Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Itssoeasy

So what time is this kicking off at ? Sky news are taking but I’ve not heard them say when it’ll start.

Itssoeasy

pixelburp wrote: »

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

He’s not anything like his tweets or his rants at rallies. He knows how to comport himself in company and occasions like this.
The outlier being when he has his private unrecorded meetings with Putin, where he’s embarrassingly and tellingly meek

I dunno, just off the top of my head, the last visit he stepped in front of the queen in an embarrassing faux Pas, while there was that big meet of NATO heads where he barged past & through the president of Estonia (I think) to get to the front. I'm sure there are others; he's utterly two faced, happy to shoot at Megan Markel or Mayor Khan from the sidelines but still struggles to comport himself in public

Trumps problem is unlike other world leaders who I’m sure get angry and aren’t happy with how they are seen and what’s said about them which is not always true.

The difference is those leaders can hold their tongues and picked their battles and also didn’t do it in such a public forum that trump does.

Itssoeasy

So sky news are showing some guy delivering food to the us ambassador residence. More filling that a deli counter.

Itssoeasy

8pm it seems.

jobbridge4life

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's a little unfair. The idea of Trump meeting Kim was put forward to the US by the major stakeholder in the whole affair, South Korea. If you recall, they sent a special envoy to the White House to specifically put it to him. Should the US have completely ignored the request of the ally which was actually facing DPRK and hosting US forces?

Absolutely and unequivocally yes. It is laughable that even with hindsight some will try and defend his egotistical misadventures.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Further, DPRK advances in testing were such that the "Kick the can down the road" strategy held by the various previous US Presidents was suffering the problem of running out of road for the can to be kicked down.

That is a deeply disingenuous comment. Every President (since it emerged as an issue) has sought to confront and control the advancement of the North's nuclear plan, every single one. The methods have been varied, the success has been very limited, and ultimately unfruitful, but to suggest that it was a matter of kicking the can down the road betrays your bias plainly. And in case it isn't bias, I'll remind you that North Korea still has nuclear weapons, has re-initiated missile testing, and has also had numerous meetings with the POTUS, who loves the NK leader and now uses him as a prop to attack former Vice-President Joe Biden.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think any US president in that situation would have refused the request of the two Koreas. It just happened to be Trump in the chair at the time.

You can think what you may, it won't change the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

Every President since the fall of the USSR has had endless invitations to meet the North Koreans, it was literally that regime's first strategic diplomatic goal. The South Korean so called 'Sunshine Policy' emerged in 1998, and continued without interruption until 2008. During this entire period two Presidents, Democratic and Republican, managed never to hand North Korea the victory of meeting with the murderous leader of that country.

There is abundant, publicly available evidence of the frustration of South Korean leaders, at the very top of their political pile, at the fact that the United States had not embraced their new agenda. It is also preposterous that an individual holding them-self out as a member of the United States' military/defence forces would suggest that the US was required, in any sense, to meekly acquiesce to the policy agenda/or proclaimed interests of one of its military allies. Most especially in reference to a President who regularly attacks his country's most important and longstanding allies without compunction.

Have they been working on cloaking in the Marines Manic? Because you are grade-A transparent at this point.

Itssoeasy

Here we go. Let’s hope there is no feck ups from Donald Trump.

Hande hoche!

Steven Mnuchin and Kate make an unusual pair.

Itssoeasy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Steven Mnuchin and Kate make an unusual pair.

I’d say she’s delighted.

Itssoeasy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

At least he stuck to the script and didn’t go on a solo run. That’s something I suppose.

Yeah, a success of sorts by some standards.

It’s a low bar I know but at least he read what was on the page. He actually sounded slightly nervous.

brooke 2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Bit of a snub to Trump to have a minor royal like Andrew escorting him.

Andrew and Trump have a lot in common, according to some of the commentators who were answering queries as to why a 'minor' royal was accompanying Trump to Westminster Abbey........they have already met at Mar-a-lago, both are businessmen and both love golf.........no mention of the underage girls on Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita Express'!! :rolleyes:

brooke 2

robinph wrote: »

Well he's only ever going down in the rankings. Despite starting life as number 2 he's currently ranked number 8. He might have a brief jump back up the table, but any more kids from William or Harry and he's back down the list again.

He's not really "minor", but his purpose expired once William and Harry were born.

