Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

jooksavage

jooksavage wrote: »

Anyone comparing Maddow to Jones is not a serious person and can be safely ignored.

"Is not a serious person".

Fair enough. Please ignore me.

Maddow is every bit as ridiculous as Alex Jones. Both should be taken with a mountain of salt

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes there is.

Go on then.

Lets start with a comparison of how Jones treated the Sandy Hook massacre. What comparison is there to that?

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

I suppose that when you can't tell the difference between researched, fact-based reporting from a ravings of a lunatic, it would be easy to hold that opinion.

Good one :rolleyes:

If you can't see that Maddow comes in with an agenda and is wholly disingenuous then ok.

Yes, Alex Jones is the bogeyman, but that doesn't make Maddow any more reliable.

The comparison is so flawed.

Its like saying that Kate and Gerry McCann are better babysitters than Fred and Rose West. Probably, yeah, I still wouldn't leave my kids with them

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Go on then.

Lets start with a comparison of how Jones treated the Sandy Hook massacre. What comparison is there to that?

My comparison is that Rachel Maddow is an extremely biased commentator. Much as Alex Jones is. I don't need to speak about specific incidents.

But to ignore the fact that Maddow is a Left wing, progressive agenda driven commentator and Alex Jones is a right wing, conspiracy agenda driven commentator and say that there is no comparison is ridiculous.

They are two sides of the same coin

jooksavage

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I assume that a letter like that gets filed under "ignore" by all the channels , just as a letter from a Democrat asking that every Republican that claimed Hillary Clinton was guilty of this, that or the other be excluded from on-air should be treated the same way.

US Politics is truly fundamentally broken and it's hard to see where the road back is to be honest.

I spoke at Christmas to a retired teacher, over visiting from Toronto. She's been down to the States a few times every year since 1965. She said she's never seen the country so divided. Her friends in Florida are dreading the next election. She thinks the US is going to be stuck in this holding pattern until the next economic crash. At that point you might have another uniting figure like Roosevelt or Obama. Or you could have something even worse than Trump. Pitiful state of affairs really.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Deleted User wrote: »

My comparison is that Rachel Maddow is an extremely biased commentator. Much as Alex Jones is. I don't need to speak about specific incidents.

But to ignore the fact that Maddow is a Left wing, progressive agenda driven commentator and Alex Jones is a right wing, conspiracy agenda driven commentator and say that there is no comparison is ridiculous.

They are two sides of the same coin

Presenting a "left wing" view backed by research and evidence is not the same as just making things up to rile up the far-right.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Presenting a "left wing" view backed by research and evidence is not the same as just making things up to rile up the far-right.

Ok.

I discount both as serious reporters because of their bias.

Each to their own

everlast75

Jones is implicated in a defamation case involving the Sandy Hook massace and thinks that chemtrails are making frogs gay.

Hannity said that Obama saluting an officer with a cup of coffee was a scandal, that wearing a tan suit was newsworthy, that wearing a bicycle helmet made him weak compared to a bare backed Putin on a horse.

Maddow won an award for her Bagman podcast and is an Emmy awarding journalist.

That is not comparing like for like.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My comparison is that Rachel Maddow is an extremely biased commentator. Much as Alex Jones is. I don't need to speak about specific incidents.

But to ignore the fact that Maddow is a Left wing, progressive agenda driven commentator and Alex Jones is a right wing, conspiracy agenda driven commentator and say that there is no comparison is ridiculous.

They are two sides of the same coin

Can you quote me something that Maddow said that is on a par with the 'gay frogs' rant by Jones?

Stallingrad

Two of the largest, most powerful democracies in the world utterly divided and in a state of shambles. We all know who must be laughing his head off.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok.

I discount both as serious reporters because of their bias.

Each to their own

Therein lies the contention the dunne; Alex Jones is NOT a reporter, by his own words in the aforementioned court cases. He's not guilty of bias because his product is intentionally hyperbolic, outlandish lies. There is no reporting, no investigation, it's purposely, intentionally conspiratorial garbage. There's a huge difference between bias, editorialised reporting from the likes of Maddow, and something like InfoWars. It's not even chalk and cheese.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote:

and thinks that chemtrails are making frogs gay.

That's not true. Nice soundbyte though.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok.

I discount both as serious reporters because of their bias.

Each to their own

Your dismissal is frankly ridiculous. The entire US media is biased to one side or the other (I genuinely cannot think of any source which one couldn't claim is biased - I'd support NPR in this fight, but unfortunately for the far-right, facts are often on the side of "the left"), but Maddow is much more akin to people like Neil Cavuto or Peggy Noonan than Jones.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Good one :rolleyes:

If you can't see that Maddow comes in with an agenda and is wholly disingenuous then ok.

