Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

The more I look at that Whitaker performance, the more I think Trump told him to say the report would issue soon, in order to put pressure on the SC to wrap it up.

The latest ghoul to try and make some money out of his time in the WH (Simms) said to Cooper last night that Spicer was told by Trump to go out and tell the world that the people who mattered knew what covfefe meant, and that Spicer dutifully did so.

It strikes me that something similar happened here. Trump told him to march out there and shoe-horn that statement it in to the end of the briefing. Whitaker fluffed his lines because he knew it was BS but had no option but to comply.

It does not look good for him when/if he appears before the House.

Would there really be an ramifications for him if he has to admit to the House that he was lying about what he said? It'd look terrible for him, but ultimately he's only in the job temporarily and it was during a news conference, not under oath.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

Would there really be an ramifications for him if he has to admit to the House that he was lying about what he said? It'd look terrible for him, but ultimately he's only in the job temporarily and it was during a news conference, not under oath.

There is a line of thought that the Reps are very anxious to get Barr appointed before the 7th of Feb, so they can relieve Whitaker and therefore make him less relevant ie. less likely to be called.

The nomination hearing of Barr has been postponed however, which makes it more worrying for Whitaker.

Whitaker also faces questions about his refusal to recuse, along with other statements re Mueller's investigation which may have been directed by DJT.

Cummings has been asking Whitaker to come in for months btw

Brian?

Penn wrote: »

Would there really be an ramifications for him if he has to admit to the House that he was lying about what he said? It'd look terrible for him, but ultimately he's only in the job temporarily and it was during a news conference, not under oath.

He can plead the 5th, he doesn't have to admit he was lying to get out of there.

Penn

Brian? wrote: »

He can plead the 5th, he doesn't have to admit he was lying to get out of there.

But doesn't that only apply to not incriminating yourself? If lying during the news conference isn't a crime (regardless of the ethics of it given the position he's in), the 5th Amendment would hardly apply, would it?

circadian

circadian wrote: »

Dunning Kruger effect. It's amazing how often he misspeaks in speeches and told with it as if the made up sound is what he meat to say.

The irony is not lost on me. Bloody autocorrect.

everlast75

The news broke yesterday that Trump had another private meeting with Putin at the G20 in Argentina.

Hypothetically speaking, if you were the head of one of the intelligence agencies, would you be happy with that?

Would you take steps to do something about it, and if so, what might those steps be? Is there a possibility that they wired Trump up, unbeknownst to him?

Alternatively, would you be happy to sit back and counter any actions which Trump might take that may be as a result of Putin's undue influence?

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

The news broke yesterday that Trump had another private meeting with Putin at the G20 in Argentina.

Hypothetically speaking, if you were the head of one of the intelligence agencies, would you be happy with that?

Would you take steps to do something about it, and if so, what might those steps be? Is there a possibility that they wired Trump up, unbeknownst to him?

Alternatively, would you be happy to sit back and counter any actions which Trump might take that may be as a result of Putin's undue influence?

Considering he uses an unsecured phone its possible they recorded it. But I don't think Putin is that stupid to let them have that meeting if he knew trump had that phone on him

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

Considering he uses an unsecured phone its possible they recorded it. But I don't think Putin is that stupid to let them have that meeting if he knew trump had that phone on him

In which the President is now criticising and contradicting his own intelligence agencies.

This really is incredible stuff.

Is Trump hearing his info from Putin (remember the Montenegro story, the narrative regarding Russia and Afghanistan etc)?

Is he undermining them in the event that they come out with some info on him later?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1090608298343190528

Stallingrad

Is there any point anymore discussing his Tweets, or what he says, or what SHS says. It's all gibberish, idiocy or a ruse to get people to look elsewhere. There are dogs barking in the street that make more sense. That people follow him on Twitter baffles me.

everlast75

Stallingrad wrote: »

Is there any point anymore discussing his Tweets, or what he says, or what SHS says. It's all gibberish, idiocy or a ruse to get people to look elsewhere. There are dogs barking in the street that make more sense. That people follow him on Twitter baffles me.

Denying climate change - agreed.

Criticizing books - agreed.

Making threats - agreed.

However, this is the first time I've seen him having a go the day after his own Intelligence gave evidence and it may be part of a wider narrative of Russian led propaganda.

