Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Christy42

gitzy16v wrote: »

You made the claim Trump is more dangerous than ISIS...How so?

ISIS(Islamic extremists) are causing people to change their ways right now.

Everything else you posted is a load of bluff and bluster with no relevance to what I asked.

First line of what I wrote. Trump has power, Islamic extremists have less. It would require more will than he has now to seriously go after press rights and a whole lot of issues fighting for those changes but I could certainly see Trump removing some people's rights a lot more quickly than Islamic Extremists.

What have we changed? Security has been upped sure. It seems appropriate but having security around does not destroy Western culture.

Come on. Your argument is that Islamic Extremists could bring down Western Culture. Is there anything to that?

gitzy16v

[QUOTE=Christy42;104031604 Please tell how some anti social issues in a Belgium ghetto are going to bring down all of Western Civilisation.[/QUOTE]

Its a bit more than anti-social when Moleenbeek is harbouring terrorists.
But hey thats fine because Trump is moaning about his bad press in the MSM and thats a bigger issue for Western Civilisation.

Are you forgetting that Trump will be out on his ear at worst in 8 years but more likely 4 or less.
Islamic extremism will live on long after that...how long now? a thousand odd years its been going on but no,Trump is the bigger threat.

Scaremongering if I was harsh...Hyperbole for likes being kind.

Disclaimer...Trumps a clown,the worst POTUS ive ever seen but hes far from the threat you make him out to be IMO

gitzy16v

Christy42 wrote: »

First line of what I wrote. Trump has power, Islamic extremists have less. It would require more will than he has now to seriously go after press rights and a whole lot of issues fighting for those changes but I could certainly see Trump removing some people's rights a lot more quickly than Islamic Extremists.

What have we changed? Security has been upped sure. It seems appropriate but having security around does not destroy Western culture.

Come on. Your argument is that Islamic Extremists could bring down Western Culture. Is there anything to that?

No its not my argument.

Its that they are more of a threat than Trump.

Christy42

gitzy16v wrote: »

No its not my argument.

Its that they are more of a threat than Trump.

Oh grand then we are in agreement on the important points. I figure Trump is a pretty minor threat at worst due to the checks and balances system in the US mostly. My point was more that they are such a minor threat to western civilisation as a whole that Trump is more (note I have repeatedly specified he is an incredibly minor threat), not that Trump was a big threat.

I feel they are a smaller threat as I can see a way in which a president gets more power than they should in the US system and people start talking their word as a dictator. I can't see how Islamic Extremists get there. As I said the odds for either are pretty low. Main point I wanted to argue is that Western culture is not under serious threat right now. Which is a bigger threat over two minor threats to Western civilisation is not an important conversation imo so I am happy to cede that point.

gitzy16v

Christy42 wrote: »

Oh grand then we are in agreement on the important points. I figure Trump is a pretty minor threat at worst due to the checks and balances system in the US mostly. My point was more that they are such a minor threat to western civilisation as a whole that Trump is more (note I have repeatedly specified he is an incredibly minor threat), not that Trump was a big threat.

I feel they are a smaller threat as I can see a way in which a president gets more power than they should in the US system and people start talking their word as a dictator. I can't see how Islamic Extremists get there. As I said the odds for either are pretty low. Main point I wanted to argue is that Western culture is not under serious threat right now. Which is a bigger threat over two minor threats to Western civilisation is not an important conversation imo so I am happy to cede that point.

Cool beans...love when a debate comes together.:D

I think ISIS only slightly worse threat than trump but not really a major threat at all.
I believe that because of the attacks carried out by them,simple as.
Ill leave yis carry on bashing the buffoon.
Cheers:)

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

The speech was good, hit all the right notes and did point to clear issues. But based on all his previous actions and comments one can only come to 1 of 2 conclusions.
1) Trump has good speech writers who understand the issues but Trump doesn't believe it
2) Trump has done a complete about turn on his previous standing.

The speech was fine and wasn't the dog whistle that those who can't analyse objectively thought it was. Plenty to beat up Trump on without having to scream"racism " and "dat white supremacy" every time he speaks.

