Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Akrasia

Billy86 wrote: »

"A long time" being "about 14 months since I fired him as the manager of my campaign wherein he attended meetings with Russian officials and my family members to collude against the United States, and assisting in asking foreign politicians and business people for financial donations which would allow them to make demands of me while in office."

Hold on billy, where are those quotes from? I can't find them in the beast article responded to. That quote seems to admit that there was collusion with Russia and that his own family members were involved....

Samaris

Yeah, while Mueller has significant powers, there are limits on how they can be used to avoid abuse. He cannot just raid peoples houses to "fish", he needs to be able to prove to a judge (for the warrant) that there is a good reason to believe it will be helpful for the investigation and cannot be done another way (like by trusting Manafort to produce everything relevant).

I would not dismiss this as a nothingburger. There are signs that the nothingburger may actually contain horsemeat.

Billy86

Akrasia wrote: »

Hold on billy, where are those quotes from? I can't find them in the beast article responded to. That quote seems to admit that there was collusion with Russia and that his own family members were involved....

The first is regarding the meeting on June 9th, 2016 - Kushner, Manafort, and Trump Jr (in an amazingly inept, unwitting manner on the last one) have all acknowledged it.

The foreign donations bit kicked off a bit of a storm last year with politicians the world over tweeting the email the Trump team had illegally send them. It got put down to ineptitude at the time, but the 'unfair media' mostly overlooked when The Telegraph did a sting where Trump's campaign thought they were soliciting donations from a Chinese businessman for the right to "whisper in the presidents ear" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQnOxM9iqOw

VinLieger

frostyjacks wrote: »

Looks like a fishing expedition. If they can't find anything on President Trump by now, then they never will.

Who said they havent found anything? Do you understand the purpose of a grand jury?

Wanderer78

VinLieger wrote:

Who said they havent found anything? Do you understand the purpose of a grand jury?

Plenty of ****e on him I'd imagine, a chaotic administration suits certain agendas!

BillyBobBS

President Trump now say the US is "Locked and loaded" if NK fire any missiles. Proper order.

VinLieger

BillyBobBS wrote: »

President Trump now say the US is "Locked and loaded" if NK fire any missiles. Proper order.

In what way is that a good thing? You think nuclear war where everyone loses is a worthwhile endeavor? You actually think it wont affect us cus we are on the other side of the world?

Mardy Bum

VinLieger wrote: »

In what way is that a good thing? You think nuclear war where everyone loses is a worthwhile endeavor? You actually think it wont affect us cus we are on the other side of the world?

Either he is being sarcastic or it is the perfect example of total delusion and ignorance.

Wanderer78

BillyBobBS wrote: »

President Trump now say the US is "Locked and loaded" if NK fire any missiles. Proper order.

:rolleyes:

VinLieger

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Either he is being sarcastic or it is the perfect example of total delusion and ignorance.

Check the post history and you will find the answer

MadYaker

Trumps comments thanking Putin were clearly sarcasm.

Akrasia

Trump's latest tweet.

"Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong-un will find another path!"

Firstly, his battlegroups that he would use to attack NK with conventional weapons with the level of 'fire and fury' that trump wants to inflict are not in place, so unless he's referring to ICBMs that have been set to Target Pyongyang, he's probably talking ****e (remember his 'armada' that he pretended to send a few months ago?)

Akrasia

MadYaker wrote: »

Trumps comments thanking Putin were clearly sarcasm.

Almost anything Trump says is 'clearly sarcasm' if the person saying it is almost anyone other than Trump

"Nobody respects women more than Donald Trump' (Clearly sarcasm unless trump says it)

Trump lost the right to use sarcasm by having every serious utterance be indistinguishable from a sarcastic statement

Leroy42

We truly are witnessing one of the greatest negotiators in the world at work here. Couldn't get Mexico to pay for the wall, couldn't get 2 senators to agree with the ACA bill and now he feels that the only solution to NK is to threaten all out war.

I assume this is him admitting that he cannot negotiate out of this impasse. I mean, anybody can be a good negotiator when they hold all the cards!

Leroy42

MadYaker wrote: »

Trumps comments thanking Putin were clearly sarcasm.

Whether that is true or not (its not IMO) what level of concern for all those affected by this does it show?

There are now 755 people who, in the middle of August have basically lost their jobs (according to Trump, they haven't lost their income of course).

But they are now faced with having to relocate. Schools, college, spouse's jobs & careers. Friends, family, extended families, sports clubs etc. Recall that he cost the US taxpayer millions because his wife and kid didn't want to leave NY as it was a hassle but he finds it funny that 755 people and their families are now faced with the same problem?

