Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im just saying the man is a liar, dont be fawning over his testimony as the truth or as any kind of evidence because it suits your agenda.

Of that, there is no doubt. However, even liars are telling the truth if they have evidence to corroborate their testimony. Let us see what emerges.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

But the posters you speak of on this thread were correct in their assumption. Isn't it possible that the same posters will be correct about their assumption he's telling the truth today?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im just saying the man is a liar, dont be fawning over his testimony as the truth or as any kind of evidence because it suits your agenda.

Eric Cartman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of that, there is no doubt. However, even liars are telling the truth if they have evidence to corroborate their testimony. Let us see what emerges.

its a big if, I await to see his justification for the racist and conman comments.

Eric Cartman

Bryant Magnificent Housefly wrote: »

But the posters you speak of on this thread were correct in their assumption. Isn't it possible that the same posters will be correct about their assumption he's telling the truth today?

the problem is its an assumption , its based on 'anything bad about trump is probably true' , the words coming out of somebodys mouth are weighted purely on whether it ticks the anti trump box. He was presumed to be a liar when he was on trumps side and has now miraculously gained the presumption of truth before his evidence is even presented.

there is literally no way to justify believing cohen to be truthful before the evidence is shown, to do so is playing into bias.

Gbear

As one of the congressmen pointed out, if you simply dismiss out of hand any evidence by someone who's a con, then that's all organised crime testimony in the bin, and RICO evaporates.

It's just asinine bull**** that ignores both the context in which the lies took place and the documentary evidence obtained, and the ultimate weight will be determined by the degree to which other testimonies support or contradict Cohen's points.

And the biggest absurdity is that his crimes aren't incidental to Trump. Either Trump is a criminal or Cohen shouldn't be going to jail.

20Cent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Michael Cohen lies to congress before in a pro trump manor- > this thread : he's a liar, guilty guilty guilty

Michael Cohen says more things to congress today -> this thread : Look at the truth, this is a completely accurate statement, nothing to see here.

He said himself that he has lied to protect trump. So he brought documents, cheques etc to back up what he is saying.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its a big if, I await to see his justification for the racist and conman comments.

I wouldn't really pay much attention to that, it's hardly news anyway and everyone knows what Trump is like. I'm more interested in what he said about Mueller having evidence and the NY investigation having evidence. He had nothing to gain from saying that, indeed he would have been lying under oath again, so I believe him when he says they have damning evidence.

Eric Cartman

Gbear wrote: »

As one of the congressmen pointed out, if you simply dismiss out of hand any evidence by someone who's a con, then that's all organised crime testimony in the bin, and RICO evaporates.

It's just asinine bull**** that ignores both the context in which the lies took place and the documentary evidence obtained, and the ultimate weight will be determined by the degree to which other testimonies support or contradict Cohen's points.

And the biggest absurdity is that his crimes aren't incidental to Trump. Either Trump is a criminal or Cohen shouldn't be going to jail.

but in rico cases there is a presumption that everything is a lie until evidence presented, which is the correct thing to do, unless a story lines up with everyone and corroborating evidence lines up, its completely thrown out.

the same value is not being put on this by the public, people in here are holding up what cohen says as the truth and are awaiting evidence to cement their belief, the guy is a snake who lied before for money , without concrete evidence it should be presumed now that the same is happening , and when evidence for one part emerges, that does not tip the balance on the rest of the parts that may remain unproven.

Itssoeasy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im just saying the man is a liar, dont be fawning over his testimony as the truth or as any kind of evidence because it suits your agenda.

He is a liar for which he is paying a heavy price for but does him being a liar discredit the physical documentary evidence including cheques signed by Donald Trump proving Trump knew about the payments despite saying he didn't. And let's not paint Michael cohen a victim either. He may be trying to help his family who to be honest shouldn't suffer for what he has done but he's no angel.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Those assumptions were not made solely on his first appearance in front of congress. External factors were also included in making the assumption he was lying. And we all know now that he was indeed lying at the time.

Taking the evidence and facts available up to and including today, and that includes everything else that is going on external to todays hearing, it very plausible to assume he is telling the truth today. And that the posters you are mocking are once again correct in their assumption.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the problem is its an assumption , its based on 'anything bad about trump is probably true' , the words coming out of somebodys mouth are weighted purely on whether it ticks the anti trump box. He was presumed to be a liar when he was on trumps side and has now miraculously gained the presumption of truth before his evidence is even presented.

there is literally no way to justify believing cohen to be truthful before the evidence is shown, to do so is playing into bias.

jochenstacker

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im just saying the man is a liar, dont be fawning over his testimony as the truth or as any kind of evidence because it suits your agenda.

