Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

McCain in particular will have a tough time planned for Haspel...

Karma.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

McCain in particular will have a tough time planned for Haspel...

Is she a former "black bag or deep interrogative" section person?

Itssoeasy

The polls have closed in the special election in Pennsylvania. The morning our time could be very interesting if this district goes blue.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

McCain in particular will have a tough time planned for Haspel...

Is she a former "black bag or deep interrogative" section person?

Yes.

BabyCheeses

everlast75 wrote: »

McCain in particular will have a tough time planned for Haspel...

Followed by voting for her regardless.

jooksavage

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The polls have closed in the special election in Pennsylvania. The morning our time could be very interesting if this district goes blue.

At this minute it's neck and neck but it's thought the absentee ballots are going to push Lamb over the top. Even if Lamb gets edged out, this is a nightmare for the Reps. It shouldn't be a competitive race. Trump won this district by 20 percentage points! There are over 100 easier to win sears up for grabs in Nov. The Rs are finding out that Trumps base is not enough to win elections.

Manic Moran

Looks like Lamb has taken it. It's probably fair to say it's a repudiation of Trump. That said, it also cannot be taken as support for the current Democrat leadership either, he basically ran on a platform of "a pox on both of you".

http://triblive.com/local/allegheny/13158079-74/conor-lamb-says-he-wouldnt-support-nancy-pelosi-to-lead-house-dems

Harold said Lamb would lose out on any fundraising help Pelosi might have provided, but his rejection of her might appeal to “Blue Dog Democrats” in the district who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 after voting for Democrats in previous elections. And Democratic voters who support Pelosi are likely to vote for Lamb whether or not he supports her, he said.

“Why not run against Trump and run against Pelosi,” he said. “That's just the kind of mixing it up that I think works in Pennsylvania.”

Remember what I posted a few pages back about how a viable D should not be similar to the Coastal Ds at the top of the party? A Marine officer, who does not agree with Pelosi, that's the sort of thing which will resonate in the areas the Democrats need to win in two years' time.

dr.fuzzenstein

demfad wrote: »

Not chaos. Organised media excruciating noise to divert from other news. Swapping the pieces in the WH and palace intrigue means nothing as the power and authority is controlled by Trump.

He wants the media talking about chaos and not why Trump refuses to condemn Russia for an attack on the US top ally the UK.

That may be one motivation, but what DT really wants is to be surrounded by spineless "yes" people who will unthinkingly support him and carry out his orders.
He thinks this is still The Apprentice, he is the boss, you carry out his orders or you will be fired.
It's that simple.

dudara

The US SoS is a powerful, respected position in global politics. Or at least it was. Trump is doing untold damage to America’s reputation and it’s going to take them years to clean off the stink.

Nody

dudara wrote: »

The US SoS is a powerful, respected position in global politics. Or at least it was. Trump is doing untold damage to America’s reputation and it’s going to take them years to clean off the stink.

One inspiring president like Obama/Clinton first year could turn it around directly by simply stating that Trump was a mistake and USA is back to business again and support free trade; if Trump gets a second term however that would be much harder to pull off such as turn around scenario. The departments will obviously take longer to build up but said president would have the benefit of a clean slate to start with which may help things along to get the right people in place and empowered.

In regards to Pennsylvania vote I think the fact it is yet another Ironclad Republic seat that should been a sleepwalking victory that Trump actively showed support for and failed will give some Republicans concerns over what is to come in the mid election and I can see several asking him not to actively support them due to this.

Inquitus

dudara wrote: »

The US SoS is a powerful, respected position in global politics. Or at least it was. Trump is doing untold damage to America’s reputation and it’s going to take them years to clean off the stink.

CNN reporting McMaster and Kelly are on the block in the short to medium term.

VinLieger

Nody wrote: »

In regards to Pennsylvania vote I think the fact it is yet another Ironclad Republic seat that should been a sleepwalking victory that Trump actively showed support for and failed will give some Republicans concerns over what is to come in the mid election and I can see several asking him not to actively support them due to this.

I think we are about to see another wave of republicans suddenly deciding to retire before the election

Pelvis

Lamb 'apparent' winner by only 600 votes or so!

Water John

Yes, Lamb may win. But As Manic Moran points out above, there is a lesson their for the Dems as well. He tapped into the blue collar union vote.
DNC needs to majorly reinvent itself.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Lamb may win. But As Manic Moran points out above, there is a lesson their for the Dems as well. He tapped into the blue collar union vote.
DNC needs to majorly reinvent itself.

