Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

MrFresh

splinter65 wrote: »

Isn’t this just the same as saying “ we don’t accept the result of the report so we want to keep going over the evidence till we get the “right” result”?

No, the report is just a breakdown of all the evidence collected within the boundaries set for the special counsel. The stuff revealed about Trump and his campaign staff along the way is pretty serious in itself, even if you don't believe in the collusion that Donald Jr already admitted to.

splinter65 wrote: »

Why not concentrate on getting a good candidate that will be acceptable to a broad cross section of ordinary Americans with ordinary values so that you have some hope of contesting the election?
Hint: Americans are not going to vote for Kamala Harris Elizabeth Warren or O’Rourke.

Because a good candidate is no good if the candidates, campaigns and election isn't protected from interference. Mueller's report would indicate they are not and Republicans haven't done anything to remedy it. This needs to be fully addressed by congress before future elections.

ECO_Mental

splinter65 wrote: »

What exactly has Trump done so far in his presidency that warrants this hysteria? Is there a list of things he’s responsible for that have resulted in harm for Americans?

Apart from pulling out of all the Climate change agreements that will f**k up the world.....there is the small matter of him calling a bunch of white Nazi nationalists "Good People" thus sowing racism and hatred among Americans and demonizing immigrants and locking children up in cages.....no I cant see what he has done to upset people

ECO_Mental

ECO_Mental wrote:

Apart from pulling out of all the Climate change agreements that will f**k up the world.....there is the small matter of him calling a bunch of white Nazi nationalists "Good People" thus sowing racism and hatred among Americans and demonizing immigrants and locking children up in cages.....no I cant see what he has done to upset people

Username checks out

Penn

It's also worth noting that the report clearly states that the Russians did interfere in the election, and did hack the DNC emails, and did give that information to Wikileaks. Offers were made to the Trump campaign from Russian-affiliates to help them with the election, and while there was no evidence of the Trump campaign accepting those offers, did the Trump campaign report them? Did they notify the authorities, either before or after the election? Even then it's clear the Russians purposefully did what they could to help Trump win, with or without agreement from the Trump Campaign.

That in itself is pretty damning.

With regards to the rest, Seth Abramson on Twitter has a good thread on the implications of what Barr says in his summary

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

DrumSteve

I also think Trump changing the news cycle so quickly and so often may actually come back to bite him on this as the longer the full report is unreleased the more it'll dominate the narrative (a bit like his taxes).

splinter65

everlast75 wrote: »

I wonder will all those claiming that the report exonerates Trump now put it on the record that they will accept the full content when published.

I'm saying I will.

What about ye?

I will too.

ancapailldorcha

Trolling posts deleted.

hill16bhoy

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower.

Was he ever interviewed by Mueller?

https://twitter.com/chrisinsilico/status/1109983298397310976

Leroy42

kilns wrote: »

Any person who was hoping this report would provide a silver bullet were always wishfully thinking. It was becoming more and more obvious the more time went on that it would come to nothing and I think Democrats have been flawed hanging their hat on this report to get Trump. The guy has run a dodgy enterprise for years he knows how to cover his tracks, sure wasnt Cohen caught with a bag full of burner phones, should tell enough about how he does business.

Democrats should move on a try to beat him in 2020 by winning over those who were borderline and voted for him based on issues and if necessary his honour (stormy affair)

Did you miss the Mid-Terms? The Democrats have not been bleating on about this report, they knew full well the cards were stacked against it based on the interference by Nunes, the selection of Kavanagh to ensure they had the number on SCOTUS, to the appointment of Barr himself, who lest we forgot wrote, off his own back, a long letter to the DOJ a number of months ago decrying the entire investigation itself.

Was has kept this front an centre is Trump himself and his almost daily attack on the investigation, the people leading it, the team itself. He pulled exactly the same trick with the election itself, claiming it was all rigged and totally against him until the point that it is not as bad as feared and suddenly he loves the FBI and the investigation.

Democrats have of course talked about it, it was a very serious issue, but they did not run the mid term campaign off the back of it. AOC has not been making news recently because of it. Sanders is not popular because of it.

What ever happened, what US should be really worried about it despite Trump having nothing to do with Russia (according to Barr) he sided with Putin over his country intelligence services. That Trump has done nothing to hold Russia to account for the, at this stage, long accepted fact that Russia hacked the DNC.

So the question now, is why? Why is Trump choosing to ignore the direct threats to the US. At least one could 'understand' it if he was under the control of Putin. The reality the US now face, is that POTUS is simply a coward.

splinter65

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Apart from pulling out of all the Climate change agreements that will f**k up the world.....there is the small matter of him calling a bunch of white Nazi nationalists "Good People" thus sowing racism and hatred among Americans and demonizing immigrants and locking children up in cages.....no I cant see what he has done to upset people

Maybe the climate change agreements are unworkable. It’s just your opinion that people opposed to immigration without borders are “Nazis”.
Anyone who isn’t left wing and liberal is a Nazi so you have totally reduced that slur to completely meaningless blah blah blah.
Illegal immigrants are illegal and have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin.

