Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

BabyCheeses

RobertKK wrote: »

You mean the Obama administration didn’t with Syria, Libya, Yemen, Honduras, Russia, China etc.
The Obama administration gave us the migrant crisis in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
The rise of ISIS and increased terrorism.

At least you aren't trying to deny that Trump isn't in fact a great person in brining world peace.

If only someone had warned you previously.

Captain Obvious

Jamiekelly wrote: »

The difference is Hilary actually collapsed in public while running so they had a valid cause for concern if she became President.

Really? Trump has signs of dementia and alzheimers but woe betide the president who cannot run a 10 minute mile. Even if she needed a lung transplant she'd have been a better choice than Trump in terms of health.

oscarBravo

froog wrote: »

i don't see any dramatic decline in his mental faculties.

Neither do I. He was evidently a narcissistic sociopath as a candidate; now he's evidently a narcissistic sociopath as President.

As I keep saying, the only way to make perfect sense of anything Trump says is to remember that he's insane.

Creol1

SeamusFX wrote: »

Gaddafi was a nightmare and he should have been overthrown. Maybe his death lead to slave trade, but the alternative was wholesale massacres of innocent civilians. The Obama administration saved the lives of thousands of people.

Gaddafi was not going to massacre thousands of civilians. Although he was certainly a dictator, he was not an especially brutal one and the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee's report into the war found that based on the way he handled the uprising in February and March of 2011, the evidence was that he did not target civilians (paragraph 33 of the Report, available online).

SeamusFX wrote: »

Yes NATO and the US launched an operation in Libya hoping to save civilians in Benghazi and after Gaddafi was killed maybe the US and NATO should have stuck around to ensure stability, but Obama's hands were tied because the GOP and people like Trump were saying the US shouldn't have a role in Libya. I'm sorry, you can't have your bread buttered on both sides!

You can't have it both ways either. You blame Congress for tying Obama's hands on Libya to excuse the lack of involvement in reconstruction even though Obama did not secure congressional approval to bomb Libya in the first place.

Quin_Dub

froog wrote: »

lots of media outlets talking about trump's mental health after that NYT article. honestly i have no time for that kind of stuff. it's the kind of thing we used to be disgusted about coming from the right about hilary. i read the interview, he's as moronic and babbling as he's always been. i don't see any dramatic decline in his mental faculties.

He's due for his 1st Annual Physical as POTUS in the new year at Bethesda Navy Hospital.

The convention is that the results are publicly released - If they are released it might be interesting to compare them to the ones that his "personal physician" gave due the election , the ones that claimed "without question he'll be the healthiest person to ever be elected President"

Billy86

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He's due for his 1st Annual Physical as POTUS in the new year at Bethesda Navy Hospital.

The convention is that the results are publicly released...

So he won't be releasing them, even if it turns out he is legally bound to, and we all know this, and we all know why.

Leroy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The convention is that the results are publicly released - If they are released it might be interesting to compare them to the ones that his "personal physician" gave due the election , the ones that claimed "without question he'll be the healthiest person to ever be elected President"

Unless it is written in statute I wouldn't place too much faith in Trump sticking to it.

Jonathon Freedland https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/30/trump-us-constitution-weakness-founding-fathers gives a good summation of the weaknesses in the political set up in the US at the present time.

Without a House/Senate willing to focus on the needs of the country rather than the party, and within rules written into statute, the obligations of POTUS are in some ways down to the moral standing of the POTUS.

So if the results are now 'the best POTUS ever' then they will either change them to that or simply SHS will say that everything was perfect and that they can't be released as they are being audited or some other made up thing.

And his supporters will cheer that he is sticking it, yet again, to the swamp. Because, although they didn't know before, they now know that what really holds back POTUS is having to declare his conflicts of interests and publish his tax returns!

spacecoyote

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He's due for his 1st Annual Physical as POTUS in the new year at Bethesda Navy Hospital.

The convention is that the results are publicly released - If they are released it might be interesting to compare them to the ones that his "personal physician" gave due the election , the ones that claimed "without question he'll be the healthiest person to ever be elected President"

Does he get to select which doctor performs the medical. If so, you could just end up with the same rubbish being published about him being the fittest president ever

pitifulgod

spacecoyote wrote: »

Does he get to select which doctor performs the medical. If so, you could just end up with the same rubbish being published about him being the fittest president ever

The President's Physician has to do. This is him below, Trump couldn't get him to fake a thing I'd say.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio.asp?bioID=953

Odhinn

pitifulgod wrote: »

The President's Physician has to do. This is him below, Trump couldn't get him to fake a thing I'd say.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio.asp?bioID=953

His career may well be a short one in that instance.

jobbridge4life

Odhinn wrote: »

His career may well be a short one in that instance.

