Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Drumpot

So Is putin going to keep ramping up tensions with the US to distract the masses from the ongoing piecing together of the puzzle of His relationship with trump?

Or does anybody actually believe Trump is capable of a far greater shock and awe tactic to focus attentions elsewhere?

JohnFalstaff

I wouldn't rule it out. At this stage, anything is possible with this administration.

Manic Moran

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

I wouldn't rule it out. At this stage, anything is possible with this administration.

True, but watch as he gets re elected anyway because the opposition are so busy being aghast at Trump that they forget to create any sort of message of their own which resonates with voters.

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

I wouldn't rule it out. At this stage, anything is possible with this administration.

True, but watch as he gets re elected anyway because the opposition are so busy being aghast at Trump that they forget to create any sort of message of their own which resonates with voters.

Funny enough, that is exactly how the GOP got the most power any party has in nearly a century. Mind you, suppression and gerrymandering go a long way.

As for the presidential elections themselves, you would have to wromhard to find a candidate less popular than Clinton and more importantly, Trump (who won a number of states amounting to about 100 EC votes by 2pc or less) has done a staggering job of mobilising support against whoever would run against him. I wouldn't fancy his chances much against an inanimate carbon rod if there were an election tomorrow for that very reason.

Peregrinus

blackcard wrote: »

I am watching Donald give a speech in West Virginia. If one of the Healy-Rae's gave such a speech in Castleisland, the locals would tell them to f off.

Yes, but the Healy-Raes are statesmen of wisdom and stature, by comparison with Trump.

JohnFalstaff

Manic Moran wrote: »

True, but watch as he gets re elected anyway because the opposition are so busy being aghast at Trump that they forget to create any sort of message of their own which resonates with voters.

If Trump manages to hang onto the WH until the next election I can see the Dems beating him easily in 2020 should he get the nomination. Dems will put forward a young, relatively unknown quantity this time - similar to how Obama came out of nowhere in 2008. They won't make the same mistake again.

Peregrinus

[Never mind]

Ipse dixit

mcmoustache wrote: »

Do you know what a grand jury is?

Yes, do you?

Ipse dixit

Manic Moran wrote: »

True, but watch as he gets re elected anyway because the opposition are so busy being aghast at Trump that they forget to create any sort of message of their own which resonates with voters.

The Dems and their fans are focused on all the noise. Let them continue.

Captain_Crash

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-says-mueller-just-called-him-and-said-hes-the-most-innocent-person-ever

How long before we have the FBI "refuting" this claim. In any other world this would be a shocking statement from someone... but in the age of Trump its become so normal its not even funny anymore.

I joked before the election that I'd love Trump to be elected* just to see the sh*tshow that would follow... and its been a hell of a lot more insane that anyone could have imagined.

Samaris

It's been like a reality TV show for months, and most of the characters are oddly unreal or at the least just seem to fall into stereotypes as if they were the basis of them. I think my favourite so far is the coincidence that "scaramouche" is a term from traditional Italian comedy - the clown. Given that Scaramucci was playing up what appeared to be a Goodfellas stereotype since he burst onto the scene and then what happened to him, it's fairly apt.

Peregrinus

Captain_Crash wrote: »

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-says-mueller-just-called-him-and-said-hes-the-most-innocent-person-ever

How long before we have the FBI "refuting" this claim. In any other world this would be a shocking statement from someone... but in the age of Trump its become so normal its not even funny anymore.

The New Yorker piece you're linking to is a spoof, Cap.

aloyisious

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I'm calling it: the entire Trump presidency has been one long piece of performance art designed to push the limits of how much farce people are prepared to accept and excuse:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-vacates-trump-tower-command-post-in-lease-dispute-with-presidents-company/2017/08/03/7338de16-785d-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.148a184a3d74

So the Secret Service [which coincidentally keeps a log of all comings and going at Presidential locations] is shown the door over lease arrangements to the apartment in Trump Towers. Mindful of the S/Service surveillance electronic and otherwise to determine/ensure Dons safety, it'd be nice to know if the service presence was unsettling to other present and ABSENT residents in the Tower. Imagine the S/Service logs being subpoenaed as evidence by Congress or a Grand Jury hearing as to the daily comings and goings there.