Well, some people fawn over Trump's lies because it suits their agenda.
And those people are becoming rapidly fewer by the day.
Soon the only people who will follow him will be flat earthers and meth drinkers.

SeamusFX

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im just saying the man is a liar, dont be fawning over his testimony as the truth or as any kind of evidence because it suits your agenda.

But Trump is a Bigger Liar, he’s lied over 8,000 times in the past 2 years, but you still fawn over him!!!

Gbear

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but in rico cases there is a presumption that everything is a lie until evidence presented, which is the correct thing to do, unless a story lines up with everyone and corroborating evidence lines up, its completely thrown out.

the same value is not being put on this by the public, people in here are holding up what cohen says as the truth and are awaiting evidence to cement their belief, the guy is a snake who lied before for money , without concrete evidence it should be presumed now that the same is happening , and when evidence for one part emerges, that does not tip the balance on the rest of the parts that may remain unproven.

Nobody is expecting a conviction for Trump off the back of this though.

For one, this isn't the breadth of his apparent crimes, but also, any conviction, perhaps waiting until beyond 2020 and Trump is out of office, will necessitate further corroborating evidence on some or all of Cohen's testimony.

People are taking this as credible, because Trump has form, and because there is documentary evidence provided to the committee, but I'm sure that if this was a criminal investigation, if this was the sum total of the evidence, they would've packed it up and gone home long ago.

Again, as the chair said, this is the start of the process of delving into Trump's affairs in the public sphere in an official capacity, not the full extent of it.



AOC came on and with her now customary briskness, blasted through a few questions with Cohen regarding tax evasion through devaluing of assets, and the general point of her questions appeared less to gain specific evidence from Cohen, and more to underpin a future subpoena of Trump's tax returns (which Cohen claimed would reveal some of his illicit dealings), and also testimonies of other member's of Trump's inner circle, with Allen Weisselberg's name appearing more than once.

Again, this isn't a question of taking his word. It's about about uncovering future avenues through which the truth might be uncovered. It's unambiguously useful and supportive of the democratic process. If he's full of ****, what he points to won't reveal anything.

The general long term Dem strategy seems to be to create a series of co-supporting claims from various sources that will outwardly justify ongoing hearings and congressional actions of oversight, so that not only can they get the support for certain actions, but be seen to be getting support for certain actions, and have the full weight of legitimacy as they tackle this.

I think this is ultimately an open-goal at this point. It would require a delusional mind to preclude the likelihood that Trump has broken the law based on what we've already seen. Now, the Dems need to do everything by the book and systematically work their way through the various individuals and companies that have taken part in this shambles of an administration.

enfant terrible

Gbear wrote: »

Nobody is expecting a conviction for Trump off the back of this though.

For one, this isn't the breadth of his apparent crimes, but also, any conviction, perhaps waiting until beyond 2020 and Trump is out of office, will necessitate further corroborating evidence on some or all of Cohen's testimony.

People are taking this as credible, because Trump has form, and because there is documentary evidence provided to the committee, but I'm sure that if this was a criminal investigation, if this was the sum total of the evidence, they would've packed it up and gone home long ago.

Again, as the chair said, this is the start of the process of delving into Trump's affairs in the public sphere in an official capacity, not the full extent of it.



AOC came on and with her now customary briskness, blasted through a few questions with Cohen regarding tax evasion through devaluing of assets, and the general point of her questions appeared less to gain specific evidence from Cohen, and more to underpin a future subpoena of Trump's tax returns (which Cohen claimed would reveal some of his illicit dealings), and also testimonies of other member's of Trump's inner circle, with Allen Weisselberg's name appearing more than once.

Again, this isn't a question of taking his word. It's about about uncovering future avenues through which the truth might be uncovered. It's unambiguously useful and supportive of the democratic process. If he's full of ****, what he points to won't reveal anything.

The general long term Dem strategy seems to be to create a series of co-supporting claims from various sources that will outwardly justify ongoing hearings and congressional actions of oversight, so that not only can they get the support for certain actions, but be seen to be getting support for certain actions, and have the full weight of legitimacy as they tackle this.