What do people expect from Trump's physical? Personally I can't see anything about his mental health coming out from it. I think the most we can hope for is that his unfitness is highlighted and that it helps puncture the aura of physical strength that he tries to project and that his followers for God knows what reason seem to buy into.

Something that points out that at the end of the day he is an overweight, unhealthy, lazy individual.

Christy42

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What do people expect from Trump's physical? Personally I can't see anything about his mental health coming out from it. I think the most we can hope for is that his unfitness is highlighted and that it helps puncture the aura of physical strength that he tries to project and that his followers for God knows what reason seem to buy into.

Something that points out that at the end of the day he is an overweight, unhealthy, lazy individual.

Oh nothing that knocks him down. More just amusing to get confirmation that the doctor who wrote about Trump's health last year lied (tbf as long as he has not checked up every previous president we knew he was lying but anyway). The career being short thing is because the poster suspects that Trump will not like the doctor not telling him he is not the greatest thing ever in every possible way and he may get removed for that reason (I, personally, would love to see Fox News go full gung ho trying to paint the doctor as a democrat and a Hillary supporter). Not sure how likely that is though.

rosser44

Papadopoulos got locked and gave the game away to the feckin Aussies acting the big man.....

Excellent article from the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html


The incompetance is astounding, and quite comical tbh

C14N

RobertKK wrote: »

Anyway tell me the drone figures from 2017 since I am suppose to comment on them, what are that?
As I said I have no problem in criticisng their overuse.

It's curious that despite drone strikes apparently being something you were previously quite passionately against, you have not kept up with news from the past 12 months on their continued (and greatly expanded) use, and you have to request this news from other posters. It sounds like any criticism will be a token disapproval rather than something you are as passionately opposed to as Obama-era drone strikes.

Billy86 wrote: »

Of all people, an NBA hall of famer seems to have hit this on the head better than anyone else.

“Shaq, they said it’s going trickle down … I’m going to trickle my fat (butt) down to the jewelry store to get a new Rolex,” [Charles] Barkley joked, drawing laughs from his co-hosts. “They’re not going to pass it to nobody. Thank you Republicans, I knew I could always count on y’all to take care of us rich people, us one percenters. Sorry, poor people. I’m hoping for y’all, but y’all ain’t got no chance.”

Barkley is also in no small part credited to 'getting the black vote out' in Alabama a few weeks ago.

I admire the fact that he is at least acknowledging that he is, himself, a 1 per-center who will benefit from this. A lot of liberal celebrities (especially TV hosts) seem kind of uncomfortable acknowledging this about themselves, but it appears much more down to earth when you can say "I'm getting a big benefit that I don't want, need, or deserve at your expense".

RobertKK wrote: »

They are all the same. It is just the perception. Imagine if Trump had been given questions before a debate that his opponents didn't get.

Honestly, in the list of crazy or horrible things Donald Trump has done in his 2 or so years as a politician, I'd be surprised if it cracked the top 50. But for Hillary it's easily in her top 5 scandals of the 2016 campaign.

froog wrote: »

lots of media outlets talking about trump's mental health after that NYT article. honestly i have no time for that kind of stuff. it's the kind of thing we used to be disgusted about coming from the right about hilary. i read the interview, he's as moronic and babbling as he's always been. i don't see any dramatic decline in his mental faculties.

I don't see any dramatic change, but I've assumed it since before he started running anyway. I do think there's something unprofessional about armchair speculation on someone's mental health if you have a real platform but I also do think he (and indeed any president) should be required to do mental health checkups and possibly an IQ test (for at least an average IQ) by an independent doctor before being allowed to assume office. I personally find it hard to imagine that he does not suffer from NPD, because everything about him going back years indicates that he is a textbook case.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Unless it is written in statute I wouldn't place too much faith in Trump sticking to it.

Jonathon Freedland https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/30/trump-us-constitution-weakness-founding-fathers gives a good summation of the weaknesses in the political set up in the US at the present time.

Without a House/Senate willing to focus on the needs of the country rather than the party, and within rules written into statute, the obligations of POTUS are in some ways down to the moral standing of the POTUS.

There is a problem with the underlying system itself and it's been there from the start. The framers of the constitution simply did not predict (or desire) the two-party system that their own laws would pretty much inevitably lead to. Early US government did not have that kind of entrenched party power that would lead to congress being almost like servants of the president in the event that they were from the same party.

They also left a great deal up to the hope that anyone who ascended to the presidency would just be such an honourable and upstanding individual that you wouldn't need actual laws to police them, they would just do it out of sheer nobility. The idea of a president not running for more than 2 terms wasn't even enshrined in the constitution until the 1950s after FDR, because up to that point it was more or less seen as just a gentleman's agreement.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What do people expect from Trump's physical? Personally I can't see anything about his mental health coming out from it.

