Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

robinph

Celticfire wrote: »

Trump tweeted 3 short tweets. Why do you think that every eventuality and scenario should be covered in them? The WH does briefing and that's where questions get answered.

It really doesn't take that much to say that they are reviewing the policy, not even 140 characters needed for that. It took him three tweets with a 10+ minute delay between each one to state without any vagueness or ambiguity that the policy had already been reviewed and decided to be changed.

Celticfire wrote: »

Do you have any idea how much work will go into imposing this policy or any policy for that matter? There will be many more consultations, reviews and meetings before final policy will be published.

Nope, but then it's not my job to know these things. You'd think that Trump might by now have a slight idea as to what is required to make changes though and that making a declaration on Twitter is not the end of the matter.

Celticfire wrote: »

The memo published yesterday is the official start to implementing this policy.

Would have been an idea for them to have had that ready for publishing right after his tweets though wouldn't it, rather than the responses from the WH and military right afterwards that they knew nothing about it despite being allegedly consulted? The delay suggests that nobody actually knew anything about it until Trump tweeted and nobody was consulted on it beforehand.

Celticfire wrote: »

This is my last post on the Tweets as I've made my point that the Tweets did not say that was insinuated.

Also my other point still stands that contrary to MSM reports of "delays" and "freezes" Mattis is doing the job he is tasked to do.

You can have that point in that Mattis is doing what his job is. That has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the initial tweets though which quite clearly stated that the decision was already made.

Leroy42

CF, you are being disingenuous with I claimed. I never said he mentioned the word immediate, therefore it is obviously not possible for me to back up that claim since A) Trump didn't and I never said he did.

You want me to take back a claim that I never made.

So we turn on to what he meant by his tweet. I have taken the interpretation that is was immediate, you claim otherwise. I have pointed out my reasons why I hold that opinion, you have given nothing to back up your belief save for saying that if Trump meant to say immediate he would have said it.

This from the man who tweeted Covefe? Really? Now you are trying to twist it that he announced a policy change but hadn't done any research of any basis for how to implement it. I actually agree that that is what happened. But is that really what we expect from POTUS. A man who makes claims without any evidence or knowledge and then asks those around him to find ways to make his fanatasy a reality?

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

CF, you are being disingenuous with I claimed. I never said he mentioned the word immediate, therefore it is obviously not possible for me to back up that claim since A) Trump didn't and I never said he did.

You want me to take back a claim that I never made.

Not their first time they've tried to twist words with their posts. I'd reckon the impact on morale is the most likely reason this will not pass.

Nody

New development on the Russian probe; they are bringing in NY prosecutor Eric Schneiderman on investigating Manafort; why does this matter? Because Trump can't pardon state court cases; only federal cases which means if they find something on Manafort and go for state prosecution Trump can only gnash his teeth. Same obviously applies to the extended Trump family as well.

And talking about Trump supporters in general they really, really do copy their president's behaviour at times...


Except of course Obama was not the president in 2005 but Bush junior was... Oh reality why do you keep on insisting on invalidating the arguments of Trump and his supporters?

ThisRegard

Nody wrote: »

Except of course Obama was not the president in 2005 but Bush junior was... Oh reality why do you keep on insisting on invalidating the arguments of Trump and his supporters?

You know what, when it was first mentioned I was thinking to myself that it was Bush (who can forget the image of Airforce 1 circling) but such was the amount of people online lambasting Obama's handling of it I doubted myself thinking I was mixing natural disasters up.

Snopes has even had to put up a page for these dumbasses.

While it is unclear how many of the recent spate of anti-Obama tweets were manufactured or made in jest, an August 2013 survey conducted by the Democrat-oriented Public Policy Polling showed that 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans believed that Obama was to blame for the oft-critized federal response to Katrina. Another 44 percent were reportedly unsure whether Obama or George W. Bush was at fault, while 28 percent blamed Bush.

demfad

ThisRegard wrote: »

You know what, when it was first mentioned I was thinking to myself that it was Bush (who can forget the image of Airforce 1 circling) but such was the amount of people online lambasting Obama's handling of it I doubted myself thinking I was mixing natural disasters up.

Snopes has even had to put up a page for these dumbasses.