I think this is ultimately an open-goal at this point. It would require a delusional mind to preclude the likelihood that Trump has broken the law based on what we've already seen. Now, the Dems need to do everything by the book and systematically work their way through the various individuals and companies that have taken part in this shambles of an administration.

To what end goal impeachment?

Eric Cartman

SeamusFX wrote: »

But Trump is a Bigger Liar, he’s lied over 8,000 times in the past 2 years, but you still fawn over him!!!

where have I ever fawned over him, posting 'maybe everything bad about him isnt true' and 'I still think Hillary would be worse' is hardly fawning. This is the problem with here, anything less than 100% critical of trump is seen as fawning / maga hat wearing / sticking by trump etc..

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

where have I ever fawned over him, posting 'maybe everything bad about him isnt true' and 'I still think Hillary would be worse' is hardly fawning. This is the problem with here, anything less than 100% critical of trump is seen as fawning / maga hat wearing / sticking by trump etc..

I can't even begin to imagine how Hillary would have been worse than Trump.

SeamusFX

Eric Cartman wrote: »

where have I ever fawned over him, posting 'maybe everything bad about him isnt true' and 'I still think Hillary would be worse' is hardly fawning. This is the problem with here, anything less than 100% critical of trump is seen as fawning / maga hat wearing / sticking by trump etc..

Blindly denying his obvious lies is Fawning! Saying Trump is still better than Hillary is Fawning, because Trump is a nightmare and a disaster to the US and the world and no US politician is worse than Trump! I’m not asking you to be 100% critical of Trump, I’m just asking you to own up to truth and the facts that Trump is a liar, a conman, a racist and a sexist as just a start. Unfortunately you can’t do that, because you are too busy Fawning!

Gbear

enfant terrible wrote: »

To what end goal impeachment?

Perhaps, but ultimately, there could be six smoking guns, a smoking flamethrower and a series of smoking dueling canes and the Republicans would never in a month of Sundays convict him (or whatever the term is for successful impeachment), so the ultimate goal might just be to get him to **** off by hook or by crook. Maybe that's just being able to say to the American people through 2019 and into the Election that here's all the blatant evidence that this guy has done XYZ so get off your arse if you don't want a crook in charge of the country.

The campaign adds will write themselves.

He already lost the popular vote and not by a small margin. If there's unambiguous proof that he's a crook, not just in one area, but in multiple ones, up to and including conspiring with an enemy nation, then I do think it'll be enough to ultimately get rid of him, and I can't see it being a Republican that does it. And I can't see a Democratic President pardoning him. They'd be crucified. It would guarantee they don't get reelected.

So I think the idea is to minimise the harm he can do, and that will happen through checks on his power in congress, and through voting him out of office. And then, when he's out, make him pay for what he's done. But unless there's a rapprochement by the Republicans and a commitment made by them to work on a bi-partisan and rational basis, then I don't think he'll be successfully removed via impeachment.

However, even then, that will present an opportunity for the Democrats, because if they hold impeachment hearings in the Senate, they will then be going into 2020 with a large number of Republican Senate seats up for grabs, and that will put pressure on those seats anywhere that isn't absolutely bulletproof red. Whether they get an impeachment or Republicans are exposed as partisan hacks and lose their senate seats, they win either way.

Billy Mays

State of Meadows pretending to hold back the tears claiming he's not a racist :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/status/1100881913756176386

Eric Cartman

SeamusFX wrote: »

Blindly denying his obvious lies is Fawning! Saying Trump is still better than Hillary is Fawning, because Trump is a nightmare and a disaster to the US and the world and no US politician is worse than Trump! I’m not asking you to be 100% critical of Trump, I’m just asking you to own up to truth and the facts that Trump is a liar, a conman, a racist and a sexist as just a start. Unfortunately you can’t do that, because you are too busy Fawning!

I don't believe anything he's done is racist or sexist, I just think thats built up to nothing. I suppose my bar of whats racist or sexist isnt as low as others.

While perhaps all of the below never reached the height of POTUS , AOC, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bush Jr, Nixon are definitely worse for america and Trump.

Conman im willing to take but id like to know how.

Liar , yeah, there has been a lot of exaggerations and some flat out lies, seems to unfortunately be the way of US politics, cant think of many politicians who haven't lied.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't believe anything he's done is racist or sexist, I just think thats built up to nothing. I suppose my bar of whats racist or sexist isnt as low as others.

While perhaps all of the below never reached the height of POTUS , AOC, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Bush Jr, Nixon are definitely worse for america and Trump.