VinLieger

Great to see republicans turning their backs on him and shutting him out from doing recess appointments. Especially considering the republican who triggered it is the same one he publicly tried to bully over the healthcare vote

Captain_Crash

Peregrinus wrote: »

The New Yorker piece you're linking to is a spoof, Cap.

Haha, I'll hold my hand up... I got duped.

I wont even bother editing the post, I'll leave my shame up in all its glory as an example that even the most deliberate and obvious spoof articles are hard to discern when it comes to Trump

Peregrinus

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Haha, I'll hold my hand up... I got duped.

I wont even bother editing the post, I'll leave my shame up in all its glory as an example that even the most deliberate and obvious spoof articles are hard to discern when it comes to Trump

Well, in fairness to you, it's a very good spoof.

Really Interested

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Yes, do you?

I will then ask you again to point to cases where a Grand Jury showed bad judgement. The reason I ask is the Grand Juries sit behind closed doors, so its thought process is not public.

Ipse dixit

Really Interested wrote: »

I will then ask you again to point to cases where a Grand Jury showed bad judgement. The reason I ask is the Grand Juries sit behind closed doors, so its thought process is not public.

Do your own research son. You must have missed the big protests in 2014.

Billy86

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Haha, I'll hold my hand up... I got duped.

I wont even bother editing the post, I'll leave my shame up in all its glory as an example that even the most deliberate and obvious spoof articles are hard to discern when it comes to Trump

No shame in it really given the near daily absurd lies coming out of that administration. Welcome to gaslight territory.

Ipse dixit

mcmoustache wrote: »

You know, I'm starting to think that Trump and his supporters might not be honest people.

They made so many claims that turned out not to be true. I mean, I can understand being wrong about some things here and there but the magnitude of their bú11sht was off the scale.

Whatever the reasons for the spreading of nonsense by Trump and his supporters, they certainly can't be believed.

Is this a serious political opinion? :eek:

Ipse dixit

Billy86 wrote: »

No shame in it really given the near daily absurd lies coming out of that administration. Welcome to gaslight territory.

Says the Clinton supporter! Incredible!

You lads really are an embarrassment.

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

True, but watch as he gets re elected anyway because the opposition are so busy being aghast at Trump that they forget to create any sort of message of their own which resonates with voters.

Unfortunately, the message that seems to be currently resonating with voters is "we'll lie to you and strip you of healthcare." It's hard to know how to go about constructing a coherent policy platform to appeal to that constituency.

VinLieger

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Do your own research son. You must have missed the big protests in 2014.

So your saying all Grand Jury's are bad because one 3 years ago made a decision that a large amount of other people disagreed with despite those people not knowing what the evidence shown to the grand jury was that they based their decision on?

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

So your saying all Grand Jury's are bad because one 3 years ago made a decision that a large amount of other people disagreed with despite those people not knowing what the evidence shown to grand jury that they based their decision on was?

It's The Donald stance. Ignore the pillars if government when it suits and dismiss everything that contradicts the narrative by appealing to the base. So the Grand Jury will be wrong because government is out to get The Donald and deny the base's aspirations that only he can achieve.

everlast75

I think its ironic that that one of the most popular chants at his rallies was "lock her up" and it turns out they may be locking him up instead.

Anyway, conspiracy theory check here. "IF" the Russians did influence the elections, and mean I via hacking... how much did they influence the results? Does anyone believe that they changed the electoral votes to a degree that it made him win? Would it be easier for them to hack that as opposed to the general vote result?

aero2k

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in fairness to you, it's a very good spoof.

The disturbing thing is that even a bad spoof would be more credible than most of the stuff that's actually happening.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

I think its ironic that that one of the most popular chants at his rallies was "lock her up" and it turns out they may be locking him up instead.

Anyway, conspiracy theory check here. "IF" the Russians did influence the elections, and mean I via hacking... how much did they influence the results? Does anyone believe that they changed the electoral votes to a degree that it made him win? Would it be easier for them to hack that as opposed to the general vote result?

I don't think that they actually manipulated voted directly - They didn't hack in and change a Clinton vote to a Trump one for example.

What they did do was manage a massive (dis)information program both at the macro level such as the email leaks and at the micro level with targeted facebook posts , shills in comments sections on websites etc.

Don't get me wrong , Clinton did a lot of the damage herself in terms of her history and personality etc. making it a close enough race for the stuff that was done to make a difference .

A large part of the reason that people believed some of the untruths told about Clinton was because her personality and previous actions made them believable at a cursory level.