Yes, Alex Jones is the bogeyman, but that doesn't make Maddow any more reliable.

Maddow makes no secret of her left-wing views. Not that it matters.

There is a massive difference between being biased and just making stuff up. There are very few people if any who don't have a bias in some direction but they are still able to be reliable in their reporting. Alex Jones literally just makes stuff up.

Again, that you fail to see the difference is telling.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not true. Nice soundbyte though.

https://www.intomore.com/culture/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-still-thinks-the-government-is-making-frogs-gay

https://youtu.be/_ePLkAm8i2s

Are these fake?

Quin_Dub

##Mod Note##

Let's move on from the Maddow/Jones comparisons please.

Not really adding to the conversation nor is anyone going to have their minds changed by it.

Thanks.

jooksavage

Stallingrad wrote: »

Two of the largest, most powerful democracies in the world utterly divided and in a state of shambles. We all know who must be laughing his head off.

I was reading recently about how the adoption of a ranked choice voting system like we have here could actually work towards fixing some of the issues in the UK and the States. Obviously, the chances of this being adopted are extremely slim - a presiding government isnt going to implement anything likely to dilute their chances of maintaining power. The logic is sound though. It generally sees a larger proportion of moderates getting elected and while we've voted in our fair share of absolute head-the-balls in the past 100 years, we've never gotten the point where it looked as though the country was on its way towards collapsing in upon itself.


If there's one thing that both the Tories and the Republicans could do with more of it's moderates.

dinorebel

jooksavage wrote: »

I was reading recently about how the adoption of a ranked choice voting system like we have here could actually work towards fixing some of the issues in the UK and the States. Obviously, the chances of this being adopted are extremely slim - a presiding government isnt going to implement anything likely to dilute their chances of maintaining power. The logic is sound though. It generally sees a larger proportion of moderates getting elected and while we've voted in our fair share of absolute head-the-balls in the past 100 years, we've never gotten the point where it looked as though the country was on its way towards collapsing in upon itself.


If there's one thing that both the Tories and the Republicans could do with more of it's moderates.

You could argue the same with Labour Party.

duploelabs

jooksavage wrote: »

I was reading recently about how the adoption of a ranked choice voting system like we have here could actually work towards fixing some of the issues in the UK and the States. Obviously, the chances of this being adopted are extremely slim - a presiding government isnt going to implement anything likely to dilute their chances of maintaining power. The logic is sound though. It generally sees a larger proportion of moderates getting elected and while we've voted in our fair share of absolute head-the-balls in the past 100 years, we've never gotten the point where it looked as though the country was on its way towards collapsing in upon itself.


If there's one thing that both the Tories and the Republicans could do with more of it's moderates.

There already talk of getting rid of the electoral college system so it's a move in the right direction at least

jooksavage

dinorebel wrote: »

You could argue the same with Labour Party.

You absolutely could. If there were more Keir Starmers, Tom Watsons, Jess Philips and even (dare I say it) Ed Milibands, Labour would be providing something resembling responsible opposition.

On the US, I do wonder what Republican makeup in both houses would look like if the members were elected via ranked choice. I find it hard to believe the likes of Ted Cruz would have an easy time getting elected. Extreme voices in the House like Steve King wouldn't have a hope in hell of being voted in. One would imagine, all of them would be less inclined to go to bat for Trump in a system more complicated than simply "getting the red vote out". Of course, that system would also make it less likely for figure like Trump to make it through primaries.

The same would apply for Dems too. In spite of all the socialism scaremongering though, the Dem position on healthcare are taxes are in line with most Americans. If anything, a move to ranked choice could push the Dems and politics in the US in general, more to the left.

Gwen Cooper

duploelabs wrote: »

There already talk of getting rid of the electoral college system so it's a move in the right direction at least

Is it the right direction though? In my view it's a way to make sure that all 50 states are represented.

Without the electoral college, wouldn't the candidates just campaign in the most populated states?

Wouldn't all the new policies be focused just on the coastal states, in order to keep the voters interested?

I think getting rid of the electoral college would just give politicians a permission to not care about the less populated states, because they wouldn't shift the election anyway.

This is an entirely amateur point of view though, I didn't look into it that much yet, so feel free to explain it to me

check_six

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Is it the right direction though? In my view it's a way to make sure that all 50 states are represented.