They said the exact same about the GOP a number of years ago. They never really changed, they didn't embrace minorities etc. They doubled down.

But the binary choice of US politics means that you only have to be a better choice than the other, not necessarily a good choice.

I find it odd that people keep trotting out the line that the DEMS need to do more than simply be against Trump, when Trump whole campaign was based around "not HC". And many of his voters have claimed not to have voted for him and his clearly racist, misogynistic and clearly ill-thought out positions, but rather that they just couldn't vote for HC.

Isn't that what is happening now, people are showing their disapproval for Trump and the GOP as a whole.

In an ideal world the Dems would use this to sculptor policies that would deliver for all Americans. But that is not the opponent they are up against. In many cases they simply have to not be Trump to win.

Water John

You never go after the, hard vote of the opponent. Your wasting your time. Best to largely, ignore it. You chase the middle ground, the voter that may change sides, always. You obviously don't neglect your own core vote. They may not vote for the other side, but they can stay, at home. but, you always reach out, beyond your base. The big mistake DT and the GOP are making now.

oscarBravo

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Lamb may win. But As Manic Moran points out above, there is a lesson their for the Dems as well. He tapped into the blue collar union vote.
DNC needs to majorly reinvent itself.

I think the DNC needs to be cautious about taking Republicans' advice on how to win elections. Sure, repudiating liberal values will help you win conservative votes, but it will also cost you liberal votes.

Shortly after Trump's election, someone - it may have been Manic - suggested that the DNC needed to start listening to what voters want, and I pointed out that the core lesson of Trump's victory was that voters seem to want is to be lied to.

rossie1977

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Lamb may win. But As Manic Moran points out above, there is a lesson their for the Dems as well. He tapped into the blue collar union vote.
DNC needs to majorly reinvent itself.

They need to reinvent themselves by getting rid of Pelosi and Schumer for one and be the alternative voice not one that looks for favour with the Republicans and takes almost as many corporate donations.

Lamb like Doug Jones who won Alabama in November are both strong social conservatives running as Democrats in strong socially conservative areas..that's why they won (that and Jones was running against the most toxic candidate in US history). That's also not what the country at large wants though. Just because the Republicans are moving more and more to the right doesn't mean the Democrats follow.

AbusesToilets

Nody wrote: »

One inspiring president like Obama/Clinton first year could turn it around directly by simply stating that Trump was a mistake and USA is back to business again and support free trade; if Trump gets a second term however that would be much harder to pull off such as turn around scenario. The departments will obviously take longer to build up but said president would have the benefit of a clean slate to start with which may help things along to get the right people in place and empowered.

In regards to Pennsylvania vote I think the fact it is yet another Ironclad Republic seat that should been a sleepwalking victory that Trump actively showed support for and failed will give some Republicans concerns over what is to come in the mid election and I can see several asking him not to actively support them due to this.

It's not just the SoS himself though, Trump's efforts at downsizing the Department have caused a swathe of career diplomats to leave. There are hundreds of unfilled positions, to include major Ambassadorships. You can't easily replace that institutional knowledge when it's gone.

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

Yes, Lamb may win. But As Manic Moran points out above, there is a lesson their for the Dems as well. He tapped into the blue collar union vote.
DNC needs to majorly reinvent itself.

Absolutely..

Lamb positioned himself as Anti-Trump , but also Anti-Pelosi.

It's simply not going to be good enough for them to run candidates purely on the basis of how terrible they think Trump is.

They absolutely need to tap into the fundamental reasons for Trump's success - Disaffection with "Big Government" and a lack of opportunity for Blue-collar workers.

Coal & Steel are not coming back in any significant way , but simply saying that isn't enough. What are the Dems going to do to help those guys that used to work in those Heavy industries?

Bring a meaningful message on that front and they'd secure a significant swing in seats.

demfad

The linked document is from the minority on the House Intelligence Permanent Committee 'Status of the Russia Investigation ' shows the investigation literally not even half completed.

