Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

CPAC TRUMP
Wow , that was some speech, 2 hours and 1 minute .
It will be interesting to see how the main stream media spin it.

Signing off with announcement of a Salute to America celebration in Washington on the 4th of July.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1101930450958934016?s=19

#StableGenius

aloyisious

RIGOLO wrote: »

CPAC
President Trump - Executive Order

FREE SPEECH on College Campus if they want federal dollars ....

watch the left melt.

Does this mean Don feels he has to bribe people with taxpayers money to talk the way he want's them to about things that matter to him, that he wants college students to be lapdogs like his cabinet and W/H staffers, and you are happy with his latest attempt at infringement of the 1st amendment?

PropJoe10

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The part where he mocked Jeffy? The part where he boasted about his inauguration crowd? The part where he said he loved Otto meanwhile mispronouncing his and his parents' family name? The part where he ranted about the Russher collusion hoax and '13 of the angriest democrats'?

I mean what is there to spin? The same old schtick, bellowed at the same old crowd, to the same old effect?

The capacity of Trump fans to be wowed by the EXACT same thing they've heard a million times will never cease to amuse and disturb me.

The best part was when he attacked Mueller for investigating him as he "is someone that wasn't elected". So now he's saying that elected officials shouldn't be investigated because they were elected by the people. A new string to his bow of nonsensical ramblings. The guy is deluded.

relax carry on

RIGOLO wrote: »

CPAC TRUMP
Wow , that was some speech, 2 hours and 1 minute .
It will be interesting to see how the main stream media spin it.

Signing off with announcement of a Salute to America celebration in Washington on the 4th of July.

He's a third rate conman. I'm amazed at how many people seem to willingly accept his transparent cons.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1101930450958934016?s=19

#StableGenius

If Old Glory was a person, it'd be stuck in the shower for hours to wash the stink off after being pawed by that amoral, self-obsessed cretin.

looksee

I just saw a clip of him mocking the 'Green New Deal' to shrieks of enthusiasm from his pathetic audience, and Trump looking so smug and pleased with himself as he did his 'late night comedy show' routine talking rubbish. You will only get electricity when the wind is blowing... it really is very sad.

mcmoustache

RIGOLO wrote: »

CPAC TRUMP
Wow , that was some speech, 2 hours and 1 minute .

That's pretty weak, to be honest. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez could go on for hours. Adolph Hitler was great in his day too. Packed out Nurnburg, so he did. Maybe it's dementia, maybe he only has two hours of material, maybe he's low energy, it's hard to say. His standards are slipping.

mcmoustache

PropJoe10 wrote: »

The guy is deluded.

That may be true but I think it's more that he knows his audience. He can say something bonkers and they'll believe it. He can do the most mundane thing and his fans will tout it as the most amazing thing ever. He knows who licks his boots.

everlast75

The POTUS appeared on the same stage as Diamond & Silk.

What a time to be alive...

12gauge dave

Q

Igotadose

mcmoustache wrote: »

That may be true but I think it's more that he knows his audience. He can say something bonkers and they'll believe it. He can do the most mundane thing and his fans will tout it as the most amazing thing ever. He knows who licks his boots.

Heck, he can literally say bullshit to to a big audience and be cheered for it.

The worst part besides everything Trump said in the speech, was whatever sycophant who prepped the audience saying Trump was like Reagan. Trump wouldn't have been allowed in the same room as Reagan. Reagan wasn't a good President, but he wasn't as gleefully awful as Trump is.

As I recall, when I asked a pro-Trumper here whether they'd want their kids to be like Trump, he nattered on about Trump's lies about his businesses or the economy. The pro-Trumper missed the point - it's not about achievements, it's about character. Would you want your kid to show the same character as Trump? How would that, reflect on you?

So, another question - your kid gets to present at a big professional conference that has a career impact. You o.k. with the kid using "bullshit" in his presentation? How about fuck? What's the over/under on Trump saying fuck on national TV?

everlast75

Igotadose wrote: »

As I recall, when I asked a pro-Trumper here whether they'd want their kids to be like Trump, he nattered on about Trump's lies about his businesses or the economy. The pro-Trumper missed the point - it's not about achievements, it's about character.

Even on an achievement front, Trump failed spectacularly.

I'd hate for my kid to be like Trump- I'd have to bail him out of business failures multiple times.

Brian?

I can’t watch it, but this breakdown of the speech is extremely worrying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/president-trump-repeatedly-veered-off-script-cpac/584014/

Itssoeasy

Brian? wrote: »

I can’t watch it, but this breakdown of the speech is extremely worrying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/president-trump-repeatedly-veered-off-script-cpac/584014/

My head hurts after reading those quotes from his speech.