I wouldn't either. I don't know much about it, but it's called a "physical" so I'm assuming mental health is not really a part of it.

SeamusFX

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump may be an abject failure ...

The only true thing Robert has ever said here!!
Trump is a total failure in everything and his record is worse than everyone, including George Dubya, hands down!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybitHLhb0yw
You're also right, comparing Trump to Charles Manson isn't a fair comparison. One is a complete lunatic, racist and liar and the other one is Charles Manson!

Finally, the Great donald who claimed that he would help the working man, has screwed them with his new tax bill, which does a reverse Robin Hood and takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Among many other serious issues, a point that is going overlooked, the new tax bill significantly reduces property owners to deduct their property tax, but ironically the full tax deduction is still applicable to landlords. This is quite opposite to how it should be, opposite who tax rules are in Ireland and most civilised countries and quite opposite of what the Orange Hypocrite promised on the campaign trail! The sad thing is this will screw most Trump supporters, but they have their head so far up Trump they just can't see!!

oscarBravo

C14N wrote: »

They also left a great deal up to the hope that anyone who ascended to the presidency would just be such an honourable and upstanding individual that you wouldn't need actual laws to police them, they would just do it out of sheer nobility.

As has been pointed out before, it was in part the original point of the electoral college that, if the people should be fooled by a dangerous and incompetent demagogue, the college would refuse to elect him.

So much for that theory.

C14N

oscarBravo wrote: »

As has been pointed out before, it was in part the original point of the electoral college that, if the people should be fooled by a dangerous and incompetent demagogue, the college would refuse to elect him.

So much for that theory.

Ironically, the mechanic that was put in place to "protect" democracy would now be considered the downfall of democracy if it were to ever be used in any circumstances. I think the fact that it was not only not used to stop Trump, but was considered to be a fringe, unthinkable action this time last year, indicates that it will never be used and it ceases to serve any purpose.

JRant

rosser44 wrote: »

Papadopoulos got locked and gave the game away to the feckin Aussies acting the big man.....

Excellent article from the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html


The incompetance is astounding, and quite comical tbh

Well until details of the FISA warrant are disclosed we have no idea why the investigation started. I hope that this is the case rather than the alternative, that the Steel dossier was used , because if it was the Steele dossier than the investigation will be shut down immediately and with good cause.

pitifulgod

JRant wrote: »

Well until details of the FISA warrant are disclosed we have no idea why the investigation started. I hope that this is the case rather than the alternative, that the Steel dossier was used , because if it was the Steele dossier than the investigation will be shut down immediately and with good cause.

Given the amount of evidence that has been gathered so far. There doesn't appear to be any grounds to close the investigation.

JRant

pitifulgod wrote: »

Given the amount of evidence that has been gathered so far. There doesn't appear to be any grounds to close the investigation.

Well if the FISA application was granted using the dossier then it will/should be shut down straight away.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

Well if the FISA application was granted using the dossier then it will/should be shut down straight away.

Yeah, but why are you claiming that it was?,

It would seem very flimsy grounds for a warrant to be approved by a judge. A political opponents paid for dossier.

As far as I can ascertain, the application is sealed and as such any idea that it was based on the dossier is speculation aimed at trying to reduce the standing of the investigation based on nothing.

SeamusFX

JRant wrote: »

Well if the FISA application was granted using the dossier then it will/should be shut down straight away.

That's totally insane! The real question is, is the dossier true and if it is the orange conman should go to prison and so far there is no proof it isn't true. It's quite ironic that all the trump supporters are crying about who funded the dossier and they don't seem to care what's in it and is it true!

C14N

JRant wrote: »

Well until details of the FISA warrant are disclosed we have no idea why the investigation started. I hope that this is the case rather than the alternative, that the Steel dossier was used , because if it was the Steele dossier than the investigation will be shut down immediately and with good cause.

Why would that be a good cause? As far as I'm aware, while the Steele dossier has not been proven in any way, it also has not been disprove. It's also far more extensive an investigation than just the "Donald Trump is a urophiliac" soundbyte that comedians and Sean Hannity represent it as. Some people seem to want to claim that the fact that it was opposition research makes it worthless, but just because the person finding some damaging information had a vested interest doesn't make the damaging information untrue.

SeamusFX

C14N wrote: »

Why would that be a good cause? As far as I'm aware, while the Steele dossier has not been proven in any way, it also has not been disprove. It's also far more extensive an investigation than just the "Donald Trump is a urophiliac" soundbyte that comedians and Sean Hannity represent it as. Some people seem to want to claim that the fact that it was opposition research makes it worthless, but just because the person finding some damaging information had a vested interest doesn't make the damaging information untrue.

