Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

mcmoustache

Enochwasright wrote: »

Some of that will go to the rich investors but much will go to pension funds, this is the first step of the trickle down, did you think it would go direct from mega Corp to poor people? Anyway I am confident we can see trump as being yet again correct on this one, great thing is time will tell so no point arguing here, next Q GDP report will be fun!

The trickle down stuff has been debunked and failed any time it's been tried. Check out what happened in Kansas.

pixelburp

Accusations of this thread being an echo chamber, aside from being vastly glib and passive aggressive, smack of rank hypocrisy because I know full well that if the subject were about an Irish politician of any stripe, no punches would be pulled. Doubtless there'd be those with agendas or tacit support for a rival party getting the boot in, but there'd be open and robust criticism if any of our lot behaved on the public stage like Trump.

I dunno whether it's the allure of all things American, the expectation that it's America so they're all crazy over there anyway, or specifically the cult of personality surrounding Trump and the myth of his success, but the double standards that get trotted out from his nominal supporters around these parts is quite stark. In fact, gloating about 'liberal tears' as a reason for cheering on the man very much betrays that hypocrisy.

Hey - if Trump persuades Mexico to pay for that wall, I'll retract everything above. 'Cos, you know, let's not forget that's a PILLAR of his campaign: a mighty wall straddling a border, paid for by Mexico. So how's that going then? Is the cheque in the post, Mexico just finding those last pesos down the bottom of the sofa?

MadYaker

pixelburp wrote: »

Accusations of this thread being an echo chamber, aside from being vastly glib and passive aggressive, smack of rank hypocrisy because I know full well that if the subject were about an Irish politician of any stripe, no punches would be pulled. Doubtless there'd be those with agendas or tacit support for a rival party getting the boot in, but there'd be open and robust criticism if any of our lot behaved on the public stage like Trump.

I dunno whether it's the allure of all things American, the expectation that it's America so they're all crazy over there anyway, or specifically the cult of personality surrounding Trump and the myth of his success, but the double standards that get trotted out from his nominal supporters around these parts is quite stark. In fact, gloating about 'liberal tears' as a reason for cheering on the man very much betrays that hypocrisy.

Hey - if Trump persuades Mexico to pay for that wall, I'll retract everything above. 'Cos, you know, let's not forget that's a PILLAR of his campaign: a mighty wall straddling a border, paid for by Mexico. So how's that going then? Is the cheque in the post, Mexico just finding those last pesos down the bottom of the sofa?

The wall isn't being built at all. The details were in the last big spending bill which he signed. It incuded plans to upgrade existing fences but no wall. Unsuprisingly his supporters just swallowed that one whole like they do with all his u turns.

amandstu

pixelburp wrote: »

Accusations of this thread being an echo chamber, aside from being vastly glib and passive aggressive, smack of rank hypocrisy because I know full well that if the subject were about an Irish politician of any stripe, no punches would be pulled. Doubtless there'd be those with agendas or tacit support for a rival party getting the boot in, but there'd be open and robust criticism if any of our lot behaved on the public stage like Trump.

I dunno whether it's the allure of all things American, the expectation that it's America so they're all crazy over there anyway, or specifically the cult of personality surrounding Trump and the myth of his success, but the double standards that get trotted out from his nominal supporters around these parts is quite stark. In fact, gloating about 'liberal tears' as a reason for cheering on the man very much betrays that hypocrisy.

Hey - if Trump persuades Mexico to pay for that wall, I'll retract everything above. 'Cos, you know, let's not forget that's a PILLAR of his campaign: a mighty wall straddling a border, paid for by Mexico. So how's that going then? Is the cheque in the post, Mexico just finding those last pesos down the bottom of the sofa?

That Mexico will pay was a throwaway line designed to amplify the initial soundbite,

It is easy to qualify "pay" to mean "suffer" , to lose out in some way or just to get something in return (if Mexico did something at all for the wall in exchange for favourable treatment in some other area then T could push his claim so as at least to clog up the airways)

Leroy42

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You forgot to mention the most important one: The fact that he's annoying most insuffereable people around. Surely that's a positive.