Some people on Sky saying that a lot of the American public would not know who Andrew was, as he stood with Trump and Melania at the tomb of the unknown soldier....wondering why William or Harry did not accompany the president. Apparently, Andrew will be with Trump quite a lot as they know each other pretty well and have similar interests!! I doubt Charles, William or Harry, especially Harry , would be vying with one another to spend much time with Trump!!

Stop moaning ffs

Trump suggested Kate get her tats out for playboy, in a nude sunbathing session, referencing Diana.
He then said Meghan is nasty

If I were William or Harry I’d be punching the guy tonight. Hard.

It’s surreal he’s been invited to a state dinner.

Christy42

Trump is normally understated when in the room with a foreign power. In his last visit he gave out about May in an interview and quickly backed down when asked about it while she was in the room. Similar at a g8 conference where he was quiet but tweeted up a storm when safely on the plane.

While he may get flustered he will likely be too cowardly to say anything negative till he gets back on the plane.

relax carry on

Christy42 wrote: »

Trump is normally understated when in the room with a foreign power. In his last visit he gave out about May in an interview and quickly backed down when asked about it while she was in the room. Similar at a g8 conference where he was quiet but tweeted up a storm when safely on the plane.

While he may get flustered he will likely be too cowardly to say anything negative till he gets back on the plane.

What does this one trait say about about Trump as a world leader? He's the typical bully when in his own comfort zone surrounded by his own sycophants, but when he has to back up his rhetoric in-person he's the rabbit caught in a headlight coward. Why would anyone in any position of power take anything he says seriously, considering the moment he's stepped out of the room his stance may have changed. And if POTUS can't be taken seriously, what impact does that have on America's relationship with the rest of the world?

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

Adderall?

Hysterics in this thread is a sight to behold.

It's a running rumour that Trump takes stimulants, absolutely no silver bullet beyond years of tattle (including slightly unreliable narrators like Tom Arnold). Certainly doesn't sleep much, going by his early morning tweets and his diet isn't to be copied and the belief is that he takes legal drugs to keep his energy up. Much like the man's hair, it's a point of curious fascination.

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

It's a running rumour that Trump takes stimulants, absolutely no silver bullet beyond years of tattle (including slightly unreliable narrators like Tom Arnold). Certainly doesn't sleep much, going by his early morning tweets and his diet isn't to be copied and the belief is that he takes legal drugs to keep his energy up. Much like the man's hair, it's a point of curious fascination.

I think if you're going to claim someone is addicted to a certain drug without any evidence you should at least spell the name of the drug correctly.

From what I can see the "rumours" stem from Tom Arnold, who's perpetuated several provable lies about Trump in recent years, one of which was the existence of a tape circulating about where Trump used the N word. I wonder what came of that tape in the end.

Stop moaning ffs

pixelburp wrote: »

It's a running rumour that Trump takes stimulants, absolutely no silver bullet beyond years of tattle (including slightly unreliable narrators like Tom Arnold). Certainly doesn't sleep much, going by his early morning tweets and his diet isn't to be copied and the belief is that he takes legal drugs to keep his energy up. Much like the man's hair, it's a point of curious fascination.

Look at the thousands of unhinged tweets and incoherent rambling press conferences.
It’s widely known he’s taking that particular drug and was fond of the Colombian marching powder back in the 80s.

Anyone trying to rationalise his stumbling ranting nonsense as normal behaviour is fooling themselves.

Stop moaning ffs

peddlelies wrote: »

I think if you're going to claim someone is addicted to a certain drug without any evidence you should at least spell the name of the drug correctly.

From what I can see the "rumours" stem from Tom Arnold, who's perpetuated several provable lies about Trump in recent years, one of which was the existence of a tape circulating about where Trump used the N word. I wonder what came of that tape in the end.

Several producers and staff and cast on that show heard him use the N word several times. It’s on tape.
He’s also on tape saying grab them by the pussy. He’s also on tape saying Meghan is nasty. He’s also on tape telling Russia to hack Hillary’s email. Etc etc etc etc ad infinitum
You’re trying to say he isn’t addicted to that drug because I spelled it wrong?
What time is it in st Petersburg? Go to bed bot. You’re drunk.

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

I think if you're going to claim someone is addicted to a certain drug without any evidence you should at least spell the name of the drug correctly.