Twas a strange week for the left in America with the above, the resolute backing of Linda Sarsour and somehow CNN losing the moral high ground on Trump's **** posting.:eek:

Hank Scorpio

It's been fun lads, can't post here anymore for ironically posting about immigration which was what drew me to Trump in the first place, I've closed my account. To those who actually engaged in debate and advoided smearing different views it's been fun to go back and fourth over the last year or so both here and in the original AH thread. Didn't even mind the occasional stalker.

I genuinely think Trump has an unfair deal with the media and the studies back that up, but can at the same time agree he does many things badly, policies aside. I'm in the process of setting up a media watch site which should be interesting but the research and implementation is pretty time consuming, I've indulged myself in how unethical and blatantly transparent it is in deception. That includes Fox I urge everyone to back and check every false story that's been run about this administration since Jan 20th, you'll be amazed.

I'll be over on the other Politics site probably. Nothing against boards in general but I find it's changed a lot since when I starting posting.

Anyhow, all the best. ( to everyone )

Captain Obvious

gitzy16v wrote: »

You made the claim Trump is more dangerous than ISIS...How so?

Presumably because he will likely cause more innocent deaths than ISIS.

Celticfire

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Presumably because he will likely cause more innocent deaths than ISIS.

Will he also partake in mass sex slavery, beheadings , feeding mothers their own infants etc...? I'm sure The Yazadi wouldn't feel that Trump is a bigger threat than ISIS.

Christy42

Celticfire wrote: »

Will he also partake in mass sex slavery, beheadings , feeding mothers their own infants etc...? I'm sure The Yazadi wouldn't feel that Trump is a bigger threat than ISIS.

I believe the poster was referring to the various bills that cut health care to give rich people tax breaks.

Having said that it would need Republicans to actually agree on a version of it so this may be prevented.

They may also be referring to the climate change issues though in that case the deaths are a while away and will be harder to directly attribute to Trump.

Palmy

You're talking like Islamic extremists and 1 million people is nothing. Trump is the only one with balls to stand up and do something. Obama sat back and watched Syria get destroyed after saying he would protect the Syrian people with safe zones and no fly zones. Guess what he did nothing. Yes nothing.
Wait to see how Europe pans out over the next 5-10 years. It's going to be mayhem after letting Islamic extremists filter into the population.
I think Trump is actually trying to do his best and although he does make some stupid comments so far hasn't done a bad job.

Palmy

The health system here is a joke to start, with or without Obamacare. No one is going to fix it as to much corporate greed is involved with insurance companies and the likes. If you're middle or working class your going to get screwed over anyway. You're all going on like you don't have to pay out of pocket expenses or anything with Obamacare. Yes if it covered you and your family 100% coverage with no out of pocket expenses I would be in favour. Even with 70% insurance coverage if I had to stay in hospital for a few weeks my bill would be over $100k. So with or without everyone is screwed no matter what.

Really Interested

Palmy wrote: »

You're talking like Islamic extremists and 1 million people is nothing. Trump is the only one with balls to stand up and do something. Obama sat back and watched Syria get destroyed after saying he would protect the Syrian people with safe zones and no fly zones. Guess what he did nothing. Yes nothing.
Wait to see how Europe pans out over the next 5-10 years. It's going to be mayhem after letting Islamic extremists filter into the population.
I think Trump is actually trying to do his best and although he does make some stupid comments so far hasn't done a bad job.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/syria-bombing-republicans-trump.html

"WASHINGTON — In 2013, as President Obama sought congressional support for strikes against Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack, he did not find takers in Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky or Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, both Republicans."

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

"Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day."

But Obama can't win if he is doveish he is wrong if he is a hawk he is wrong. Can ye bloody make up your mind?

Billy86

Palmy wrote: »

You're talking like Islamic extremists and 1 million people is nothing. Trump is the only one with balls to stand up and do something. Obama sat back and watched Syria get destroyed after saying he would protect the Syrian people with safe zones and no fly zones. Guess what he did nothing. Yes nothing.
Wait to see how Europe pans out over the next 5-10 years. It's going to be mayhem after letting Islamic extremists filter into the population.
I think Trump is actually trying to do his best and although he does make some stupid comments so far hasn't done a bad job.

Actually Obama did launch strikes against Syria, it was a part of the 'warmonger' rhetoric during the election campaign that Trump supporters clung to claiming he would stop meddling in world affairs and be more isolationist (all while wilfully ignoring Trump's claims he would "bomb the sh**" out of the middle east even when it was pointed out to them).

