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

aloyisious

On a matter very relative to this debate, the fuse as it were, a question for those on the far side of the pond. Have both parties gone any way [convention etc] to setting up teams to sort out their nominee-selection systems, give how the systems have landed them and the US in this mess, some way to avoid hiring a maverick [GOP] and a family dynasty [Dems] as the only fit nominees? It's almost like the word "capable" was ignored in the party decisions.

Hank Scorpio

Calina wrote: »

YOu keep deflecting from that question. I wonder why.

First you didn't acknowledge the video I posted backing up what I said, then you wouldn't acknowledge that you insulted me, so why should I acknowledge you?

Professor Moriarty

Just to recap in case the discussion wanders down irrelevant labyrinths:

It is a fact that all intel agencies believe that there was deliberate interference in the election process.
It is a fact that this interference was designed to undermine Clinton and benefit Trump.
It is a fact that Putin ordered this interference.
It is a fact that a highly respected lawyer and ex-head of the FBI with an impeccable record, under oath, accused a pussy-grabbing, rich kid, failed 'businessman', celebrity, lying POTUS of directing him to drop an investigation into one of his picks and accused him of being a liar.
It is a fact that Trump had an approval rating of 34% three days before Comey's testimony.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Why would they withdraw this.

Genuine question. I'm not seeing anything there that isn't being investigated in some way or other. It even says that there was no evidence of collusion, something that Comey was questioned on as well and refused to answer in open session.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Because what they wrote is not true.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I get that you believe this. My question is how do you know; what specifically is not true and how is that proved?

Just in case you might have missed it. I'm genuinely interested in how the article is proven untrue. Or even parts of it.

Calina

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

YOu keep deflecting from that question. I wonder why.

First you didn't acknowledge the video I posted backing up what I said, then you wouldn't acknowledge that you insulted me, so why should I acknowledge you?

I asked that question before you posted a video from a news source you probably dont consider serious.

However fwiw if you had anything positive to say in his favour, you would have.

Ergo, even you can't find anything positive to say about him.

Hank Scorpio

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Just in case you might have missed it. I'm genuinely interested in how the article is proven untrue. Or even parts of it.

Quick copy paste job

Senator Risch turned his question to the heart of the matter: collusion. He asked Comey, “I remember, you talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the New York Times wrote an article that suggested that the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out?”

Comey answered Risch’s question about whether he remembered “reading that article when it first came out” by saying, “I do, it was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance in their communications.” Risch followed up with, “Correct. That upset you to the point where you surveyed the intelligence community to see whether you were missing something in that. Is that correct?” Comey agreed, but reminded Risch that the topic may lead to classified matters, which would need to wait until the closed session that was to follow Comey’s open session testimony before the committee.

Risch said, “I'm not going to go any further than that, so thank you. In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, ‘Hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual.’ Do you recall that?” Comey answered, “Yes.”

Risch’s next question was pointed and direct. “Okay. So again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?” Comey’s answer was, well, less direct, but still damning to the Trump/Russia conspiracy advocates. He said:

In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don't. The challenge — and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information — is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and the people who do know what’s going on are not talking about it.

JRant

I have to say the Comey testimony was great viewing and it's amazing how both sides took completely different narratives from it.

The Dems have slighty shifted focus now from The Donald colluding with the Russians to possible obstruction of the FBI Director.

The GOP seem to think this is a vindication of The Donald and case closed.

Both are wrong IMO.

The main purpose of these hearings was to investigate any possible collusion with the Russians. Comey pretty much blew that out of the water under questioning from Rubio. Let's not forget Comey is no friend of trump and if he had any knowledge of this he most certainly would have let it be known.

However, due to Trumps hubris and his love of twitter he has possible opened himself up to the special prosecutor with accusations of acting improperly towards the FBI Director.

It was also intriguing to hear him speak about Lynch approaching him to downplay the HC email investigation to a "matter". This implicates the Obama administration to a very similar case as Trump asking him to go easy on Flynn. I don't see much legally wrong in both cases but from an ethical point of view it stinks.

We also now know that Comey was one of the WH leaks so for good or bad it seems it was the correct decision to remove him from office.

Finally on the question of whether Trump is a goid or bad President can only really be viewed in the totality of his term. 8 months is too short a timeframe but he hasn't exactly got off to a good start. Time will tell though.

Water John

Comey had the detail of the memos put in the public domain AFTER he was sacked.
Occasionally, in exceptional circumstances, any public official may need to go outside normal procedure.

Celticfire

Water John wrote: »

Comey had the detail of the memos put in the public domain AFTER he was sacked.
Occasionally, in exceptional circumstances, any public official may need to go outside normal procedure.

If these memos were so important why does Comey not posses copies of them and why did he not furnish them as evidence?