Without the electoral college, wouldn't the candidates just campaign in the most populated states?

Wouldn't all the new policies be focused just on the coastal states, in order to keep the voters interested?

I think getting rid of the electoral college would just give politicians a permission to not care about the less populated states, because they wouldn't shift the election anyway.

This is an entirely amateur point of view though, I didn't look into it that much yet, so feel free to explain it to me

They ignore the big states in favour of the smaller "battleground" swing states at the moment. That's not really any better.

Quin_Dub

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Is it the right direction though? In my view it's a way to make sure that all 50 states are represented.

Without the electoral college, wouldn't the candidates just campaign in the most populated states?

Wouldn't all the new policies be focused just on the coastal states, in order to keep the voters interested?

I think getting rid of the electoral college would just give politicians a permission to not care about the less populated states, because they wouldn't shift the election anyway.

This is an entirely amateur point of view though, I didn't look into it that much yet, so feel free to explain it to me

I think a complete removal of the Electoral college does have that risk , but it could definitely do with some updates.

Even if they removed the "winner takes all" piece at the state level and allocated EC votes based on the % of the vote won - That would mean that a Democrat might spend a bit more time in Montana or Texas and Republicans might come to Florida.

The current system makes it that in reality, only the votes in about a half a dozen swing states matter one bit..That's not healthy.

Christy42

check_six wrote: »

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Is it the right direction though? In my view it's a way to make sure that all 50 states are represented.

Without the electoral college, wouldn't the candidates just campaign in the most populated states?

Wouldn't all the new policies be focused just on the coastal states, in order to keep the voters interested?

I think getting rid of the electoral college would just give politicians a permission to not care about the less populated states, because they wouldn't shift the election anyway.

This is an entirely amateur point of view though, I didn't look into it that much yet, so feel free to explain it to me

They ignore the big states in favour of the smaller "battleground" swing states at the moment. That's not really any better.

I think if every state voted in reps in a proportional basis it might help with the situation. Allow Republicans something to fight for in California and get Democrats on the board in Texas. Smaller states would still have a disproportionate amount of reps to help them from being drowned out.

You are right that right now it just makes the vast majority of states pointless and I have as much of an influence in the elections as the vast majority of Americans.

Of course it would require every state to do this. Any half measures would screw over the states that switched.

TomOnBoard

When the Special Counsel was set up, Rosenstein gave him terms of reference that specifically required him to look at any possible Trump campaign direct collusion with the Russian Government.

That is what Barr says has not been proven by the investigation. Other forms of collusion, such as dealing with Russian intermediaries, currying favour for future business advantage, weakening the effect of sanctions on Oligarchs, bolstering pro- Russian interests in Ukraine etc. etc., were not included in the specific terms of reference. Any evidence of all those forms of indirect collusion will have been passed on for investigation by the likes of SDNY, and such investigations are ongoing. I believe that Mueller knew that these matters would be better dealt with by the likes of SDNY from his earliest days as SC, because he knows they are largely independent and will 'do the right thing'. If he had kept these matters within the SC ambit, it would have been very risky, as on any given day, Trump could have shut the investigation down.

So, Mueller ensured that any of the criminal stuff went elsewhere, except for the prosecution of the direct IRA crimes and those of all the Trumpists who felt it necessary to lie under oath. This basically meant that the Mueller report to Barr deals, not with large-scale criminal matters, but with predominantly political ones. Hence Mueller's 'no opinion' on obstruction. He's saying to Congress that the matter of obstruction of justice by a President is not for a SC to decide; such a decision needs to be made by Congress alone. Apparently, he has laid out the evidence both pro and con, to help Congress arrive at its decision. However, Barr (in his attempts to protect the President) has taken it upon himself to make the adjudication that no obstruction occurred. I believe that this decision by Barr, cowardly and unnecessarily using Rosenstein as additional cover, will incur the wrath of legal scholars and of Congress in due course.

So, when the report is finally obtained by Congress, it will require skillful handling by Pelosi and Schumer to ensure that Mueller's intentions are realised without alienating voters who have had their wish for justice poisoned by two years of propaganda.

It is so sad that a great nation should find itself torn down the middle between folks who think any collusion with the Russkies is wrong as they are the greatest threat to the USA, and those who are being forced to think that a bit of colluding (for example to be allowed to build a hotel in Moscow) is ok. Trump's bromance with Putin, MBS, and other foreign leaders is all about that. Licking Putin's ego to advance future Trump business dealings is Trump's M.O. And when he's not thinking Russia, he's courting Kim Jong Un for identical reasons.... Look at all that fabulous coastline in NK, and imagine how it would look with Trump hotels and golf courses dotted along it...