Yes, the Trumpettes will try to discredit any dirt on Trump anyway they can, meanwhile they blindly believe things that were blatantly made up about Obama or the Clintons.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, but why are you claiming that it was?,

It would seem very flimsy grounds for a warrant to be approved by a judge. A political opponents paid for dossier.

As far as I can ascertain, the application is sealed and as such any idea that it was based on the dossier is speculation aimed at trying to reduce the standing of the investigation based on nothing.

I'm not claiming anything, try reading my post again.

As you and I already stated, we don't know why the FISA warrant was granted. We have 2 competing theories, one is that Podadopalus ran his mouth and was reported by the Aussies, the other that the dossier was used. Both are pure speculation it should be said.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I will answer a couple of points, I don't think Russia changed policy due to an inevitable war, but they knew her form and how she had spoken about no fly zones in Syria, regime change. Syria has been a proxy war between US backed Saudi Arabia against Iran/Russia backed Syria.
We saw recently how Saudi Arabia have been meddling in Lebanon due to Iran backed Hezbollah.

Wait, hold on here... what happened to the narrative that "they're all the same"? Or is it "they're all the same when it suits me, but like, seriously, they're totally different you guys"?

I do look back on the previous year's stats for drone strikes and death totals. I don't care who uses them, I think it only causes more radicalisation because who would want to live under the weapons of terror, I mean we are told you can hear them humming away overhead, the person on the ground doesn't know when it will strike or who is the target. It is like having an air raid but the plane doesn't fly away it is waiting.
They should not be accepted as the norm and I don't care who the president is. There use is a form of terrorism, no honest person would tolerate living with a drone overhead waiting to fire a missile at God knows who, and maybe a loved one, or oneself ends up being 'collateral damage'.
Billy, my views have not changed but 8 years in after Obama tripled their use and normalised it, I don't see any change coming here. Trump won't get away as easily as Obama did as Trump has far more critics, but look at who Dublin City Council is giving their freedom of Dublin to and it shows the double standards we live in. Aung San Suu Kyi had her award rightly revoked, but yet they are still giving it a man who should not be receiving it for all the harm he brought the world.

Call me highly, highly skeptical about you continuing to look at drone totals or care about them. Why? Well first, because putting up the Karl Pilkington 'Bullsh*t!' meme would get an infraction, and secondly, beyond you only mentioning them three times since Trump took office (as opposed to multiple times a week beforehand) you also literally asked me for the numbers in the post before this. You wouldn't have needed to if you look back on these. You're still on in this very post about "but Obama tripled them!" while Trump is a) the current president, b) ramping up the use of them way more than that, c) they came about under Bush, and d) it was in Bush's last year in office that the use of them began to ramp up considerably.

The fact is, if you are worried about done strikes as you were claiming to be a year ago, you'd be posting regularly about it. But you're not posting regularly about it, in fact you're not posting about it at all.

The fact remains that the Jerusalem decision will have no impact on any peace talks, as none will take place as long as Hamas rule Gaza.

This is exactly what I was talking about in terms of your posts coming over as a parody. You claimed constantly to be against regime change and interference, Clinton Benghazi this, Obama Syria that, involvement in other nations business bad bad bad bad, isolationism good good good good. Then Trump does this and it's a quick 180 to "well Hamas do bad things and aren't seeking out peace, so I guess I'm cool with!" - lovely job completely ignoring that Israel are exactly the same in this regard. Apparently now the bar is, "regime change or meddling in affairs is bad, unless we don't like one of the sides, then it's OK", which is pretty hilariously ironic.

The New York Times had a piece in November where they said Trump has the US in retreat on the world stage. They claim it is making Japan and China look to sort their differences.

Here's the problem with trying to stick up for Trump, and it's happened on this very thread umpteen times already with various posters defenses of him: do it, and you're pretty much guaranteed he himself will make a fool of you instantly. This was from just hours after your post...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946416486054285314

And let's not forget, this was within about 24 hours of the rambling madness that was his NY Times interview where he said “I have been soft on China because the only thing more important to me than trade is war.”

Oh, and for good measure since you mentioned Iran earlier...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/947453152806297600

I don't think the US helped the world over the past 16 years playing world police man, it brought a lot of death, destruction, radicalisation and terrorism and a migrant crisis, the worst since WW2. I don't care who the president is, once they stop repeating the same mistakes of the past 16 years over and over again.
Imposing regime change is a failed policy unless one likes death and chaos. No sane person does.
I admit I am conflicted by North Korea and the right thing to do. This is the only country I would love to see regime change in.
It is a disgrace we live in a world where the UN says that crimes on the scale of the Nazis are happening in that country. I believe most people there live to survive and do and say what is necessary to stay away from the concentration camps. But giving these people their freedom from the Kim family would cost too many lives. So we end up with China...