Water John

If he believes one word of it, he's seriously delusional not to mind those listening to him.
That person is not fit for any public office, not to mind POTUS.

PropJoe10

Brian? wrote: »

I can’t watch it, but this breakdown of the speech is extremely worrying.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/president-trump-repeatedly-veered-off-script-cpac/584014/

It's not even a functional use of the English language. Usually you can get some sort of idea of what he's trying to say, but most of that is completely off the rails. As you said, worrying.

everlast75

SHS says that God wanted Trump to become president.

Well, thank God he wanted the Dems to take over the House.

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1102209823607681026?s=19

Ultros

Shifting through the rambling, I agree with him on this. Not sure how much of an impact it will have but at least it will put some amount of pressure on certain campuses where simply having a different opinion is akin to hate speech. Blocking someone like David Duke is not the same thing as preventing people like Ben Shapiro to hold a talk. Intimidation on campuses and cowardice of college faculties is a topic that needs to be discussed.

"I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars. If they want our dollars, and we give it to ’em by the billions, they have got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be very costly. That will be signed very soon."

It was a horrible week for Trumpy, probably not his worst I'd say that was the reaction after his comments on Charlottesville. The only positive was the Russian collusion/grand conspiracy narrative took a serious hit with Cohen's testimony. Time and others are trying to spin it badly after having dozens of Kremlin themed covers.

http://time.com/5540879/trump-mueller-report-investigation-collusion/
Why the Mueller Report Might Disappoint Almost Everybody

"After endless hype, special counsel Robert Mueller may be about to submit his report. It is impossible to know what his conclusions will be. But after so much speculation, one outcome seems likely: Mueller will disappoint just about everyone — especially President Trump’s critics. And it won’t be his fault.

This is due in part to Trump’s successful disinformation crusade, which has worked to raise a nearly impossible and definitely illogical bar for Mueller to clear: proving “collusion” and charging a grand criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and the Russian government."

I mean common... If there ever was an example of mental gymnastics this is it. It's now Trump's fault for defending himself if Mueller doesn't reach the conclusions his opponents want.

everlast75

Ultros wrote: »

The only positive was the Russian collusion/grand conspiracy narrative took a serious hit with Cohen's testimony

Can you confirm you in that case you believed Cohen's testimony?

Ultros

everlast75 wrote: »

Can you confirm you in that case you believed Cohen's testimony?

If you were at rock bottom and were being sent to jail and you had information on someone you despised that would nullify your jail sentence, would you withhold it?

Badmouthing Trump in these circumstances isn't the same thing, you can't make the same comparison because it doesn't equate.

duploelabs

Ultros wrote: »

If you were at rock bottom and were being sent to jail and you had information on someone you despised that would nullify your jail sentence, would you withhold it?

Badmouthing Trump in these circumstances isn't the same thing, you can't make the same comparison because it doesn't equate.

So to ask the same question, do you believe all of Cohen's testimony, including the part which he says he's no evidence to conspiracy or that he never went to Prague? Or just choose the things you want to believe like the other MAGAettes here?

Professor Moriarty

Ultros wrote: »

Shifting through the rambling, I agree with him on this. Not sure how much of an impact it will have but at least it will put some amount of pressure on certain campuses where simply having a different opinion is akin to hate speech. Blocking someone like David Duke is not the same thing as preventing people like Ben Shapiro to hold a talk. Intimidation on campuses and cowardice of college faculties is a topic that needs to be discussed.

"I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars. If they want our dollars, and we give it to ’em by the billions, they have got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be very costly. That will be signed very soon."

It was a horrible week for Trumpy, probably not his worst I'd say that was the reaction after his comments on Charlottesville. The only positive was the Russian collusion/grand conspiracy narrative took a serious hit with Cohen's testimony. Time and others are trying to spin it badly after having dozens of Kremlin themed covers.

http://time.com/5540879/trump-mueller-report-investigation-collusion/
Why the Mueller Report Might Disappoint Almost Everybody

"After endless hype, special counsel Robert Mueller may be about to submit his report. It is impossible to know what his conclusions will be. But after so much speculation, one outcome seems likely: Mueller will disappoint just about everyone — especially President Trump’s critics. And it won’t be his fault.

This is due in part to Trump’s successful disinformation crusade, which has worked to raise a nearly impossible and definitely illogical bar for Mueller to clear: proving “collusion” and charging a grand criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and the Russian government."

I mean common... If there ever was an example of mental gymnastics this is it. It's now Trump's fault for defending himself if Mueller doesn't reach the conclusions his opponents want.

