Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

KyussB

The article directly references that regarding McConnell.

He's a bit of an odd person to use as a fall-guy. Obama fails to do anything substantive about Russian meddling - and we've got people trying to blame it on this guy (for not signing a letter of all things...pretty tiny compared to what Obama could and failed to do) - when there was nothing stopping Obama acting against it before the election.

I mean lets make it clear here: Obama knowingly letting the Russian's interfere with the US elections. Everyone's response to the Mueller report shows this is a huge deal to many people - people are giving out about Trump's lack of response - yet when Obama does it that's fine. I suppose if Trump doesn't do anything in response to Russian interference at the next US election, that's all fine? (that will also be justified, in terms of not 'interfering' with the democratic process?)

DreamsBurnDown

MadYaker wrote: »

Clearly an article with a lot of spin from a very biased journalist. This situation surrounding Russian interference in the 2016 is complicated and we only have a small amount of the info but you should read this article and see what you think. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/mitch-mcconnell-russia-obama-joe-biden-359531

A lot has been uncovered since January 2018 when the Politico article was written, and it is now clear this will be the greatest political scandal in the history of the US. I don't think we can even fully imagine yet what will transpire from now until November 2020, but here are my guesses.

Democrats will continue to go after Trump aggressively on taxes, his businesses, etc. and Trump will stonewall and simply ignore their requests. This will put pressure on House Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings. This presents a conundrum for the Democrats as if the Senate acquits him, he declares this as another victory.

It is very likely the DOJ are already/will aggressively go after those who used the Russian sourced dossier to investigate Carter Page. Don't forget you have an AG who is loyal to Trump and can direct the agency to do as he wishes. I would not be in the slightest surprised if Barr appoints a special counsel to investigate how the dossier was handled within the FBI/DOJ in 2016, and wouldn't be surprised at indictments for individuals involved.

It would be very naive for Democrats to think this is going to be one sided with Trump on the receiving end, this has all the signs of all out war leading to a constitutional crisis.

MadYaker

KyussB wrote: »

The article directly references that regarding McConnell.

He's a bit of an odd person to use as a fall-guy. Obama fails to do anything substantive about Russian meddling - and we've got people trying to blame it on this guy (for not signing a letter of all things...pretty tiny compared to what Obama could and failed to do) - when there was nothing stopping Obama acting against it before the election.

I mean lets make it clear here: Obama knowingly letting the Russian's interfere with the US elections. Everyone's response to the Mueller report shows this is a huge deal to many people - people are giving out about Trump's lack of response - yet when Obama does it that's fine. I suppose if Trump doesn't do anything in response to Russian interference at the next US election, that's all fine? (that will also be justified, in terms of not 'interfering' with the democratic process?)

Do you understand why Obama might have been reluctant to go public with such information at that time? To do so could have been seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. This is why he asked McConnell to sign the letter. However when McConnel refused to cooperate Obama basically did nothing and that was a mistake. I think if he'd had all the info we have now he probably would have acted differently but who knows.

KyussB

There is no convincing reason for Obama letting the Russian's interfere with the democratic process - concerns of affecting the democratic process by stopping the Russian's, are nonsensical.

You're all saying the outcome of the election was influenced - by the Russians! - Obama could have acted to stop that, thus preventing influencing of the election - not causing it.

What you're saying is basically that Obama feared how it would look, more than the actual effect - which, given the lengths people go to lambast Trump for being weak in the face of Russia - is a fairly craven act of neglect by Obama, which many would argue here regarding Russia, led to the democratic process being negatively affected.

If Obama was wrong to not act even in the face of McConnell not signing - then discussing McConnell is an irrelevance - just minutiae not worth debating, as it doesn't affect my original point.

DreamsBurnDown

MadYaker wrote: »

Do you understand why Obama might have been reluctant to go public with such information at that time? To do so could have been seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. This is why he asked McConnell to sign the letter. However when McConnel refused to cooperate Obama basically did nothing and that was a mistake. I think if he'd had all the info we have now he probably would have acted differently but who knows.

Why would they not go public? They knew the DNC server had been hacked and they knew that John Podesta's emails had been hacked, they knew that Russian government agents did the hacking and gave the documents to Wikileaks.

How would exposing the Russian government as responsible for the hacks be seen as helping Hillary? It was a huge mistake not to go public.

MadYaker

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

A lot has been uncovered since January 2018 when the Politico article was written, and it is now clear this will be the greatest political scandal in the history of the US. I don't think we can even fully imagine yet what will transpire from now until November 2020, but here are my guesses.