On top of that, a large % (if not all) of these would be US citizens. So rather than try to stand up for them he makes a joke!

If it was sarcasm, it was poorly timed and ill-judged and show s the man is more interested in being funny that being a leader.

Pelvis

These 750 people were based in Russia? If so I doubt many of them are all that cut up about having to go back to America.

mcmoustache

frostyjacks wrote: »

Looks like a fishing expedition. If they can't find anything on President Trump by now, then they never will.

That sounds like something a Daily Stormer or Breitbart reader would say. You do read those, right?

I'd recommend taking your head out of that media bubble and expanding your horizons a little.

Then you might find that there is a huge amount of info out there that's being hidden from you. This same huge amount of info will show you that this is much more than a fishing expedition.

ancapailldorcha

Wanderer78 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Less of this nonsense please.

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whilst HC was the wrong choice from the Dems, I'm not sure we can entirely blame her or them.

1st off, I think sexism played its part. I think she always had that barrier to cross and many of the things she was labeled with would not have had the same negative impact on a man. I think this played a part, but not the main factor.

I think Trump tapped into the very issue with democracy. Essentially it is a popularity contest. Normally, people will weigh up the alternatives and choose the least worst option. HC actually tried, in the main, to lay out a sensible message. Many people called it uninspiring, but it pointed out the realities. Coal mines would continue to close. Climate Change was real and needed to be dealt with. Globalisation was not going to reverse and US needed to focus on the future rather than harking for the past. Gun control was an issue that would need to be dealt with. Healthcare was costly but everyone needed it. Simply leaving millions to die is not an answer.

Trump simply appealed to everyone fantasies. Everyone would have jobs, healthcare, US would win everything all the time. Everything would be great and brilliant and the whole world would be better. Its not US fault that things aren't working, its the EU, China, Mexico, science, Muslims, the media, the swamp etc etc.

Its hard not to at least want this, and if you want it you can make yourself believe that this person is the one who can deliver it. You get everything you want and everything that is wrong is someone elses fault.

I think HC was simply not prepared for such a clearly irresponsible campaign. Even in the debates, she maintained her 'strong and stable' personna, simply laughing at the sheer mindnubbing craziness of Trump. But what she needed to do was adjust to his level, to actually call him out on it. She allowed him to continue to make these grand statements, and simply said they were crazy. She should have demanded he expand on them. Exactly how much is the wall going to cost, how will it be built, by whom, by when. What are the levels of immigration, arrests etc. Not simply grand statements, but actual statistics.

She was so scared of putting off voters, who in many cases were not going to vote for her anyway, that she failed to notice that his campaign was actually more about her than it was about him. Her professionalism and experience actually worked against her as she was looking at the long-term plan, how what she said now was going to impact on what she did as POTUS. HE never thought like that. He was focused on winning. End of. Whatever needed to be done would be done, why worry about the future until it happens.

Even saying all of that, had it not been for Comey's actions then she would have won. This myth that Trumps team developed a brilliant strategy and data mining etc, whilst it has truth to it, he was on course to get roundly beaten. Even up against one of the worst candidates, dislikes by many, a woman, a democrat, after 8 years of a democrat POTUS. And yet he still would have lost had it not been for the, later found to be pointless, action by Comey.

Clinton made many mistakes also, she ignored the Rust Belt, states which had voted for Obama, instead trying to focus on solid Republican states as her ego was out of control.

In the last few weeks, Trump did have attack adds on Clinton, but she made the mistake of focusing to much of her attention on his personality in hers. She was essentially preaching to the converted, many people who stayed at home would have looked at them and said
"yep I get it, he is awful, but what are you offering?"


eg Tom Perez said....

"We forgot to talk to people," said Tom Perez, who was secretary of labor until last month and a finalist to be Clinton's running-mate last summer. "I'm a big believer in data analytics, but data analytics cannot supplant good old fashioned door knocking. . . . We didn't communicate our values to people. When Donald Trump says, 'I'm going to bring the coal jobs back,' we know that's a lie. But people understand that he feels their pain. And our response was: 'Vote for us because he's crazy.' I'll stipulate to that, but that's not a message."

Also Vox broke down her poor strategy who are not exactly right wing.:pac:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

Trump flipped states who voted for Obama, so I don't buy the supposed bigots had no issue voting for Obama twice, but Clinton? Eh that's where they drew the line?

To easy and lazy for the Dems who won't admit they picked a dud in Clinton.

.

PopePalpatine

VinLieger wrote: »

In what way is that a good thing? You think nuclear war where everyone loses is a worthwhile endeavor? You actually think it wont affect us cus we are on the other side of the world?