Thought it was noteworthy on that basis

duploelabs

Stallingrad wrote: »

Is there any point anymore discussing his Tweets, or what he says, or what SHS says. It's all gibberish, idiocy or a ruse to get people to look elsewhere. There are dogs barking in the street that make more sense. That people follow him on Twitter baffles me.

It's more rubbernecking at this stage for the twitter followers

jochenstacker

Stallingrad wrote: »

Is there any point anymore discussing his Tweets, or what he says, or what SHS says. It's all gibberish, idiocy or a ruse to get people to look elsewhere. There are dogs barking in the street that make more sense. That people follow him on Twitter baffles me.

It has to be said that there are some fairly robust replies.
I would look at them as a tool to gauge people's attitude towards him.
Over the years the comments changed from "Fcuk yeah! Trump! MAGA MAGA MAGA!" to just generally a wave of ridicule and contempt for the man.
It would appear that without support from hired troll farms the level of support for him has dwindled considerably.
Most of his remaining supporters lack the cranial capacity or opposing thumbs to tweet up a storm of support it seems.

Stallingrad

jochenstacker wrote: »

It has to be said that there are some fairly robust replies.
I would look at them as a tool to gauge people's attitude towards him.
Over the years the comments changed from "Fcuk yeah! Trump! MAGA MAGA MAGA!" to just generally a wave of ridicule and contempt for the man.
It would appear that without support from hired troll farms the level of support for him has dwindled considerably.
Most of his remaining supporters lack the cranial capacity or opposing thumbs to tweet up a storm of support it seems.

That is good to see. If I followed him I might know that, but I value my sanity more!

Christy42

everlast75 wrote: »

Stallingrad wrote: »

Is there any point anymore discussing his Tweets, or what he says, or what SHS says. It's all gibberish, idiocy or a ruse to get people to look elsewhere. There are dogs barking in the street that make more sense. That people follow him on Twitter baffles me.

Denying climate change - agreed.

Criticizing books - agreed.

Making threats - agreed.

However, this is the first time I've seen him having a go the day after his own Intelligence gave evidence and it may be part of a wider narrative of Russian led propaganda.

Thought it was noteworthy on that basis

He attacked them as part of his initial defense of Russia. He also promised "his people" would have proof that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election in a matter of weeks. I think eventually it was obvious that ground was being made in the investigation and he had to stop.

I still wonder what happened to "his people". Were they killed trying to get the evidence, did they defect? He seems not to have brought them up in a while.

In other news a us national weather organization is essentially calling him an idiot for his lack of knowledge over climate change.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NOAAClimate/status/1090263390503596032

borderlinemeath

Stallingrad wrote: »

That is good to see. If I followed him I might know that, but I value my sanity more!

I don't follow him either, but I do check his twitter when he makes outrageous tweets, purely to read and enjoy the responses.

serfboard

jochenstacker wrote: »

It would appear that without support from hired troll farms the level of support for him has dwindled considerably.

That's very interesting - thanks for posting that.

It makes me think about Mark Zuckerberg's comment immediately after the 2016 election where he:

The Guardian wrote:

brushed aside charges that Facebook had had an impact on the race, calling it a “pretty crazy idea” ... But in a post on Wednesday ... Zuckerberg expressed remorse for his earlier statements rejecting concerns about the dangers of propaganda and fake news on Facebook.

Social media is getting to grips with this stuff, having been badly exposed by the Trump and Brexit results.

Facebook wrote:

Learning from every election over the last two years, we have increased our capabilities to take down fake accounts, reduce false news, increase ads transparency, disrupt bad actors and support an informed and engaged electorate

For the upcoming European elections:

Facebook wrote:

advertisers will be required to confirm their identity and include additional information about who is responsible for their ads.

It will be interesting to see the effect that this will have on the European elections, and you'd like to think that it won't be as easy for bad actors in the future.

Thargor

Id say it will be Kamala Harris in the White House next, tempted to put some money on her now before the odds start to shrink, just to make it interesting.

Eric Cartman

Thargor wrote: »

Id say it will be Kamala Harris in the White House next, tempted to put some money on her now before the odds start to shrink, just to make it interesting.

as VP to biden perhaps, I doubt she has enough on her own to take the top spot this time round, but a stint as VP and she'd be a solid bet.