Appendix A--Lines of inquiry still outstanding:

1. Hacking and dissemination of campaign emails
2. Campaign knowledge of email hack
3. Russia’s intermediaries. As the Committee’s investigation has uncovered, the Russian government used a variety of intermediaries to approach the Trump campaign repeatedly throughout the election and the presidential transition.
4. Elections security. The Committee has only scratched the surface in examining what the United States must do to protect ourselves and our allies against election interference
5. Russian Social media campaign.
6. Financial leverage.
7. Money-laundering and foreign payments
8. Post-election effects and Obstruction of Justice

Appendix B outlines more than 30 key witnesses that the Committee has yet to interview (majority refused):

• Including-- including Reince Priebus, Stephen Miller, KT McFarland, Sean Spicer, Keith Kellogg, Joseph E. Schmitz, and Tera Dahl.
• individuals with knowledge about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian emissaries, the stated purpose of which was to provide damaging information on Hillary Clinton, including Natalia Veselnitskaya, who offered to cooperate, and Roman Beniaminov, a witness with relevant information who resides in the United States;
• persons and entities tied to the Trump campaign’s digital operation, including relevant personnel from contractors such as Cambridge Analytica, along with documentary evidence that would shed light on Cambridge Analytica’s efforts to obtain stolen DNC emails from WikiLeaks;
• individuals or groups who were involved in or may have knowledge of third-party political outreach from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign, including persons linked to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and who can shed light on the NRA’s relationship with Alexander Torshin, a close ally of Russian President Putin, such as Maria Butina, Paul Erickson, and Cleta Mitchell; and
• U.S. government officials and experts focused on election security, such as officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National Association of Secretaries of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and key employees from CrowdStrike.
• The Minority also has identified additional current and former U.S. government personnel, as well as outside experts, who can shed light on Russia’s active measures campaign and the U.S. government response. This list includes numerous Intelligence Community officials from specific agencies and entities of interest, such as the FBI’s new Foreign Influence Task Force, whom the Committee have yet to interview. These officials can provide important insights into Russia’s covert methods and activity, the U.S. government’s response under the Obama and Trump administrations, and policy and legislative recommendations to protect the United States moving forward.

Appendix C

Identifies more than 20 entities from which the Committee has yet to request documents, including Deutsche Bank, the Estate of Peter Smith (and associated entities), the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce in the USA, and social media companies. These requests relate directly to investigative threads essential to determining the extent of Russia’s election interference and are indispensable to a comprehensive investigation.

Appendix D

Outlines more than 15 persons and entities for which the Committee believes compulsory process for appearance and/or document production to the Committee is necessary. Included are witnesses who have refused to appear; who have invoked a nonexistent privilege to avoid pertinent testimony or who have simply refused to answer questions because the answers may be adverse to the interests of the President or his campaign; who have not produced any documentation; or whose production was insufficient and for whom we have a reasonable basis to believe that they possess documents responsive to the Committee’s investigation. This list includes, among others: Donald Trump Jr., Michael Cohen, Jared Kushner, Hope Hicks, Attorney General Sessions, Erik Prince, and the White House. The Committee must also initiate a contempt process to compel Stephen Bannon to testify to the Committee fully and without constraints.

In consideration of the Special Counsel’s ongoing investigative equities, the Committee also has deferred interviewing Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos, but these interviews will be essential to a complete understanding of the issues of collusion and obstruction of justice.

Skedaddle

The problem in the US is the Democrats keep chasing, what they perceive to be the centre - that keeps shifting to the right because the Republicans and aggressive and effective lobbying by various organizations is driving that.

Instead of putting forward more social democratic values, they have chased that vote and pulled the whole party right, particularly on economics.

They’re not setting out a different vision. They’re running with a herd that’s being chased by wolves.

They need to outline a positive, different vision for the US and they really aren’t doing that.

There are some inspirational Democrats who get that, the likes of Obama included, but they’re hamstrung by a party that does opinion polling and focus groups and ends up taking the safe option - not to lead but to follow the trends.

Until the Democrats start to put forward a vision that’s different and inspires, they are stuck in a rut.

That’s how I see it anyway. Too many marketeers and big data analysis and not enough old fashioned leadership.

You can’t always just follow the trends - sometimes you need to break them. Even in business, the most successful companies are the disrupters. The rest just go along grazing with the herd, safely tweaking safe models and changing things very incrementally.

That’s where the Democrats have been - asleep at the wheel reading stats.

robinph

So what actual person gets called in to represent "the White House"?

recedite

robinph wrote: »

So what actual person gets called in to represent "the White House"?

Obviously DT, but as they have already mentioned him in the same line, that is excessive repetition.
Which is a feature of any CT.
That's why its a minority report, as opposed to a report.
Also this part

The Intelligence Community (IC)has made it clear that Russia relied on third-party entities, or “cutouts,” such as WikiLeaks,Guccifer 2.0,and DC Leaks to publicly disseminate with plausible deniability information stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Our investigation must explore precisely how the Russians executed this cyber operation..