Ah, but in the nuclear winter machismo will rise again!

...unfortunately for the alt-right, the Mountain Dew bottling plants won't, and breadcrumbs must be conserved rather than being used to coat strips of chicken breast.

Rjd2

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I think you are forgetting that he beat was it 14 or 15 of the best qualified GOP candidates as well.....so the GOP couldnt do it also have they equal shame??


.

Oh yeah, very weak field. I like Rand Paul a lot, but the fact he is way to normal for the Republicans these days is a massive shame. He also is pretty drab which whether we like it or not has been a serious no-no in US politics since well before Trump. I would like him to run as a Libertarian some day, but that's a debate for a different day.

The fact that Cruz finished second a man who plenty of normal Republicans thought was to extreme ffs highlights the awful choices.

JRant

Maybe someone here can explain it but why is Muller going after tax returns if his remit is to investigate Russian interference of the election. Seems to me that the very vague remit he was given is growing legs way past it's original intent.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

Maybe someone here can explain it but why is Muller going after tax returns if his remit is to investigate Russian interference of the election. Seems to me that the very vague remit he was given is growing legs way past it's original intent.

Well you've answered your own question there. The vague remit he was given means that he can investigate anything that he believes could have a part to play in collusion.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility, given that US is such a capitalist country, that money could have played a part in any possible collusion. One way to gain leverage over someone is to have financial power over them. So looking at his tax returns could provide details of where his business interests are and where his business finance is coming from.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well you've answered your own question there. The vague remit he was given means that he can investigate anything that he believes could have a part to play in collusion.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility, given that US is such a capitalist country, that money could have played a part in any possible collusion. One way to gain leverage over someone is to have financial power over them. So looking at his tax returns could provide details of where his business interests are and where his business finance is coming from.

I kind of thought that myself but the news that a team of investigator's specialising in tax being appointed would point more towards going after him on tax evasion rather than collusion in my mind. Seems to be vering away from it's original intent and you'd have to wonder where it will go.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

Maybe someone here can explain it but why is Muller going after tax returns if his remit is to investigate Russian interference of the election. Seems to me that the very vague remit he was given is growing legs way past it's original intent.

Because they're investigating Russian money laundering through purchases of trump properties as the probable reason trump is so indebted to Putin.

Dont underestimate the power of tax records. Remember the famous Chicago gangster All Capone was only brought down through tax evasion charges.

I think they're know as the RICO Statutes, that allow law enforcement to go after financial dealings and records in racketeering and organised crime cases.

Leroy42

I think, and others on here are bound to be far better informed that me so open to correction, but it isn't tax evasion they are interested in as such but rather experts used to looking through the complex international multi company webs that are the norm. Remember when Trump said he was handing control of his companies he had hundreds of folders (they seemed empty but the signal was that he had hundreds of companies).

Well to work you're way through that that experience and a certain skill, no point bringing a lawyer used to dealing with injury claims or whatever. Following the money trail, as we have seen for Manafort and Flynn, can give a very good indication of where the control lies.

If they do find tax evasion that could be used to put pressure on Trump (or others) to come clean about other things.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think, and others on here are bound to be far better informed that me so open to correction, but it isn't tax evasion they are interested in as such but rather experts used to looking through the complex international multi company webs that are the norm. Remember when Trump said he was handing control of his companies he had hundreds of folders (they seemed empty but the signal was that he had hundreds of companies).

Well to work you're way through that that experience and a certain skill, no point bringing a lawyer used to dealing with injury claims or whatever. Following the money trail, as we have seen for Manafort and Flynn, can give a very good indication of where the control lies.

If they do find tax evasion that could be used to put pressure on Trump (or others) to come clean about other things.

Well I would imagine if they got him on tax evasion then the rest would be immaterial. That would be enough to get rid of him.

This investigation started off on the premise that their was Russian collusion but is now looking into taxaffairs in the hope that if the net is cast wide enough something will turn up.

Itssoeasy

I mean the investigation into bill Clinton started over stuff in Arkansas and it ended over him lying about a knee trembler in the Oval Office by a White House intern.

aloyisious

JRant wrote: »

Maybe someone here can explain it but why is Muller going after tax returns if his remit is to investigate Russian interference of the election. Seems to me that the very vague remit he was given is growing legs way past it's original intent.

Part of the Russian investigation involves the Russian money/funding angle, to him at least, amongst the Elect Trump campaign committee. If you can find monies paid to P Manafort were not declared on tax returns, he's caught over a barrel which may be used to do a "tell all" for reduced tax evasion charges.