It's very obvious that Mueller has already severely damaged Trump. From your linked article:

Mueller’s investigation is already successful. He has laid bare connections between key members of Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives, including the recent revelation that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort allegedly shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who Mueller has alleged is a former Russian intelligence officer. Along the way, Mueller has charged 34 people and three companies with committing serious crimes.


And it will shine a bright spotlight on Trump's crimes. As your linked article concludes:

As the Mueller investigation ends and, ideally, becomes public, it is an opportunity to refocus on what has actually happened: Trump campaign officials have committed crimes, the President has obstructed justice in plain sight, and Trump has been implicated in breaking campaign-finance law. At last, we can address reality instead of what may be fantasy.

Ultros

duploelabs wrote: »

So to ask the same question, do you believe all of Cohen's testimony, including the part which he says he's no evidence to conspiracy or that he never went to Prague? Or just choose the things you want to believe like the other MAGAettes here?

Why should I bother replying to you when simply having a different opinion ( imo the truth ) gets you branded with childish comments like the bold bit above?

Do you believe he went to Prague, do you believe everything in the Russian "Dossier"?. I don't believe 99% of it because there's no evidence to support any of it and that's why media outlets refused to publish it.

Cohen has nothing to lose, he's going to jail. Why would he withhold a secret Prague meeting or dirt on Russia and Trump that could have nullified his sentence and taken down a man he now seemingly despises.

duploelabs

Ultros wrote: »

Why should I bother replying to you when simply having a different opinion ( imo the truth ) gets you branded with childish comments like the bold bit above?

Do you believe he went to Prague, do you believe everything in the Russian "Dossier"?. I don't believe 99% of it because there's no evidence to support any of it and that's why media outlets refused to publish it.

Cohen has nothing to lose, he's going to jail. Why would he withhold a secret Prague meeting or dirt on Russia and Trump that could have nullified his sentence and taken down a man he now seemingly despises.

I don't believe anything without supporting evidence, which the steele dossier is, unsubstantiated.
Moving back to my original question.
I called you MAGAettes as there's a circling of the wagons, so in an effort to get some insight I was asking if you believed what Cohen what the Reps said during his testomony, that he's a discredited liar and nothing should be taken as truth as to what he said, including the parts of lack of evidence of conspiracy and that he'd never been to Prague. Just a question that you've been asked twice not just by me, and dodged twice.

Ultros

duploelabs wrote: »

I don't believe anything without supporting evidence, which the steele dossier is, unsubstantiated.
Moving back to my original question.
I called you MAGAettes as there's a circling of the wagons, so in an effort to get some insight I was asking if you believed what Cohen what the Reps said during his testomony, that he's a discredited liar and nothing should be taken as truth as to what he said, including the parts of lack of evidence of conspiracy and that he'd never been to Prague. Just a question that you've been asked twice not just by me, and dodged twice.

Here I'll do the same thing to you since there's "a circling of the wagons".

Try think outside the box a bit. You stance is that you can only say either he's either 100% telling the truth or he's 100% lying. Given that he lied about wanting a position in the white house do you believe that he lied about everything else? If he lied about that he must have also lied about the campaign finance payments. See how that game works and how flawed your argument is?

I haven't "dodged" anything. I've made it clear I don't think he was in Prague and I fail to think of a single reason why he would lie about that specific point given the position that he's in, bankrupt, going to jail and looking for collateral.

SeamusFX

A very large majority of the Steele dossier has already been proven to be true, other than Cohen in Prague and the pee pee tape. So it may not be 100% factual, but we already know the majority of it, was indeed true. Same for Cohen, he is a proven liar, but so is Trump and Trump is in a position of greater trust where he shouldn’t lie, but he’s breaking records! So which liar do we believe? At this stage, Cohen can’t gain much by lying and in fact he may gain more for lying for Trump than telling the truth about him or making up lies to make Trump look bad, in the way of a pardon. At least Cohen has a plausible story, that in the past he lied for Trump and now he’s telling the truth, where many of Trump’s lies don’t even make sense. Logically speaking, Cohen’s story seems more plausible, maybe he’s leaving some bits out, but I doubt very much he made things up to try and bring down Trump, if that was the case, we would have heard a lot more about the Russians.

Ultros

SeamusFX wrote: »

A very large majority of the Steele dossier has already been proven to be true, other than Cohen in Prague and the pee pee tape. So it may not be 100% factual, but we already know the majority of it, was indeed true.

Let's have a look through the main claims in the dossier. I strongly disagree with the notion that "A very large majority has already been proven to be true".

“The Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump for at least 5 years.”

