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

MightyMandarin

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ba462d64c12d4692b8381cb7076d34ab/ap-source-trump-aide-frequent-contact-russia-envoy?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

The AP and David Ignatius are now confirming that Michael Flynn (Trump aide, who will be his NSC Advisor) met with the Russian Ambassador the same day Obama enforced the sanctions, Dec 28th, and this has also been confirmed by Sean Spicer (Trump's press secretary).

Now some of you might ask 'why is this relevant/important?

Well, Flynn just broke the law, specifically the Logan Act, which states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This idiot just caused Donald even more hassle.

KingBrian2

Inquitus wrote: »

I would have thought the time to start doing this was once he was elected, not once he is inaugurated, but we will see. After all being PEOTUS is really when you should think about being presidential........

Nobody expected him to win. The media were in shock and of of course Trump does not have a good relationship with sections of the media, Congress, social activists, bankers, foreign leaders, business rivals and celebrities.

Harika

Amerika wrote: »

Could you provide support for this. I would be interested in reading about it.

It's a wonder why all those democrat crony political friends and donor solar companies that received obscene amounts of government funds when out of business, then, wouldn't you say?

What I find most interesting about this side-bar discussion is we don't seem to mind wasting a good portion of some $150 Billion, but are aghast at the idea of spending some $25-$35 Billion, which could very well be paid for my Mexico, to stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages and destroying our economy.

Support can be provided by e.g. German weekly newspaper "Der Spiegel" who had a series about the "Energiewende" in 2013. Issue 45. It shouldn't be a secret that Germany has highly sophisticated technology but is also fighting with China who pushes this energy heavily, especially after the spikes in oil prices that are poison to the reshaping of the Chinese economy from labour to technology intensive.
I hope you are equally worried when Trumps friends are now getting the benefits, e.g. when the Russia sanctions are lifted and Exxon cashes in big. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/12/15/trump-russia-exxon-tillerson/#262233ea3a63 or decisions he makes will profit his companies like Warren recently pointed out to Ben Carson.
And Mexican illegal immigration is keeping the US economy afloat as they are doing the jobs the rust belt people don't want to do anymore. Even with the wall and them all gone, the good blue collar jobs won't come back as the factories that were moved to China were anyway scheduled to come back, just not the labor as the new factories will be fully automated and the decision where to put them is not based on labor costs but energy costs. Something that Obama, willingly or not, pushed by focusing on green energy.
And I don't see the money towards this being pulled as a ton of jobs are depended on that and senators will lobby heavily to keep them in place, comparably to the tank production for the army that says that they don't need those tanks, but the senators don't want to loose the jobs in their constituencies as this will cost them the reelection, so money is pushed into this (very socialist behavior btw) , pulling this money will kill blue collar jobs, so the opposite what Trump promised.

El_Duderino 09

Inquitus wrote:

Probably Trump's worst week since he announced his candidacy, some poor showings by some of his cabinet picks in the hearings, the leaked dossier, his frankly appalling press conference, many big fibs told, and his approval ratings tanking.

It didn't change anything though. His supporters are becoming hardliners. At this point they'll support him no matter what he does.

Can any of his supporters on this thread think anything Trump could do they would consider genuinely wrong?

For example, if it turns out that he discussed getting help with the election from Russia in advance, would that even matter to Trump supporters at this stage?

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

I do expect him to rise to the occasion and treat the position of President with honour. I might dislike American democracy though as President of America he deserves to be listened to.

What would rising to the occasion look like though? Was the press conference the other day an example of rising to the occasion?

Once President, if he continues with a confrontational style with the media, would you consider it OK?

What about his use of Twitter to bypass the media? Would that be OK as President?

What DOES 'rising to the occasion' mean to you? Where's the bar?

Wanderer78

That press conference was disturbing to watch, a very unintelligent, immature person is in office. I'd imagine there are millions of Americans holding their breath

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

That press conference was disturbing to watch, a very unintelligent, immature person is in office. I'd imagine there are millions of Americans holding their breath

You're right but everyone with a reading age of 5 could understand every bit of of what trump said. And it was entertainment. You could flick between Duck Dynasty, the Kardashians and the Donald as President, without noticing much difference.

It wasn't a disaster for the Donald or his supporters, only for democracy.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're right but everyone with a reading age of 5 could understand every bit of of what trump said. And it was entertainment. You could flick between Duck Dynasty, the Kardashians and the Donald as President, without noticing much difference.

It wasn't a disaster for the Donald or his supporters, only for democracy.

thats a great way of putting it, democracy is in serious trouble here. the main role of the american president is not to entertain, he/she is there to represent their people but to do it in a diplomatic way, with respect to all. pretty much the opposite happened during that press conference. this is actually very worrying. hes a potentially very dangerous person to have in such an important role, not just for his people but for all of humanity.