Democrats will continue to go after Trump aggressively on taxes, his businesses, etc. and Trump will stonewall and simply ignore their requests. This will put pressure on House Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings. This presents a conundrum for the Democrats as if the Senate acquits him, he declares this as another victory.

It is very likely the DOJ are already/will aggressively go after those who used the Russian sourced dossier to investigate Carter Page. Don't forget you have an AG who is loyal to Trump and can direct the agency to do as he wishes. I would not be in the slightest surprised if Barr appoints a special counsel to investigate how the dossier was handled within the FBI/DOJ in 2016, and wouldn't be surprised at indictments for individuals involved.

It would be very naive for Democrats to think this is going to be one sided with Trump on the receiving end, this has all the signs of all out war leading to a constitutional crisis.

I imagine the democrats will go after his tax returns and as a registered democrat yourself I'm sure you're eager to see his tax returns, as every voting American should be. I don't think they are stupid enough to begin impeachment proceedings.

If the circumstances surrounding the handling of the piss dossier were going to be investigated I think that would have happened already. Some of it has been verified, none of it has been shown to be false and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump doesn't want people digging any further into it. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one if I were you. Prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s offices in New York, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., are all pursuing cases that have spun off from the Mueller investigation. State investigators in New York and Maryland have ongoing Trump-related investigations. And in Congress, the House and Senate intelligence and other committees are actively looking into Trump’s finances, potential Russia-Trump ties and lots of other stuff. I don't hear of any democrats being investigated at all.

Not sure what the last point means. War with who? Constitutional crises over what?

If I was an American id be less interested in digging into the piss dossier and more interested in what steps my president is taking to prevent Russia from meddling in future elections. He's instructing white house staff to ignore congressional subpoenas and coming of as totally insane on twitter

MadYaker

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Why would they not go public? They knew the DNC server had been hacked and they knew that John Podesta's emails had been hacked, they knew that Russian government agents did the hacking and gave the documents to Wikileaks.

How would exposing the Russian government as responsible for the hacks be seen as helping Hillary? It was a huge mistake not to go public.

Maybe because without bipartisan support any attempt do anything would have been decried as election interference? But I agree with you, in hindsight it was a massive error. Not the biggest fúckup he had as president but close.

DreamsBurnDown

MadYaker wrote: »

Not sure what the last point means. War with who? Constitutional crises over what?

If I was an American id be less interested in digging into the piss dossier and more interested in what steps my president is taking to prevent Russia from meddling in future elections. He's instructing white house staff to ignore congressional subpoenas and coming of as totally insane on twitter

If the executive branch of government completely stop cooperating with the legislative branch of government, that is by definition a constitutional crisis and has never happened before in US history, even with Nixon.

What I, or any other American, are interested in isn't the point here, I'm merely surmising how things are going to possibly unfold. It's possible to do that without solely looking at it from a partisan basis, it is extremely naive for instance to think Trump is going to sit back and relax while Democrats go after him. He has "his man" as AG and a DOJ that will do the AG's bidding. Barr has already announced he has formed a team to review the probe into Trumps' team. If there is any evidence that members of the FBI/DOJ went after Trump campaign based solely on partisanship, you can be 100% certain this will be used aggressively in the coming months. What I'm saying basically is with Trump and Barr, expect the unexpected. But lets stay tuned and see what happens.

On the issue of impeachment, of course Democrats think it's unlikely or even impossible Trump would be convicted, the question is whether trying to impeach him would help defeat him in 2020.

Leroy42

KyussB. So you asked for people to comment on Obama's failure to act, and dispite the oft claimed bias of this thread you got balanced and reasoned responses.

Now if you believe Obama made mistakes faced with allegations and Intel of possible interference surely one must be aghast that Trump is not only doing nothing but actively worked to curtail investigation of and taking action to this now proved interference.

ECO_Mental

KyussB wrote: »

There is no convincing reason for Obama letting the Russian's interfere with the democratic process - concerns of affecting the democratic process by stopping the Russian's, are nonsensical.

You're all saying the outcome of the election was influenced - by the Russians! - Obama could have acted to stop that, thus preventing influencing of the election - not causing it.

What you're saying is basically that Obama feared how it would look, more than the actual effect - which, given the lengths people go to lambast Trump for being weak in the face of Russia - is a fairly craven act of neglect by Obama, which many would argue here regarding Russia, led to the democratic process being negatively affected.