Peregrinus

everlast75 wrote: »

Anyway, conspiracy theory check here. "IF" the Russians did influence the elections, and mean I via hacking... how much did they influence the results? Does anyone believe that they changed the electoral votes to a degree that it made him win? Would it be easier for them to hack that as opposed to the general vote result?

There's no evidence, and so far as I know no serious suggestion, that the Russians interfered in the sense of, e.g, falsifying votes or voting figures. The votes recorded as cast for Trump were in fact votes genuinely cast for Trump and vice versa for Hillary (subject to the usual rates of error and miscount which affect the pretty crapulous American electoral processes).

Rather, the suggestion is, the Russians sought to compromise the result by selectively supplying information or other support to one side; by selectively leaking information designed to influence voters in one direction; by disseminating false information with the same design; etc; etc.

Even if it's proved that they did so, whether this altered the outcome of the election can only ever be a matter of speculation. Given that his victory was skin-of-the-teeth, it's reasonable to argue that any factor which operated to increase his support or reduce Hillary's was crucial to his victory, but it'll never be more than an argument.

Legally, therefore, a finding of Russian involvement this would make no difference. Trump would still be President. But of course his political legitimacy would be undermined, and his effectiveness in the role further diminished (if that were possible). And it might also provide material for an impeachment push in Congress.

Billy86

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Says the Clinton supporter! Incredible!

You lads really are an embarrassment.

Besides the fact that you seem to be struggling with the concept of gaslighting (but certainly not with the concept of deflection!), it's funny that you just responded to a post by mcmoustache saying Trump and his supporters might not be honest people with "is that a serious political opinion?" only to call me a Clinton supporter literally a few posts after I said "you would have to work hard to find a candidate less popular than Clinton". Yeah, I think mcmoustache might have been on to something there...

Not surprising that you tried to jump in on that while ramming your fingers in your ears over grand juries which you claim "is not an indicator of the quality of evidence obtained by the Mueller investigation" brought indictments in all but 11 of 162,000 cases (over 99.99%).

Really Interested

Ipse dixit wrote: »

Do your own research son. You must have missed the big protests in 2014.

You made a statement how am I to know what case you are talking about if you don't link to it!

Professor Moriarty

If WAPO/NYT are fed transcripts of POTUS's telephone conversations, copies of Junior's emails etc. it's only a matter of time before they receive incontrovertible proof of illegal financial dealings over the years, recordings/video of The Donald making lewd remarks to women or actual grabbing, his tax returns etc. The daily drip feed must be akin to death by a thousand cuts to a full blown narcissist like The Donald.

everlast75

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If WAPO/NYT are fed transcripts of POTUS's telephone conversations, copies of Junior's emails etc. it's only a matter of time before they receive incontrovertible proof of illegal financial dealings over the years, recordings/video of The Donald making lewd remarks to women or actual grabbing, his tax returns etc. The daily drip feed must be akin to death by a thousand cuts to a full blown narcissist like The Donald.

However, docs obtained illegally cannot be used in a case (or at least, not over here). It would probably have the effect of making his position *untenable





*even more

Billy86

Will be interesting to see if this becomes another drip feed story, ala the Trump campaign's collusion meeting with Russia in Trump Tower.

U.S. Reportedly Intercepted Suspected Russian Agents' Chatter That Manafort Asked for Their Help With Clinton

Buried in a long story on CNN Thursday recapping the current state of play in the Russia investigation was a reminder that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is largely out of the spotlight at the moment, may not be for long. Manafort, who had spent years on the political fringes helping dictators and strongmen get elected around the world and then lobbying on their behalf in Washington, came out of nowhere to join the Trump campaign, and then take over the reins when Cory Lewandowski was fired in June 2016. By that time, unusual communications between the Trump campaign and Russian officials had pinged on U.S. intelligence agencies’ radar. As did Trump’s new right hand man.

In the summer of 2016, US intelligence agencies noticed a spate of curious contacts between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian intelligence, according to current and former US officials briefed on the investigation… CNN has learned that investigators became more suspicious when they turned up intercepted communications that U.S. intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort, who served as campaign chairman for three months, to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton's election prospects, the US officials say. The suspected operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.

Also the Senate has blocked Trump from making any appointments over their summer recess break, he's losing them more and more every day since his failure to assist them on healthcare which really doesn't help as more and more evidence gathers.

