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

SeamusFX

JRant wrote: »

Good one, is that your go to position when someone doesn't fully agree with you? Christ, I've said he was an oaf and useless yet you construe that as me being a Trump supporter.

Seriously though, read what you just wrote and tell me how that differs with what I said. We don't know if there is any evidence because the investigation is still ongoing. When we have the facts then we can say there either was collusion with Russian inference of the election or not.

Trying reading what I'm actually saying instead of creating a false narrative in your own head and claiming I'm a Trump supporter when even a cursory glance at my posts would tell you the exact opposite.

I never said you were a Trump supporter and I know you aren't, but your statement sounded too easy and defending of him. That's the problem with Trump, he's told so many lies and has thrown so much out there, people loose focus. The bottom line with him is, you can't defend the indefensible!

mcmoustache

Really Interested wrote: »

My only issue is some of the people saying no evidence are the same people who claim that Clinto did x y or z, using the same standard of evidence such claims should be treated the same way they treat them in relation to trump.

There's a big difference between Trumpers who like to run around yelling FAKE NEWS while calling the Russia thing a "nothingburger" and those who say that they haven't seen a smoking gun or direct evidence of collusion. It's a fair and honest position to take.

I can't say that I've seen direct evidence but there is a fúckton of alarming circumstantial evidence. It's important to see the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. It's also important to remember that circumstantial evidence is still evidence and a whole lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in one direction makes a pretty strong case.

JRant

Christy42 wrote: »

True. However if the meetings are innocent and there is no link to Trump the follow up question is how do we stop all the lying about it and why did Trump defend Russia to the Hilt over the now proven interference. I mean I agree a direct link has yet to be shown which is why I would prefer the more forceful attacks to go along potentially more fruitful lines while the direct link to Russia investigation ticks along.

An issue Trump has is there are so many charges against him from various incompetence based ones to illegal stuff and plenty in between on topics from Russia to conflicts of interest and nepptism. To a certain extent this has shielded from any individual charge, on the other it looks like to completely freeze out his presidency as he simply can't get anything done. (Anyone remember infastructure week?).

The Donald's MO seems to be to double down on anything that may be even slightly off, thereby making matters worse. I mean he started off his term with the whole inauguration crowd nonsense and has pretty much continued on the same path.

If the Dems took their heads out of their own backsides, stopped trying to label everyone in the administration as a Russian spy and actual focused on what we do know they would be far better served.

There are mid-terms coming up and they really should be concentrating on these. The investigation into Trump will run its own course and there is no reason to suggest the special prosecutor will do anything but a stand up job.

JRant

SeamusFX wrote: »

I never said you were a Trump supporter and I know you aren't, but your statement sounded too easy and defending of him. That's the problem with Trump, he's told so many lies and has thrown so much out there, people loose focus. The bottom line with him is, you can't defend the indefensible!

Fair enough Seamus. I completely understand the frustration with people blindly defending their man. We are seeing this in spades with Trump and on the flip side the Dems aren't exactly covering themselves in glory either. It's hypocrisy on both sides without waiting for actual evidence.

Really Interested

mcmoustache wrote: »

There's a big difference between Trumpers who like to run around yelling FAKE NEWS while calling the Russia thing a "nothingburger" and those who say that they haven't seen a smoking gun or direct evidence of collusion. It's a fair and honest position to take.

I can't say that I've seen direct evidence but there is a fúckton of alarming circumstantial evidence. It's important to see the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. It's also important to remember that circumstantial evidence is still evidence and a whole lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in one direction makes a pretty strong case.

I was saying it's interesting that some who say there is no evidence are the very people based on less screamed "lock her up"

mcmoustache

Really Interested wrote: »

I was saying it's interesting that some who say there is no evidence are the very people based on less screamed "lock her up"

Yeah, them's Trumpers. They really don't see the irony. It's funny how their standard of evidence changes depending on who they are talking about.

Leroy42

mcmoustache wrote: »

Yeah, them's Trumpers. They really don't see the irony. It's funny how their standard of evidence changes depending on who they are talking about.

Yes, that is the thing that really gets me as well.

I know no more than what is reported and posted here etc, so I can't definitively know one way or the other.

But it is clear that a large part of Trump support is clearly operating on changeable moral codes.

Lock her up for HC based on nothing more than reports and possibles whilst at the same time saying that everything about Trump is fake news.

MSM is all fake, except for Fox News, which is like the king of MSM.

Its not the different opinions that I have a problem with, it is the massive double standards they are happy to use in order to convince themselves they are right

Water John

Yes, the Special Prosecutor is now, in place. He wasn't a few weeks ago.

Applying, what needs to happen today, to circumstances before his appointment is just wrong. Now, both the MSM and Dems and in fact all Congress need to change tack.