I would agree that the US has largely been a negative influence quite often and you could stretch that back to the 1950s, but this just wraps up my point - you're completely against regime change and intervention/interference, apart from the two regimes Trump has been getting deeply involved with (Israel/Palestine re Jerusalem, North Korea). You had over 40 posts on drone strikes from June 2016 up to Jan 20th (including multiple posts on his inauguration day); for the first few days of Trump's presidency you persisted that drone strikes, how they were used and the innocents killed rule out Obama from being a good president (yet now you're asking us to 'look at the good and the bad' for Trump). And then in the almost full year from Feb 12th to now, after drones strikes have ramped well up again along with civilians casualties, on top of suddenly stopping from checking any of the numbers, delpoyments etc that meant so much to you, this is literally all you have had to say on the matter:

RobertKK wrote: »

So many deluded by the drone king Obama.

RobertKK wrote: »

Assange released a file where Hillary Clinton asked if they could simply 'drone' Julian Assange. This was before he took refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy.
I think Assange got what he wanted. He helped drone Hillary's campaign.

As for smartphones, I think we have known for a while the cameras could be accessed and conversations listened to.
With smart TVs maybe less so, but one would have had to suspect it.

RobertKK wrote:

He has given the Pentagon free reign on drone attacks, or the very least it is being considered.
The drone wars are very serious crimes.

That last one came after I had pointed out drone strikes going up by huge numbers earlier in the year too... if this really ever did mean as much to you as you claim it does, how did you out and out forget that? Strangely, you have did not mention drone strikes on one single occasion from then right up until the other day when it was put to you, repeatedly. The reaction? Well surely enough, it was "but Obama!"

In fact, for someone who claims to "see the good and the bad" it's incredibly hard to find anything positive you have to say about your two most favouritestestest US politicians to talk about at any given opportunity - the closest I could find was saying that Homeland is Obama's favourite TV show. Of ocurse this was directly posts claiming 'The Two Buts' had done a lot of damage to the US economy and were in Wall Street's pocket (this hilariously being after Trump had began to flood his cabinet with Wall Street execs). Oh, and nearly every other post mentioning Yemen and/or those same drones you've completely lost interest in as of about 3 weeks into Trump's presidency.

In recent days you also claimed that Obama was hurting relations with China during his presidency, that the US needed to work with China re. North Korea, but yet that Trump is no different to Obama here, yet that Trump escalating the situation is handling it correctly. You're cheerleading how huge a breakthrough success it is that China have backed sanctions on North Korea that shows the Trump administration is successful on the international front, yet I can't find a peep from you on this re "but Obama!!" from when China placed sanctions on North Korea back in April 2016, or in 2013. Because for you, drone strikes mean Obama is an automatic bad president on the global front regardless of all else... yet for Trump, we can conveniently ignore that (and the huge increase in them on his end, and bombing the Syria airstrip, and dropping the biggest non nuclear bomb in Afghanistan, and so on and so on) and instead focus on the huge success that was him doing the same thing that had been done multiple times before him.

Another parody aspect: you've mentioned Clinton and Obama more than you have Trump in this entire thread! I mean I fully get that "but Obama! But Hillary!" is the only chance at a defense most often, but it plays right into the stereotype of the predictable Trump supporter.

It doesn't really strike me as any different than the ex poster who drew LGBT rights as a line in the sand that would make him stop supporting Trump. Then going on to defend the ban on transgender bathrooms. Then supported the order than allowed discrimination against hiring LGBT people because of "religious freedoms and beliefs". Then tried to defend Trump on getting rid of the exact bill he had originally proudly held as the standard for Trump to go by in terms of LGBT rights (by no coincidence and Trump himself had been championing it at the time... before getting rid of it).

This is what we have come to expect of Trump supporters.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything, try reading my post again.

As you and I already stated, we don't know why the FISA warrant was granted. We have 2 competing theories, one is that Podadopalus ran his mouth and was reported by the Aussies, the other that the dossier was used. Both are pure speculation it should be said.

Not really. We have one theory that the FBI had got enough evidence to enable them to pursue a FISA warrant, which was granted by a judge. There is no basis to claim that the FBI used the dossier. This theory is bolstered by the NYT story that Papadopolous blabbed to an Aussie diplomat, who passed on what they heard to the US and that set in motion an initial review which led to the FISA warrant.

We have another theory that the dossier was the sole reason, and based on that the whole investigation is null and void.

There is a massive difference in the two.

In the end none of us know, but why are you going down the route of saying that if it was the dossier when there is nothing at all to suggest that it was? Why not ask whether Trumps links with Russia were the basis? Or an uncovering of Trumps special bank deals a number of years ago?

