Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Noel82

JRant wrote: »

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

The Republicans paid for opposition research, they had nothing to do with the dossier or Steele. I don't get why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Twist all you want,

Explain the 'twist' in this statement: "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."

Hint: there is none.

Republicans used the same firm for researching dirt on the same candidate, right up until the month before the Clinton campaign took over that contract for the same company to keep researching for dirt on the same candidate... and that firm came up with some considerable dirt, alright!

Unless, of course, Fusion were specifically directed by those Republicans to stay the **** away from investigating any potential ties with Russia, which obviously makes it even funnier again. Almost as funny as Georgie Boy getting slaughtered drunk in London and spilling the beans to others.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

Explain the 'twist' in this statement: "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."

The only thing that matters is who funded the dossier and who subsequently used it to spy on Trumps campaign, and who aggressively pushed it to media outlets.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

The only thing that matters is who funded the dossier.

Why?

Does the content, if it's true not matter more?

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Why?

Does the content, if it's true not matter more?

If the information can't be verified it shouldn't have been used to spy on Trump's campaign or put in the media, even Trump deserves that and most news outlets recognized that and refused to publish it.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/10/04/trump-dossier-fusion-gps-russians-lawsuit-fridman-aven-khan-243461

The Clinton campaign had no problem using it

https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/793237359508721669?lang=en

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

If the information can't be verified it shouldn't have been used to spy on Trump or put in the media, even Trump deserves that and most news outlets recognized that and refused to publish it.

Agreed. So what's your point?

Also, Trump is extremely guilty of announcing unverified statements is he not?

Billy86

Tell me how wrote: »

Agreed. So what's your point?

Also, Trump is extremely guilty of announcing unverified statements is he not?

It's different for Trump you see, and the reason for that is because

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

The Clinton campaign had no problem using it

Trump had no problem saying Obama wasn't born in America....

What's your point?

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

The only thing that matters is who funded the dossier and who subsequently used it to spy on Trumps campaign, and who aggressively pushed it to media outlets.

Nope, what matters is what is in it - you just want to tell yourself "it was all Hilllllaaaaaarrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!" so you can ram your fingers in your ears and pretend it isn't real. Except it's very real.

Noel82 wrote: »

If the information can't be verified it shouldn't have been used to spy on Trump's campaign or put in the media, even Trump deserves that and most news outlets recognized that and refused to publish it.

And I hate to break it to you, but plenty of it has been corroborated, and this is just what we know, never mind what Mueller does - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-us-news-media-corroborate-christopher-steele-allegations-cia-a7617856.html

But you keep on telling yourself it's not real, it's all just a big conspiracy against The God Emperor.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Agreed. So what's your point?

Also, Trump is extremely guilty of announcing unverified statements is he not?

The point is the dossier should have never have had such an impact over the last year. Immediately claims in it were debunked such as Michael Cohen visiting Prague - and up until last week according to Andrew McCabe under oath the only thing the FBI verified was that Carter Page visited Moscow.

The real question is how can one campaigns unverifiable research lead to the FBI spying on the other campaign. I think I know the answer to that. We'll just have to see if Mueller comes up with anything pointing to "collusion", still waiting for the bombshell after 18 months of media nonsense and hysterics on here.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

The real question is how can one campaigns unverifiable research lead to the FBI spying on the other campaign. I think I know the answer to that. We'll just have to see if Mueller comes up with anything pointing to "collusion", still waiting for the bombshell after 18 months of media nonsense and hysterics on here.

Come on now, you're smarter than that.

How would Fox be reacting if the Clinton family was so involved in the White House as the Trumps are with there being such evidence if meetings and emails between them and Russians before the election?

Also, the GOP has led 828 days of investigations in to Benghazi and many want that to continue.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

The real question is how can one campaigns unverifiable research lead to the FBI spying on the other campaign. I think I know the answer to that.

I think we do Noel, I think we do.



The FBI reportedly launched its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election after George Papadopoulos, then a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump, told an Australian diplomat that Moscow had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. ... Papadopoulos reportedly told Downer that Russian officials possessed thousands of emails that could harm Clinton’s candidacy.

And as for your 18 months bit, that's early days - nobody was charged for Watergate for over two years after it happened, and Georgie Boy above was not brought out for over a full year later... which we didn't find out about until months after again. Who knows who else they might already have right as we type, without our knowledge.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Come on now, you're smarter than that.

How would Fox be reacting if the Clinton family was so involved in the White House as the Trumps are with there being such evidence if meetings and emails between them and Russians before the election?

