Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

demfad

circadian wrote: »

I wouldn't say that they lied in the dossier or exaggerated anything. They were hired to go and find information and that's what they done using contacts that Steele feels are reputable.

I don't think GPS are presenting the dossier as gospel but only as "Here is the information we've received from sources, there is no evidence of anything here so some of it may or may not be true." It is then up to the recipient of the information to investigate further to determine the validity of the claims.

Just from my interpretation of the testimony after Steele produced each memo, GPS Fusion would then investigate each and try to find out what checked out and what didnt. Steele was one of several contractors on that project and GPS would check out all the intel before presenting to their clients.
GPS testified that it nearly all checked out.
That said the assembled memos (dossier) would have been the Intel Steele found.
So you are correct it would need to be checked out by US Intel, but just pointing out that GPS had verified almost all of it (by their own standards).

demfad

Tell me how wrote: »

Trump thinks Russia investigation is a hoax

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/951109942685126656

Shepard Smith continuing his one man fight from within Fox discounts it immediately

https://twitter.com/passantino/status/951192988213854208

I can only imagine the investigations Fox have carried out on Smith to try to find a away to remove him without appearing to be homophobic.

Just to be accurate Trump says he thinks Russia investigation is a hoax: he knows its not.

"The single greatest Witch Hunt in American history continues. There was no collusion, everybody including the Dems knows there was no collusion, & yet on and on it goes. Russia & the world is laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing. Republicans should finally take control!"

Trump attacks judiciary, free press, FBI, Democrats: basically anyone who acts as a check on his power. Now he wants Republicans to take control. Is he proposing an authoritarian move?

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are not saying they are lying, just that you think they prove what they are saying more than than the flat denials of a proven liar. Even if there is plenty of evidence to back up their claims.

Is that your position?

What?
Hold on a second now, there's a world of difference between asking for some proof for Fusions claims and believing a word of what The Donald says to be true.

Where is this "plenty" of evidence that back up their claims that Trump was involved in the email hacking, that he was being blackmailed by the Russians?

People on both sides are so quick to believe any auld ****e they hear, as long as it backs up their line of thinking, that someone suggesting we should be a bit careful about what we hear until actual evidence is provided gets rounded on as the "other" side.

Leroy42

Despite the clearly chaotic WH, an obviously underprepared and unskilled POTUS in Trump, all indicators are very good for US at the present time. 66% believe the economy is excellent or good, and of course a lot of that relates to work done under Obama, Trump has managed to, at the very least, maintain it.

Unemployment continues to drop, the stock market (whilst not directly impacting the majority is an indicator of confidence) continues to rise.

Can it be said, that whilst Trump is terrible for democracy and really is an embarrassment to the US, things seem to be going in the right direction.

Is this simply down to Trump not being as terrible as people predicted, or is this, like one could argue about Brexit, showing that politics really is overvalued in the effect it actually has?

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

What?
Hold on a second now, there's a world of difference between asking for some proof for Fusions claims and believing a word of what The Donald says to be true.

Where is this "plenty" of evidence that back up their claims that Trump was involved in the email hacking, that he was being blackmailed by the Russians?

People on both sides are so quick to believe any auld ****e they hear, as long as it backs up their line of thinking, that someone suggesting we should be a bit careful about what we hear until actual evidence is provided gets rounded on as the "other" side.

I never mentioned e-mail hacking or blackmail. There is a staggering about of evidence pointing to Trump links with Russia. For starters his son, campaign manager and his chief advisor met with Russias on the basis to try and get illegally obtained intel on HC.

Soon after that meeting, for which we still haven't heard a clear reason, Trump stated that HC had deleted 30k e-mails and hopefully Russia would find them. You really think this is a coincidence?

Next you have Flynn lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia to try to negotiate and end to sanctions. You do know what negotiate means, because Trump certainly does. It means you give something to get something. What do you think Trump was offering to reduce sanctions?