JRant

C14N wrote: »

Why would that be a good cause? As far as I'm aware, while the Steele dossier has not been proven in any way, it also has not been disprove. It's also far more extensive an investigation than just the "Donald Trump is a urophiliac" soundbyte that comedians and Sean Hannity represent it as. Some people seem to want to claim that the fact that it was opposition research makes it worthless, but just because the person finding some damaging information had a vested interest doesn't make the damaging information untrue.

Of course it would be a good cause to torpedo the investigation. It is a report commissioned and funded by the DNC to be used as part of the campaign. To then pass this off as impartial 'intelligence' and apply for a FISA warrant with it is all sorts of shady.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not really. We have one theory that the FBI had got enough evidence to enable them to pursue a FISA warrant, which was granted by a judge. There is no basis to claim that the FBI used the dossier. This theory is bolstered by the NYT story that Papadopolous blabbed to an Aussie diplomat, who passed on what they heard to the US and that set in motion an initial review which led to the FISA warrant.

We have another theory that the dossier was the sole reason, and based on that the whole investigation is null and void.

There is a massive difference in the two.

In the end none of us know, but why are you going down the route of saying that if it was the dossier when there is nothing at all to suggest that it was? Why not ask whether Trumps links with Russia were the basis? Or an uncovering of Trumps special bank deals a number of years ago?

There is no massive difference between the 2 as they are both equally valid/nonsense until we get concrete details.

Links with Russia along are not a basis for such a warrant and I'm not sure how they get the bank details without the warrant either.

So the reason for granting the initial FISA warrant is extremely important.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

Of course it would be a good cause to torpedo the investigation. It is a report commissioned and funded by the DNC to be used as part of the campaign. To then pass this off as impartial 'intelligence' and apply for a FISA warrant with it is all sorts of shady.

And this is exactly why they have put this out there, to muddy the waters and try to get people to question the validity of the investigation. But its based on nothing. If the FISA warrant was based on tea leaves it would be the same but that doesn't carry the same weight for Trump supporters to get excited enough to push this line.

What they hope to achieve is that if any of the FISA warrant even mentions the dossier, even if only as part of it or just using a proven part of it, then that is enough to wipe everything out.

Its pretty straightforward. It is the height of fake news. Make up something and then get people to discuss the possible ramifications of what happens if it were to be true.

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything, try reading my post again.

As you and I already stated, we don't know why the FISA warrant was granted. We have 2 competing theories, one is that Podadopalus ran his mouth and was reported by the Aussies, the other that the dossier was used. Both are pure speculation it should be said.

I'm curious if it was granted on the back of the dossier, how that would collapse the entire case? I'm guessing it's some legal red tape type of issue, but I'm struggling to figure out what exactly?

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

And this is exactly why they have put this out there, to muddy the waters and try to get people to question the validity of the investigation. But its based on nothing. If the FISA warrant was based on tea leaves it would be the same but that doesn't carry the same weight for Trump supporters to get excited enough to push this line.

What they hope to achieve is that if any of the FISA warrant even mentions the dossier, even if only as part of it or just using a proven part of it, then that is enough to wipe everything out.

Its pretty straightforward. It is the height of fake news. Make up something and then get people to discuss the possible ramifications of what happens if it were to be true.

This is a discussion forum, yes? People are allowed discuss things or is it only material that you view as worthy?

IMO the reason for granting the FISA warrant is so important is exactly due to certain coincidences within the investigative team, not that I believe anything untoward happened. Enough questions have been asked to warrant an appropriate answer on this matter.

Now you can call it fake news, Trump supporters or whatever else you fancy but if due processes aren't observed and dodgy reasons used to obtained warrants then they should be called out regardless of your "side".

This is coming from someone who can't stand Trump and his elitist attitude.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

This is a discussion forum, yes? People are allowed discuss things or is it only material that you view as worthy?

IMO the reason for granting the FISA warrant is so important is exactly due to certain coincidences within the investigative team, not that I believe anything untoward happened. Enough questions have been asked to warrant an appropriate answer on this matter.

Now you can call it fake news, Trump supporters or whatever else you fancy but if due processes aren't observed and dodgy reasons used to obtained warrants then they should be called out regardless of your "side".

This is coming from someone who can't stand Trump and his elitist attitude.

All that is very well and good, and I agree with it, but it still begs the question as to why you bring it up at all. It is a pretty specific question. I would understand if you were questioning how they came to get the warrant, did they follow proper procedure. But you have raised the question of the dossier.

I just seems really odd to raise it without a shred of reason to do it? There is no indication that the dossier was used at all.

And yes its a discussion forum and I am trying to discuss with you why you raised it as a concern.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm curious if it was granted on the back of the dossier, how that would collapse the entire case? I'm guessing it's some legal red tape type of issue, but I'm struggling to figure out what exactly?

