returns that he won't release them.

Given every candidate has released them for decades it seems fair enough assumption that you would only refuse to release them if there is something seriously dodgy going on. Especially as he has point blank lied about the reason and continued with that lie after it was pointed out to be utter rubbish.

We know he can avoid taxes so that isn't it. He admitted it in a debate. So the question has to be asked and asked repeatedly what is in them?

Anyone who defends him without wanting to see these tax returns is actively burying their heads in the sand attempting to avoid any evidence that would take him down.

At the very least I assume they show that his wealth is not nearly as substantial as he claims. It has been demonstrated that this is one of his very sore spots. His whole persona, the essence of the power he feels is built upon this image of ultimate success and business acumen. To have that questioned, might be the one thing that could actually turn off his pliant public.

jobbridge4life

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again someone is making a lot of assumptions. I don't support Trump. Just because some people want tangible evidence before demonising the man doesn't mean that you support him. If Trump is guilty of collusion then I hope that comes out into the open I don't agree with the trial by media where accusations are continually thrown around with little evidence to support such claims. Everyone deserves due process.

No assumptions. None.

I didn't say you supported Trump. I said you were defending him, which you quite blatantly were. You have consistently (and poorly) attempted to deflect from and defend Donald Trump.

It is ironic that in response to my criticism of you, to the effect that you were condemning others for and decrying behaviour that the man you are defending is demonstrably guilty of, that you would bleat about 'trial by media' and spurious accusations.

Donald Trump quite literally built his following based on media assaults on individuals and often based on provably false nonsense, whether that be his misogynistic obsession with Rosie O'Donnell and Kirsten Stewart, or is racist trolling of President Obama.

A busted flush through and through.

listermint

What do the liberal left have to do with people's distaste for everything Donald trump has brought to the table?

The fact you brought it up makes it clear that you blame everything on this bogey man in the room the liberal left as if everyone who doesn't like trump fits into your nice little package that you can put on an island and belittle.

It's quite telling how simplistic someone makes the playing field where their allegiances lie.

Them over there. And us. Boooo them they made all this happen by not being better boooo

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The generals will never allow him to assume autocratic power. Deo Gratias.

Things can change really fast. Trump has already demonstrated that he will fire anyone who defies him, so if the generals are gonna stop him, it would need to be a secret plot, ie, a military coup.

Hitler was only in power for a month when the Reichstag got burned down.

If Trump is the kind of person who will go to extreme measures to protect his own interests, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will use the first real crisis as a staging point for a war or national emergency and when America thinks it's under attack, they tend to close ranks and pile on the Jingoism.

A military coup against the president of America and all bets are off. Anything could happen.

Akrasia

Overheal wrote: »

Update: Trump jumps ship from the audit narrative, won't release returns period.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

Trump was never being audited. He used that excuse because he knows that the IRS aren't allowed to comment on individual cases.

We have to remember, Trump is a pathological liar.

Akrasia

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Again someone is making a lot of assumptions. I don't support Trump. Just because some people want tangible evidence before demonising the man doesn't mean that you support him. If Trump is guilty of collusion then I hope that comes out into the open I don't agree with the trial by media where accusations are continually thrown around with little evidence to support such claims. Everyone deserves due process.

You say you don't support Trump but you have dozens of posts defending him. You'll probably also say you don't support Russia, despite your many posts parroting the official kremlin line

aloyisious

I think Don is playing the audience when it comes to his statements and comments, sometimes just to see what happens next, sometimes to cause a particular effect, and sometimes out of sheer divilment. I think questioners have been putting loaded questions to him to see what happens next, and not just to get an explanation or reason behind some of Don's actions.

The question to him about whether people should swear loyalty to him is one, and he (properly) turns it aside by saying loyalty to the country; yes. He then plays along with the actual question (only as he'd had time now to consider it more) and gives the expected or desired response "to me, yes". to wind up the audience. He has enough of a brain to know he won't get a genuine loyalty oath to himself at a personal level from anyone.

Kitsunegari

demfad wrote: »

The people who are trying to oust Trump are the FBI and wider IC community both in US and Internationally. Their efforts are backed by the vast majority if democrats and a small few Republicans (openly at least to be fair). Assuming Trump fails in his efforts to kill investigations then you will have many indictments, arrests prisecutions. The vast majority of them will be Republicans. The use of election manipulation, propaganda and corruption in corporate Republicanism has been easily exploited by Russian opps to mutate into the international axis we see now. The threats of a black president and potential female president meant the authoritarian religious right and far right united with other Reps with the racist, misogynistic ethics of the formers dominating the group.
This is why an entire RICO grand jury is dedicated to dark money flowing into the GOP. This cuts deep into the disease.
Russian measures worked so well in the US that they were able to recruit these Republican criminal billionaires to help in their world wide democracy destabilising efforts.
At the end of the day when the prosecutions are being counted in the US and abroad the conspirators will overwhelming come from the conservative to far-right side.
They are not all at it as you maintain.
Underlying issues of billionaire power and inequality can be addressed postvTrumo in the US or by us starting to assert ourselves as EU citizens here in the EU.