It's public knowledge Clinton campaign people were working with the Ukrainian Government to dig up dirt on Trump and his associates.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

You put this much intense scrutiny on any campaign or person and you'll find associates meeting and emailing people. None of it surprises me. It all comes down to the Wikileaks email dumps and there hasn't been a thread of evidence that made me think the Trump campaign were working with the Russians.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

I think we do Noel, I think we do.

Lets see what happens, they'll have to find a crime first.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

Lets see what happens, they'll have to find a crime first.

Yes. That's what Mueller is doing. Glad to see we all now agree he should continue.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

You put this much intense scrutiny on any campaign or person and you'll find associates meeting and emailing people. None of it surprises me. It all comes down to the Wikileaks email dumps and there hasn't been a thread of evidence that made me think the Trump campaign were working with the Russians.

That's your response, but this was my question.

Tell me how wrote:

How would Fox be reacting if the Clinton family was so involved in the White House as the Trumps are with there being such evidence if meetings and emails between them and Russians before the election?

Care to answer?

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Care to answer?

Fox has been going after the Clinton's since forever so nothing would have changed. I'm not duped enough to suggest Fox isn't biased, but I can say the same thing about other networks like MSNBC and CNN. Media corporations exploit their audiences to create as much money as possible, it's not some revelation to me Fox is Trumps only big media ally.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Lets see what happens, they'll have to find a crime first.

They've already found various ones, not that you'd be remotely curious why someone like Papadopolous would lie to the FBI or what the reason might be behind the Trump's repeatedly lying about their ties to and connections in Russia.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

They've already found various ones, not that you'd be remotely curious why someone like Papadopolous would lie to the FBI or what the reason might be behind the Trump's repeatedly lying about their ties to and connections in Russia.

I've gone on my gut since the start that Trump wouldn't have been acting the way he has if he had something big to hide, and with Comey's testimony that Trump told him he wanted to find associates if they did anything wrong only confirming it. It's my opinion that if there was something big it would have come out already. If I end up being totally wrong I'll hold my hands up and admit it, time will tell, surely in the next few months we'll all have the answers.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

I've gone on my gut since the start that Trump wouldn't have been acting the way he has if he had something big to hide, and with Comey's testimony that Trump told him he wanted to find associates if they did anything wrong only confirming it. It's my opinion that if there was something big it would have come out already. If I end up being totally wrong I'll hold my hands up and admit it, time will tell, surely in the next few months we'll all have the answers.

What about your gut leads you to believe Trump would be so honourable?

What example or incident did you see which lead you to think he would behave in this way?

I have never seen behavior which is in any way redeeming from him and reading teleprompter words which sound right but mean nothing from his mouth haven't made me change my mind.

I would love someone to argue cogently why he is honourable and show acts which demonstrate that but what is there is a landslide of evidence to the contrary.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

I've gone on my gut since the start that Trump wouldn't have been acting the way he has if he had something big to hide, and with Comey's testimony that Trump told him he wanted to find associates if they did anything wrong only confirming it. It's my opinion that if there was something big it would have come out already. If I end up being totally wrong I'll hold my hands up and admit it, time will tell, surely in the next few months we'll all have the answers.

You might want to visit is doctor, if that's what your gut is at.

- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have fired the guy investigating him?
- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have first gone looking for 'loyalty' from this guy before doing so?
- If Trump had something to to hide he wouldn't have lied over and over and over again about any connections with Russia?
- If Trump had something to to hide he wouldn't have continued these lies after the election (because that's always the standard follow up from Trump fans)?
- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't go claiming to have little to no connection to prominent members of his own campaign and transition team?

The list goes on and on and on. I think you're letting something get in the way of that gut of yours. It's going to be, bare minimum, November 2018 before we see any bold steps made, because I'd imagine many Republicans will do what they can to sabotage it (as we've been seeing already for months) so best to put them under election pressure and/or wait until they're gone.

As I said, it was two full years before charged were made for Watergate, despite the 'plumbers' being caught in the act.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

I have never seen behavior which is in any way redeeming from him and reading teleprompter words which sound right but mean nothing from his mouth haven't made me change my mind.

You can apply the same logic to almost anyone in a position of power, especially Politics. They don't get to the top by handing out lollipops. Politics is a filthy business and I wouldn't even think about defending Trump if the same level of scrutiny was applied to everyone in a position of power but it's obvious to me there's a two tier justice system. If the slate was clean from the start I wouldn't bat an eyelid at US politics, but as it is I must admit I've found the last couple of years fascinating.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

The list goes on and on and on.