Maximus Alexander

JRant wrote: »

The Donald's MO seems to be to double down on anything that may be even slightly off, thereby making matters worse. I mean he started off his term with the whole inauguration crowd nonsense and has pretty much continued on the same path.

If the Dems took their heads out of their own backsides, stopped trying to label everyone in the administration as a Russian spy and actual focused on what we do know they would be far better served.

There are mid-terms coming up and they really should be concentrating on these. The investigation into Trump will run its own course and there is no reason to suggest the special prosecutor will do anything but a stand up job.

The problem with that is anyone in opposition to him really needs to be pushing hard now, early in his presidency, before he and his administration manage to sink the hooks in too far.

There are some really alarming trends towards authoritarianism happening under his administration, happening right in front of our eyes, and it's not being paid enough attention. But the easiest time to resist that is early on and it gets exponentially more difficult as time passes.

The problem is that if you say things like this, people assume you're being alarmist. It's not though. From early in his campaign to the date he has gone on the offensive against the free press, trying to undermine them and erode public trust in them. He has also attempted to undermine several key government institutions up to and including the supreme court! In addition, he has employed nepotism to fill the corridors of power with family and close friends. Meanwhile his party have openly discussed implementing measures to make voting more difficult under the guise of combating (nonexistent) election fraud. Voter suppression is what it really is.

These are all alarming signs of a shift to authoritarianism and when you throw in the ties to Russia which have also happened in the open, in front of our eyes, the situation is quite shocking. We know that Russia interfered in the election to Trump's benefit, the only thing we don't know for certain is whether he colluded with them to secure that interference. There certainly is reason to believe that could have been the case though.

So, if that's a possible route to getting him out of office then of course it will be pursued. It actually doesn't particularly matter how it's achieved; what he's doing needs to be nipped in the bud early or the damage to American democracy could be felt for generations.

It's all well and good suggesting that the Democrats need to focus on getting their own house in order, but if the plan is to wait and beat him in 2020 well it may already be too late. He's been in office less than six months and he's already managed to wreck the place. Give him three more years..?

demfad

JRant wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear, there is no evidence of a direct link between Trump associates and Russian interference with the election. That is the specific charge being laid against Trump.

Lets look at direct links:

Trump instructed Russia to hack his opponent during a speech on the campaign trail. This is a fact.
Roger Stone communicated 16 times the hacker(s) known as Guccifer 2.0 who US Intel's report accuses as being the Russian hacker of the DNC servers.
Kushner requested a line of communication with the Kremlin using Russian Intelligence HARDWARE that would be invisible to the United States authorities. That is massive and I don't think people understand the trouble Kushner is in.
We also have Adam Schiff stating that he has seen evidence of collusion that is more than circumstantial. We have Comey GLOMARing on the question of the existance of collusion: If no collusion exists he can say so; but if it exists he must GLOMAR.

There is plenty of evidence that some associates met with Russian counterparts, this is rightly being investigated. As yet we don't know the reasoning behind these meetings. Many have argued they were nefarious in nature, others that they were harmless.

Please give me an innocent explanation anything that accounts for the evidence available so far. Nobody has explained it to date, or the lies. Please fire ahead. I dont see any other explanation than they colluded with Russia.

I don't know and until the investigation is complete and the report published then none of us can know one way or the other.

Sorry, but again you're onto this unknowable tack. If there are 80-90 pieces of a 100 piece treason jigsaw puzzle solved you don't need to have it rubber stamped to know what the picture entails. This is not unknowable as you imply.

Anyway as I have said previously, Trump has opened himself up to being investigated by the special prosecutor after being played like a cheap violin by Comey.

Trump should never have got near candidacy never mind the presidency: He should have been arrested and tried for as a criminal long ago. I dont need to see him pronounced guilty to know that man has committed many crimes.

demfad

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The problem with that is anyone in opposition to him really needs to be pushing hard now, early in his presidency, before he and his administration manage to sink the hooks in too far.

There are some really alarming trends towards authoritarianism happening under his administration, happening right in front of our eyes, and it's not being paid enough attention. But the easiest time to resist that is early on and it gets exponentially more difficult as time passes.

The problem is that if you say things like this, people assume you're being alarmist. It's not though. From early in his campaign to the date he has gone on the offensive against the free press, trying to undermine them and erode public trust in them. He has also attempted to undermine several key government institutions up to and including the supreme court! In addition, he has employed nepotism to fill the corridors of power with family and close friends. Meanwhile his party have openly discussed implementing measures to make voting more difficult under the guise of combating (nonexistent) election fraud. Voter suppression is what it really is.

These are all alarming signs of a shift to authoritarianism and when you throw in the ties to Russia which have also happened in the open, in front of our eyes, the situation is quite shocking. We know that Russia interfered in the election to Trump's benefit, the only thing we don't know for certain is whether he colluded with them to secure that interference. There certainly is reason to believe that could have been the case though.