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

thats a great way of putting it, democracy is in serious trouble here. the main role of the american president is not to entertain, he/she is there to represent their people but to do it in a diplomatic way, with respect to all. pretty much the opposite happened during that press conference. this is actually very worrying. hes a potentially very dangerous person to have in such an important role, not just for his people but for all of humanity.

This is what people want. 'Are you not entertained?'

We keep calling him a populist but also keep being surprised when he does things like this. He's giving the people what they want. When politics is dry and focused on specific issues, some people watch it and others don't. The ones who don't watch it call the other group 'The elites'. This was an example of trump sticking it to the elites by speaking to CNN like a chav.

People bristle at the mention of low information voters but this press conference was fodder for low information voters. I'll bet this press conference didn't hurt him one bit amongst his supporters.

PS. All the usual caviates: not all trump voters are low information voters, or reality TV enthusiasts etc etc.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

What would rising to the occasion look like though? Was the press conference the other day an example of rising to the occasion?

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Once President, if he continues with a confrontational style with the media, would you consider it OK?

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

What about his use of Twitter to bypass the media? Would that be OK as President?

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

What DOES 'rising to the occasion' mean to you? Where's the bar?

I'll be interested to see if any of trump's supporters have any thoughts on these issues. I'd also like to ask another question instead of batting around the validity of the report or the authorship etc.

If it turns out that the Russians have 'Kompromat' on Trump, does that change your view if him or his presidency?

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If it turns out that the Russians have 'Kompromat' on Trump, does that change your view if him or his presidency?

Stupid question. You'll only know of its existence if they release it, at which point it has lost its blackmailing power.
Until then, the default assumption is that it does not exist, except as a fantasy of the anti-Trump brigade. A piece of malicious and seedy gossip.

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

Stupid question. You'll only know of its existence if they release it, at which point it has lost its blackmailing power.
Until then, the default assumption is that it does not exist, except as a fantasy of the anti-Trump brigade. A piece of malicious and seedy gossip.

Who says they need to release it? It only takes one rogue agent to leak it from any of the intelligence agencies currently searching Trump's dealings.

Yeah, yeah, keep telling yourself that. Open your eyes and you'll see that the only real american patriots here are the ones at MI6 and their former employees.

The FBI is lead by a traitor who had these documents last summer, but did nothing, then did his absolute best to get one candidate elected. That candidate has gone from saying he's never had any dealings with russia to clearly being seen to have very many dealings with them, and his security adviser even broke the law to meet with the Russian ambassador on the exact same day Obama's sanctions were enforced.

Trump's team and cabinet is full of connections and links to Russia. Only a fool would think this whole thing is just a story.

recedite

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Who says they need to release it? It only takes one rogue agent to leak it from any of the intelligence agencies currently searching Trump's dealings.

According to the gossip, only the Russians have this Komromat material.
I think you may have misunderstood the story. The US intelligence agencies are not saying the material exists.They are merely advising Trump that the Democrats were telling people (behind his back) that they hired an ex MI6 guy who says it exists.

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

According to the gossip, only the Russians have this Komromat material.
I think you may have misunderstood the story. The US intelligence agencies are not saying the material exists.They are merely advising Trump that the Democrats were telling people (behind his back) that they hired an ex MI6 guy who says it exists.

So what's stopping one russian spy going rogue and releasing it? According to Trump there's no material at all so he shouldn't be worried at all, but clearly his reaction says otherwise.


Where are you getting this nonsense from? Obama was advised on this aswell, so if it was only about the Democrats hiring a spy why against Trump why would they go to Obama? The material also found its way to John McCain, so they must've done a ****ty job at digging dirt on the republican nominee if their material made its way to one of the most powerful republicans.

The intelligence agencies also wouldn't go to Trump and Obama if they thought it was a load of garbage. The ex-spy who also wrote the damn thing has a distinguished career with a good reputation and a lot to lose. According to other sources, this dossier is also only one of many, and since the press and Comey are believed to have had this material for months, it's possible they already have it.

Inquitus

So Trump's latest denial is to link a fake news site denouncing the claims! Love the way he's allowed to have his fake news when he wants and decry it when he doesn't!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820257714362314753

MightyMandarin

Inquitus wrote: »

So Trump's latest denial is to link a fake new site denouncing the claims! Love the way he's allowed to hav his fake news when he wants and decry it when he doesn't!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/820257714362314753

Won't be long before he starts using the Onion or Waterford Whispers to back his claims.

I don't think he's actually deluded enough to believe what he's saying though tbh. His supporters though, are a different matter entirely. Some of those clowns still think that guy on 4chan started it all.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Stupid question. You'll only know of its existence if they release it, at which point it has lost its blackmailing power. Until then, the default assumption is that it does not exist, except as a fantasy of the anti-Trump brigade. A piece of malicious and seedy gossip.