Strange how you can compile list after list going after Trump but echoed the how much a choirboy Clinton was during the election and as of last week I think you were still defending her. You're clearly motivated by partisanship to take Trump down, which is fine in itself - if you applied the same scrutiny across the board I might actually respect you for it.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

You can apply the same logic to almost anyone in a position of power, especially Politics. They don't get to the top by handing out lollipops. Politics is a filthy business and I wouldn't even think about defending Trump if the same level of scrutiny was applied to everyone in a position of power but it's obvious to me there's a two tier justice system. If the slate was clean from the start I wouldn't bat an eyelid at US politics, but as it is I must admit I've found the last couple of years fascinating.

You absolutely cannot say that everyone else is the same as Trump but he gets excessive unfair coverage.

Politics is by and large dark and shady, on all sides but Donald J Trump is the epitome of the darkest corners of this. It is lucky for the world that he is so incompetent because if his disregard for fellow human beings and the planet itself was mirrored by some degree of competency, it might even be worse for everyone.

You might think I'm being "left-wing" dramatic here. I say the above having paid very close attention to American politics and the partisan nature of a lot of the media for the last 15 years or so.

This guy is a bully with a below average IQ.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Politics is by and large dark and shady, on all sides but Donald J Trump is the epitome of the darkest corners of this.

This guy is a bully with a below average IQ.

Strongly disagree with the bolded part - I don't think he even scratches the surface.

Bully yes, but I would be hesitant in calling him stupid. Have a good night!

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Strange how you can compile list after list going after Trump but echoed the how much a choirboy Clinton was during the election

Going to stop you here - show me where. I've heard this from umpteen Trump supporters, quite confusingly I might add, yet not once has anyone shown where when asked to.

and as of last week I think you were still defending her.

Again, show me where.

You're clearly motivated by partisanship to take Trump down, which is fine in itself - if you applied the same scrutiny across the board I might actually respect you for it.

Irony is a beautiful thing at times, and so is an insight into a cultist mentality. Now I'll ask again, even if you're not interested in answering:

- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have fired the guy investigating him?
- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have first gone looking for 'loyalty' from this guy before doing so?
- If Trump had something to to hide he wouldn't have lied over and over and over again about any connections with Russia?
- If Trump had something to to hide he wouldn't have continued these lies after the election (because that's always the standard follow up from Trump fans)?
- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't go claiming to have little to no connection to prominent members of his own campaign and transition team?

ancapailldorcha

Noel82 wrote: »

Strange how you can compile list after list going after Trump but echoed the how much a choirboy Clinton was during the election and as of last week I think you were still defending her. You're clearly motivated by partisanship to take Trump down, which is fine in itself - if you applied the same scrutiny across the board I might actually respect you for it.

Why is every single criticism of Trump met with "But, Hilary..." It's beyond pathetic at this stage. We've had one year of a Trump presidency now and I can't think of a single positive save for the fact that the man's sheer ineptitude is impeding him from doing too much harm.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

You might want to visit is doctor, if that's what your gut is at.

- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have fired the guy investigating him?
- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have first gone looking for 'loyalty' from this guy before doing so?
- If Trump had something to to hide he wouldn't have lied over and over and over again about any connections with Russia?
- If Trump had something to to hide he wouldn't have continued these lies after the election (because that's always the standard follow up from Trump fans)?
- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't go claiming to have little to no connection to prominent members of his own campaign and transition team?

The list goes on and on and on. I think you're letting something get in the way of that gut of yours. It's going to be, bare minimum, November 2018 before we see any bold steps made, because I'd imagine many Republicans will do what they can to sabotage it (as we've been seeing already for months) so best to put them under election pressure and/or wait until they're gone.

As I said, it was two full years before charged were made for Watergate, despite the 'plumbers' being caught in the act.

Now now Billy, we all know Comey wasn't investigating Trump, hell Comey even said as much during his testimony.

I think we will see ever increasing pressure on the investigation as the GOP will want this out of the way before the November elections.

Noel82

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is every single criticism of Trump met with "But, Hilary..." It's beyond pathetic at this stage. We've had one year of a Trump presidency now and I can't think of a single positive save for the fact that the man's sheer ineptitude is impeding him from doing too much harm.

The mask slips. Like it or lump it Clinton's campaign financed and spread the dossier which has dominated the news cycle since January and the people "investigating" her have had partisan bias exposed, they are all major talking points. Here's 81 of his achievements ( white house talking points ) which to you might seem meaningless to his supporters they're not.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159

Likely there's a list just as long of things he's said or done wrong which is something I can agree with you on. I'd say his biggest policy failures have been the repeal of Obamacare and construction of the border wall. Overall I'd say his first year is a failure, without the tax bill passing it could have been much worse.

listermint

What mask are you talking about ?