The dossier was funded by the DNC and it's investigation carried out by Steele, an outside agent. Comey stated that it was unsubstantiated during his testimony so if it was used as a reason for applying to the FISA court then IMO it leads to some very serious questions being asked. ASAIK it was used to carried out surveillance on an American citizen (Carter Page) and as such needs to meet higher criteria than a foreign citizen.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

All that is very well and good, and I agree with it, but it still begs the question as to why you bring it up at all. It is a pretty specific question. I would understand if you were questioning how they came to get the warrant, did they follow proper procedure. But you have raised the question of the dossier.

I just seems really odd to raise it without a shred of reason to do it? There is no indication that the dossier was used at all.

And yes its a discussion forum and I am trying to discuss with you why you raised it as a concern.

The reason is quite simple really. I read the link regarding claims from "sources" that the reason for the warrant being issued was due to Podadopalus running his mouth. Now 2 things jumped out at me straight away which seemed odd. First, why would Podadopalus running his mouth lead to a FISA warrant to surveil Carter. Second, why would this "source" now spill the beans on why the warrant was issued when it is a very serious offense to do so.

Carter is named in the dossier and it would make a lot more sense for this to be used than a drunken conversation with some diplomat.

Again, these are only 'what ifs', not claiming anything, just merely speculating. I mean if speculation on Trump's mental health is fair game then I see no issue with discussing possible issues with this.

And that is the first, last and only reason you'll be getting as I feel this has gone a bit Kafkaesque.

C14N

JRant wrote: »

Of course it would be a good cause to torpedo the investigation. It is a report commissioned and funded by the DNC to be used as part of the campaign. To then pass this off as impartial 'intelligence' and apply for a FISA warrant with it is all sorts of shady.

It wasn't commissioned by the DNC, it was commissioned by an anti-Trump conservative news website. But that still does not address the point I made in the last post. Just because the person doing the investigation was actively looking for bad things about Trump, does not make the information itself untrue. Right-wing Twitter personality Stephen Crowder is the one who broke the story about John Conyers sexual harassment settlement, but that didn't matter, because it was still good information that could be corroborated. The Washington Post openly endorsed Doug Jones for Alabama senate, does that mean their investigation of Roy Moore's sexual harassment should be dismissed out of hand?

By all accounts, Fusion GPS seem like a reasonably above-board research firm, and Christopher Steele seems like a reputable investigator. If the FBI used the dossier as a basis for the FISA warrant, it's highly unlikely they used it alone in isolation. Far more likely would be that it kickstarted some further investigation and information found there led to a FISA warrant.

oscarBravo

JRant wrote: »

I mean if speculation on Trump's mental health is fair game...

What, you think Trump is a rational, sane person?

Come on. Describing Trump as "insane" isn't speculation, it's commentary. The man is utterly incoherent. He contradicts himself constantly. He has no concept of what is objectively true.

The man can't distinguish fantasy from reality. He's not sane.

Or are you going to claim that he is so clever that his entire life is one long exercise in pretending to be a textbook narcissist?

Noel82

JRant wrote: »

The dossier was funded by the DNC and it's investigation carried out by Steele, an outside agent. Comey stated that it was unsubstantiated during his testimony so if it was used as a reason for applying to the FISA court then IMO it leads to some very serious questions being asked. ASAIK it was used to carried out surveillance on an American citizen (Carter Page) and as such needs to meet higher criteria than a foreign citizen.

It's unsubstantiated even up to last week. McCabe was grilled under oath and the only thing the FBI could collaborate was that Carter Page visited Russia and that was already public knowledge.

James Rosen, FNC

"Investigators say McCabe recounted to the panel how hard the FBI had worked to verify the contents of the anti-Trump “dossier” and stood by its credibility. But when pressed to identify what in the salacious document the bureau had actually corroborated, the sources said, McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page had traveled to Moscow. Beyond that, investigators said, McCabe could not even say that the bureau had verified the dossier’s allegations about the specific meetings Page supposedly held in Moscow."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/20/mccabe-draws-blank-on-democrats-funding-trump-dossier-new-subpoenas-planned.html

Tell me how

oscarBravo wrote:

Come on. Describing Trump as "insane" isn't speculation, it's commentary. The man is utterly incoherent. He contradicts himself constantly. He has no concept of what is objectively true.

I believe that when the end comes, he will not admit wrong, he will not ultimately face censure, he will be moved aside for "medical" reasons and deemed unfit to do his job.

Those waiting to see him punished (me included ) for his lies, selfishness and deceit will be disappointed.

His buddies in Fox will smugly know lament how sad it was that he couldn't stay in power.