So, if that's a possible route to getting him out of office then of course it will be pursued. It actually doesn't particularly matter how it's achieved; what he's doing needs to be nipped in the bud early or the damage to American democracy could be felt for generations.

It's all well and good suggesting that the Democrats need to focus on getting their own house in order, but if the plan is to wait and beat him in 2020 well it may already be too late. He's been in office less than six months and he's already managed to wreck the place. Give him three more years..?

Agree 100%. The fact that the United States is on the verge of authoritarian rule is lost on many people. The fact that Trump seems to have something to hide will accelerate the transformation. What was unthinkable under Obama is now day to day normal under Trump. Trump wants the investigation pushed out to Congress as he feels they will let it slide.
As you say he needs Republicans to have his back so voter suppression/manipulation in 2018 is vital. The big problem was Comey but is Bob Mueller now. Not easy to remove him without obstruction of Justice charges/Impeachmeent following.

A small example of change:

The NYT under enormouse pressure from Trump and his climate denying backers (Mercers et al) employed a climate denying journalist for 'balance'.
No matter how balanced you are unscientific horse**** is still just that.
What harm? Trump quoted this NYT 'journalist' to back his removing US from Paris accord.
In an authoritarian society lies are given as much credence and often more, than truth.

Christy42

JRant wrote: »

The Donald's MO seems to be to double down on anything that may be even slightly off, thereby making matters worse. I mean he started off his term with the whole inauguration crowd nonsense and has pretty much continued on the same path.

If the Dems took their heads out of their own backsides, stopped trying to label everyone in the administration as a Russian spy and actual focused on what we do know they would be far better served.

There are mid-terms coming up and they really should be concentrating on these. The investigation into Trump will run its own course and there is no reason to suggest the special prosecutor will do anything but a stand up job.

In terms of impeachment maybe. In terms of polls though Russia is the only thing to stick so I see why they push it. Trump can't not respond to it for some reason. He can't make a big enough mess elsewhere to distract from it without getting impeached. It closes down his administration as they can't implement his policies.

The last big hit to his poll numbers happened when he fired Comey over the investigation and his administration lied about the reasoning.

While I would prefer they stuck to what is known. Not the ridiculous amount of smoke with Russia and wait for it to be fire- it does seem to be an effective strategy.

rossie1977

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYX10St4xog

Water John

I'm retching.
Well I know the guy just back from the G7 was telling a porkie. Not sure can any one of them be believed.

StringerBell

Ah look how happy he looks to be getting that rimjob though. You would see that in a lot of countries, DPRK for one.

Itssoeasy

StringerBell wrote: »

Ah look how happy he looks to be getting that rimjob though. You would see that in a lot of countries, DPRK for one.

It's why he seemed to like the Saudis when he went there. They stroked his ego and made him a big deal.

I'm behind on the news that happened overnight but I see that there was a report that president trump is thinking of firing the special prosecutor. Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. Nixon did that and it didn't turn out well for him.

Leroy42

Who thinks up these ideas though. I mean Spicer as the Press Secretary, surely he must hear of the idea and go no way. Can't imagine Alistair Campbell ever signing off on something like that (I know there was plenty of it but keep it off the record!)

Can you imagine the meeting where this was agreed to?

'Hey, we are in trouble with the press, fake news and all, and we need to get something over the line. How do we get back on the front foot?'

'We could announce the result of the review of the immigration process?'
'How about we announce new trade deals or maybe how, despite dropping out of Pris Accord, we are targeting lower emissions'
'Yeah, sounds OK I guess. But ya know what, I think the thing that people really want to hear is just how much we love Trump and how happy we are that he gave us our jobs'
'So, what, we all tell him how brilliant he is? Won't that come across as a bit, I don't know, eh needy and pathetic'
'No, no, it will be brilliant. Imagine all the press there. Once they hear that they will know that all that Comey and Russia stuff is non sense.'

JRant

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The problem with that is anyone in opposition to him really needs to be pushing hard now, early in his presidency, before he and his administration manage to sink the hooks in too far.

There are some really alarming trends towards authoritarianism happening under his administration, happening right in front of our eyes, and it's not being paid enough attention. But the easiest time to resist that is early on and it gets exponentially more difficult as time passes.

The problem is that if you say things like this, people assume you're being alarmist. It's not though. From early in his campaign to the date he has gone on the offensive against the free press, trying to undermine them and erode public trust in them. He has also attempted to undermine several key government institutions up to and including the supreme court! In addition, he has employed nepotism to fill the corridors of power with family and close friends. Meanwhile his party have openly discussed implementing measures to make voting more difficult under the guise of combating (nonexistent) election fraud. Voter suppression is what it really is.