The dumbasses by and large aren't making up the tweets. Russian trolls/bots and alt-right trolls are, manipulating/reinforcing the opinions of the dumbasses.

aloyisious

Celticfire wrote: »

These are his tweets and nowhere does it say that the ban is immediate. There's no inference that this is to be immediate. Do you have a direct quote stating otherwise? At this moment it's going exactly the way it's supposed to and there's no "defying" or "freezes" going on contrary to MSM reports.

I'd imagine that Don would want his instructions to be understood as US state policy, despite the apparent referral of the ban to committee between DOD and Homeland Security to see whether having transgender people serving in the military actually distracts from service capability to operate as it would without transgender people in the service.

The snag with that committee approach of working out if there was a chance of a possible reduction capability is what the comparison would be made against; as against replies from service personnel to a questionnaire at this present time. There would have to have been the same recorded questions [and responses made] being asked in the past for a relevant and comparable comparison.

It seem's to me that if the issue has been referred to committee that there is a de facto embargo put on the implementation of the ban policy until the facts of the ban effect on the military emerged from committee. Otherwise there would be no point in a committee, unless it was purely for show or plausible deniability, a fake story.

Billy86

demfad wrote: »

The dumbasses by and large aren't making up the tweets. Russian trolls/bots and alt-right trolls are, manipulating/reinforcing the opinions of the dumbasses.

It's almost as if one party has worked tirelessly in order to greatly benefit themselves from a poorly educated populace. The type of people who would believe someone can magically build the most expensive wall in the world for free, or who can fix things despite not knowing or trying to know anything about them, or who gives a sh** about them despite spending their entire careers taking a sh** on them, or...

eire4

Aside from all the lies slash idiotic comments about Obama and katrina the past few days has made me chuckle a little bit about the hypocrisy of the same people who despise socialism so much.
All those fire fighters police and other law enforcement and national guard etc all helping to rescue people that is all socialism at work. In their all glorious disaster capitalist Freedmanite utopia without any socialism we would have privatized fire departments police etc and as such if your a resident and didn't pay your bill then no rescue for you!

On top of that after this horrific storm is finally over and the clean up and rebuild begins it will require massive sums of federal aid or in others words more socialism given that the federal government will be giving Texans money way over and above what they have paid into the system to recover. Making Texas a massive welfare queen to use the kind of terminology they would use.

Facts are this kind of crisis shows us how important the idea of a common good is and how important it is we support and protect from corruption institutions and organizations that provide for the common good.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Except of course Obama was not the president in 2005 but Bush junior was...

Not to mention the fact that although only a Senator, Obama was in Houston to visit victims in the aftermath with Bill C. and G.H.W. Bush:

ThisRegard

demfad wrote: »

The dumbasses by and large aren't making up the tweets. Russian trolls/bots and alt-right trolls are, manipulating/reinforcing the opinions of the dumbasses.

In the Snopes link, I only skimmed over it, but I thought they mentioned there was no evidence of bots on a big scale.

Sometimes people are just stupid and tweet what they saw someone else say no matter if it's true or not.

Online speculation also mounted around some users posting anti-Obama tweets, questioning whether they were actually Russian misinformation “bots”:



One of the suspected bots, @DaNolans, denied being an illegitimate account in a post on 29 August 2017:

I was taking the piss outta Trump with this folks. Check TL. Never woulda thought people truly believe such nonsense. Scary times #notabot

Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow for information defense for the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab who has written about “bot” attacks, told us that he scanned mentions of Obama and Katrina between 24 August 2017 and 30 August 2017. He said:

The majority of tweets, and the most popular tweets, all mocked the idea of blaming the Katrina reaction on Obama. The anti-Obama messaging does not appear to have penetrated. Of the accounts in the image, one is now suspended and the others show varying degrees of activity; one claims to have been joking. There doesn’t appear to be major bot (i.e. automated) traffic involved.

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-katrina/

Igotadose

Billy86 wrote: »

It's almost as if one party has worked tirelessly in order to greatly benefit themselves from a poorly educated populace. The type of people who would believe someone can magically build the most expensive wall in the world for free, or who can fix things despite not knowing or trying to know anything about them, or who gives a sh** about them despite spending their entire careers taking a sh** on them, or...