Its incredible that you have the nerve to accuse other people of spreading misinformation while you post your conspiracy theories. Akex Jones would be proud of that post if he was a Democrat.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I've deleted a few trollish posts (and responses to them).

Water John

In all honesty, the outing of Paul Manafort, last July, should have killed off Trump's bid for the Presidency.
The GOP, at that point, should have, disavowed, Trump and sought another candidate. That would have happened if key people in the GOP had the interests of the their country, at heart.
The GOP, is at this point, dysfunctional. They should have done the right thing for their country, even if, that meant Hillary would have become President, by default.
Great republicans of the past would have been horrified of the ties with Russia.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

I think Don is playing the audience when it comes to his statements and comments, sometimes just to see what happens next, sometimes to cause a particular effect, and sometimes out of sheer divilment.

In my opinion, what the Don is doing is putting the US into 'constant-2016-campaign-mode' since that worked for him. Hence, the endless attention to HRC, the rallies, and the same old campaign themes over and over again: big bad Media, Make America Great, etc. Nothing new from him, he had a winning formula and will milk it ad nauseum. Part of the strategy is to polarize the electorate, hence the lying and dissembling and pathetic surrogates looking bad before the cameras - again, this worked for him in the campaign, why stop now?

And, what's convenient for his acolytes in the tGOP is that the real business of government - to govern - is, at best, getting short shrift if not actively failing. He's ensured attention to the tGOP with the AHCA, which in some form will pass, perhaps they'll put back some of the Medicaid cuts, perhaps some more realistic funding for previous conditions, perhaps not, but I did say the second version of the AHCA would pass Congress and it did. Points for the Don.

You see it here on boards, anyone with even a slightly pro-Trump position eventually ends up in a name-calling/motive questioning fight with the other posters. All part of the ongoing campaign, they enjoyed doing this through the 2016 campaign and some of the pro-Trumpers (even those that claim not to support Trump) are still enjoying 'getting a rise out of people.' They're not redeemable in my book, answering them is kind of pointless since they're still enjoying the 2016 campaign. It'll be this way through 2020.

The next thing we'll see from Trump, is assaults on potential opposition candidates. What'd derail him somewhat, is if a GOP candidate steps up to run against him. I doubt that'll happen though, they're too scared of Trump.

I don't have a good recommendation yet on how to keep Trump from getting reelected. If the Dems don't make inroads in 2018 in getting back Congress and especially some state houses, good luck in 2020. One possibility is that Trump might have had it by 2020 and steps aside, that's a slim hope and "Hope is not a strategy."

And, until there's indictments from the various investigations, impeachment's a pipe-dream. He's impeachable *today* but the tGOP is getting way too much out of him to even consider it. 2018 elections can make a difference - time will tell.

Ozymandius2011

Water John wrote: »

In all honesty, the outing of Paul Manafort, last July, should have killed off Trump's bid for the Presidency.
The GOP, at that point, should have, disavowed, Trump and sought another candidate. That would have happened if key people in the GOP had the interests of the their country, at heart.
The GOP, is at this point, dysfunctional. They should have done the right thing for their country, even if, that meant Hillary would have become President, by default.
Great republicans of the past would have been horrified of the ties with Russia.

Manafort has been prominent in Republican politics as a consultant for 40 years. He managed Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagans Conventions in 1976 and 1980. It was not out of the ordinary a Republican nominee would have hired him, and so far his Russian ties are pre-Maidan. As Tallyrand said, "treason is a matter of dates", and noone cared about these ties until Russia and America fell out over Ukraine. The world of business doesnt stop when politicians fall out.

Water John

Yeah, he backed the Russian horse in Ukraine. Whitewash it, any way you want.

Billy86

Igotadose wrote: »

I don't have a good recommendation yet on how to keep Trump from getting reelected. If the Dems don't make inroads in 2018 in getting back Congress and especially some state houses, good luck in 2020. One possibility is that Trump might have had it by 2020 and steps aside, that's a slim hope and "Hope is not a strategy."

To be honest, I think he's already done that himself. Even if the poll of 96% of people who voted for him being willing to do so again is accurate, that's likely to chip a little further down as time goes on and his carry on is not winning him any voters whatsoever of those that did not vote for him in November - but it certainly would be mobilising voters who sat at home thinking he wouldn't be any worse than the alternative or that his presidency somehow wouldn't affect them much.

Even ignoring that and saying his administrations farcically inept, lying and corrupt nature would not mobilise anyone new to vote against him, a 4% drop would have lost him Arizona (11 EC votes), Florida (29), Michigan (16), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20), and Wisconsin (10) - only enough for 201 of the necessary 270 EC votes to win the election.