Funny number I read the other day, when Obama took military action in Syria about 80% of Republican were against it. When Trump took military action in Syria about 80% of Republicans supported it. Likewise with Republicans in congress, who claimed Obama's initial plan (bigger than Trump's current one) was not enough action and using that as their reason to vehemently oppose it, and now lauding Trump's as a strong showing... all while as mentioned, using the "warmonger" rhetoric in between those two.

Really Interested

https://youtu.be/HchYP-vuzG4

Very interesting comment at the end this person is not partisan as he praises what he sees as Trumps good work at G20 the kicker is what he says next.

Palmy

https://amp.businessinsider.com/obama-red-line-syria-iran-2016-8

Other forces were at play and if Obama really wanted he could have forced a safe zone.

Palmy

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-syria-aleppo-obama-legacy-perspec-0120-md-20170118-story,amp.html

From the get go he stood back. Obama looked for support from congress but Trump didn't and bombed Assad's airbase anyway. Yes Obama dropped a lot of bombs in Syria but not on Assad's forces and to what good.

Ipse dixit

Palmy wrote: »

https://amp.businessinsider.com/obama-red-line-syria-iran-2016-8

Other forces were at play and if Obama really wanted he could have forced a safe zone.

I'd very reluctantly give Obama any credit for trying to correct the mess in Syria but had he followed intelligence and the DoD and all the Democrats and Republicans screaming for intervention against Assad then we would have another Libya on our hands, something which he has a huge responsibility for.

The idealists are trying to remove Assad with no idea or consideration for the crackpots that lie in wait. The media bears a lot of responsibility too for cheerleading these interventionist idealists.

Trump has done absolutely nothing to correct the balance of politics in the Middle East. He's continuing to support the proxy wars from Saudi Arabia so I wouldn't exactly be cheerleading his policies either. A potential pact with Putin in Syria is hardly something to be celebrating either.

I doubt he'll manage to create a two state solution either. The Israeli and Palestinian governments are far too conservative and will expect too much for a two state solution to work.

Really Interested

Palmy wrote: »

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-syria-aleppo-obama-legacy-perspec-0120-md-20170118-story,amp.html

From the get go he stood back. Obama looked for support from congress but Trump didn't and bombed Assad's airbase anyway. Yes Obama dropped a lot of bombs in Syria but not on Assad's forces and to what good.

Look at Article one section 8 of the USA constitution.

Cazale

Trump is setting up a cyber security unit with the Russians to prevent attacks on elections in the future ....

Palmy

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/522549/
No one is going to fix the Middle East period. But trust me they fair Trump a lot more than they did Obama. There are so many laws and constitutions involved I'm not even going to bother to try and get my head around all the legality of it with loopholes etc. Just like federal laws with regards to sanctuary cities and upholding federal laws. But that doesn't stop some States having sanctuary cities does it. loopholes are used in the constitution just like he used with regards to the travel ban.

Palmy

Look at Article one section 8 of the USA constitution.[/quote]

I am sure he could of used the law put into affect after September 11 2001 regarding supporting acts of terrorism and the use of chemical weapons to justify his acts. I'm sure if he had up held the Red line and shot down any aircraft in those zones Assad would of taken him seriously without having to attack Assads bases. He was scared to do anything because of Putin and Russian backing and his deal in Iran.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

The main players on the losing side of that war were Europeans looking to preserve and promote their view of European culture.

There is a reason they spotted it - because that's what it was, it was intended to be spotted by them and that is why so many others have spotted it too. He could easily have said something along the lines of 'the world stands against Islamic extremism' for example - but instead he chose the dog whistle.

Though I never said the majority, I said one of the loudest and largest. And one that has direct influence right beside the president with a guy frequently seen as Trumps right hand man. Having said that a substantial chunk of Trump's fan base are just fundamentalists followers of the 18th letter of the alphabet and would have voted for whoever had that letter beside their name.

We are incredibly lucky that such an abhorrent cult was defeated in WW2. I'm not entirely sure what form of European culture they were trying to spread. As far as I know it's bases was from occultist writings and cherry picked ideals from Rome etc.