Why is that a positive? Simply annoying people is getting something done? 6 years siblings annoy each other, wouldn't put them in charge of anything?

We have comedians and press critics etc to annoy people in power.

What you are basically saying is that before Trump arrived America was broken. The political class wasn't working, judicial, police, FBI, CIA, Wall Street etc etc. Yet these are the very same people cheering as $bns more are poured into a military to protect "the greatest country in the world" except that everything is wrong with it.

Leroy42

amandstu wrote: »

That Mexico will pay was a throwaway line designed to amplify the initial soundbite,

It is easy to qualify "pay" to mean "suffer" , to lose out in some way or just to get something in return (if Mexico did something at all for the wall in exchange for favourable treatment in some other area then T could push his claim so as at least to clog up the airways)

A throwaway remark? Really? Because by saying it he never had to answer where he was going to get the funds to pay for it? He lied, either through the lie about Mexico paying for it, or by not being up front about how he would fund it.

Because guess what, had he told the truth about the US citizens having to pay for the wall themselves, all $20bn, which would have to be taken out of their taxes, they would not have been so gung-ho about it. It sounded great, getting a new wall at no cost.

To claim it was a throw-away is to try to ignore the reality of the campaign itself.

ancapailldorcha

Low quality posts deleted. No more please.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

A throwaway remark? Really? Because by saying it he never had to answer where he was going to get the funds to pay for it? He lied, either through the lie about Mexico paying for it, or by not being up front about how he would fund it.

Because guess what, had he told the truth about the US citizens having to pay for the wall themselves, all $20bn, which would have to be taken out of their taxes, they would not have been so gung-ho about it. It sounded great, getting a new wall at no cost.

To claim it was a throw-away is to try to ignore the reality of the campaign itself.

He don't give a toss about lying,(remember the "shoot someone" remark.)

It was just for effect (he admitted as much with other slogans ,if you can be bothered to believe it)

Perhaps some did take his words at face value ,perhaps they were infected by his lying and bombacity .

amandstu

mcmoustache wrote: »

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean Paul-Sartre

En effet, Plus ca change.
Know your enemy.

mcmoustache

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Mcmoustache, would you ever give Trump credit for anything? Or do you treat politics like a fooball match where you have to stick by your team. I have a feeling that Trump could end world hunger and you'd still have a problem with him.

Erm. I don't have a team. I'm Irish and lean more to the right than I do to the left. I just happen to recognise a conman when I see one.

Now, in terms of things Trump has done which I could say were smart, I could point to some of his appointments - Nickey Halley, Christopher Wray, Elaine Chao, and Jim Mattis, for example. They seem to be fairly solid professionals. His other appointees have been rather atrocious, such as DeVos, Pruitt, Carson, Javanka, Sanders, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, Zinke and Pai, for example. So while he has stumbled into the odd smart decision, he has managed to offset that by putting incompetent loyalists into unsuitable positions the vast majority of the time.

Now. Can you point to anything that Trump has done other than the "triggering the libs" that you're so fond of?

Mumha

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Watching Matt Schlapp trying to discuss Michelle Wolf on CNN. He was one of the people who walked out. I think the joke was too complicated for him to understand. He also said it's not for journalist to call out the lies of the President or SHS.

It should also be noted that the Schlapps were so upset, they then went onto NBC/MSNBC after party.

Matt Schlapp is such an odious individual, if he saw more money in attacking Trump (like he did before Trump won the nomination), he would turn once again.

MadYaker

He ran a smart campaign too. Some of it was down to luck and timing. But he understood what a certain section of the population were angry about and tapped into it effectively and conned them into voting for him. Plus he manipulated the medi quite well to give himself tonnes of free publicity. Basically he's a good salesman and that's about it!

Mumha

everlast75 wrote: »

So the NYT have obtained the list of 40 odd questions Mueller wants to ask Trump.