Pa8301

splinter65 wrote: »

Maybe the climate change agreements are unworkable. It’s just your opinion that people opposed to immigration without borders are “Nazis”.
Anyone who isn’t left wing and liberal is a Nazi so you have totally reduced that slur to completely meaningless blah blah blah.
Illegal immigrants are illegal and have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin.

Well it was actually bona fide, self-proclaimed white supremacists that he referred to as 'good people'.

TomOnBoard

Penn wrote: »

It's also worth noting that the report clearly states that the Russians did interfere in the election, and did hack the DNC emails, and did give that information to Wikileaks. Offers were made to the Trump campaign from Russian-affiliates to help them with the election, and while there was no evidence of the Trump campaign accepting those offers, did the Trump campaign report them? Did they notify the authorities, either before or after the election? Even then it's clear the Russians purposefully did what they could to help Trump win, with or without agreement from the Trump Campaign.

That in itself is pretty damning.

With regards to the rest, Seth Abramson on Twitter has a good thread on the implications of what Barr says in his summary

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

I urge anyone genuinely interested (hardened 'Trump can do no wrong/right' folks will be wasting their time) in the legal nuances behind the Barr letter and its representation of the Mueller investigation to spend some time looking at Seth Abramson's twitter points linked above. Well worth perusing for some interpretation of all this.

Very early days yet in relation to the Mueller report. While the media will move on to more so-called 'Breaking News' soundbites and Trump's team will propagate the "No Collusion" narrative, the legal scholars will be parsing every part of what Barr and Mueller have had to say. If Abramson is correct in his analysis (even just 24 hours into it), the collusion and obstruction pieces are far from over.

hill16bhoy

splinter65 wrote: »

Maybe the climate change agreements are unworkable. It’s just your opinion that people opposed to immigration without borders are “Nazis”.
Anyone who isn’t left wing and liberal is a Nazi so you have totally reduced that slur to completely meaningless blah blah blah.
Illegal immigrants are illegal and have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin.

Maybe a world in which the climate has been catastrophically changed is unworkable?

Have you ever thought about that?

splinter65 wrote: »

Anyone who isn’t left wing and liberal is a Nazi so you have totally reduced that slur to completely meaningless blah blah blah.

What's your evidence for saying this? It's a very big claim. Care to back it up?

splinter65 wrote: »

Illegal immigrants are illegal and have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin.

How many of them? All of them, or just some of them?

How many are in the US?

Why do they have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin? What's the imperative to do so?

And which immigrants should be prosecuted and which ones returned to their country of origin?

What would happen to, say, dairies in Iowa, say, like Nu-Star Dairies, owned and operated by the family of Devin Nunes, and which runs entirely on so called "illegal immigrant" labour?

Would you like to see Mr. Nunes's family be prosecuted for employing them?

Should Donald Trump be prosecuted for employing "illegal immigrant" labour, given that he actually does?

pixelburp

splinter65 wrote: »

Maybe the climate change agreements are unworkable. It’s just your opinion that people opposed to immigration without borders are “Nazis”.
Anyone who isn’t left wing and liberal is a Nazi so you have totally reduced that slur to completely meaningless blah blah blah.
Illegal immigrants are illegal and have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin.

For context, the "fine people" remark was around Trump equivocating after the Charlottesville riots, when he refused to condemn the presence of known Alt-Right, Nazi adjacent protestors (who were quite brazenly recreating Nuremberg style rallying, complete with chants of "jews will not replace us", or the historically famous "blood and soil" chant [though might be mistaking that with another Alt-Right march]. There was no subtly here). The 'both sides' rhetoric will point at ANTIFA et al, but the shocking conclusion was one of these nazis drove a car into a crowd of protestors and killing one.

Trump failed to condemn something that for any other president, would have been a moral slam dunk. "We don't condone violence, but Nazis and racists have no place in America, etc. etc." An easy statement to make. Instead he equivocated with remarks about "there were some fine people", as well as the tired "both sides" argument. This is why David Duke loves Trump. This is why Richard Spencer - a man whose rallies encourage and contain open Nazi saluting - loves Trump.

Trump. Not racist, no. But loved by racists.

ECO_Mental

splinter65 wrote: »

Maybe the climate change agreements are unworkable. It’s just your opinion that people opposed to immigration without borders are “Nazis”.
Anyone who isn’t left wing and liberal is a Nazi so you have totally reduced that slur to completely meaningless blah blah blah.
Illegal immigrants are illegal and have to be prosecuted or returned to their country of origin.