Itssoeasy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

as VP to biden perhaps, I doubt she has enough on her own to take the top spot this time round, but a stint as VP and she'd be a solid bet.

Yeah her being VP to biden(one term for him maybe) would work very well. She have the local, and federal experience on the CV and Sittting VPs have done fairly well in succeeding the sitting POTUS.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

as VP to biden perhaps, I doubt she has enough on her own to take the top spot this time round, but a stint as VP and she'd be a solid bet.

Dunno. Biden would be 78 when taking office. This would make him the oldest POTUS ever by 8 years (Trump was 70). Not an easy sell.

Thargor

Boards.ie really needs to add the banging head against brick wall emoticon:

https://twitter.com/HomelandDems/status/1089643122706051072

relax carry on

Stallingrad wrote: »

Is there any point anymore discussing his Tweets, or what he says, or what SHS says. It's all gibberish, idiocy or a ruse to get people to look elsewhere. There are dogs barking in the street that make more sense. That people follow him on Twitter baffles me.

Yes as it's worthwhile keeping in mind that his core base believe pretty much it all. There are some fanatical supporters replying to his tweets. Whether or not his core will engage in violence after his inevitable downfall is anyone's guess but his rhetoric is increasing.

I find his tweets and the replies to them from his supporters act as a window into the much larger problems that exist in the US of which Trump is a symptom and an accelerant of those problems.

Eric Cartman

Thargor wrote: »

Boards.ie really needs to add the banging head against brick wall emoticon:

https://twitter.com/HomelandDems/status/1089643122706051072

Its a democrat committee , with all subcommittees headed by democrats, with a democrat chair and majority. 'dems' is even in the handle.

It is government funded and its 'verified' as if thats anything special anymore but at the end of the day it is a democrat mouthpiece for democratic reps.

Also instead of releasing real figures they just say 'no' . Some real figures would be nice, but ofcourse unless they come back as 0 it doesnt suit the agenda.

EDIT : a DHS report (data latest 2015) indicates 12 million illegals in the US, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1214_PLCY_pops-est-report.pdf
notibly from it , it garnered that in the years 2000-2007 during the last boom they estimated 470,000 a year were entering illegally. which if the trend was replicated from 2015 onwards you'd have another 1.5 million ish illegals by now.

Nowhere near donalds figures, but a rebuttal with a bit more substance would be nice.

EDIT 2 :

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW AND DATA
Two populations are estimated in order to derive the illegal alien population estimates: 1) the total foreign-born population living in the United States on January 1, 2015, and 2) the legally resident foreign-born population on the same date. The illegal alien population estimate is the residual when (2) is subtracted from (1).4 Foreign-born residents who entered the United States prior to 1980 are assumed to be legally resident since most would have become eligible to adjust to LPR status.5 Therefore, the starting point for the estimates was January 1, 1980. The steps involved in estimating the components of each population are shown in APPENDIX 1. Data on the total foreign-born population that entered during 1980–2014 by country of birth, state of residence, year of entry, age, and sex were obtained from the 2014 ACS. The ACS is a nationwide sample survey that collects information from U.S. households on social, demographic, and economic characteristics, including country of birth and year of entry of the foreign-born population. The ACS consists of non- overlapping samples from which information is collected monthly over the course of a year. The ACS was selected for the estimates because of its large sample size: about three million households per year compared to about 100,000 annually for the Current Population Survey, the primary alternative source of national data on the foreign-born population.

Hold on, The entire study is based on an assumption and a home survey that they expect illegal immigrants will just fill out no bother.....what....
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/fewer-people-are-answering-us-agency-s-citizenship-query-s-fueling-fears-2020-census
and yeah, they estimate that 6% won't fill out those details on the ACS, 180,000 people of the 3 million, and obviously no reason to not fill it out if you're a citizen.

so a survey of 3 million to a country of 325 million, its a 1% statistical factor, which is a decent sample size, but if 6% are afraid to answer a citizenship question and you extrapolate that up , thats 18 million people who wouldnt answer US wide , plus the 12 mil who would answer the ACS , 30 million , scaling down for conscientious objectors or incorrectly filled out etc.. 25 million isnt a far off estimate, could be higher , could be lower, Now ive more evidence for it than DT but he might not be too far off.

mcmoustache

So is it not true that the numbers @realDonaldTrump provides below are completely fabricated and should not be taken as true in any way?