But it seems, perhaps this is a 'green shoot' as it were, that the Trumplodytes are starting to lose confidence in their peerless leader:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/30/fox-news-poll-voters-mood-sours-56-percent-say-trump-tearing-country-apart.html

Yes, some negative numbers on Fox's pathetic polls about the POTUS. Perhaps the pebble that leads to an avalanche. I can hope I suppose.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

New development on the Russian probe; they are bringing in NY prosecutor Eric Schneiderman on investigating Manafort; why does this matter? Because Trump can't pardon state court cases; only federal cases which means if they find something on Manafort and go for state prosecution Trump can only gnash his teeth. Same obviously applies to the extended Trump family as well.......

This was suspected but is an important confirmation. The recent pardon that Trump issued was suspected of being a trial balloon for the pardon of Trump-Russia actors like Manafort to keep them loyal. In fact it is runoured that Manafort had been holding out for the possibility of a presidential pardon to avoid any charge/jail time. This changes things.

demfad

A pretty definitive thread about Carter Pages involvement in Trump-Russia. I think this is as on the money as you can get. If you are wondering where the more recent direct examples of collusion emails/meetings etc will eventually lead this may clear it up:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/903249294299471872

MadYaker

If Paul Manafort got convicted of something in relation to the Russia scandal and trump pardoned him there would surely be riots? That would be the most brazen misuse of presidential powers so far by a mile.

Quin_Dub

MadYaker wrote: »

If Paul Manafort got convicted of something in relation to the Russia scandal and trump pardoned him there would surely be riots? That would be the most brazen misuse of presidential powers so far by a mile.

You'd think, but.....

Also there's a reason why Mueller is teaming up with the Attorney General from New York - Trump can only pardon Federal crimes , so it's looking increasingly likely that they plan to go after Manafort at least, at the state level so Trump cannot provide the air-cover of a pardon should he be so inclined

Water John

Closing exit doors.

Leroy42

That twitter thread about Page. I mean, what gets me, and I obviously have no idea either way, but what gets me is that so many people seem completely unbothered by any of this.

This just cheerily pass it off as MSM fake news.

I would certainly be holding off any conclusions, if for no other reason than to avoid being shown up to be a sucker if any of it does prove to be serious.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

This just cheerily pass it off as MSM fake news.

And why not. Has it occurred to you guys that your CNN inspired Russia conspiracy theories are completely at odds with reality?
How do you explain the fact that Washington's relations with Moscow are at an all time low?
Why have the Russians just been told 3 more complexes in the USA are to be vacated, and personnel been given 48 hours to get out of town?
I'd expect Putin to respond in tit-for-tat fashion too, in the next day or so.

Yet all this goes completely over your heads, as if the two leaders were scheming together as best buddies, which they obviously are in your bitter little minds.

Phonehead

recedite wrote: »

And why not. Has it occurred to you guys that your CNN inspired Russia conspiracy theories are completely at odds with reality?
How do you explain the fact that Washington's relations with Moscow are at an all time low?
Why have the Russians just been told 3 more complexes in the USA are to be vacated, and personnel been given 48 hours to get out of town?
I'd expect Putin to respond in tit-for-tat fashion too, in the next day or so.

Yet all this goes completely over your heads, as if the two leaders were scheming together as best buddies, which they obviously are in your bitter little minds.

His own son admitted to colluding with Russia

Water John

An obvious and viable analysis, is that Congress has over ruled Trump and the Russians a peeved off, at this stage. Trump is in a bind and cannot deliver to them.
It's very clear Trump disagreed with Congress on Russia sanctions.

aloyisious

Don is not happy with Vlad. The Russians have been ordered to close their consulate in San Francisco and two other locations in the US and send the staff home. The step is stated to be in response to what the State Dept said is unwarranted action against US diplomats in Russia.

Billy86

Phonehead wrote: »

His own son admitted to colluding with Russia

...and supplied the proof, just to be sure!

Leroy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Phonehead wrote: »

His own son admitted to colluding with Russia

...and supplied the proof, just to be sure!