These are all alarming signs of a shift to authoritarianism and when you throw in the ties to Russia which have also happened in the open, in front of our eyes, the situation is quite shocking. We know that Russia interfered in the election to Trump's benefit, the only thing we don't know for certain is whether he colluded with them to secure that interference. There certainly is reason to believe that could have been the case though.

So, if that's a possible route to getting him out of office then of course it will be pursued. It actually doesn't particularly matter how it's achieved; what he's doing needs to be nipped in the bud early or the damage to American democracy could be felt for generations.

It's all well and good suggesting that the Democrats need to focus on getting their own house in order, but if the plan is to wait and beat him in 2020 well it may already be too late. He's been in office less than six months and he's already managed to wreck the place. Give him three more years..?

Look, I'm not here to defend Trump, I don't like him one bit. The Dems have an open goal here but if they keep up with the rhetoric they will only alienate the very people they need to be reaching. I'm not talking about the die hard Rep voters but the undecided voters and Dems who swung to vote for Trump in the election.

rossie1977

JRant wrote: »

Look, I'm not here to defend Trump, I don't like him one bit. The Dems have an open goal here but if they keep up with the rhetoric they will only alienate the very people they need to be reaching. I'm not talking about the die hard Rep voters but the undecided voters and Dems who swung to vote for Trump in the election.

Imagine for a second the boot was on the other foot and Hillary was president and she did everything Trump did during the campaign and since being elected..how would the right wing media and the Republicans have dealt with the situation?

JRant

rossie1977 wrote: »

Imagine for a second the boot was on the other foot and Hillary was president and she did everything Trump did during the campaign and since being elected..how would the right wing media and the Republicans have dealt with the situation?

They would probably have done nothing different. If the GOP were carrying on like that I would be as quick to condemn them as well. Here's the problem for the Dems though. They lost the election and don't control either house. So they either try to play the GOP at their own game or start boxing clever and try to actually win an election.

peckerdara

JRant wrote: »

Fair enough Seamus. I completely understand the frustration with people blindly defending their man. We are seeing this in spades with Trump and on the flip side the Dems aren't exactly covering themselves in glory either. It's hypocrisy on both sides without waiting for actual evidence.

Hypocrisy on both sides. Now, there a first ;-)

The biggest problem now for Trumps presidency is that it doesn't look like he can get anything done. And anything he does do is drowned out by the other noise.

The whole situation was mishandled from the start. 'Yeah, let's go out there on Day 1 and talk about the size of the crowd and alternative facts'. It's been downhill with the established media ever since.

Could he have handled it differently at the start and changed from a 'candidate to a president'?

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

Look, I'm not here to defend Trump, I don't like him one bit. The Dems have an open goal here but if they keep up with the rhetoric they will only alienate the very people they need to be reaching. I'm not talking about the die hard Rep voters but the undecided voters and Dems who swung to vote for Trump in the election.

I agree in part with this. I think the Dems need to start to come up with actual policies rather than simply Trump is terrible. That of course will get them so far, but not far enough (IMO).

On the other hand, by constantly picking at this scab, even Trump has admitted (through Comey and his tweets) that it is taking focus away from his achievements (I struggle to see what they are but maybe thats the point).

By the Dems keeping this up I think they think a number of things may happen.

1) Trump simply explodes from the pressure/frustration. He has shown himself to be very thin skinned and quite easy to manipulate so maybe if they continue to play on this he simply gives up/quits etc

2) Trump is so preoccupied with this that he simply never gets anything done. The Dems can then point to the fact that GOP had POTUS, House, Senate and SCOTUS and didn't deliver on anything.

3) All the signs point to the Dems getting some more seats in 2018. Whether it is enough to overturn the GOP majority is, of course, impossible to judge from this remove. But even tightening the numbers would put the GOP under even more pressure and they would be less inclined to go along with Trump on issues that may not carry a large acceptance on the polls.

wonderfullife

Wonder will Sessions invoke executive priviledge on many answers.

Itssoeasy

CNN showed a clip of newt Gingrich of showing just how two faced he is.

Itssoeasy

wonderfullife wrote: »

Wonder will Sessions invoke executive priviledge on many answers.

He could only do that if trump specifically asks him to do that.

Itssoeasy

Let's hope that John McCain got a good nights sleep and wasn't up late watching tv.

wonderfullife

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He could only do that if trump specifically asks him to do that.

Yeah he can cite it, not invoke it.

Angus King is the man to watch, he's an animal. He's independent, a great lawyer and is all out of fooks to give.

Itssoeasy

wonderfullife wrote: »

Angus King is the man to watch, he's an animal. He's independent, a great lawyer and is all out of fooks to give.

Yeah, he had a field day with the two guys who decided to not answer the questions. They let themselves down badly.

Itssoeasy

Chairman burr needs a glass of water.

Pelvis

Is this testimony just starting?