If Obama was wrong to not act even in the face of McConnell not signing - then discussing McConnell is an irrelevance - just minutiae not worth debating, as it doesn't affect my original point.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnells-response-russian-attack-back-the-spotlight


I think it was more than McConnell not signing a letter....the info was shared to the gang of 12 in 2016 about the Russian interference in the election and they were helping Trump win. Apparently McConnell went ballistic in this meeting and vowed to wage war with Obama etc if they released this info. McConnell as always has a lot to answer to...History will not be kind to him but he doesn't care about that:rolleyes: its win or nothing and you can always change your story in the morning and claim black is white:rolleyes::rolleyes:

"In early September, Johnson, Comey, and Monaco arrived on Capitol Hill in a caravan of black SUVs for a meeting with 12 key members of Congress, including the leadership of both parties. The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.
“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims.

In early September, Johnson, Comey, and Monaco arrived on Capitol Hill in a caravan of black SUVs for a meeting with 12 key members of Congress, including the leadership of both parties. The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.
“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims."

Gbear

I'm sure the fact that an oligarch who recently had sanctions lifted from him is now pouring millions into an aluminium project in Kentucky has absolutely nothing to do with McConnell's behaviour.

mcmoustache

KyussB wrote: »

Just for a laugh, lets see those condemning Trump for allowing Russian meddling to happen, also condemn Obama for allowing it to happen:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/opinions/mueller-report-obama-jennings/index.html

So Obama knew about the Russian meddling, and let it happen and grow in the runup to the 2016 elections - where's the blame directed at him?

The goalpost shifting (and shifting to come...) is just sad. Instead of public discussion moving on and becoming more coherent, now that years worth of lies have been exposed - it's just the usual "Democrat Good, Republican Bad" tribalism nonsense.

Obama tried to go public, privately told Putin to knock it off, kicked out diplomats and seized their compound.

Trump denied that it was happening, denied any connections to Russia, slow-walked sanctions, publicly encouraged the hacking, publicly took the word of Russians over that of his intelligence agencies, still downplays Russian influence in the election, got Deripaska off the sanctions list.


There's no comparison here. Just a lazy attempt at both-sidesing.

Leroy42

mcmoustache wrote: »

Obama tried to go public, privately told Putin to knock it off, kicked out diplomats and seized their compound.

Trump denied that it was happening, denied any connections to Russia, slow-walked sanctions, publicly encouraged the hacking, publicly took the word of Russians over that of his intelligence agencies, still downplays Russian influence in the election, got Deripaska off the sanctions list.


There's no comparison here. Just a lazy attempt at both-sidesing.

And there is mountains of dodgy behaviour both by Trump himself and those around him and still we have posters on here claiming it all a witch hunt.

Can you imagine if Obama had come out with some vague notions of possible threats? Fake News, trying to rig the election, Trump said they were against him, etc etc.

Not a chance he could have come out without anything less that indisputable proof. And the very fact that Trump Jr met with Russians on the basis of obtaining intel and that Trump lied about it shows that Obama would never have satisfied the level of evidence people Trump supporters would have demanded.

The real question is why Trump, since he was given all the intel that Obama was, decided to take Putin's word over the evidence of his own security services?

And has still offered nothing in the way of sanctions or ways that they will deal with further threats. Nothing.

So by all means make the point that Obama could and should have done more, but realise that the very point is even harder for Trump. If Obama was negligent then Trump is openly avoiding protecting the US.

That in of itself should be enough to remove him from office.

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

KyussB. So you asked for people to comment on Obama's failure to act, and dispite the oft claimed bias of this thread you got balanced and reasoned responses.

Now if you believe Obama made mistakes faced with allegations and Intel of possible interference surely one must be aghast that Trump is not only doing nothing but actively worked to curtail investigation of and taking action to this now proved interference.

Oft claimed?
There is nothing to dispute with regards the level or lack thereof of a reasonable discussion on this thread. Anyone who doesn't automatically dismiss everything Trump does as the work of Satan is rounded upon. Even Dreams posts which are/were very balanced were attacked with impunity.

With regards the election interference, that's on Obama's watch. He didn't need need bipartisan support to disclose and act on the Intel he had.

Since then we've had Meuller inditing Russians for their part. Congress has gone after the social media platforms and they now seem to be acting at identify Russian accounts and stopping the spread of fake news.

Leroy42

JRant wrote: »

Oft claimed?
There is nothing to dispute with regards the level or lack thereof of a reasonable discussion on this thread. Anyone who doesn't automatically dismiss everything Trump does as the work of Satan is rounded upon. Even Dreams posts which are/were very balanced were attacked with impunity.

With regards the election interference, that's on Obama's watch. He didn't need need bipartisan support to disclose and act on the Intel he had.