Conman im willing to take but id like to know how.

Liar , yeah, there has been a lot of exaggerations and some flat out lies, seems to unfortunately be the way of US politics, cant think of many politicians who haven't lied.

This isn't sexist?

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Eric Cartman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This isn't sexist?

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

talking sh*t with another lad, hardly sexist, also love the inclusion of 'i dont even wait', that was the trail end of another sentence. No evidence that he was just en masse grabbing women by the vagina at random.

enfant terrible

Gbear wrote: »

Perhaps, but ultimately, there could be six smoking guns, a smoking flamethrower and a series of smoking dueling canes and the Republicans would never in a month of Sundays convict him (or whatever the term is for successful impeachment), so the ultimate goal might just be to get him to **** off by hook or by crook. Maybe that's just being able to say to the American people through 2019 and into the Election that here's all the blatant evidence that this guy has done XYZ so get off your arse if you don't want a crook in charge of the country.

The campaign adds will write themselves.

He already lost the popular vote and not by a small margin. If there's unambiguous proof that he's a crook, not just in one area, but in multiple ones, up to and including conspiring with an enemy nation, then I do think it'll be enough to ultimately get rid of him, and I can't see it being a Republican that does it. And I can't see a Democratic President pardoning him. They'd be crucified. It would guarantee they don't get reelected.

So I think the idea is to minimise the harm he can do, and that will happen through checks on his power in congress, and through voting him out of office. And then, when he's out, make him pay for what he's done. But unless there's a rapprochement by the Republicans and a commitment made by them to work on a bi-partisan and rational basis, then I don't think he'll be successfully removed via impeachment.

However, even then, that will present an opportunity for the Democrats, because if they hold impeachment hearings in the Senate, they will then be going into 2020 with a large number of Republican Senate seats up for grabs, and that will put pressure on those seats anywhere that isn't absolutely bulletproof red. Whether they get an impeachment or Republicans are exposed as partisan hacks and lose their senate seats, they win either way.

Well the democrats wouldn't impeach Clinton for lying under oath on video tape so I wouldn't expect the Republicans to impeach Trump for a campaign finance violation.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't believe anything he's done is racist or sexist, I just think thats built up to nothing.

Let's face it: anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Trump is a racist by now wouldn't acknowledge he was a racist if they caught him stringing a black man up from a tree.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

talking sh*t with another lad, hardly sexist, also love the inclusion of 'i dont even wait', that was the trail end of another sentence. No evidence that he was just en masse grabbing women by the vagina at random.

"Just because he says deeply misogynistic things doesn't make him sexist."

I rest my case.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's face it: anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Trump is a racist by now wouldn't acknowledge he was a racist if they caught him stringing a black man up from a tree.

what has he done thats in any way comparible to that, come on. Im still waiting on everlast to show me those 'n' word tapes.

Gbear

enfant terrible wrote: »

Well the democrats wouldn't impeach Clinton for lying under oath on video tape so I wouldn't expect the Republicans to impeach Trump for a campaign finance violation.

He probably should've been impeached for that, but there's a substantive difference between lying to save face about personal, but legal events, and committing not one isolated felony, but reams of them, including ones that directly relate to attacking democracy and the American system.

That's an intellectually dishonest comment from you, because I'm sure you know that.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

what has he done thats in any way comparible to that, come on.

Why are you asking? Are you trying to somehow convey an impression of yourself as someone who is open to persuasion that Trump is a racist?

If you don't think Trump is a racist, it's because you don't understand what racism is, in the same way as your dismissal of his own misogynist words as "not sexist" means that you don't understand what sexism is.

So, no: I'm not going to dig up examples of his racism, only for you to bat them away with "that's not racist by my personal standards, therefore it's not racist".

Billy Mays

Eric Cartman wrote: »

talking sh*t with another lad, hardly sexist, also love the inclusion of 'i dont even wait', that was the trail end of another sentence. No evidence that he was just en masse grabbing women by the vagina at random.

Where do you stand on mocking the disabled?

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

talking sh*t with another lad, hardly sexist, also love the inclusion of 'i dont even wait', that was the trail end of another sentence. No evidence that he was just en masse grabbing women by the vagina at random.

Well, if that's important, here's the full quote. He was talking about a woman he was about to meet:

I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."
I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.


Here he is talking about Nancy O'Dell:

I did try and fúck her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.


But this stuff isn't sexist. Is that what you're saying?