Eric Cartman

mcmoustache wrote: »

So is it not true that the numbers @realDonaldTrump provides below are completely fabricated and should not be taken as true in any way?

If you check my above edits, you'll see how he may have gotten to that number. The methodology of the DHS's own study is flawed as ive evidenced above. Not saying he's right, like the DHS study a lot of it is based on a 1% sample size and assumptions but I can see how you could easily come to a much higher number.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its a democrat committee , with all subcommittees headed by democrats, with a democrat chair and majority. 'dems' is even in the handle.

It is government funded and its 'verified' as if thats anything special anymore but at the end of the day it is a democrat mouthpiece for democratic reps.

Also instead of releasing real figures they just say 'no' . Some real figures would be nice, but ofcourse unless they come back as 0 it doesnt suit the agenda.

EDIT : a DHS report (data latest 2015) indicates 12 million illegals in the US, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1214_PLCY_pops-est-report.pdf
notibly from it , it garnered that in the years 2000-2007 during the last boom they estimated 470,000 a year were entering illegally. which if the trend was replicated from 2015 onwards you'd have another 1.5 million ish illegals by now.

Nowhere near donalds figures, but a rebuttal with a bit more substance would be nice.

EDIT 2 :

Hold on, The entire study is based on an assumption and a home survey that they expect illegal immigrants will just fill out no bother.....what....
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/fewer-people-are-answering-us-agency-s-citizenship-query-s-fueling-fears-2020-census
and yeah, they estimate that 6% won't fill out those details on the ACS, 180,000 people of the 3 million, and obviously no reason to not fill it out if you're a citizen.

so a survey of 3 million to a country of 325 million, its a 1% statistical factor, which is a decent sample size, but if 6% are afraid to answer a citizenship question and you extrapolate that up , thats 18 million people who wouldnt answer US wide , plus the 12 mil who would answer the ACS , 30 million , scaling down for conscientious objectors or incorrectly filled out etc.. 25 million isnt a far off estimate, could be higher , could be lower, Now ive more evidence for it than DT but he might not be too far off.

I don't agree with everything you say Eric but I've had reasonable coonversations with you.

You're better than the above though.

Stop siding blindly with your team. By all means position yourself on the libertarian right but use your intelligence and call things as you see it.

The above post is nonsense. What's shameful is that you know perfectly well it's nonsense.

Eric Cartman

Midlife wrote: »

I don't agree with everything you say Eric but I've had reasonable coonversations with you.

You're better than the above though.

Stop siding blindly with your team. By all means position yourself on the libertarian right but use your intelligence and call things as you see it.

The above post is nonsense. What's shameful is that you know perfectly well it's nonsense.

Im not siding blindly with anyone. This is not in defence of donald. I wanted to see how the DHS got 11 million and he got 25, Their survey I think is a bit of a farce considering the method they use , its well admitted that illegal immigrants won't respond to the survey so their number cant be accurate and nor can his. But I still showed that there is a way to get to 25 million albeit based on flawed data thats now being used as not flawed data to refute his number.

Im not defending donald here, but I think both that committee and the man himself are being economical with the truth in this case.

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If you check my above edits, you'll see how he may have gotten to that number. The methodology of the DHS's own study is flawed as ive evidenced above. Not saying he's right, like the DHS study a lot of it is based on a 1% sample size and assumptions but I can see how you could easily come to a much higher number.

So you don't think those precise numbers were fabricated?


I don't know about you but his strangely precise numbers and his history of making stuff up makes me think that he might have actually made them up.

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

DHS got 11 million and he got 25,

Correction; he got 25,772,342.

Eric Cartman

mcmoustache wrote: »

So you don't think those precise numbers were fabricated?


I don't know about you but his strangely precise numbers and his history of making stuff up makes me think that he might have actually made them up.

ofcourse theyre fabricated , but sure so is the DHS's number it seems, I'd assume if there was a better method of getting the data that they would have done it already. I think the thing to take from the calculations ive done though is, it could be closer to 30 million than the DHS let on and its unlikely to be lower than their number , but using flawed data to argue flawed data is....flawed...