What will be unworkable is New Orleans/New York under water due to sea level rising, that will be seriously unworkable...



When the people that Trump calls "good People were walking around Charlottesville with Swastika flags THEY ARE Nazi's end of story.....



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charlottesville-was-inevitable-white-nationalist-rally_us_59907756e4b090964297ba58

hill16bhoy

pixelburp wrote: »

Trump. Not racist, no. But loved by racists.

The birther movement, which Trump was at the forefront of, was flagrantly racist.

Not to mention his vilification of Muslims and Mexicans and his dabbling with anti-Semitism.

everlast75

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The birther movement, which Trump was at the forefront of, was flagrantly racist.

Not to mention his vilification of Muslims and Mexicans and his dabbling with anti-Semitism.

And that Africans were bringing ebola into the country, that African countries were ****holes.

The list goes on and on.

pixelburp

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The birther movement, which Trump was at the forefront of, was flagrantly racist.

Not to mention his vilification of Muslims and Mexicans and his dabbling with anti-Semitism.

That's true, it's a huge silver bullet and shocking this is even forgotten, but the nature of the modern-day 'dog whistle' means unless it's someone like Duke or Spencer, contrarians can easily plead technicalities and obfuscation why XYZ isn't properly racist.

So even if you give Trump a pass on 'is he racist?', his equivocating on Charlottesville was bad enough, but he's openly loved and supported by scum like Duke or Spencer - or indeed Dog Whistle aficionados such as Laura Inghram or Tucker Carlson.

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The birther movement, which Trump was at the forefront of, was flagrantly racist.

Not to mention his vilification of Muslims and Mexicans and his dabbling with anti-Semitism.

The guy has been the biggest israel shil of all time, theres nothing anti semetic in there.

He wasnt at the forefront of the birther movement, that was started by others long before he even entered the fray, perpetuated it perhaps but was nowhere near the ‘forefront’

The other two ill give you

Quin_Dub

pixelburp wrote: »

That's true, it's a huge silver bullet and shocking this is even forgotten, but the nature of the modern-day 'dog whistle' means unless it's someone like Duke or Spencer, contrarians can easily plead technicalities and obfuscation why XYZ isn't properly racist.

So even if you give Trump a pass on 'is he racist?', his equivocating on Charlottesville was bad enough, but he's openly loved and supported by scum like Duke or Spencer - or indeed Dog Whistle aficionados such as Laura Inghram or Tucker Carlson.

What was the quote? (Corey Booker was it?)

"Donald Trump may not be a racist or white supremacist , but all the racists & white supremacists think he is."

Eric Cartman

ECO_Mental wrote: »

What will be unworkable is New Orleans/New York under water due to sea level rising, that will be seriously unworkable...



When the people that Trump calls "good People were walking around Charlottesville with Swastika flags THEY ARE Nazi's end of story.....



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charlottesville-was-inevitable-white-nationalist-rally_us_59907756e4b090964297ba58

This calling nazis ‘fine people’ is a complete twisting of what happened, read this interesting article on it : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

There are ‘fine people’ who are not nazis who wanted those statues kept.

hill16bhoy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The guy has been the biggest israel shil of all time, theres nothing anti semetic in there.

He wasnt at the forefront of the birther movement, that was started by others long before he even entered the fray, perpetuated it perhaps but was nowhere near the ‘forefront’

The other two ill give you

You appear to completely misunderstand what anti-Semitism is.

Trump was by far the most prominent person in the birther movement and the public face of it. He appeared on numerous television programmes to promote it and offered $5m to anybody who produce Obama''s college and passport applications.

Trump was front and centre in that whole racist conspiracy theory.

ECO_Mental

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This calling nazis ‘fine people’ is a complete twisting of what happened, read this interesting article on it : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html

There are ‘fine people’ who are not nazis who wanted those statues kept.

Those statues of those "Fine Generals" who didn't want wanted slavery abolished...



OK so! if I went to protest and I'm good person and I rock up and I see a load of people waving around swastikas and chanting hate the jews. Do I;


A) Nope out of that protest and turn on my heels and walk the other direction or
I join in and walk along with these Nazi's????


Hmmmm I wonder what would I do?????

Eric Cartman

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Those statues of those "Fine Generals" who didn't want wanted slavery abolished...



OK so! if I went to protest and I'm good person and I rock up and I see a load of people waving around swastikas and chanting hate the jews. Do I;


A) Nope out of that protest and turn on my heels and walk the other direction or
I join in and walk along with these Nazi's????


Hmmmm I wonder what would I do?????

If the world let every issue become co-opted by the extremists then nobody could support anything.