(see them here - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html )

A couple of theories/observations
1) Obstruction is foremost to the majority of questions
2) It would appear that he has already asked/interviewed enough people to now want to talk to DJT
3) Talking to the main subject is the one of the last things done in an investigation which means it is drawing to a conclusion (possibly)
4) Mueller's team generally does not leak - which means someone else did. Gulliani is now on DJT's team so it would not surprise me if it was him
5) If it was Mueller's team, perhaps they have done so as DJT won't now sit down for an interview, so he is informing the press of questions that need to be answered
6) If anyone believes this investigation is a witch hunt, they need to go have a long hard talk with themselves

I think it is important to state that this just mostly relates to obstruction, and there are other strands, not least the money laundering.

Enochwasright

MadYaker wrote: »

He ran a smart campaign too. Some of it was down to luck and timing. But he understood what a certain section of the population were angry about and tapped into it effectively and conned them into voting for him. Plus he manipulated the medi quite well to give himself tonnes of free publicity. Basically he's a good salesman and that's about it!

He said he would bring back jobs and wealth to middle America, Obama said it was gone never to return, no great surprise many preferred Trumps message.

His latest tweet was pure class! Peace is the prize! That was in response to so many South Korean leaders calling for trump to get the Nobel peace prize.

Mumha

MadYaker wrote: »

He ran a smart campaign too. Some of it was down to luck and timing. But he understood what a certain section of the population were angry about and tapped into it effectively and conned them into voting for him. Plus he manipulated the medi quite well to give himself tonnes of free publicity. Basically he's a good salesman and that's about it!

Undoubtedly, though Mueller's investigation will hopefully uncover how much was luck, how much was timing and how much was active Russian interference in the US election. I wish (but won't happen) he would investigate how Trump ended up with billions of dollars of free tv time.

amandstu

Mumha wrote: »

Undoubtedly, though Mueller's investigation will hopefully uncover how much was luck, how much was timing and how much was active Russian interference in the US election. I wish (but won't happen) he would investigate how Trump ended up with billions of dollars of free tv time.

I hope his tax returns come out in the wash.

Leroy42

Enochwasright wrote: »

He said he would bring back jobs and wealth to middle America, Obama said it was gone never to return, no great surprise many preferred Trumps message.

His latest tweet was pure class! Peace is the prize! That was in response to so many South Korean leaders calling for trump to get the Nobel peace prize.

He stole that line from the leader of SK. He was asked about the Noble prize and said that peace was the prize for Korea, let Trump have the Noble prize.

Mumha

amandstu wrote: »

I hope his tax returns come out in the wash.

You can be absolutely sure that Mueller has his tax returns, and has had them for most of last year.

amandstu

Mumha wrote: »

You can be absolutely sure that Mueller has his tax returns, and has had them for most of last year.

Feel better now:)

Leroy42

I see Trumps latest tweet states that none of the questions are on collusion. I mean, did he expect them to just ask him that simple question?

It would appear that the leak did indeed come from the Trump side, they seem to think they clear him.

What they do, what any proper investigation will do, is to dig into different aspects of a case to try to work out a common and accurate version of the events. Rarely do the investigators get people to simply own up, they need to work out ways to pin them down on specifics. In many cases, this involves asking the same question multiple times in different ways simply to ascertain if the story holds up.

Surely everyone can see this and can see through Trumps distraction? I mean, anyone who watched any episodes of CSI or SVU etc will know that.

Professor Moriarty

Enochwasright wrote: »

He said he would bring back jobs and wealth to middle America, Obama said it was gone never to return, no great surprise many preferred Trumps message.

His latest tweet was pure class! Peace is the prize! That was in response to so many South Korean leaders calling for trump to get the Nobel peace prize.

Yeah. Any thoughts on the deficit? Got any tweets from The Donald on that? Here's a thought that The Donald won't be letting you know: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said The Donald's tax cut will add $1900000000000 to the national debt over the next decade. Let me put that in perspective for you. That's the equivalent of 95 fully completed big beautiful walls.

Maybe more to the point: It would pay for all primary and secondary education for three years. Instead, corporation tax is cut from 35% to 21%. Go Donald. Draining the swamp.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Trumps latest tweet states that none of the questions are on collusion. I mean, did he expect them to just ask him that simple question?

It would appear that the leak did indeed come from the Trump side, they seem to think they clear him.