Since then we've had Meuller inditing Russians for their part. Congress has gone after the social media platforms and they now seem to be acting at identify Russian accounts and stopping the spread of fake news.

But the responses to the claim that its all Obamas fault shows that position to be false.

Nobody claims "Dems good, GOP Bad". This is a Trump thread so of course it focuses on Trump and as such, since he is at least for the present time, GOP it is reasonable that the focus of the thread would be on him and the GOP. That they have both acted in such a dishonourable manner is their failing not the posters.

I've already pointed out how any Obama statement on possible election interference would have been treated by the likes of Fox. And you don't need my word for it. Simply look at the response to the Mueller report which proved that the Russians had attempted to interfere. Not one word from Trump. Not any demands from the GOP to sort it out. No demands for sanctions, for new meetings with Putin to demand answers.

If Obama had come out, and say he released details of the Trump Tower meeting, do you think Trump would have simply stood aside? Do you think his supporters would have accepted it and voted for HC? What difference so you think it would have made?

You now know for certain that the Russians did interfere and in doing so helped Trump so get elected. Does that not colour your view on Trump being POTUS?

rossie1977

Biden just announced he is running in 2020.

Fireworks at the televised debates will be something else. Current polls have Biden leading Trump by 8 points head to head and that's with a strong economy

amandstu

rossie1977 wrote: »

Biden just announced he is running in 2020.

Fireworks at the televised debates will be something else. Current polls have Biden leading Trump by 8 points head to head and that's with a strong economy

Any other head to heads?

What is Biden's policy on the economy?

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the responses to the claim that its all Obamas fault shows that position to be false.

Nobody claims "Dems good, GOP Bad". This is a Trump thread so of course it focuses on Trump and as such, since he is at least for the present time, GOP it is reasonable that the focus of the thread would be on him and the GOP. That they have both acted in such a dishonourable manner is their failing not the posters.

I've already pointed out how any Obama statement on possible election interference would have been treated by the likes of Fox. And you don't need my word for it. Simply look at the response to the Mueller report which proved that the Russians had attempted to interfere. Not one word from Trump. Not any demands from the GOP to sort it out. No demands for sanctions, for new meetings with Putin to demand answers.

If Obama had come out, and say he released details of the Trump Tower meeting, do you think Trump would have simply stood aside? Do you think his supporters would have accepted it and voted for HC? What difference so you think it would have made?

You now know for certain that the Russians did interfere and in doing so helped Trump so get elected. Does that not colour your view on Trump being POTUS?

Has anyone argued it's all Obama's fault?
The fact remains that it happened on his watch not that he is solely responsible, well IMO anyway.

I think we'll see an investigation of the surveillance that was carried out on the Trump campaign and the Steele Dossier and being honest I believe there is a need for one.

On the media's possible response to Obama acting, that should have been the last concern he had. The same is true for anything McConnell but he wasn't he POTUS the time. And let's be honest, if McConnell is the bar then it's an extremely low bar IMO.

Leroy42

When you say he shouldn't be concerned, you have failed to answer any of the questions I posed. If McConnell wasn't bothered, the GOP were not bothered, and we know that his supporters were not going to be bothered, what possible gain would Obama get from releasing the intel?

He would have been pilloried for trying to rig the election for HC. Trump would have demanded an investigation, just as you are now doing, into why Obama was acting the way he was.

Because at the core of it, it isn't really that there is anything that Obama could have done (he tried to impose sanctions which Flynn illegally worked on getting rid off before Obama had left office!) that would have made any difference to the supporters that simply do not care. They don't care that Trump Jr actively worked with Russians to gain intel. They don't care that Manafort gave polling data to Russians. They don't care that Trump decided to dump on the security services despite having the same access to the intel that Obama had.

If Obama had come out, and say he released details of the Trump Tower meeting, do you think Trump would have simply stood aside? Do you think his supporters would have accepted it and voted for HC? What difference so you think it would have made?

You now know for certain that the Russians did interfere and in doing so helped Trump so get elected. Does that not colour your view on Trump being POTUS?

So again, whilst you may see there being an issue with Obama, by that position surely you must be totally disgusted that Trump not only ignored the intel (which is the blame you are laying at Obama) but actively sided with Putin despite knowing that Putin was lying and at the same time dumping on his own countries security forces.

rossie1977

amandstu wrote: »

Any other head to heads?

What is Biden's policy on the economy?

The other polls are a few weeks old. Emerson from April 15th has Biden leading nationally by 6. April 1st PPP poll had Biden leading nationally by 13 though I think that's quite a bit off given the fact they have Buttigieg beating Trump nationally.