I just don't agree with you regarding the dog whistling and here's why. Groups such as Storm Front and the Alt-right have taken everyday terms and tried to reinvent them to suit their ideals. The reason being that when someone, such as Trump in this case, uses it they can go "look he's speaking about white supremacy". It's almost a clever idea only for the fact that it is so obvious.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually Obama did launch strikes against Syria, it was a part of the 'warmonger' rhetoric during the election campaign that Trump supporters clung to claiming he would stop meddling in world affairs and be more isolationist (all while wilfully ignoring Trump's claims he would "bomb the sh**" out of the middle east even when it was pointed out to them).

Funny number I read the other day, when Obama took military action in Syria about 80% of Republican were against it. When Trump took military action in Syria about 80% of Republicans supported it. Likewise with Republicans in congress, who claimed Obama's initial plan (bigger than Trump's current one) was not enough action and using that as their reason to vehemently oppose it, and now lauding Trump's as a strong showing... all while as mentioned, using the "warmonger" rhetoric in between those two.

It has been like that for as long as I can remember. Whatever the other side is doing is wrong.

I think the US get a far harsher rap for their foreign policy than any other country. They haven't always got it right but thankfully they have kept some of the worst of mankind in check.

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

It has been like that for as long as I can remember. Whatever the other side is doing is wrong.

I think the US get a far harsher rap for their foreign policy than any other country. They haven't always got it right but thankfully they have kept some of the worst of mankind in check.

There are ups and downs, but their insistence on being the world police has also caused huge problems from installing dictators to meddling for resources and cold war territories (along with the USSR) that actually has was one of the main catalysts for Islamic extremism.

The u-turns depending on who is doing what on a partisan basis does exist on both sides, but are considerably more pronounced on the Republican end.

aloyisious

How will the way Don & the GOP deal their majority political cards in regard the Appalachian Mountains [and its Appalachian Regional Commission being deprived of federal funding within his budget plans] affect the way the locals there view the GOP as being appreciative of the local pro-gop voting pattern there? Will cutting Fed funding dollars to the ARC damage the GOP election chances there?

The 2018 elections are now really only around the corner, as shown by the few [5 I think] runoffs for seats left vacant by promoted GOP incumbents.

The question was put into my mind by the Seth Meyer late night show when he brought on a guest and the topic got a passing mention.

aloyisious

Separately, how is US industry doing in reality. I've seen quotes about it, positive and negative results. A few days ago, the Auto trade wa reported as being down for 2 months in succession on new motor sales. The Fed is reported tonight as having to decide on keeping the interest rate static or increase it. How would an increase in interest rates affect [1] business in funding its future plans and [2] Joe Voter at personal banking level re loans? Has the Fed still got a good degree of distance from [too much] political hinting on what would suit the Oval Office residents plans?

Edit: I'm thinking along the lines of the new resident getting the bonus of good trade figures from the previous Admin and wondering if Don, by basically breaking existing contracts single and multiple partnership deals with other nations and trading groups, will throw US foreign trade into a dive and affect future personal and GOP elections plans into crash-landings.

aloyisious

OK, I think I have definitely heard it all now. Don: I have agreed with Putin to form a joint cyber security unit to prevent hacking.

Billy86

Very interesting development in the Russia story this weekend, certainly might explain Fox News and others changing tune so quickly from "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

On Saturday the New York Times released a story about Trump Jr meeting on June 9th last year with a Russian lawyer by the name of Veselnitskaya, very well connected with the Russian government, regarded by many as an agent of the Kremlin and with close ties to people in ex Ukranian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych (he of being overthrown for being a Russian plant, and having to be saved and harboured by Russia to this day fame). But Jr is only a family member, right? Well also at the meeting was Jared Kushner... also only an adviser (if I recall) who now plays a prominent role in the White House. And also there was Paul Manafort, Trump's official campaign manager at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

The previously unreported meeting was also attended by Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman at the time, Paul J. Manafort, as well as the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, according to interviews and the documents, which were outlined by people familiar with them.

While President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and Russians, this episode at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, is the first confirmed private meeting between a Russian national and members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle during the campaign. It is also the first time that his son Donald Trump Jr. is known to have been involved in such a meeting.

Representatives of Donald Trump Jr. and Mr. Kushner confirmed the meeting after The Times approached them with information about it. In a statement, Donald Jr. described the meeting as primarily about an adoption program. The statement did not address whether the presidential campaign was discussed.