Then we have Papadopolous. Again, lied to the FBI. Carter Paige has extensive Russia links but no political experience but was suddenly brought in to Trumps campaign, and has been lying about his involvement ever since.

We have Eric stating years ago that the bulk of Trump's money was coming from Russia, which he now denies but hasn't given a explanation as to where the money did come from.

Manafort has clear links to Russia.

On top of all that, we have Trump trying to get the FBI to lay off Flynn, at the time that he knew what Flynn had done. And Trump has admitted to firing the head of the FBI because he wouldn't drop the Russia investigation.

We have the AG that has lied under oath about meeting with Russias. We have Jared who has had to refile his disclosure form numerous times as he keeps 'forgetting' Russias he met with.

Trump has worked hard, and lied on a number of occasions, about his tax returns and one needs to ask why that is. On its own it can be excused, but put it with everything else and a clear suspicion arises.

I mean what exactly are you looking for when you claim you want evidence. There is more than enough there that an investigation is not only warranted but clearly needed.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Despite the clearly chaotic WH, an obviously underprepared and unskilled POTUS in Trump, all indicators are very good for US at the present time. 66% believe the economy is excellent or good, and or course a lot of that relates to work done under Obama, Trump has managed to, at the very least, maintain it.

Unemployment continues to drop, the stock market (whilst not directly impacting the majority is an indicator of confidence) continues to rise.

Can it be said, that whilst Trump is terrible for democracy and really is an embarrassment to the US, things seem to be going in the right direction.

Is this simply down to Trump not being as terrible as people predicted, or is this, like one could argue about Brexit, showing that politics really is overvalued in the effect it actually has?

From the same Quinnipiac poll:

Do you think Trump's policies are helping or hurting the economy?

Helping 37
Hurting/No difference 59

Who is more responsible for the current economy?

Obama 49
Trump 40

The rate of employment growth is down.
The deregulated market always booms (and then busts).
The purse has been fleeced for the GOP tax cuts.
US has destroyed its soft (economic) power by gutting it's State department.
China has rapidly moving unhindered into a position of greater global influence.
US has halted climate change economic adaptions which will hurt mid to long term, and hurt bad.
World respect for US has plummetted which will have economic impacts.
Nuclear war a lot more likely.
The current investigations likely to end in massive upheaval if impeachment/convictions occur or a broken democracy/authoritarianism if the GOP subvert the 2018 elections to stay in power.

Politics matters.

demfad

JRant wrote: »

What?
Hold on a second now, there's a world of difference between asking for some proof for Fusions claims and believing a word of what The Donald says to be true.

Where is this "plenty" of evidence that back up their claims that Trump was involved in the email hacking, that he was being blackmailed by the Russians?

People on both sides are so quick to believe any auld ****e they hear, as long as it backs up their line of thinking, that someone suggesting we should be a bit careful about what we hear until actual evidence is provided gets rounded on as the "other" side.

There has been a mountain of evidence presented in this thread and its predecessors. It is unfair of you to land in and claim that no evidence exists, forcing posters to repeat what has been repeated dozens of times.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

I never mentioned e-mail hacking or blackmail. There is a staggering about of evidence pointing to Trump links with Russia. For starters his son, campaign manager and his chief advisor met with Russias on the basis to try and get illegally obtained intel on HC.

Soon after that meeting, for which we still haven't heard a clear reason, Trump stated that HC had deleted 30k e-mails and hopefully Russia would find them. You really think this is a coincidence?

Next you have Flynn lying to the FBI about contacts with Russia to try to negotiate and end to sanctions. You do know what negotiate means, because Trump certainly does. It means you give something to get something. What do you think Trump was offering to reduce sanctions?

Then we have Papadopolous. Again, lied to the FBI. Carter Paige has extensive Russia links but no political experience but was suddenly brought in to Trumps campaign, and has been lying about his involvement ever since.

We have Eric stating years ago that the bulk of Trump's money was coming from Russia, which he now denies but hasn't given a explanation as to where the money did come from.

Manafort has clear links to Russia.