Exactly. Why are you so quick to use Russia closing embassies as proof but ignore the other evidence?

And this has nothing to do with MSM. They exaggerate the headlines but the core questions remain the same.

Why was Trump so against sanctions fir Russia?
Why is Trump not concerned that his son attempted collision?
Why did Trump sign off on a statement yet apparently wasn't aware of the facts?
Why has Trump said he knew nobody in Russia yet signed a letter of intent to build Trump Tower with the Russian government?

I don't know the answers, but I question anyone you claims that these, and multiple other questions, don't even consider furthet scrutiny

Mardy Bum

recedite wrote: »

And why not. Has it occurred to you guys that your CNN inspired Russia conspiracy theories are completely at odds with reality?
How do you explain the fact that Washington's relations with Moscow are at an all time low?
Why have the Russians just been told 3 more complexes in the USA are to be vacated, and personnel been given 48 hours to get out of town?
I'd expect Putin to respond in tit-for-tat fashion too, in the next day or so.

Yet all this goes completely over your heads, as if the two leaders were scheming together as best buddies, which they obviously are in your bitter little minds.

The two houses had to put legislation in place so Trump couldn't withdraw sanctions from Russia and this was a bilateral agreement. Everyone is aware that Trump is both mentally unstable and has colluded.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

And why not. Has it occurred to you guys that your CNN inspired Russia conspiracy theories are completely at odds with reality?
How do you explain the fact that Washington's relations with Moscow are at an all time low?
Why have the Russians just been told 3 more complexes in the USA are to be vacated, and personnel been given 48 hours to get out of town?
I'd expect Putin to respond in tit-for-tat fashion too, in the next day or so.

Yet all this goes completely over your heads, as if the two leaders were scheming together as best buddies, which they obviously are in your bitter little minds.

I reckon that a change senior W/H staff [coincidental with the departure of senior WH "advisors"] may have lead to a change in stance from Trump Admin Dept Secretaries as they realised they actually could run their Dept's the way they needed to be run and give words of advice to Don that he can see is realistic, now that the "soothsayers" are gone from the W/H.

If the order to close the SF legation and 2 other diplomatic locations is thought to be indicative that there never was any truth in the stories that Don & family and Vlad were best buddies, then I take it Don's behaviour in seeming to be very friendly with Vlad was a bluff of some kind.

Nody

aloyisious wrote: »

If the order to close the SF legation and 2 other diplomatic locations is thought to be indicative that there never was any truth in the stories that Don & family and Vlad were best buddies, then I take it Don's behaviour in seeming to be very friendly with Vlad was a bluff of some kind.

Except that they offered his son secret state funded information of dirt on Clinton, that several staff members on his campaign met with Russian spies, that he had to remove his campaign chief due to Russian connection, that they were looking at building a Trump tower in Moscow, that the daughter sat in Putin's chair there, that Trump was looking at removing sanctions on day 1 of entering the office, that he was not happy to sign new sanctions against Putin and that his own party ensured he would not be allowed to remove sanctions on his own. Beyond those tiny details there is no connection between Trump and Putin being friendly at all, no sir.

jimmycrackcorm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Trump has some sort of ADD, he can't focus on anything for more than a few minutes. His briefings are so brief they are just bullet points. He won't read a page of text or even study a chart.

It's not ADD. Trunp has never had to actually work to earn his money. He didn't have to scratch his way from nothing to be where he is today, having been handed his fathers money. So he has zero actual work ethic, which also explains why he can tweet at 3am.

Noel82

That Comey lad, clean as a whistle.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html

"Former FBI Director James Comey drafted a statement exonerating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for running her government emails through a private email server before completing the investigation, according to two Republican senators."

""Conclusion first, fact-gathering second -- that's no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy," Grassley and Graham wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking more information -- including all drafts of Comey's final statement on Clinton's emails by September 13."

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

And why not. Has it occurred to you guys that your CNN inspired Russia conspiracy theories are completely at odds with reality?
How do you explain the fact that Washington's relations with Moscow are at an all time low?