Timberrrrrrrr

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

First you didn't acknowledge the video I posted backing up what I said, then you wouldn't acknowledge that you insulted me, so why should I acknowledge you?

Do you thing Trump is a good president and if so Why?

I haven't insulted you in any way so you shouldn't have an issue with responding to me

Drumpot

JRant wrote: »

I have to say the Comey testimony was great viewing and it's amazing how both sides took completely different narratives from it.

The Dems have slighty shifted focus now from The Donald colluding with the Russians to possible obstruction of the FBI Director.

The GOP seem to think this is a vindication of The Donald and case closed.

Both are wrong IMO.

The main purpose of these hearings was to investigate any possible collusion with the Russians. Comey pretty much blew that out of the water under questioning from Rubio. Let's not forget Comey is no friend of trump and if he had any knowledge of this he most certainly would have let it be known.

However, due to Trumps hubris and his love of twitter he has possible opened himself up to the special prosecutor with accusations of acting improperly towards the FBI Director.

It was also intriguing to hear him speak about Lynch approaching him to downplay the HC email investigation to a "matter". This implicates the Obama administration to a very similar case as Trump asking him to go easy on Flynn. I don't see much legally wrong in both cases but from an ethical point of view it stinks.

We also now know that Comey was one of the WH leaks so for good or bad it seems it was the correct decision to remove him from office.

Finally on the question of whether Trump is a goid or bad President can only really be viewed in the totality of his term. 8 months is too short a timeframe but he hasn't exactly got off to a good start. Time will tell though.

Trump as good as ordered the head of the FBI to shut down an investigation and then sacked him for not complying. The other party asked the same agent to use a specific phrase when discussing an investigation and didn't sack him when he publically destroyed the democratic candidate.. In what world is that the same thing ?

It's amazing how republicans always seem to be able to do the most f**ked up things (like Trump or going to war under proven false pretences like WOMD) and yet the democrats get more sh*t for far less , like getting a BJ in the white house and lieing about it!

Hank Scorpio

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you thing Trump is a good president and if so Why?

I haven't insulted you in any way so you shouldn't have an issue with responding to me

So far no he's made many mistakes and not acted appropriately as much as he should, but I don't think it's fair he's attacked 24/7 especially in the media over what I believe is a fabrication, the Russia collusion allegations.

Water John

Maybe if Trump took the Russian interference as a serious issue, it would would not just be the right thing to do but also give him credibility in denying the collusion question.

Hank Scorpio

Water John wrote: »

Maybe if Trump took the Russian interference as a serious issue, it would would not just be the right thing to do but also give him credibility in denying the collusion question.

If he's innocent, he's in an impossible situation. There was reports Mueller will be done in 3 months, I don't think much will change until then.

Really Interested

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So far no he's made many mistakes and not acted appropriately as much as he should, but I don't think it's fair he's attacked 24/7 especially in the media over what I believe is a fabrication, the Russia collusion allegations.

While I might agree with you about being attacked 24/7, and you say you did not really start looking at US politics until a year or so ago, But Obama had to put up with the same including attacks on his birth, and many spurious claims from some non mainstream and main media that he was a Muslim. Go back as far as I remember Carter all presidents sustain 24/7 attacks it's part of the job. Trump just makes it easier to be attacked to be fair.

Trump was a hero of mine in the 80's and 90's but his false claims re Obama more recently his claims of his own support for the religious right when his past views on abortion are well documented just show he is a man of little principle, maybe good for a business man but not so go for a politician.

SkepticQuark

Donald Trump Jr. can't even give the same story as Trump himself:

“When he tells you to do something, guess what? There's no ambiguity in it, there's no, 'Hey, I'm hoping,'" Trump said. “You and I are friends: 'Hey, I hope this happens, but you've got to do your job.' That's what he told Comey. And for this guy as a politician to then go back and write a memo: 'Oh, I felt threatened.' He felt so threatened — but he didn't do anything.”

Don says it never happened, Don Jr then pretty much says it did...

JRant

Drumpot wrote: »

Trump as good as ordered the head of the FBI to shut down an investigation and then sacked him for not complying. The other party asked the same agent to use a specific phrase when discussing an investigation and didn't sack him when he publically destroyed the democratic candidate.. In what world is that the same thing ?

It's amazing how republicans always seem to be able to do the most f**ked up things (like Trump or going to war under proven false pretences like WOMD) and yet the democrats get more sh*t for far less , like getting a BJ in the white house and lieing about it!

The investigation still went ahead so Trump asking that he "hopes" Flynn could get an easy ride had no nearing on the outcome. In that sense they are very similar. Again taking a partisan approach does no favours, they are similar events.

The fact Comey was sacked may very well be due to the fact that he refused to publicly state that Trump was not under investigation publicly despite stating such on 3 occasions in private.

Also if you think Trump has been able to get away with anything then I don't think you have been following the press/media. From day one he has been roundly criticised by pretty much all of them.