JRant

aloyisious wrote: »

Part of the Russian investigation involves the Russian money/funding angle, to him at least, amongst the Elect Trump campaign committee. If you can find monies paid to P Manafort were not declared on tax returns, he's caught over a barrel which may be used to do a "tell all" for reduced tax evasion charges.

So in essence it's now an investigation to find anything related to anyone on the Trump campaign team in the hope that it leads to the removal of Trump.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

So in essence it's now an investigation to find anything related to anyone on the Trump campaign team in the hope that it leads to the removal of Trump.

What do you mean "in essence"?

They will be thorough if thats what you mean. They have to be. If while investigating a crime you turn up evidence of another crime with more people involved you don't ignore it, you follow it up.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

This investigation started off on the premise that their was Russian collusion but is now looking into taxaffairs in the hope that if the net is cast wide enough something will turn up.

I dont understand your objection. How do you investigate someone's financial records without looking at tax returns?

You say "...but is now looking into tax affairs in the hope that...." Like that's some peripheral issue that they've only just thought about.

They've been on the money trail from the very beginning.

JRant

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont understand your objection. How do you investigate someone's financial records without looking at tax returns?

You say "...but is now looking into tax affairs in the hope that...." Like that's some peripheral issue that they've only just thought about.

They've been on the money trail from the very beginning.

Not objecting, merely asking a question I'm just trying to work out where the investigation is headed.

listermint

JRant wrote: »

Not objecting, merely asking a question I'm just trying to work out where the investigation is headed.

No you've built up a for gone conclusion based on your posts there that none of this required and its all just I'm waiting for you to say witchhunt.

The long and short of this is always follow the money.
And its extremely apt in the context of this whole thing and Russia and its money is at the center of it.

Deflecting about why you would look at his tax returns is just that. You don't follow the money and not examine taxes

JRant

listermint wrote: »

No you've built up a for gone conclusion based on your posts there that none of this required and its all just I'm waiting for you to say witchhunt.

The long and short of this is always follow the money.
And its extremely apt in the context of this whole thing and Russia and its money is at the center of it.

Deflecting about why you would look at his tax returns is just that. You don't follow the money and not examine taxes

Well you might need to reassess your mind reading capabilities then. I've already previously stated earlier in this thread that Muller would do a stand up job. This may surprise you but I haven't been able to closely follow the ins and outs of the investigation. I saw Billy's earlier post about further tax experts being appointed and was merely enquiring where this was heading.

The long and short of it is that you really shouldn't be so quick to jump to unfounded conclusions.

listermint

JRant wrote: »

Well you might need to reassess your mind reading capabilities then. I've already previously stated earlier in this thread that Muller would do a stand up job. This may surprise you but I haven't been able to closely follow the ins and outs of the investigation. I saw Billy's earlier post about further tax experts being appointed and was merely enquiring where this was heading.

The long and short of it is that you really shouldn't be so quick to jump to unfounded conclusions.

Conclusions are drawn based on the post content.

If you can't see why you would look at tax returns when investigating financial transactions between and individual and entities from a foreign country then I don't know how we can point out its importance

JRant

listermint wrote: »

Conclusions are drawn based on the post content.

If you can't see why you would look at tax returns when investigating financial transactions between and individual and entities from a foreign country then I don't know how we can point out its importance

No you went straight into "get the Trump supporter" mode without stopping to think that someone may just be asking a question.

I think conclusions we're drawn based on your own cognitive biasis.

I thought there may have been some further developments that lead to this and I missed them. There are so many leaks coming out that it's hard to keep up if you haven't followed it in a few days.

Itssoeasy

JRant wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Conclusions are drawn based on the post content.

If you can't see why you would look at tax returns when investigating financial transactions between and individual and entities from a foreign country then I don't know how we can point out its importance

No you went straight into "get the Trump supporter" mode without stopping to think that someone may just be asking a question.

I think conclusions we're drawn based on your own cognitive biasis.

I thought there may have been some further developments that lead to this and I missed them. There are so many leaks coming out that it's hard to keep up if you haven't followed it in a few days.

And who's fault is that ? Thats the presidents fault as the people who are leaking which include "senior administration officials" are trying to help the end of this utter mess of a US presidency as it's hurting not just America but the world.

Rjd2

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/11/breitbart-war-on-mcmaster-bites-bannon-241517


Not that surprised by this, there was plenty of attacks on Mc Master from pro Trump peeps from Breitbart and alt right circles. Bannon has been using Breitbart to criticise plenty within the Trump team which whatever your political leanings is at best naive and worse is firing material.