Is that not obvious? Any collusion/manipulation by the Russians can only deliver useful result to them so long as it remains covert/concealed. Once it becomes known or or even plausibly suspected, it's positively counter-productive; US authorities have to be tough with Russia on any subject exposed to public scrutiny, since anything but the toughest toughness will now be extremely politically damaging to them. So the Russians are kind of pissed off that much of the benefit of their strategy has been lost to them. And they likely blame Trump and/or his associates for the fact that this story has got into the public arena.

rossie1977

recedite wrote: »

And why not. Has it occurred to you guys that your CNN inspired Russia conspiracy theories are completely at odds with reality?
How do you explain the fact that Washington's relations with Moscow are at an all time low?
Why have the Russians just been told 3 more complexes in the USA are to be vacated, and personnel been given 48 hours to get out of town?
I'd expect Putin to respond in tit-for-tat fashion too, in the next day or so.

Yet all this goes completely over your heads, as if the two leaders were scheming together as best buddies, which they obviously are in your bitter little minds.

CNN inspired...

So CNN were the ones who got Manafort, Page and Flynn fired. CNN were the ones who set up meetings between the Russians and Trump Jr?

I mean Felix Sater was the senior adviser to Trump

Igotadose

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's not ADD. Trunp has never had to actually work to earn his money. He didn't have to scratch his way from nothing to be where he is today, having been handed his fathers money. So he has zero actual work ethic, which also explains why he can tweet at 3am.

Regarding the tweeting, if the article Demfad linked to about weaponized social media is in fact what's gone on and is ongoing (no reason to disbelieve, nothing proven in court yet,) then the tweeting serves the purpose of feeding the AI's. They'll look for retweets, positive feedback, etc. and track down those people and spam them with more pro-Trump propaganda. Probably all the people behind this need is some access to Trump (like via Bannon, on the board of one of these suspicious companies, or others with T-1 access) to keep him tweeting.

Even though there's been a slight improvement in the tone of some of the tweets, we won't see him stop tweeting till they take his tweet access away from him. Perhaps when he's behind bars.

aloyisious

Nody wrote: »

Except that they offered his son secret state funded information of dirt on Clinton, that several staff members on his campaign met with Russian spies, that he had to remove his campaign chief due to Russian connection, that they were looking at building a Trump tower in Moscow, that the daughter sat in Putin's chair there, that Trump was looking at removing sanctions on day 1 of entering the office, that he was not happy to sign new sanctions against Putin and that his own party ensured he would not be allowed to remove sanctions on his own. Beyond those tiny details there is no connection between Trump and Putin being friendly at all, no sir.

Ah come on.... they're just inconvenient truths

Edit: My response to Nody above wasn't meant to be understood to be A ONE-LINER, just a comment to the effect that some people didn't see things the way others do. I thought Nody had misunderstood my response to recidite's post on how the media and the believers in printed news are giving Don a hard time unnecessarily and I [being informed of the Trump group activities] meant the above to be a hint to what I had meant.

Akrasia

It looks like Trump is going to reverse DACA.

What a heartless man. 800,000 people, most of whom came to America as children under 16, all of whom have no serious criminal record (DACA doesn't apply to criminals) many of whom have no real ties with their country of origin anymore and consider themselves to be americans would all face deportation at any time.

It's one thing to say to an illegal immigrant that they broke the rules and deserve to be deported. But these were children when they entered the US. They committed no crime and under DACA, they're law abiding, tax paying productive members of society.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/trump-to-end-programme-that-protects-immigrants-who-entered-us-as-children-1.3205218

ancapailldorcha

aloyisious wrote: »

Ah come on.... they're just inconvenient truths

Less of the one-liners please.

Leroy42

Akrasia wrote: »

It looks like Trump is going to reverse DACA.

What a heartless man. 800,000 people, most of whom came to America as children under 16, all of whom have no serious criminal record (DACA doesn't apply to criminals) many of whom have no real ties with their country of origin anymore and consider themselves to be americans would all face deportation at any time.

It's one thing to say to an illegal immigrant that they broke the rules and deserve to be deported. But these were children when they entered the US. They committed no crime and under DACA, they're law abiding, tax paying productive members of society.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/trump-to-end-programme-that-protects-immigrants-who-entered-us-as-children-1.3205218

So blame the parents for bringing them in illegally in the first place. It sounds harsh, but what you are suggesting is squatters rights.