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

However, docs obtained illegally cannot be used in a case (or at least, not over here). It would probably have the effect of making his position *untenable





*even more

Any sane human being would say that his position is already untenable.

Billy86

Some have been saying this for ages, but to come from this source... ouch!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-pope-francis-catholics-alliance-of-hate-la-civilta-cattolica-steve-bannon-a7875651.html

Two people close to Pope Francis have accused ultra-conservative American Catholics of making an alliance of “hate” with evangelical Christians to back Donald Trump.

Catholic priest Antonio Spadaro and Protestant theologian Marcelo Figueroa published a joint article in La Civilta Cattolica, a journal published by Jesuit priests in Rome and overseen by the Vatican, in which they denounced US Catholics for supporting the extremist positions of the American right, saying the world view of hard-line Catholics is “not too far apart” from that Islamist jihadists.

Really Interested

everlast75 wrote: »

However, docs obtained illegally cannot be used in a case (or at least, not over here). It would probably have the effect of making his position *untenable





*even more

Depends in Ireland the JC case took us more in line with US law on the issue.

demfad

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think that they actually manipulated voted directly - They didn't hack in and change a Clinton vote to a Trump one for example.

What they did do was manage a massive (dis)information program both at the macro level such as the email leaks and at the micro level with targeted facebook posts , shills in comments sections on websites etc.

Don't get me wrong , Clinton did a lot of the damage herself in terms of her history and personality etc. making it a close enough race for the stuff that was done to make a difference .

A large part of the reason that people believed some of the untruths told about Clinton was because her personality and previous actions made them believable at a cursory level.

Russians hacked voting and registration servers. The jury is still very much out on whether they were able to hack results. We can assume that if they could with plausable deniability, they did. It's down to the integrity of the voting machines etc. and these are all over the place depending on vendor and/or district.

The charge against Clinton's history is unfair and is itself the result of active measures against her. She was quite a popular politician in the US until these measures started. The Bengazi charge and investigations for example were hugely significant and were more or less Goebbels style propaganda: If you repeat something often enough it becomes true. In his case, if you keep throwing muck at someone again and again, some of it will stick.

Other measures against Clinton were the publications and films such as 'Clinton Cash'. The film was produced by a company called 'Glittering Steele' which was funded by Rebekah and Robert Mercer. Steven Bannon runs Glittering Steel and was behind 'Clinton Cash'.

Rebekah ran the SuperPAC backing Trump, runs Cambridge Analytica and owns Breitbart news.
Cambridge Analytica are most certainly part of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Part of the coordination involved placing fake news from Russia and elsewhere onto the dark post of microtargetted users on Facebook, local TV stations in key districts etc. Bannon was vice president of Cambridge before joining the Trump campaign.

Just for context, Gen Flynn has just updated his info for the FBI to admit that he contracted for Cambridge.

https://www.apnews.com/a250d1088af44a3b8b55275dc97de608

Perceptions of Clinton's history definately contributed to supressing her vote but before you assign blame you need to understand if the 'history' was real and not invented by Steve Bannon, Rebekah Mercer, Mike Flynn etc.

demfad

Billy86 wrote: »

Some have been saying this for ages, but to come from this source... ouch!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-pope-francis-catholics-alliance-of-hate-la-civilta-cattolica-steve-bannon-a7875651.html

They are deep in the Trump administration. The umbrellas group for RW Christians in the US is called the CNP. KA Conway is on its exec, Bannon is a member two Catholics there presumably.
Of the first 100 Admin posts almost a quarter were actual CNP members, notably Betsy DeVos in key area of Education.
The Russia story is connected but also mirrors the reality that even when TRump goes there is a Christian Statist administartion in the US.

Peregrinus

everlast75 wrote: »

However, docs obtained illegally cannot be used in a case (or at least, not over here).

Both here and in the US, the prosecution can't (normally) use evidence which they obtained illegally.

But if somebody illegally leaks material to the New York Times which the Times prints, and the authorities read it and say "Goodness! How very interesting!" and then go and get search warrants, and search, and find the relevant orginal material/documents/records/forensic evidence/bodies whose existence was disclosed in the leak, yeah, they can certainly use that evidence. They obtained it legally.

Captain_Crash

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both here and in the US, the prosecution can't (normally) use evidence which they obtained illegally.