Finally, I don't think either party can claim to be better than the other for a wide variety of reasons. They both seem to do whatever they please and to hell with the consequences.

JRant

Water John wrote: »

Maybe if Trump took the Russian interference as a serious issue, it would would not just be the right thing to do but also give him credibility in denying the collusion question.

Didn't Comey state that Trump specifically told him to go after anyone that may have colluded with the Russians???

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So far no he's made many mistakes and not acted appropriately as much as he should, but I don't think it's fair he's attacked 24/7 especially in the media over what I believe is a fabrication, the Russia collusion allegations.

It's his own fault. He pissed all over the media and the intel services. Besides which, he's a highly dangerous and dysfunctional person nevermind what he has done to the office of POTUS. The sooner he is hounded out of office the better.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

So far no he's made many mistakes and not acted appropriately as much as he should, but I don't think it's fair he's attacked 24/7 especially in the media over what I believe is a fabrication, the Russia collusion allegations.

But he isn't being "attacked"! Trump says something (quite regularly lies) and the media (as is their right) pull him up on it!

He lies, he contradicts himself repeatedly or just tells people there is nothing to see here so of course the media will report on these issues.

Celticfire

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But he isn't being "attacked"! Trump says something (quite regularly lies) and the media (as is their right) pull him up on it!

He lies, he contradicts himself repeatedly or just tells people there is nothing to see here so of course the media will report on these issues.

So when CNN uses the misleading headline

Trump, Romanian president disagree on whether they discussed visa waiver program

as a statement of supposed fact that's ok then?

CNN

Sensationalist headline with no basis in reality. Since when is a subject being brought up but not discussed such a big deal? Once again political reporting as opposed to factual reporting.

Timberrrrrrrr

Celticfire wrote: »

So when CNN uses the misleading headline
as a statement of supposed fact that's ok then?

CNN

Sensationalist headline with no basis in reality. Since when is a subject being brought up but not discussed such a big deal? Once again political reporting as opposed to factual reporting.

Misleading/click bait headlines from the media is expected it's part and parcel of the media to do this.

Outright lies and idiotic acts from the president of the USA is not to he expected.

Maximus Alexander

Celticfire wrote: »

So when CNN uses the misleading headline
as a statement of supposed fact that's ok then?

CNN

Sensationalist headline with no basis in reality. Since when is a subject being brought up but not discussed such a big deal? Once again political reporting as opposed to factual reporting.

I really don't see how some media outlets being unscrupulous excuses the US president from trying to erode democracy and establish an oligarchy with the help of a foreign power.

Professor Moriarty

Celticfire wrote: »

So when CNN uses the misleading headline
as a statement of supposed fact that's ok then?

CNN

Sensationalist headline with no basis in reality. Since when is a subject being brought up but not discussed such a big deal? Once again political reporting as opposed to factual reporting.

The damn lefties in Fox are doing it too. Here's their headline (Spooky isn't it?):

Trump, Romanian president disagree on whether they discussed visa waiver program

Celticfire

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The damn lefties in Fox are doing it too. Here's their headline (Spooky isn't it?):

Trump, Romanian president disagree on whether they discussed visa waiver program

What's even spookier is that it's the same CNN article....

Professor Moriarty

Celticfire wrote: »

What's even spookier is that it's the same CNN article....

Collusion. There ought to be an investigation.

Hank Scorpio

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/isis-leader-abu-bakr-albaghdadi-killed-in-syria-air-strike-35813166.html

The world's most wanted terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killed in an airstrike, according to reports.
Unverified reports from Syrian state television say the leader of Islamic State was killed in Raqqa.

Never know with these reports but a lot of sites are carrying it.

Ipse dixit

I see Bernie has attacked the Dems again today. If they don't start changing we'll probably left with another 4 years of Trump or some other populist.

BabyCheeses

I'm still confused about what is supposed to be being investigated. There are ongoing investigations but everything about Russia was made up and confirmed by Comey according to Trump supporters because he said they were not investigating Trump personally. Why haven't the investigations been shut down in that case?

Maybe the investigations aren't real either and are just something the Soros run MSM has made up to make Trump look bad?

Really Interested

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I'm still confused about what is supposed to be being investigated. There are ongoing investigations but everything about Russia was made up and confirmed by Comey according to Trump supporters because he said they were not investigating Trump personally. Why haven't the investigations been shut down in that case?

Maybe the investigations aren't real either and are just something the Soros run MSM has made up to make Trump look bad?

There is allegations largely agreed to be true that Russia made attempts to interfere in the election.

There is some allegations no proof to best of my knowledge that Trump team members had involvement in above.

It seems to be accepted at this stage that Trump had no involvement in that but he may have interfered with investigation at two but that interference at present could be seen two ways one innocent to other view not so innocent.