Trump ran on a platform of immigration control and reduction, so this is hardly a surprise.

ThisRegard

And yet here in Ireland we have large media and politician backed campaigns to help the poor 'undocumented' workers from Ireland in the US.

Billy86

ThisRegard wrote: »

And yet here in Ireland we have large media and politician backed campaigns to help the poor 'undocumented' workers from Ireland in the US.

Undocumented/illegal, expat/immigrants, English first language/ESL, broken or no English, potayto/potahto............ ish.

blanch152

Akrasia wrote: »

It looks like Trump is going to reverse DACA.

What a heartless man. 800,000 people, most of whom came to America as children under 16, all of whom have no serious criminal record (DACA doesn't apply to criminals) many of whom have no real ties with their country of origin anymore and consider themselves to be americans would all face deportation at any time.

It's one thing to say to an illegal immigrant that they broke the rules and deserve to be deported. But these were children when they entered the US. They committed no crime and under DACA, they're law abiding, tax paying productive members of society.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/trump-to-end-programme-that-protects-immigrants-who-entered-us-as-children-1.3205218

Would Irish people support the equivalent of DACA for the refugees and others who have entered Ireland illegally over the last couple of decades?

I don't see the equivalent of DACA on the Irish Statute Books.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is that not obvious? Any collusion/manipulation by the Russians can only deliver useful result to them so long as it remains covert/concealed. Once it becomes known or or even plausibly suspected, it's positively counter-productive; US authorities have to be tough with Russia on any subject exposed to public scrutiny, since anything but the toughest toughness will now be extremely politically damaging to them. So the Russians are kind of pissed off that much of the benefit of their strategy has been lost to them. And they likely blame Trump and/or his associates for the fact that this story has got into the public arena.

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.
In the same way as getting slapped in the face by a girl in a bar is not "having an affair".
(In this analogy, Donald is the girl - blameless)

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.

Sideshow Bob: I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder," now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry"?

And in fact, the laws related to campaigns getting foreign help do indeed make it a crime to try.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.
In the same way as getting slapped in the face by a girl in a bar is not "having an affair".
(In this analogy, Donald is the girl - blameless)

Not really. In this case it is the rest of the American political establishment that stopped the collusion from happening. So in your scenario the girl tried to go off and have an affair but got stopped by her mates. End result is if you are going out with someone who actively tried to have an affair but was stopped by circumstances then you need to take a long hard look at your relationship.

They attempted collusion. That much is fact. The issue Russia is having is that Trump does not have enough power to actually get rid of the sanctions much as he has argued for it.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.
In the same way as getting slapped in the face by a girl in a bar is not "having an affair".
(In this analogy, Donald is the girl - blameless)

I wait outside your home for you to get back from work, with a loaded gun in hand, and shoot at you several times but miss. By your standard, I am blameless and have done nothing wrong. But I assume you knew this already.

Leroy42

Russia got exactly what they wanted out of it. They can never really have hoped for complete sanctions lifting etc, there is simply too much bad blood between the two countries for that.

What they were hoping for, and I don't think they ever actually believed that Trump would win, was to create chaos within US democracy. They first wanted to stifle HC legitimacy and thus hobbel her right from the start. That Trump actually pulled it off simply gave them bonus points, and undoubtedly the chaos is even greater now that they would have hoped.

Basically, the US is tearing itself apart. It is becoming more split by the day. It is quickly becoming the States as the United is rapidly absolving. Sanctions getting lifted, whilst great, is a short term solution. Putin wants Russia to be once again held as a serious world power. They lost that after the breakup and the last 10 years or so have all been about bringing that back. Olympics, World Cup, winter games, Formula 1, UEFA CL finals.

The taking back of Crimea was a test to see the response and it was clear that neither EU or US had the stomach to stop him. Putin even got a call from Trump telling him, before his own congress, that the president was planning a military attack in Syria. Putin is once again a leader on the world stage.

What happens from here, whether Trump staggers on or is impeached, a major blow to the democracy has been done by Russia and Putin is back being a serious player on the world stage.