Now that's a strange thing to be talking about considering the people in the role, isn't it - adoption programs? Well there's a funny thing there, those sanctions were brought in by Russia as a preemptive response to US sanctions, sanctions that came to pass only a few weeks later. It would be impossible to talk about adoption programs without talking about existing sanctions against Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-to-sign-bill-banning-americans-from-adopting-russian-orphans-8431905.html

The Russian bill is retaliation for an American law that calls for sanctions against Russian officials deemed to be human rights violators. The law, called the Magnitsky Act, stems from the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in jail after being arrested by police officers whom he accused of a $230m (£143m) tax fraud. The law prohibits officials allegedly involved in his death from entering the US. Kremlin critics say that means Russian officials who own property in the West and send their children to Western schools would lose access to their assets and families.

But here's another funny thing: The NYT initially only released half of the story. It was as if they knew Trump Jr. would lie and just gave him a chance to come clean on the reason for the meeting or, as proved to be the case, give him just enough rope. After Trump Jr & Kushner's representatives came out to say the meeting was about adoption programs, the NYT released the second half of the story which has five corroborating sources to show that the meeting was about potentially damaging information against Clinton, only a few weeks after the DNC emails had been hacked - which has since been concluded to have been done by Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html

The Times reported the existence of the meeting on Saturday. But in subsequent interviews, the advisers and others revealed the motivation behind it.

The meeting — at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican nomination — points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.

At present, Trump Jr has tried to change his story while Manafort and Kushner's representatives have not responded, with claims trying to be made that Trump Snr was entirely unaware of a meeting his son, son-in-law/close adviser, and campaign manager had to find damaging information on his election rival with discussions around adoption and thus sanctions. They are claiming nothing came of the meeting, and a few weeks later Peter W. Smith, closely linked with the Trump campaign and most specifically Mike Flynn of Russian phone call shortest national security adviser term ever fame, began trying to recruit GCHQ's Matt Tait which Tait himself wrote about in depth a few weeks ago.

Also interestingly, on June 9th 2016 now White House Chief of Staff who was Republican National Committee Chairman at the time Reince Priebus visited Trump Tower. Priebus has come out strongly trying to claim there is 'nothing to see here' about the Trump Jr/Kushner/Manafort meeting that was expressly looking to collude with Russia to influence the election, predictably trying to play the deflection game we're all too used to seeing from pro Trumpers by claiming it must have been a plot by the Democrats.

And that is the story of how claims that "no collusion occurred" turned into "collusion isn't illegal" over the last few weeks.

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Separately, how is US industry doing in reality. I've seen quotes about it, positive and negative results. A few days ago, the Auto trade wa reported as being down for 2 months in succession on new motor sales. The Fed is reported tonight as having to decide on keeping the interest rate static or increase it. How would an increase in interest rates affect [1] business in funding its future plans and [2] Joe Voter at personal banking level re loans? Has the Fed still got a good degree of distance from [too much] political hinting on what would suit the Oval Office residents plans?

Edit: I'm thinking along the lines of the new resident getting the bonus of good trade figures from the previous Admin and wondering if Don, by basically breaking existing contracts single and multiple partnership deals with other nations and trading groups, will throw US foreign trade into a dive and affect future personal and GOP elections plans into crash-landings.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-trump-job-market-looks-a-lot-like-the-obama-job-market/

Essentially no change. This is not surprising. Basically nothing has been implemented that affects the economy at this point. Even if it had it would be unlikely to have such an instant effect anyway.

I mean the only deal he has backed out of was not in effect. Everything else he just keeps threatening to leave. He removed some regulations from the finance industry but that will take a while to show (and even then are unlikely to be major). He does not yet have a tax plan in place.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Very interesting development in the Russia story this weekend, certainly might explain Fox News and others changing tune so quickly from "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

On Saturday the New York Times released a story about Trump Jr meeting on June 9th last year with a Russian lawyer by the name of Veselnitskaya, very well connected with the Russian government, regarded by many as an agent of the Kremlin and with close ties to people in ex Ukranian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych (he of being overthrown for being a Russian plant, and having to be saved and harboured by Russia to this day fame). But Jr is only a family member, right? Well also at the meeting was Jared Kushner... also only an adviser (if I recall) who now plays a prominent role in the White House. And also there was Paul Manafort, Trump's official campaign manager at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html