Also why are you so positive for a dirty old billionaire of inherited wealth of a racist father who couldn't run a business to safe his life.

Considering he has no impact on you and is thousands of miles away.

What warm bubbly feeling does this narcissist give you?

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

- If Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have fired the guy investigating him?

Comey was either incompetent or corrupt, the dog on the street knows he messed up the Clinton investigation, it wasn't just Republicans complaining about him. Just look at this clip from 6 minutes onwards, there's tonnes of other examples where he straight up ignored direct evidence.

https://youtu.be/fbhzCHFxIVg?t=359

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote: »

The mask slips. Like it or lump it Clinton's campaign financed and spread the dossier which has dominated the news cycle since January and the people "investigating" her have had partisan bias exposed, they are all major talking points. Here's 81 of his achievements ( white house talking points ) which to you might seem meaningless to his supporters they're not.

Like it or not the dossier originated with the GOP.

Could you find any non-partisan source to quote his "achievements" rather than that fan-club newspaper. Their heading includes the fact that 11 Obama legacy items were repealed. And yet you are the one that mentions bias. This is the same ISIS destroying historic ruins and trying to claim it was reclaiming land.

Please stop talking about Clinton. It's so f*cking childish at this stage it is beyond laughable and embarassing.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Like it or not the dossier originated with the GOP.

No it didn't, repeating that over and over again doesn't make it anymore true.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote: »

No it didn't, repeating that over and over again doesn't make it anymore true.

Yawn. Next!

listermint

Noel82 wrote: »

No it didn't, repeating that over and over again doesn't make it anymore true.

Yes it did.

Look you get some information together and put it in a binder you can call it a dossier.
It's bloody same as asking someone to get dirt on a opponent. Just because it's in a binder doesn't make it different that can't be so difficult to comprehend

Noel82

You guys are straight up wrong on that fact, everything in that dossier came from Christopher Steele and Steele was only contracted by Fusion GPS after Perkins Coie law firm paid them.

listermint

Answer my question on why you are so pro a inherited billionaire with a racist father who ran his own businesses into the ground

You strike me as the type that wouldn't normally be for this sort of individual.

?

Noel82

listermint wrote: »

Answer my question on why you are so pro a inherited billionaire with a racist father who ran his own businesses into the ground

You strike me as the type that wouldn't normally be for this sort of individual.

?

How did someone who's worth over 3 Billion dollars run his companies into the ground? He had a rough time when the real estate industry collapsed in the late 80's but recovered. The failed billionaire angle doesn't make much sense to me.

https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#141560ea2899

Noel82

Noel82 wrote: »

How did someone who's worth over 3 Billion dollars run his companies into the ground? He had a rough time when the real estate industry collapsed in the late 80's but recovered. The failed billionaire angle doesn't make much sense to me.

https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#141560ea2899

How did such a great business man manage to bankrupt a casino?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

How did such a great business man manage to bankrupt a casino?

And why won't he release his tax returns if he is so proficient?

listermint

Noel82 wrote: »

How did someone who's worth over 3 Billion dollars run his companies into the ground? He had a rough time when the real estate industry collapsed in the late 80's but recovered. The failed billionaire angle doesn't make much sense to me.

https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#141560ea2899

He was given it all when the father died.

Also that figure is immensely suspect I believe eveyone agrees on that. I don't believe he is worth even a quarter of that figure.

As I said why are you pro for this sort of individual you don't strike me as someone who would be for this sort of individual

I'd appreciate a response on that rather than deflection like your last comment

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

And why won't he release his tax returns if he is so proficient?

Dunno, he should have done when he got questioned on it in the primaries.

Noel82

listermint wrote: »

Also that figure is immensely suspect I believe eveyone agrees on that. I don't believe he is worth even a quarter of that figure.

So I'm to take your obviously impartial judgement over Forbes? Right.

listermint

Noel82 wrote: »

So I'm to take your obviously impartial judgement over Forbes? Right.

So you won't answer the question then?

Just say i won't answer the question and I have no real reason to be pro trump it's just something to be against on the internet . Because everyone else is the opposite



....

Noel82

listermint wrote: »

So you won't answer the question then?

Just say i won't answer the question and I have no real reason to be pro trump it's just something to be against on the internet . Because everyone else is the opposite



....