I wasn't asking about how powerful the blackmail potential would be. I was asking whether it would change your view of Trip and his presidency. Is there anything that could change his supporters' opinion of him and his presidency? E.g. collusion with Russia re hacks.

So it would or it change your view of him or it wouldn't?

recedite

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So what's stopping one russian spy going rogue and releasing it?

Presumably Putin would have Kompromat material on all the Russian agents too. Or he'd put plutonium sugar lumps in their tea, or something.
I dunno, you'd have to ask that ex-MI6 guy. Why is he "ex-MI6" anyway. Was he fired, or what?

El_Duderino 09

MightyMandarin wrote:

so if it was only about the Democrats hiring a spy why against Trump why would they go to Obama? The material also found its way to John McCain, so they must've done a ****ty job at digging dirt on the republican nominee if their material made its way to one of the most powerful republicans.

Steele, the MI6 guy who compiled the report, was hired by Republicans in the first case so it's not too surprising that it ended up with McCain.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wasn't asking about how powerful the blackmail potential would be. I was asking whether it would change your view of Trip and his presidency.

Well then you don't understand what the whole point of Kompromat material is, and hence the whole point of why the Democrats were spreading these rumours.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

Well then you don't understand what the whole point of Kompromat material is, and hence the whole point of why the Democrats were spreading these rumours.

You're focused on the kompromat. I'm asking what, if anything, would change Trump supporters' view if him. Instead of going round the houses about whether the report is accurate, I'm asking a different question.

Imagine this report or some other report confirms collusion with Russia re the hacks. Would that change your view of Trump or his presidency?

recedite

What sort of collusion are you alleging?

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

What sort of collusion are you alleging?

I'm asking whether Trump's supporters would care whether the allegations are true. So much talk has focused on whether the Kompromat allegations are true. I'm asking whether if matters if they are true.

Take an imaginary allegation as an example. Imagibe it was confirmed that trump colluded with Russian intelligence agencies or Putin to hack the democrats and publish fake news. Would that change your view of Trump or his presidency?

recedite

So Trump does a Nixon, breaks into the DNC offices during the night, steals their secret documents, passes them to the Russians, who pass them to Wikileaks.
Why would he involve the Russians at all? He could just pass the info direct to Wikileaks.
Trump is not alleged to have colluded. He is alleged to have benefited, passively and indirectly, from something Russian intelligence is alleged to have done. How is it a crime to benefit from the Clinton campaign's loss?

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

So Trump does a Nixon, breaks into the DNC offices during the night, steals their secret documents, passes them to the Russians, who pass them to Wikileaks. Why would he involve the Russians at all? He could just pass the info direct to Wikileaks. Trump is not alleged to have colluded. He is alleged to have benefited, passively and indirectly, from something Russian intelligence is alleged to have done. How is it a crime to benefit from the Clinton campaign's loss?

That's why I used the imaginary example. Trump collusion with Russians to hack the opposition. Would that change anything in your view?

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's why I used the imaginary example. Trump collusion with Russians to hack the opposition. Would that change anything in your view?

You didn't give any imaginary example yet. I did.
You'll have to give your own example of a hypothetical scenario before anyone can give you the hypothetical response.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

You didn't give any imaginary example yet. I did. You'll have to give your own example of a hypothetical scenario before anyone can give you the hypothetical response.

You gave an example of Trump doing a Nixon, then said he example didn't make sense. You didn't say whether it would change your view of him or his presidency.

I used an example!e and few times now. The example I used is the hypothetical situation where we find out that trump colluded with Russians intelligence or Putin to hack his opposition in the presidency. I'm not saying it happened, I'm asking if it would matter to you if it happened.

Would it matter to you if it happened?

recedite

In my hypothetical, I would think Trump stupid for involving the Russians instead of leaking direct to Wikileaks. So I would think less of him.

In your non-example, you still have not said what kind of "collusion" you are talking about. What was Trumps contribution to the Russians in this conspiracy? What did he do to facilitate the hacking?

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

In my hypothetical, I would think Trump stupid for involving the Russians instead of leaking direct to Wikileaks. So I would think less of him.

recedite wrote:

In your non-example, you still have not said what kind of "collusion" you are talking about. What was Trumps contribution to the Russians in this conspiracy? What did he do to facilitate the hacking?

In my non-example we find out that the Russians hacked his opposition to help Trump and in exchange trump would help Russian interests. For example something like remove sanctions from Russia.

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

In my hypothetical, I would think Trump stupid for involving the Russians instead of leaking direct to Wikileaks. So I would think less of him.

In your non-example, you still have not said what kind of "collusion" you are talking about. What was Trumps contribution to the Russians in this conspiracy? What did he do to facilitate the hacking?

Well he encouraged them, that much is factual given that he said it a few times at his rallies.