At anti homeless protests in dublin there are people waving pbp banners who genuinely believe private property should be siezed from everyone by the government , should everyone who doesnt believe that just go home.

At bernie sanders rallies there are people waving antifa flags who believe in literally murdering rich people or anyone who doesnt believe in open borders, should everyone not support bernie because of this ?

David duke has probably supported every republican candidate since he could vote, does that mean they all align with him - not a chance.

This is the problem with midern politics, anyone wants to have any kind of discussion about border restrictions or reasonable immigration reform and because the fringe who literally want a white ethnostate latch on because ..well nobody else is giving them anything closer to theor dream... then that reasonable candidate becomes a ‘symbol of white supremacy’

The klan were never going to vote democrat, doesnt mean the GOP are pandering to them.

everlast75

"Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Donald Trump, said Monday he does not want the written answers the President submitted to special counsel Robert Mueller to be released."

Nothing to hide folks, as the Report proves Trump's innocence though.

Billy Mays

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If the world let every issue become co-opted by the extremists then nobody could support anything.

At anti homeless protests in dublin there are people waving pbp banners who genuinely believe private property should be siezed from everyone by the government , should everyone who doesnt believe that just go home.

At bernie sanders rallies there are people waving antifa flags who believe in literally murdering rich people or anyone who doesnt believe in open borders, should everyone not support bernie because of this ?

David duke has probably supported every republican candidate since he could vote, does that mean they all align with him - not a chance.

This is the problem with midern politics, anyone wants to have any kind of discussion about border restrictions or reasonable immigration reform and because the fringe who literally want a white ethnostate latch on because ..well nobody else is giving them anything closer to theor dream... then that reasonable candidate becomes a ‘symbol of white supremacy’

The klan were never going to vote democrat, doesnt mean the GOP are pandering to them.

Total false equivalency

Bernie Sander's rallies aren't organised by Antifa. They don't feature speakers from Antifa.

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was literally organised by white supremacists. The official speakers at it were white supremacists and neo Nazis. The poster for it actually featured Nazi imagery.




Not exactly the same as a few anarchists turning up to cheer on Bernie is it?

Penn

Slate have a good analysis of some of the language used in Barr's summary, and how it could be used to change the findings of the report:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/mueller-report-barr-summary-obstruction-conspiracy-close-reading.html

An example:

“Agreement—tacit or express.” A footnote in Barr’s letter says the special counsel defined coordination as “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.” The letter doesn’t clarify whether this definition originally came from Mueller or from the Justice Department. This, too, limits the range of prosecutable collusion. We know, for example, that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. was told in an email that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia” had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary … and would be very useful to your father.” The email said the offer was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. wrote back: “If it’s what you say I love it.” Apparently, by the standards asserted in the letter, this doesn’t count as even “tacit agreement … on election interference.”

Professor Moriarty

Billy Mays wrote: »

Total false equivalency

Bernie Sander's rallies aren't organised by Antifa. They don't feature speakers from Antifa.

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was literally organised by white supremacists. The official speakers at it were white supremacists and neo Nazis. The poster for it actually featured Nazi imagery.




Not exactly the same as a few anarchists turning up to cheer on Bernie is it?

Reading the Wikipedia page on Dr Michael Hill is like following the White Rabbit down the hole. A few gems: He's okay with slavery and believes that black people were better off as slaves.. He believes that the Celtic southern states will eventually go to war with the Anglo northern states. He demanded $5 billion reparations from Northern states due to losses incurred by southern states during the civil war. I presume the rest on that poster are also fruitcakes.

RobertKK

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump wasn't even interviewed publicly or privately and it was an investigation by his own appointee. Hillary Clinton spent two years publicly answering Republican questions on emails and Benghazi

I wrote this two years ago..seems I was right https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057671020/663/#post103544211

With Benghazi a US ambassador and other US officials ended up dead in a country she had pushed for regime change as Secretary of State.
It was her department that was responsible and one can’t she was left unaccountable over it.
So as Mueller turned out good for Trump, likewise this ended up good for Hillary.

Leroy42

One thing we all should have learned from Trump, from things like the premature calls of the ground breaking deal with NK, the amazing trade deals with China etc, is that Trump is great out getting out first with the narrative that he wants and others are left, as they await actual evidence, to discuss it on the terms set by Trump and his team.

For example, the whole 'collusion' idea is really set up by Trump, it was never the sole target of the Mueller investigation but now it appears that as collusion hasn't been proved that the report is a clear vindication.

I, like everyone else bar Barr, haven't seen the report but the fact that Barr's report contains no full quotes is odd. Everyone should wait for the actual details rather than jumping on what Trump, a proven and known liar, is saying on the subject when he (and his team) are currently the only people to have seen it.