Now that's a strange thing to be talking about considering the people in the role, isn't it - adoption programs? Well there's a funny thing there, those sanctions were brought in by Russia as a preemptive response to US sanctions, sanctions that came to pass only a few weeks later. It would be impossible to talk about adoption programs without talking about existing sanctions against Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-to-sign-bill-banning-americans-from-adopting-russian-orphans-8431905.html


But here's another funny thing: The NYT initially only released half of the story. It was as if they knew Trump Jr. would lie and just gave him a chance to come clean on the reason for the meeting or, as proved to be the case, give him just enough rope. After Trump Jr & Kushner's representatives came out to say the meeting was about adoption programs, the NYT released the second half of the story which has five corroborating sources to show that the meeting was about potentially damaging information against Clinton, only a few weeks after the DNC emails had been hacked - which has since been concluded to have been done by Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html


At present, Trump Jr has tried to change his story while Manafort and Kushner's representatives have not responded, with claims trying to be made that Trump Snr was entirely unaware of a meeting his son, son-in-law/close adviser, and campaign manager had to find damaging information on his election rival with discussions around adoption and thus sanctions. They are claiming nothing came of the meeting, and a few weeks later Peter W. Smith, closely linked with the Trump campaign and most specifically Mike Flynn of Russian phone call shortest national security adviser term ever fame, began trying to recruit GCHQ's Matt Tait which Tait himself wrote about in depth a few weeks ago.

Also interestingly, on June 9th 2016 now White House Chief of Staff who was Republican National Committee Chairman at the time Reince Priebus visited Trump Tower. Priebus has come out strongly trying to claim there is 'nothing to see here' about the Trump Jr/Kushner/Manafort meeting that was expressly looking to collude with Russia to influence the election, predictably trying to play the deflection game we're all too used to seeing from pro Trumpers by claiming it must have been a plot by the Democrats.

And that is the story of how claims that "no collusion occurred" turned into "collusion isn't illegal" over the last few weeks.

Right now the defense appears to be well we tried to collude with the Russians but we failed we swear.

Really Interested

Christy42 wrote: »

Right now the defense appears to be well we tried to collude with the Russians but we failed we swear.

That actully made me laugh out loud good thing I was not in public.

seamus

Christy42 wrote: »

Right now the defense appears to be well we tried to collude with the Russians but we failed we swear.

It looks like the wheels are finally coming off alright.

Trump Jr. has been stupid enough to say that he met with Russians in an attempt to smear Clinton. Even newbies at this corruption game know that complete denial is better than a little acknowledgement.

Trump Snr's nonsense is is becoming apparent even to the Republicans, many of whom have cried aghast at the suggestion that the US would co-operate on cybersecurity with the Russians. Less than 24 hours after suggesting it, Trump has binned the plan.

At this stage I would say a majority of the GOP have come to realise that the Russia allegations are if not wholly, then at least partially true, and are urgently working out how to back out from this presidency without tearing the party apart.

Leroy42

Its a pretty serious allegation. Yet again Trump campaign are found to have be economical with the truth in regards to meetings with Russian's

Trump keeps saying it time to move on etc, but they are the very ones stonewalling. At this stage Trump should be demanding (remember that the narrative seems to be that if others did do something Trump had no knowledge) that anyone around him with any additional information come clean and get it all out in the open. Even he acknowledges that this Russian stuff is taking away from his ability to achieve what he wants. So why not knock it on the head.

Gather them all together and get every piece out there. And if you think it not really relevant release it anyway. It would cut the legs of the whole thine. If I was Trump, I would be furious that those around me had been meeting all these Russians behind my back and now are endangering my very Presidency.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

If I was Trump, I would be furious that those around me had been meeting all these Russians behind my back and now are endangering my very Presidency.

You mean if you were Trump and didn't know about it, and didn't think it was great, and didn't publicly call on the Russians to hack the election and didn't wink at Putin in a public Tweet about dropping sanctions?

A Trump in that position would probably have asked Comey "Did the Russians hack the election? Did anyone in my campaign help them?".

Trump never asked those questions, because he already knew the answers were both Yes. He went straight to "Can you see your way to let it go? Am I personally under investigation?"

Leroy42

Yes, but the narrative put out there is that IF anything did happen, Trump didn't know about it.

I agree that that bends credibility, but even if you accept it, then it raises the very questions that you have just asked (and myself).