What they do, what any proper investigation will do, is to dig into different aspects of a case to try to work out a common and accurate version of the events. Rarely do the investigators get people to simply own up, they need to work out ways to pin them down on specifics. In many cases, this involves asking the same question multiple times in different ways simply to ascertain if the story holds up.

Surely everyone can see this and can see through Trumps distraction? I mean, anyone who watched any episodes of CSI or SVU etc will know that.

Seems to me that "no collusion" is a pretty low bar anyway. I thought that "I hope Putin has leaks" line was enough for him to be charged with "bringing the Presidency into disrepute" (although the charge surely doesn't exist)

Obstruction of justice and openly interfering with the justice system also would nail him for me (but I am sure he has good lawyers:D )

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Trumps latest tweet states that none of the questions are on collusion. I mean, did he expect them to just ask him that simple question?

Saying that none of the questions are about collusion isn't even true. Most are around obstruction but there are some that involve collusion. I've bolded the parts that look like they pertain to the collusion aspect.

What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?

What was your reaction to news reports on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?

What did you know about Sally Yates’s meetings about Mr. Flynn?

How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?

After the resignations, what efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?

What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?

What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?

What was your reaction to Mr. Comey’s briefing that day about other intelligence matters?

What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

What did you know about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey’s testimony on March 20, 2017?

What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.

What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?

What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?

What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?

What did you think and do about Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017, testimony?

Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?

What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?

What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?

What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?

What did you think about Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?

What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?

What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?

What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?

What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?

Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?

What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?

Why did you hold Mr. Sessions’s resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?

What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?

What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?

What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?

When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?

What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?

During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?

What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?

What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?

What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?

What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?

During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?

What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?

What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?

What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?

What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Mumha

amandstu wrote: »

Feel better now:)

Happy to help.

Leroy42

Collusion (which as far as I am aware isn't actually on offence) is always going to be very hard to prove. It is highly unlikely that Trump himself was directly involved and you cna be sure that Putin didn't get involved either. Even Drug dealers know you need to keep your own hands clean, to have deniability.

But Trump got spooked at the start which lead to the whole Comey firing and the attempted cover up of Trump Jrs Trump Tower meeting.

Those are far easier to prove. It is interesting that if you watch carefully the attack on the investigation is all about whether is deals enough with collusion, and if not then it shouldn't be set up in the first place. They are saying nothing about obstruction. That to me is very telling.

Zubeneschamali

amandstu wrote: »

I am sure he has good lawyers

You'd think, but no. Many, many lawyers have declined to represent him, perhaps because of his habit of tweeting self-incriminating statements every morning.

His ex-lawyer Cohen need his own lawyers now.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Collusion (which as far as I am aware isn't actually on offence) is always going to be very hard to prove.

It's easy to prove the campaign colluded illegally with the Russians - Trump Jr. proved it all by himself in the documents he released.

And we know Trump wrote a false statement about that meeting, so obstruction or collusion, take your pick there.

But republicans in Congress won't care, they will bin Mueller's report, shout Fake News and refuse to impeach. Democrats will have to take the House and Senate before Muellers report will matter.

everlast75

I love the fact that he says they were "leaked". Were they, or were they not. He doesn't understand that air quotes signify.

According to NBC, the notes that were leaked (not "leaked") contained his lawyers' notes, which mean they came from his side (as I said - probably Gulliani).

I also love the fact that he thinks these questions absolve him. Keep thinking that Einstein, keep thinking that.

Mr.Micro

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's easy to prove the campaign colluded illegally with the Russians - Trump Jr. proved it all by himself in the documents he released.

And we know Trump wrote a false statement about that meeting, so obstruction or collusion, take your pick there.

But republicans in Congress won't care, they will bin Mueller's report, shout Fake News and refuse to impeach. Democrats will have to take the House and Senate before Muellers report will matter.

Yes indeed, it's how much voters react and believe or not all stuff about Trump. It's been going on so long now that there is a real danger that voters are jaded with all the bad press and it will all be background noise, just like the run up to the Presidential election.

jooksavage

Vintage Trump. "This list of questions that is being put to me by a team investigating a potentially impeachable offense, questions that I am going to flat out refuse to answer under oath; this list proves that I'm innocent of collusion"

Oooooookay.