...is mainly of interest to a minority; the DNC, and not to the whole american people.
Maybe the Hilary and the DNC leadership should have been using secure servers and passwords? Especially when sneakily shafting their own people/sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Not much to see here, for the majority.

Leroy42

Recedite, you don't see any issue with an investigation that didn't even talk to Natalia Veselnitskaya, who offered to cooperate. Surely then can't simply reply on trump Jr for the one side of the story (which we already know he tried to lie about).

Are you suggesting that you see nothing wrong with that?

everlast75

recedite wrote: »

Obviously DT, but as they have already mentioned him in the same line, that is excessive repetition.
Which is a feature of any CT.
That's why its a minority report, as opposed to a report.
Also this part...is mainly of interest to a minority; the DNC, and not to the whole american people.
Maybe the Hilary and the DNC leadership should have been using secure servers and passwords? Especially when sneakily shafting their own people/sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Not much to see here, for the majority.

So maybe Hillary should have done a better job blocking Russian interference while Trump at al worked in conjunction with them? Gotcha

pixelburp

Pelvis wrote: »

Lamb 'apparent' winner by only 600 votes or so!

Winning in a district that won't actually exist in a year: the congressional map was ordered to be redrawn by the Supreme Court after it was adjudged as being heavily gerrymandered (and then some; it's worth having a look, just to see how obscenely mutated and manipulated it became)

Lamb, assuming he is confirmed the winner, will pretty much have to start a campaign not long after being sworn in; the 18th district he ran in will effectively become the new 14th district.

Equally worth noting is why the election was held at all: the previous incumbent resigned, as the anti-abortion Republican congressman was discovered to have pressured his mistress into having an abortion. If you saw that in a TV show you'd have dismissed it as too on the nose

aloyisious

If Lamb won by such a small margin, it say's load's about the Dem support baseline. I googled on the election some days ago and one item said the Dem's had 5,000 more registered voters than the Rep's in the voting district. His win in a gerrymandered-vote district also show's holes in the Rep master plan.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

Recedite, you don't see any issue with an investigation that didn't even talk to Natalia Veselnitskaya, who offered to cooperate. Surely then can't simply reply on trump Jr for the one side of the story (which we already know he tried to lie about).

Are you suggesting that you see nothing wrong with that?

That's Mueller's job. When and if the FBI find anything they will press charges.

In the meantime, you can't expect Congressmen to investigate each other in a non-partisan way. Its just not realistic.

Natalia Veselnitskaya has her own agenda, and AFAIK her offer was conditional on being granted a public platform to say whatever she wants to say. The Trumps weren't willing to listen to her at the time, and I don't think America particularly wants to listen to her lecture now. Whatever it is, it will serve the interests of herself and/or Russia, not the USA.

But yeah, let her speak. I'm all for openness and transparency. Nobody is stopping her. She should go to a newspaper and give an interview.

Leroy42

recedite wrote: »

That's Mueller's job. When and if the FBI find anything they will press charges.

In the meantime, you can't expect Congressmen to investigate each other in a non-partisan way. Its just not realistic.

Natalia Veselnitskaya has her own agenda, and AFAIK her offer was conditional on being granted a public platform to say whatever she wants to say. The Trumps weren't willing to listen to her at the time, and I don't think America particularly wants to listen to her lecture now. Whatever it is, it will serve the interests of herself and/or Russia, not the USA.

But yeah, let her speak. I'm all for openness and transparency. Nobody is stopping her. She should go to a newspaper and give an interview.

Right, so first of you admit that the Republicans statement about there being no evidence is worth nothing.
2nd, we only have the Trump's statement that they weren't willing to listen to her at the time, seems nobody actually asked her since we know that both Trump Jr and Don have lied about it. The fact they invited her to a meeting would seriously question whether they indeed weren't willing to listen to her.
Of course she has an agenda, as does Trump and Trump Jr yet the committee spoke to Trump Jr, and allowed him to claim privilege, but didn't bother to speak to her.

Give an interview? Yeah, like'd people like you would listen. "Fake News", she has an agenda, she is doing it for the money. All the lines you guys trot out everytime a story break.

You need to remove your bias and start looking at the facts.

I asked you whether you felt that how the republicans had undertaken the 'investigation' was right. Have you got any answer?