Here is a guy that, out of nowhere, pulled of one of the greatest political upsets ever. He delivered not only WH, but against all expectations the GOP not only held on by increased their seats to give them total control. You then get the usual naysayers saying you must have cheated. No way you did that just on your own ability and skill. So of course he fights back against that. I would too.

But then you continually hear about those around you doing stuff, that even if innocent, looks bad and only serves to give credence to those naysayers who claim you cheated.

And yet all of them (bar Flynn which was out of his control at the end) have remained in key positions. There has been no costs to them for lying and damaging him and his presidency. Yet at the same time he is very active is denouncing fake news and anything that paints him in a bad light.

The two different approaches make no sense. No sense, unless of course he did know.

ECO_Mental

Extract below from Trump Jrs statement

"I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. "

Can any of ye ever remember in work etc where you have gotten a meeting invite and never knew what the meeting you were going to was about......

Complete an utter BS from Trump Jnr, no one asks someone to rock up to a meeting and tell them its a surprise what the meeting is about. Kushner etc knew full well what the meeting was about!

Hey guys I have arranged a meeting with some Russian with some dirt on Clinton what to attend... yeah that sounds like a great idea.... NOT

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but the narrative put out there is that IF anything did happen, Trump didn't know about it.

I agree that that bends credibility, but even if you accept it, then it raises the very questions that you have just asked (and myself).

Here is a guy that, out of nowhere, pulled of one of the greatest political upsets ever. He delivered not only WH, but against all expectations the GOP not only held on by increased their seats to give them total control. You then get the usual naysayers saying you must have cheated. No way you did that just on your own ability and skill. So of course he fights back against that. I would too.

But then you continually hear about those around you doing stuff, that even if innocent, looks bad and only serves to give credence to those naysayers who claim you cheated.

And yet all of them (bar Flynn which was out of his control at the end) have remained in key positions. There has been no costs to them for lying and damaging him and his presidency. Yet at the same time he is very active is denouncing fake news and anything that paints him in a bad light.

The two different approaches make no sense. No sense, unless of course he did know.

Just a correction the GOP lost 6 seats in the House, and lost 2 seats in the Senate. So the GOP had control of Congress before 2016 while retaining control they lost seats.

Leroy42

Really Interested wrote: »

Just a correction the GOP lost 6 seats in the House, and lost 2 seats in the Senate. So the GOP had control of Congress before 2016 while retaining control they lost seats.

Thank you, you are right of course.

That they remained in control was the surprise, a mistake on my part on that.

Water John

One of these key players will crack and reveal all. Probably to Mueller.

She says, one of them Kushner or Manafort left after 10 mins. Ridicolous stuff.

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

Thank you, you are right of course.

That they remained in control was the surprise, a mistake on my part on that.

To be fair they were expected to keep control of the House in November due to gerrymandering and voter suppression (not even throwing that out there after the fact, it was picked up in the media quite a bit), the Senate was seen as a toss up/narrow Dem advantage (it was there for the taking but but they did not put enough focus on it), it was Trumpski who was the major surprise even though Comey's assistance shifted things in a pretty big way in the week or so prior to election day.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

One of these key players will crack and reveal all. Probably to Mueller.

She says, one of them Kushner or Manafort left after 10 mins. Ridicolous stuff.

I reckon Trump Jr is the weak link.

Everytime he opens his mouth he seems to cause more trouble.

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

I reckon Trump Jr is the weak link.

Everytime he opens his mouth he seems to cause more trouble.

"Donald Trump has never even met Donald Trump Jr., who was only very loosely associated with the Trump family for a very brief period of time."

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I reckon Trump Jr is the weak link.

Everytime he opens his mouth he seems to cause more trouble.

It wasn't Jr opening his mouth: it was Kushner being forced to fill in his security clearance form correctly which involved stating all contacts with foreign Government, Intel, business people etc. relating to election. He had previously put down ZERO.
If you remove all the fluff it is clear that Donald Jr must know that the only way this Russian mob/Kremlin lawyer would have dirt on Clinton is via espionage.
Now if you use OR seek to use espionage from a foreign hostile power to influence a democratic election that is by definition treason.
How much must the Feds/Mueller know if Kushner had to come out with that much detail effectively throwing Jr under the bus?