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

Jones is implicated in a defamation case involving the Sandy Hook massace and thinks that chemtrails are making frogs gay.

To be completely fair, it wasn't the chemtrails: it was chemicals the government was putting into the water stream. There is also the foil lining on the inside of juice boxes that dopes boys with estrogen, and potato chips make everyone gay apparently.

Igotadose

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It is so sad that a great nation should find itself torn down the middle ...

Another way to look at it: "The President might've just been exonerated from having committed very serious crimes." There should *never* have been such an investigation - but there was, it resulted in several serious indictments and at least 1 conviction for a long time (7+ years.) And this is all 'o.k.' with tens of millions of Americans because the big Kahuna was exonerated (we think.)

America is broken, Trump's just the symptom though. Disenfranchisement, real or perceived, led to Trump and will lead to others smoother than he is, but just as bad.

everlast75

Overheal wrote: »

To be completely fair, it wasn't the chemtrails: it was chemicals the government was putting into the water stream. There is also the foil lining on the inside of juice boxes that dopes boys with estrogen, and potato chips make everyone gay apparently.

Ah okay - I stand corrected and take it all back

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is absolute rubbish.

Whatever your views of her style, what she spends time on etc, there is absolutely no comparison between the actor Alex Jones (and he stated under oath) and the presenter Maddow.

Only difference is jones has a sense of humuor

demfad

TomOnBoard wrote: »

When the Special Counsel was set up, Rosenstein gave him terms of reference that specifically required him to look at any possible Trump campaign direct collusion with the Russian Government.

That is what Barr says has not been proven by the investigation. Other forms of collusion, such as dealing with Russian intermediaries, currying favour for future business advantage, weakening the effect of sanctions on Oligarchs, bolstering pro- Russian interests in Ukraine etc. etc., were not included in the specific terms of reference. Any evidence of all those forms of indirect collusion will have been passed on for investigation by the likes of SDNY, and such investigations are ongoing. I believe that Mueller knew that these matters would be better dealt with by the likes of SDNY from his earliest days as SC, because he knows they are largely independent and will 'do the right thing'. If he had kept these matters within the SC ambit, it would have been very risky, as on any given day, Trump could have shut the investigation down.

So, Mueller ensured that any of the criminal stuff went elsewhere, except for the prosecution of the direct IRA crimes and those of all the Trumpists who felt it necessary to lie under oath. This basically meant that the Mueller report to Barr deals, not with large-scale criminal matters, but with predominantly political ones. Hence Mueller's 'no opinion' on obstruction. He's saying to Congress that the matter of obstruction of justice by a President is not for a SC to decide; such a decision needs to be made by Congress alone. Apparently, he has laid out the evidence both pro and con, to help Congress arrive at its decision. However, Barr (in his attempts to protect the President) has taken it upon himself to make the adjudication that no obstruction occurred. I believe that this decision by Barr, cowardly and unnecessarily using Rosenstein as additional cover, will incur the wrath of legal scholars and of Congress in due course.

So, when the report is finally obtained by Congress, it will require skillful handling by Pelosi and Schumer to ensure that Mueller's intentions are realised without alienating voters who have had their wish for justice poisoned by two years of propaganda.

It is so sad that a great nation should find itself torn down the middle between folks who think any collusion with the Russkies is wrong as they are the greatest threat to the USA, and those who are being forced to think that a bit of colluding (for example to be allowed to build a hotel in Moscow) is ok. Trump's bromance with Putin, MBS, and other foreign leaders is all about that. Licking Putin's ego to advance future Trump business dealings is Trump's M.O. And when he's not thinking Russia, he's courting Kim Jong Un for identical reasons.... Look at all that fabulous coastline in NK, and imagine how it would look with Trump hotels and golf courses dotted along it...

Just to highlight the bolded point this is from the sentencing memo of Cohen in the SDNY.

Cohen’s Illegal Campaign Contributions
On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States. Cohen had no formal title with the campaign, but had a campaign email address, and, at various times advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press. Cohen also made media appearances as a surrogate and supporter of Individual-1. (PSR ¶ 39).

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.

(PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1

In the hack and Leak investigation the Stone indictment records many communications to high and senior levels of the Trump campaign about the ongoing dumps from Wikileaks.

In Manaforts indictment mention of him passing polling data to Kimlinkin (sp) was mistakingly unredacted. The data was for three swing States which the IRA subsequently targetted.

The memo will be devastating. (they will try to suppress it)