Whether Trump actively or inadvertently played a role in this is irrelevant. If it was actively then he will go down as one of the worst traitors in history. If inadvertently, he will still be so regarded but also with the label of stupidity attached. At the moment, all the known information points to a serious undermining of the democracy of the US to aid one mans desire for power. That it was done with the offered help of one of it biggest enemies, and at the least he attempts should have been mentioned to the security forces, makes it much worse.

Billy86

In a random tidbit of a story, the creator of the Pepe the Frog cartoon was never alt-right, he made the thing 10 odd years ago just as some random cartoon that was later co-opted by the white supremacist movement. Anyway, someone on the alt-right went and made a (surprise, surprise, racist!) children's book using the character. It has now been ruled that the book has been removed from shelves and... all the profits from it have been ordered to go to a Muslim advocacy group. :pac:

Oh yeah, the other author has also lost his job as assistant principle in a school. Poor guy, hope he doesn't go taking any of that communist welfare while he's looking for a new job.

BabyCheeses

recedite wrote: »

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.
In the same way as getting slapped in the face by a girl in a bar is not "having an affair".
(In this analogy, Donald is the girl - blameless)

CNN conspiracy theories are at odds with reality because they only tried to collude.

You need to pick a talking point and stick to it, the whole any mention of Russia is CNN fake news and any contact with Russia is fine is contradictory.

Tell your partner that you didn't have an affair, you just met them because you thought they were going to come home with you. I'm sure they'll be fine with it.

mcmoustache

Noel82 wrote: »

That Comey lad, clean as a whistle.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html

"Former FBI Director James Comey drafted a statement exonerating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for running her government emails through a private email server before completing the investigation, according to two Republican senators."

""Conclusion first, fact-gathering second -- that's no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy," Grassley and Graham wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray seeking more information -- including all drafts of Comey's final statement on Clinton's emails by September 13."

Oddly enough, this comes shortly after a Trump phone call with Grassley and fits nicely with their legal strategy consisting of painting Comey as an unreliable witness "prone to exaggeration". It's an interesting legal strategy, to say the least.

Given the dishonesty of Trump supporters, I would not be in the least bit surprised if this was, as you like to call it, a nothing burger.

All that being said, I'm not sure how this affects anything beyond PR. Trump and his people gave multiple reasons for firing Comey and giving Hillary preferential treatment wasn't one of them. One of them even said on TV that he did it because of the Russia thing.

Is there anything else from the_donald that you found interesting and would like to share?

Nody

recedite wrote: »

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.
In the same way as getting slapped in the face by a girl in a bar is not "having an affair".
(In this analogy, Donald is the girl - blameless)

Attempting to collude with a foreign power to influence a USA election is illegal under US law; success or not does not matter.

mcmoustache

BabyCheeses wrote: »

CNN conspiracy theories are at odds with reality because they only tried to collude.

You need to pick a talking point and stick to it, the whole any mention of Russia is CNN fake news and any contact with Russia is fine is contradictory.

This is what's so remarkable about the lies of Trumpers. They are so bad. Most skilled liars when presented with multiple pieces of evidence showing wrong-doing, would create a fairly coherent narrative that fits with the evidence.

The problem with Trumper lies is that they are completely independent of each other and contradictory. They don't make sense when taken as a whole. There is no coherent counter narrative. It's just different lies to explain away whatever the latest piece of evidence is.

Let's not forget that they are repeatedly getting caught out in their lies. It's all "X didn't happenn Fake News!", "OK, X happened but not how the fake news reported it", "OK, it happened just like it was reported but so what."

And people, albeit fewer people than before are still buying and peddling these lies.

Blowfish

recedite wrote: »

Your narrative fits the events, but what you describe is not collusion. It could possibly be described as attempted collusion, lobbying, or failed collusion.
In the same way as getting slapped in the face by a girl in a bar is not "having an affair".
(In this analogy, Donald is the girl - blameless)

It's mentioned above, but here's the specific law which says that this is a crime, regardless of if it succeeded or not. It says:

a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

As you can see, solicitation is enough for it to be a crime, it doesn't need to have been successful.

Before you start the argument that it wasn't a donation or contribution, subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) defines it as "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value". Information is most definitely valuable.