Zubeneschamali

The Times reports that they got the information from “three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”

5 white house advisers dumping Donald Jr. under the bus. They would only be doing this to limit the damage to people higher up.

mayo.mick

https://twitter.com/AP/status/884377513279016962

DaniilKharms

mayo.mick wrote: »

LOL

aloyisious

Billy86 wrote: »

Very interesting development in the Russia story this weekend, certainly might explain Fox News and others changing tune so quickly from "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

On Saturday the New York Times released a story about Trump Jr meeting on June 9th last year with a Russian lawyer by the name of Veselnitskaya, very well connected with the Russian government, regarded by many as an agent of the Kremlin and with close ties to people in ex Ukranian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych (he of being overthrown for being a Russian plant, and having to be saved and harboured by Russia to this day fame). But Jr is only a family member, right? Well also at the meeting was Jared Kushner... also only an adviser (if I recall) who now plays a prominent role in the White House. And also there was Paul Manafort, Trump's official campaign manager at the time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html


Now that's a strange thing to be talking about considering the people in the role, isn't it - adoption programs? Well there's a funny thing there, those sanctions were brought in by Russia as a preemptive response to US sanctions, sanctions that came to pass only a few weeks later. It would be impossible to talk about adoption programs without talking about existing sanctions against Russia.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-to-sign-bill-banning-americans-from-adopting-russian-orphans-8431905.html


But here's another funny thing: The NYT initially only released half of the story. It was as if they knew Trump Jr. would lie and just gave him a chance to come clean on the reason for the meeting or, as proved to be the case, give him just enough rope. After Trump Jr & Kushner's representatives came out to say the meeting was about adoption programs, the NYT released the second half of the story which has five corroborating sources to show that the meeting was about potentially damaging information against Clinton, only a few weeks after the DNC emails had been hacked - which has since been concluded to have been done by Russia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/politics/trump-russia-kushner-manafort.html


At present, Trump Jr has tried to change his story while Manafort and Kushner's representatives have not responded, with claims trying to be made that Trump Snr was entirely unaware of a meeting his son, son-in-law/close adviser, and campaign manager had to find damaging information on his election rival with discussions around adoption and thus sanctions. They are claiming nothing came of the meeting, and a few weeks later Peter W. Smith, closely linked with the Trump campaign and most specifically Mike Flynn of Russian phone call shortest national security adviser term ever fame, began trying to recruit GCHQ's Matt Tait which Tait himself wrote about in depth a few weeks ago.

Also interestingly, on June 9th 2016 now White House Chief of Staff who was Republican National Committee Chairman at the time Reince Priebus visited Trump Tower. Priebus has come out strongly trying to claim there is 'nothing to see here' about the Trump Jr/Kushner/Manafort meeting that was expressly looking to collude with Russia to influence the election, predictably trying to play the deflection game we're all too used to seeing from pro Trumpers by claiming it must have been a plot by the Democrats.

And that is the story of how claims that "no collusion occurred" turned into "collusion isn't illegal" over the last few weeks.

When I read the story laid out above, I thought "you can't be serious" this has to be a snare put out for enraged Dems to fall for so Don can tweet, with a degree of truth, "more fake news". No one could seriously meet with a Russian lawyer on the blind about alleged dirt on Dad's opponent thinking this is straight from the horse's mouth. It reads like a "Salon Kitty" story. He had two people with him as surety and should have walked the second the lawyer changed her line. It makes him, and the lawyer, patsies and deservedly so. She's burnt now beyond use.

Edit: on an aside, has there been a hint anywhere in the story of the Russian lawyer mentioning which of the Clintons the alleged dirt was about, to draw the Trump clan to the meeting?

Leroy42

As usual, with these stories, the first part is flat denial (in this case this has happened previously from all concerned).

Once the story appears we get a, "Oh, we simply forgot about that one, but nothing happened and nothing was discussed".

This is then usually followed up a little later by "well it did happen, but no exactly as was described"

Then we move into "Yeah, but HC and fake news" and then finally into "Donald knew nothing about this and is too busy MAGA to get involved in the witchhunt".

Let it die down and then repeat again a few weeks later.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Let it die down and then repeat again a few weeks later.

This is just what the press know - what will Mueller and his team find? When 5 White House advisers will push Donald Jr under the bus and drive it over him just to spin the story in the press, what will they do to stay out of jail?