I doubt Trump would do that, as Bannon a bigger threat outside his employment, but definitely seem his wings getting clipped somewhat.

blackcard

Leroy42 wrote: »

MadYaker wrote: »

Trumps comments thanking Putin were clearly sarcasm.

Whether that is true or not (its not IMO) what level of concern for all those affected by this does it show?

There are now 755 people who, in the middle of August have basically lost their jobs (according to Trump, they haven't lost their income of course).

But they are now faced with having to relocate. Schools, college, spouse's jobs & careers. Friends, family, extended families, sports clubs etc. Recall that he cost the US taxpayer millions because his wife and kid didn't want to leave NY as it was a hassle but he finds it funny that 755 people and their families are now faced with the same problem?

On top of that, a large % (if not all) of these would be US citizens. So rather than try to stand up for them he makes a joke!

If it was sarcasm, it was poorly timed and ill-judged and show s the man is more interested in being funny that being a leader.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!!

Igotadose

HuffPo reminds us, Trump can launch missiles via order. Whether the order's followed is a good question - but theoretically it must be. Some details here on how this became the President's power rather than left to the generals; the pols (in 1946 or 47) didn't trust the generals to keep from dropping nukes and made the decision to use them a 'political' decision rather than strictly military:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-nuclear-attack_us_598dfdcae4b09071f699a005?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

aloyisious

JRant wrote: »

So in essence it's now an investigation to find anything related to anyone on the Trump campaign team in the hope that it leads to the removal of Trump.

No. In essence it's part of the investigation. You would hardly want the investigation to ignore obvious connections between the Russians and the campaign, would you?

aloyisious

Rjd2 wrote: »

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/11/breitbart-war-on-mcmaster-bites-bannon-241517


Not that surprised by this, there was plenty of attacks on Mc Master from pro Trump peeps from Breitbart and alt right circles. Bannon has been using Breitbart to criticise plenty within the Trump team which whatever your political leanings is at best naive and worse is firing material.

I doubt Trump would do that, as Bannon a bigger threat outside his employment, but definitely seem his wings getting clipped somewhat.

I was wondering why Don, two nights ago, praised McMaster on TV, thinking that's unusual, is he next for the chop. your's above explains what I saw.

Rightwing

I'm pleased with Trump's approach with N Korea. He should now launch a fierce preemptive attack, as soon as this weekend.

ancapailldorcha

blackcard wrote: »

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!!

Stop posting like this please.

Sonics2k

Have I gone crazy, or did Trump campaign on a policy of ending pointless wars the U.S. are involved in, bringing Troops home and focusing more on the U.S. rather than foreign politics?

Didn't all of /r/The_Donald, and a few of his followers here, praise him for this? Going on about Killary and Obama's death squad of Drones.

It's, it's almost as if they're massive and complete hypocrites.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm pleased with Trump's approach with N Korea. He should now launch a fierce preemptive attack, as soon as this weekend.

Leading to Seoul getting flattened? Genius.

Rightwing

Sonics2k wrote: »

Have I gone crazy, or did Trump campaign on a policy of ending pointless wars the U.S. are involved in, bringing Troops home and focusing more on the U.S. rather than foreign politics?

Didn't all of /r/The_Donald, and a few of his followers here, praise him for this? Going on about Killary and Obama's death squad of Drones.

It's, it's almost as if they're massive and complete hypocrites.

You have a point here. But weak leaders like Obama left N Korea develop and suddenly we have a problem. Likes of Libya were never a threat.

Nuke Kim Jun. Job done.

Sonics2k

Rightwing wrote: »

You have a point here. But weak leaders like Obama left N Korea develop and suddenly we have a problem. Likes of Libya were never a threat.

Nuke Kim Jun. Job done.

Wait, you think N. Korea is a threat?

The U.S. Presidents have a long and bloody history of using Wars to increase the popularity. Bush Jnr did it, Clinton did it, and it keeps going on.

Trump claimed for ages that he'd run as a President who wouldn't get involved in a war. Does nobody else find it a bit odd that just as **** is really hitting the fan, as his family is interviewed, as the FBI dig into his bank records, his top guys quit or get fired.

All of a sudden, it's time for a war with North Korea.

Even Mattis has gone on record saying going to war with North Korea would be a mistake:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4550380/Mattis-says-war-North-Korea-catastrophic.html

For Forks Sake

We are officially f*cked. I wouldn't leave Trump in charge of livestock, let alone a nuclear arsenal.

He called the governor of Guam to offer support, starts sh1ting on about hotel occupancy rates and how famous the governor will be.. Below is the official WH version, then the actual content of the call.