But if somebody illegally leaks material to the New York Times which the Times prints, and the authorities read it and say "Goodness! How very interesting!" and then go and get search warrants, and search, and find the relevant orginal material/documents/records/forensic evidence/bodies whose existence was disclosed in the leak, yeah, they can certainly use that evidence. They obtained it legally.

I was just about to post something similar.. the info may have been obtained by the WP/NYT illegally, but once its printed its fair game. The methods used by the media to obtain such information is a separate matter.

As always, I'm open to correction/clarification on this by someone with more knowledge in this area... (the irony being I'm currently paralegal researcher and will be starting a law degree in September, so I may clarify my own post further down the line lol)

InTheTrees

This is an interesting argument that Trump may be suffering from the early stages of Dementia. Its from March so the evidence has probably been building up since then too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3CFwkoqxIs

VinLieger

InTheTrees wrote: »

This is an interesting argument that Trump may be suffering from the early stages of Dementia. Its from March so the evidence has probably been building up since then too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3CFwkoqxIs

My money is on an advanced untreated case of syphilis similar to what happened with Al Capone where he's to arrogant and clueless to tell anyone about the symptoms he's got downstairs and its gotten to such a stage the disease is literally eating his brain

jimmycrackcorm

Quin_Dub wrote:

A large part of the reason that people believed some of the untruths told about Clinton was because her personality and previous actions made them believable at a cursory level.

Yet they were completely happy to ignore Trumps previous actions such as his love of grabbing cats.

I believe the core reason for his support is that he has legitimised the bigotry and racism that people weren't willing to voice.

Afraid of Muslim refugees, yet completely unwilling to tackle the huge loss of life due to guns.

MadYaker

So sessions made a statement saying he's going to crack down on leakers. The leakers aren't really the root of the problem though are they Jeff? They are just a symptom of a far bigger problem which sessions himself is a part of, i.e.: this entire administration. This is just an attempt by Sessions to try and mend his rotten relationship with Trump. I doubt he'll have much success at it. The leaks will continue.

everlast75

Leaks are a symptom of how unpopular he is among his staff.

Water John

More it's people inside, worried about the administration. It's their only way of holding it to account.
I would say most are motivated, out of concern for their country.

BabyCheeses

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's a threshold beyond which he cant veto it. And it was passed 96-2(?) so he cant do anything.

And even if he hadn't signed it, I think it becomes law after ten days anyway.

Really Interested wrote: »

Yes and the veto can be overturned by 67 if i remember votes in senate, the original bill passed with 96 votes if i remember. I am not sure if the President can send a bill to the SC for a declaration on constitutionality like irish president can.

While the veto wouldn't have changed much he could have washed his hands of it if he actually thought it was unconstitutional. Between this and him begging for other politicians to be nicer and to word it in a way for his supporters to understand, he got cucked.

What is taking so long for his followers to post distractions? By now we should have had some update on the spy microwaves or a drive by from one of the usuals about how he is doing a great job.

Billy86

BabyCheeses wrote: »

While the veto wouldn't have changed much he could have washed his hands of it if he actually thought it was unconstitutional. Between this and him begging for other politicians to be nicer and to word it in a way for his supporters to understand, he got cucked.

One major flaw with this theory is that for Trump to have been cucked, he would have to be the one wearing the pants in the relationship and not Uncle Vlad.

Billy86

Fox News on Wednesday (before the Grand Jury were impaneled): "There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was impaneled?"

Fox News on Thursday (after Grand Jury were impaneled): "Everybody now realizes that grand juries are an undemocratic farce."

Same guy too, some eejit called Gregg Jarrett.

aloyisious

MadYaker wrote: »

So sessions made a statement saying he's going to crack down on leakers. The leakers aren't really the root of the problem though are they Jeff? They are just a symptom of a far bigger problem which sessions himself is a part of, i.e.: this entire administration. This is just an attempt by Sessions to try and mend his rotten relationship with Trump. I doubt he'll have much success at it. The leaks will continue.

He'd probably be better off repeating the Don mantra "fake news" instead, as searching for leakers indicates the leaked info is true honest john fact, not lies and incorrect, misleading information based on speculation. A truthful leak helps the media get sources and uncover, hopefully, fresh undiscovered info. As one O/P wrote above, leaked info printed in newspapers can assist Federal investigations.