What question? IMO he was the lesser of two evils and my political thinking is more conservative, it's that simple really. Your judgement of what people think of him solely relies on where you spend your time on the internet, Politics.ie as volatile as it is has multiple talking points, not the echo chamber ( safe space ) you'll find here.

listermint

Noel82 wrote: »

What question? IMO he was the lesser of two evils and my political thinking is more streamline conservative, it's that simple really. Your judgement of what people think of him solely relies on where you spend your time on the internet, Politics.ie as volatile as it is has multiple talking points, not the echo chamber ( safe space ) you'll find here.

Lesser of what two evils ?

He wasn't self made he was gifted hundreds of millions when is father died. He's not worth billions forbes have to go off what he supplied. A multiple time failed business man with a penchant for being obscene to women including his own off spring

Or a life long politician with ties to big business.

What's the lesser here. 1 is competent for the role the other is most definitely not


So I ask again what about a failed. Businessman who rates his own fortune far more than it is to big himself up draws him to you ? You have to agree given any other circumstances I think you'd have a starkly different opinion of this individual.

SkepticQuark

Noel82 wrote: »

How did someone who's worth over 3 Billion dollars run his companies into the ground? He had a rough time when the real estate industry collapsed in the late 80's but recovered. The failed billionaire angle doesn't make much sense to me.

https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#141560ea2899

If we are, to be honest, the man was basically born into wealth but please keep implying he's this rags to riches man like the usual Trumpets claim....

The man went bankrupt six times. Who can forget great ventures like Trump Airlines, Trump beverages, Trump: The Game, Trump Casinos, Trump magazine, Trump Mortgages (he said at the time it was a "great time to start", his great business expertise and knowledge obviously worked a charm because months later the housing market collapsed), Trump Steaks, Trump's travel site, Trump's comms company (Trumpnet), Trump University (Trump Scamversity), Trump Vodka and the list goes on.

Noel82

Noel82 wrote: »

What question? IMO he was the lesser of two evils and my political thinking is more conservative, it's that simple really. Your judgement of what people think of him solely relies on where you spend your time on the internet, Politics.ie as volatile as it is has multiple talking points, not the echo chamber ( safe space ) you'll find here.

It's not an echo chamber. There's simply nothing good to say about Trump. He's an awful president. Not one of his fans on here has made any decent argument in his favour, because it simply cannot be done.
Every now and then they will come on here and make a drive by **** post with nothing to back it up to stir the pot, do a bit of but Hillary deflection and disappear until the next time.

SkepticQuark

Noel82 wrote: »

What question? IMO he was the lesser of two evils and my political thinking is more conservative, it's that simple really. Your judgement of what people think of him solely relies on where you spend your time on the internet, Politics.ie as volatile as it is has multiple talking points, not the echo chamber ( safe space ) you'll find here.

Or you know maybe they actually research to find what is true not what conforms to their "political thinking"? Personally, when Trump does actually get round to policy I like to read as much as I can myself before making a judgement and so far he's still a **** show of a President, just recently cancelled an infrastructure project while claiming he was all for infrastructure... When Trump makes speeches, I prefer reading straight up transcripts these days because it avoids listening to summaries by people from US networks and it also shows Trump without the veneer. If you actually read a transcript of anything he says it generally makes no sense at all and he dances between random topics just to avoid answering questions with straight up honesty, he knows nothing about policy specifics either.

Not to mention surely as a conservative thinker you are not agreeing with a 1.5 trillion dollar tax giveaway when the US budget is completely out of whack? Or are you one of those people who still believe in voodoo economics?

Noel82

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not an echo chamber. There's simply nothing good to say about Trump. He's an awful president. Not one of his fans on here has made any decent argument in his favour, because it simply cannot be done.
Every now and then they will come on here and make a drive by **** post with nothing to back it up to stir the pot, do a bit of but Hillary deflection and disappear until the next time.

There's plenty of things he's done that can be seen as positives for his supporters. It all depends on your political ideology. He's done good things for the army, veteran associations and for the Police in general, the economy and stock markets have soured, I believe the last quarter was well over 3% GDP which nobody predicted and consumer confidence and employment are at all time highs. Cutting over regulation at a ratio of 11 to 2 or something, highest African American home ownership in history. The tax cuts as much as people here will hammer it, will have a positive influence on peoples pockets and the economy for the foreseeable future. He's drastically lowered the amount of people entering the country illegally and had something like an 80% increase over the previous year arresting and deporting/jailing gang members.

I could go on but you get the point - To say he's done absolutely nothing is bullshít of the highest order and if you want a honest conversation of his failings I'd be glad to have it, but it's hard to take anything anyone here says seriously be saying things like he's achieved nothing.