Noel82

C14N wrote: »

It wasn't commissioned by the DNC, it was commissioned by an anti-Trump conservative news website.

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

http://fortune.com/2017/11/02/steele-dossier-trump-clinton-fund/

Both actually. Republicans started it off and Hillary finished off the funding so your own statement is false.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

Fake news again, Noel?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.

The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.

I know the likely response, so here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)
"Singer is active in Republican Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee."

It's pretty funny given the whole DNC/Wasserman-Schulz debacle to try and manipulate the primaries, that a very similar thing might well be what bites the Republicans in the ass in an unbelievable manner. I wonder how aware of that they are/were themselves once they immediately stopped it as it became clear Trump was winning the nomination.

Noel82

Christy42 wrote: »

http://fortune.com/2017/11/02/steele-dossier-trump-clinton-fund/

Both actually. Republicans started it off and Hillary finished off the funding so your own statement is false.

Wrong. I'm talking specifically about the dossier. Steele was only contacted by Fusion GPS under the Clinton Campaign who Perkins Cole contracted. It was their initiative to go after Trump for Russian ties.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

Fake news again, Noel?

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about the dossier. I'm aware some Republicans used the same firm prior to the Clinton campaign.

JRant

C14N wrote: »

It wasn't commissioned by the DNC, it was commissioned by an anti-Trump conservative news website. But that still does not address the point I made in the last post. Just because the person doing the investigation was actively looking for bad things about Trump, does not make the information itself untrue. Right-wing Twitter personality Stephen Crowder is the one who broke the story about John Conyers sexual harassment settlement, but that didn't matter, because it was still good information that could be corroborated. The Washington Post openly endorsed Doug Jones for Alabama senate, does that mean their investigation of Roy Moore's sexual harassment should be dismissed out of hand?

By all accounts, Fusion GPS seem like a reasonably above-board research firm, and Christopher Steele seems like a reputable investigator. If the FBI used the dossier as a basis for the FISA warrant, it's highly unlikely they used it alone in isolation. Far more likely would be that it kickstarted some further investigation and information found there led to a FISA warrant.

That's partly true, it was initially commissioned by anti-Trumpers within the GOP. They dropped it and the DNC then recommissioned and funded the full dossier.

If you can't see why a campaign tool, which the dossier undoubtedly was, being used as a bases for a FISA warrant (remember this was signed off by the AG, appointment by a member of said party) is beyond the Pale then I can't help you.

Think about it for just half a second, if this was allowed to happen then imagine where it could lead. The ruling President could be seen as effectively "spying" on the opposition. That can't be allowed happen.

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about the dossier. I'm aware some Republicans used the same firm prior to the Clinton campaign.

...to fund the same style of research that went into the dossier? I mean just because none of the research (or so they claim anyway) made it into the final dossier. That simply says to me that none of the preliminary research made it in. They didn't stop what they were doing for the Beacon, they carried on the research as before, just the money came from a different location but the ground work for it all was certainly done with Beacon funding since they were having the same thing investigated.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about the dossier. I'm aware some Republicans used the same firm prior to the Clinton campaign.

I did read what you wrote, and it's hilarious!

Republicans started the digging for dirt on Trump, and the guys they used to do so wound up coming up with way, way more than the Republicans would have ever wanted. It's quite poetic.

Noel82

Twist all you want, Clinton's camp paid for the dossier and it had nothing to do with Republicans. You're trying to make it so because Republicans used the same firm prior. There was no "final dossier", there was one, singular - specifically paid by Clinton.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/trump-clinton-podesta-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html

Even more simply put, Republicans began this specific effort to gather dirt on Trump and, when they pulled back, Democrats took it over. It makes perfect sense if you look at a calendar. As noted above, the Democrats first started work with Fusion GPS in April 2016 -- the month in which it became undeniably clear Trump was on his way to becoming the GOP nominee.

So again, the new thing here is not that Democrats paid Fusion GPS, and so helped -- wittingly or unwittingly -- to bankroll Steele's work, but that it was, specifically, Clinton's campaign and the DNC. (Your eye-rolling friend would, right about now, pop up to ask, "Well, who else would it have been?" It's a fair question.)

JRant

oscarBravo wrote: »

What, you think Trump is a rational, sane person?

Come on. Describing Trump as "insane" isn't speculation, it's commentary. The man is utterly incoherent. He contradicts himself constantly. He has no concept of what is objectively true.

The man can't distinguish fantasy from reality. He's not sane.

Or are you going to claim that he is so clever that his entire life is one long exercise in pretending to be a textbook narcissist?

Well that didn't take long.
Take your Kafkatrap elsewhere.

I made absolutely no claims to his mental state one way or the other.

JRant

Noel82 wrote: »

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

They did at it's outset but the DNC took up reigns once they dropped it.