On top of all that, we have Trump trying to get the FBI to lay off Flynn, at the time that he knew what Flynn had done. And Trump has admitted to firing the head of the FBI because he wouldn't drop the Russia investigation.

We have the AG that has lied under oath about meeting with Russias. We have Jared who has had to refile his disclosure form numerous times as he keeps 'forgetting' Russias he met with.

Trump has worked hard, and lied on a number of occasions, about his tax returns and one needs to ask why that is. On its own it can be excused, but put it with everything else and a clear suspicion arises.

I mean what exactly are you looking for when you claim you want evidence. There is more than enough there that an investigation is not only warranted but clearly needed.

I am talking specifically about the claims in Simpsons testimony and have made that clear a number of times. So yes, direct evidence of Trump's involvement in the hacking and that he was being blackmailed. These are extraordinary claims and as such require extraordinary proof, not supposition, claims or anything like that.

I'm not talking about the points you have listed as that is not what we were discussing and agree with a lot you say. You are answering questions you weren't asked. Of course there is a need for an investigation and thankfully they are being carried out.

JRant

demfad wrote: »

There has been a mountain of evidence presented in this thread and its predecessors. It is unfair of you to land in and claim that no evidence exists, forcing posters to repeat what has been repeated dozens of times.

Yes and it is unfair to not read the points being made by others properly and put words in their mouth's. Where was it claimed that absolutely no evidence exists?
Only a fool would believe there were no links between the Trump campaign and certain Russian elements. Simpson made some very specific claims in his testimony and that is what I am querying.

I'm not "landing" in anywhere and certainly not forcing anyone to answer any questions.

Manic Moran

Leroy42;105794060

But it is pretty clear that Trump has had an impact. Whilst many, myself included, don't agree with his methods or if that he had methods, I think his lack of diplomacy has given NK little alternative as they can no longer count on the pacitity of the US.

Regardless of the underlying reasons, this is a good step. Hopefully it signals that NK are finally coming to their senses rather than just another delaying tactic

​I think that's a very big 'hopefully', though. I'm sure their rocket scientists haven't stopped working just because DPRK's greatest ever downhill skiier (other than Kim) is entering a sports contest. Whatever RoK's Sports Minister is doing, the Foreign and Defence Ministers need to be focused as much as ever on the nuclear missile problem in the next building over.

rossie1977;105795252Yes the November elections are key now not the November 2020 presidential election which is too far away to determine anything.

Obama was at 46% approval on a cnn poll in November 2010 and both the house and senate flipped, Dems actually lost over 60 house seats. Trumps currently at 37% approval on same cnn poll so if that stays the same you can see a big change especially in the house

​I don't know. As they say, all politics are local, and the entire scene is getting more and more polarised. I don't think you can look at the Great Clinton Flip or even Obama's time as an indicator: Congress's approval ratings are as bad as Trump's, yet the individual representative's approval ratings are high. Recent trends similarly have not shown the massive flip that has been hoped for. The major bright spot has been that Democrats beat what appears to be a child molestor in Alabama. That is hardly a portent for a massive swing. Will there be a swing back to the Dems? Absolutely. If nothing else, pretty much the only way left for them is up (which says something about how they are connecting with voters, not related to Trump), and historically there always has been one against the incumbent. Will it be big enough to change Congress? I'm not so convinced.

Case in point. People vote as to how they themselves feel. Cue on CNN this morning, announcements from the country's largest employer that the new tax cuts have allowed for more money in their employee's pockets. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/walmart-minimum-wage-increase/index.html

Walmart is raising its minimum wage and handing out tax cut bonuses because of the new Republican tax law [...] Because of the tax reform law, Walmart says it's also creating a new benefit to assist associates with adoption expenses. The benefit, which will be available to full-time hourly and salaried workers, will total $5,000 per child.

The company said it's also expanding its parental and maternity leave policy. Full-time hourly workers in the United States will get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave and six weeks of paid parental leave.

The changes affect more than 1 million hourly associates.