Unproven

“The Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, for several years.”

Unproven

Russians sought to “exploit Trump’s personal obsessions and sexual perversions to obtain suitable ‘kompromot’ [compromising material] on him.” Kremlin operatives filmed Trump in compromising positions in a Moscow hotel.

Unproven

“The Clinton dossier was controlled exclusively by chief Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, who was responsible for compiling/handling it on the explicit instructions of Putin himself.”

Unproven

“There was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”

Unproven

“This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.”

Unproven

“The operation ( Email hacking ) had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of the campaign team.”

Unproven

“Russian diplomatic staff in key cities like New York, Washington and Miami were using the emigre ‘pension’ distribution system as cover.”

Unproven

"Igor Sechin, a crony of Putin and the CEO of Russian oil giant Rosneft, met secretly with Page during a trip that the Trump campaign adviser made to Moscow in early July 2016. Sechin allegedly brought up the possibility of removing Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia, which Page allegedly “reacted positively” to. Page also met secretly with senior Kremlin official Igor Divyekin."

Unproven

“An intelligence exchange had been running between [the Trump team and Kremlin] for at least 8 years.”

Unproven

“Putin’s priority requirement” in the information exchange with Trump world was to obtain information about Russian oligarchs and their families. Trump and his associates supplied the information.

Unproven

Page “conceived and promoted” the idea of releasing hacked DNC emails through WikiLeaks.

Unproven

Trump participated in sex parties in St. Petersburg, Russia, and paid bribes to make the stories “disappear.” Azerbaijani-Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov would know the details.

Unproven

“Clandestine meeting between … Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and Kremlin representatives in August 2016.” The meeting took place in Prague.

Unproven

A Kremlin-controlled cultural exchange group called Rossotrudnichestvo “was being used as cover for this relationship and its office in Prague may well have been used to host the Cohen meeting/s.”

Unproven

“Konstantin Kosachev (head of the Foreign Relations Committee) is an important figure in the Trump campaign-Kremlin liaison operation.”

Unproven

"Rosneft CEO Sechin offered Page a 19 percent brokerage stake on a deal involving the Russian oil giant in return for getting sanctions lifted if Trump was elected president. Page expressed interest in the proposal."

Unproven

“A company called XBT/Webzilla and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to trasmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic party leadership. Entities linked to one Aleksej Gubarev were involved and he and another expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, Seva Kapsugovich, were significant players in this operation.”

Unproven, that company has sued Steele and Buzzfeed.

Here's what's provably true, the stuff about Wikileaks and Russia being behind the hacks.

“The Kremlin had further ‘kompromat’ on candidate Clinton and had been considering releasing this via ‘plausibly deniable’ channels after the Duma (legislative) elections were out of the way in mid-September.”

“The Kremlin had more intel on Clinton and her campaign.”

“The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the [Democratic National Committee], to the WikiLeaks platform.”

Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was withdrawn from Washington at short notice because of his “heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation.” Kalugin took part in the veterans’ pension “ruse” to help fund the active measures campaign.

For the above one the dossier did get the time line right. Feel free to add if I'm missing anything.

Igotadose

Ultros wrote: »

Let's have a look through the main claims in the dossier. I strongly disagree with the notion that "A very large majority has already been proven to be true".

But how about not quoting dailycaller, where your copy/paste comes from (and also RT.com).

Here's a better source (at least, one that's public and not known to be a source of disinformation like dailycaller and RT.com)
https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

Here is the summary from that blog (which makes extensive direct reference to the dossier itself and what's been done by the special counsel):

"The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."

SeamusFX

Instead of quoting Russian propaganda and talking about the parts of the Dossier that haven’t been proven, maybe you should look at all the parts that have been proven or the few, if any parts that have been disproven.

Ultros

Igotadose wrote: »

"The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials."

I'll wait for Mueller's report to make a final judgement. I've said since day one I don't believe there was a coordinating effort between both parties to hack and then strategically leak emails and that there was an agreement in place or quid pro quo, what's been said about "collusion" over the past two years boils down to that point. It doesn't surprise me people connected to the campaign had contacts with foreign lobbyists or people representative of the Russia government - put any presidential campaign under the spotlight and you'll find the same whether that's the Chinese, the Ukrainians or whoever else. Steele alleges Russia had been grooming Trump for 5 years and that years before the election they were exchanging Intel on Clinton and others.

At the end of the day, unless there's evidence that there was coordination between the campaign and the Russian government hacking and disseminating those emails online everything else will fall flat on it's head. It wasn't Trump who came up with the term collusion, it was the Democrats and their loyalists in the media.