Then state wide it's (early April/ March)
Massachusetts Biden by 38 (Democrat will walk that regardless)
Nevada Biden leading by 4 (only Dem leading Trump there interestingly)
Pennsylvania Biden by 10
Iowa Biden by 6 (Biden and Sanders are only two Dems leading Trump there in polls, Trump leads Harris by 8)
Wisconsin Biden by 8
Michigan Biden by 8

As mentioned before Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin will be key states in 2020. Biden would have to win them all (while holding the states Clinton won in 2016) to be successful. Trump knows this which is why he seems to have held weekly rallies in those states over past year-18 months.

Haven't read Bidens manifesto but I would assume his economic policies would be similar to Obama's.

duploelabs

Gbear wrote: »

I'm sure the fact that an oligarch who recently had sanctions lifted from him is now pouring millions into an aluminium project in Kentucky has absolutely nothing to do with McConnell's behaviour.

There's a Bob Ross meme in there for the GOP with the tag line saying 'there no Conspiracy, just happy little coincidences'

everlast75

JRant wrote: »

I think we'll see an investigation of the surveillance that was carried out on the Trump campaign and the Steele Dossier and being honest I believe there is a need for one.

Fair enough.

Can I ask though, genuinely, what on earth were the Reps doing for the 2 years they had both houses, to conduct investigations?

Did they check into it? If so, did they find anything?

It appears to me that each time the Reps go looking for a smoking gun, they uncover material detrimental to their argument.

Here, it will repeated in public that
1) Trump was made aware by the FBI that Russians were targeting his campaign.
2) He chose to do nothing about it (including get rid of Flynn)
3) The Intelligence Agencies viewed this a severe national risk
4) highlight the amount of contracts between his campaign and Russians
5) highlight the fact that trump's staff lied multiple times about contacts with the Russians

Why on earth would anyone want to draw attention to those facts?

What Trump should be doing is acknowledge that interference took place, draw a line under it and take active measures to prevent interference in future elections while being very vocal about it. That would take the steam out of a lot of the Dems' arguments.

But Trump can't acknowledge a mistake or taking assistance. He will never learn.

duploelabs

rossie1977 wrote: »

Biden just announced he is running in 2020.

Fireworks at the televised debates will be something else. Current polls have Biden leading Trump by 8 points head to head and that's with a strong economy

Love to see a Biden/Bernie Ticket, would cover all bases

hotmail.com

duploelabs wrote: »

Love to see a Biden/Bernie Ticket, would cover all bases

Biden supports cuts to social welfare and medical care.

Eric Cartman

duploelabs wrote: »

Love to see a Biden/Bernie Ticket, would cover all bases

That would be a nightmare ticket, biden can e quite rational financially and understands that you just cant hand out free college or tax the hilt out of millionaires. His headline of being a fiscally responsible moderate would either mean stopping bernie acheiving any promise he has or going completely back on his own promises.

mcmoustache

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That would be a nightmare ticket, biden can e quite rational financially and understands that you just cant hand out free college or tax the hilt out of millionaires. His headline of being a fiscally responsible moderate would either mean stopping bernie acheiving any promise he has or going completely back on his own promises.

I do agree that they's quite incompatible. Biden is centre-right while Sanders is far left by American standards. It's hard to see how they could compromise and unify. I think he would be better served by selecting someone more centre-left.

ancapailldorcha

That's the weird thing with discussing US politics outside the US. The Democrats are actually quite a right wing outfit by European standards.

Eric Cartman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's the weird thing with discussing US politics outside the US. The Democrats are actually quite a right wing outfit by European standards.

I think thats where a lot of people get caught, to most here bernie seems reasonable, but when looking at the dynamic of the US , we have to consider bernies appeal similar to somebody between paul murphy and stalin here.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think thats where a lot of people get caught, to most here bernie seems reasonable, but when looking at the dynamic of the US , we have to consider bernies appeal similar to somebody between paul murphy and stalin here.

But his recent FOx News Town hall meeting would suggest, albeit in very small sample, that he touches on quite a few things people do agree with.

For example, Trump has made massive traction out of the VA and getting them the help they need. How is that any different that medicare? Of course one can argue that they fought for their country, but surely that can be extended to 1st responders, and teachers and, and and.

ancapailldorcha

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think thats where a lot of people get caught, to most here bernie seems reasonable, but when looking at the dynamic of the US , we have to consider bernies appeal similar to somebody between paul murphy and stalin here.

Yeah. Sanders in 2016 was the only one I ever saw advocate serious change in US healthcare. The mainstream Democrats seem happy to just implement incremental changes. Offhand, I've no idea what Clinton's stance on it was.