Whatever the realities behind the decision, that's some 1 million potential voters who are directly associating the Republican governance with a better position for themselves. For that sort of thing, I'm sure they can tolerate juvenile tweets and allegations of collusion.

JRant

Manic Moran wrote: »

​I think that's a very big 'hopefully', though. I'm sure their rocket scientists haven't stopped working just because DPRK's greatest ever downhill skiier (other than Kim) is entering a sports contest. Whatever RoK's Sports Minister is doing, the Foreign and Defence Ministers need to be focused as much as ever on the nuclear missile problem in the next building over.




​I don't know. As they say, all politics are local, and the entire scene is getting more and more polarised. I don't think you can look at the Great Clinton Flip or even Obama's time as an indicator: Congress's approval ratings are as bad as Trump's, yet the individual representative's approval ratings are high. Recent trends similarly have not shown the massive flip that has been hoped for. The major bright spot has been that Democrats beat what appears to be a child molestor in Alabama. That is hardly a portent for a massive swing. Will there be a swing back to the Dems? Absolutely. If nothing else, pretty much the only way left for them is up (which says something about how they are connecting with voters, not related to Trump), and historically there always has been one against the incumbent. Will it be big enough to change Congress? I'm not so convinced.

Case in point. People vote as to how they themselves feel. Cue on CNN this morning, announcements from the country's largest employer that the new tax cuts have allowed for more money in their employee's pockets. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/walmart-minimum-wage-increase/index.html

Walmart is raising its minimum wage and handing out tax cut bonuses because of the new Republican tax law [...] Because of the tax reform law, Walmart says it's also creating a new benefit to assist associates with adoption expenses. The benefit, which will be available to full-time hourly and salaried workers, will total $5,000 per child.

The company said it's also expanding its parental and maternity leave policy. Full-time hourly workers in the United States will get 10 weeks of paid maternity leave and six weeks of paid parental leave.

The changes affect more than 1 million hourly associates.

Whatever the realities behind the decision, that's some 1 million potential voters who are directly associating the Republican governance with a better position for themselves. For that sort of thing, I'm sure they can tolerate juvenile tweets and allegations of collusion.

Much the same as Reagan. His numbers were in the toilet for his first couple of years and then the economy took off with growth of around 7% and suddenly all was forgiven with his approval rating up.

A lot will be forgiven if the Donald can get anywhere near those numbers. As Bill said "it's the economy, stupid"

Tell me how

JRant wrote:

A lot will be forgiven if the Donald can get anywhere near those numbers. As Bill said "it's the economy, stupid"

Bad news for Donald. The stock market is on its longest sustained upward swing since the depression of 1930.

Most sincere observers say a correction is imminent.

Regan's budget person David Stockman being one of the loudest voices in this respect.

JRant

Tell me how wrote: »

Bad news for Donald. The stock market is on its longest sustained upward swing since the depression of 1930.

Most sincere observers say a correction is imminent.

Regan's budget person David Stockman being one of the loudest voices in this respect.

Kind of a double edged sword really. Stock market is up and the green back is relatively weak. This should in theory help exports and make American goods more affordable than imports.

The full effects of the tax plan won't be felt until probably Q2/3 of 2018 and if interest rates increase, which all indicators point too, then growth may increase regardless of a correction in the stock market.

Oafley Jones

How bizarre would it be if Bannon’s sense of nationalism ultimately brought this whole thing down. I used to think that he was incredibly careful in hiding his dealing with the Russians, but those stories are just not materialising. Not even rumours. He’s also always struck me as a survivor, but the rumours of him cooperating with mueller would really wreck his long term prospects. I’m not sure I buy it. Of course, it wouldnt surprise me to learn he’s a vindictive ****er either, bitter after been booted from his baby after turning around on jnr.

Oafley Jones

Bannon to appear before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. Maybe there’s something to the rumours after all.

Quin_Dub

Thread approaching 10k posts so need to close and relocate to save the hamsters

New thread located here