From what I can see the "rumours" stem from Tom Arnold, who's perpetuated several provable lies about Trump in recent years, one of which was the existence of a tape circulating about where Trump used the N word. I wonder what came of that tape in the end.

Indeed, which is why I said "rumour"; there's little concrete evidence beyond said tattle from "insiders", including passing remarks such as contestants on Apprentice, or glamour models who claimed of cocaine parties in the 80s. He is an apparent tee-totaler, so we're not dealing with Yelstin 2.0 that's for sure. Trump is very fond of the NDA, which has probably stopped many tell alls of any stripe (though recent attempts to do the same in the White House, particularly after a string of leaks, proved to be unenforceable given the legislative position employees would find themselves in).

As said, "rumour", but an understandably seductive one given the man's frequently erratic public behaviour. He's charitably best claimed at unconventional but given the sheer volume of nonsense he spouts, a suspected medicinal cause is understandable.

aloyisious

I may have made a mistake elsewhere where I commented about Don suggesting that Nigel Farage be given the role of negotiator ref Brexit and assumed Don meant between the UK and the EU. On the BBC1 news just now covering the visit, the subject of a post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the US got a 5 second mention, which changed my mind.

It might be that Don is/was angling for Nigel to be given the job which might be insulting to the conservative govt and party but not unusual for Don as Nigel was [according to Nigel-friendly sources] an advisor to Don in the White House last year. If so, it might be worth while watching for meetings between him and Steve Mnuchin as trade is important to the US treasury, what with Nigel having a political party of a particular nature behind him now. It might also be that Don is attempting to disrupt trade between the EU and the UK as he doesn't like the EU as a trade-power bloc.

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

As said, "rumour", but an understandably seductive one given the man's frequently erratic public behaviour. He's charitably best claimed at unconventional but given the sheer volume of nonsense he spouts, a suspected medicinal cause is understandable.

You said rumour, he said "It’s widely known he’s taking that particular drug." There's no evidence to support that assertion bar the ramblings of someone who has been proven to just spout nonsense for airtime.

Speculate away - but I do find a huge amount of irony in it thinking back to the 2016 election where a candidate had almost daily coughing fits, physical spasms in front of reporters and bouts of being unable to stand upright at war memorials. Any questioning of that health scenario was pushed aside as "right wing conspiracy theories".

Have at it.

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

Speculate away - but I do find a huge amount of irony in it thinking back to the 2016 election where a candidate had almost daily coughing fits, physical spasms in front of reporters and bouts of being unable to stand upright at war memorials. Any questioning of that health scenario was pushed aside as "right wing conspiracy theories".

Have at it.

Why is it when it's about Trump, it invariably becomes about Hillary? I find it ironic that speculation about Trump is hysteria, then what's the the constant callbacks to his rival? Trump himself can't shake his own obsession with her; It's kinda remarkable how Clinton still gets referenced ad nauseum. Besides, who said there was conspiracy? Clinton's pneumonia was pretty widely covered and that footage of her stumbling, if it didn't finally kill her chances, certainly alongside Comeys 11th hour decision to reopen an investigation managed to swing important momentum towards the Reps.

pixelburp

peddlelies wrote: »

Replace the word Hillary with any Democrat Politician. There's a ridiculous double standard. After Clinton's problems there was countless pieces in major publications swatting off all the "right wing conspiracies" concerning her health. All the late night hosts have her on mocking concerns. A poster is making statements without any evidence as fact about Trump being addicted to drugs and you're there to defend him.

If Trump slumped over tomorrow in the UK at some memorial unable to stand up what do you think the reaction in the media would be like? What would the reaction be like here?

I'm not defending the poster, I don't care for his point I was adding some context but as you say "have at it".

Isn't that the kind of rank speculation you're against? If Trump collapsed there'd be shock, chaos and an inevitable constitutional crisis given the 21st (?) Amendment talk would kick up, where a President might be incapable of fulfilling their duties. Big difference between health problems of a candidate and that of a sitting president.

But that's obviously not what you're angling for, insinuating we'd be here high fiving or salivating at his collapse, cos we're all bitter Clinton supporters or some such. Honestly if he'd collapse by first thought would be that all that KFC has finally caught up with him.

I'd be delighted if Trump wasn't president tomorrow, the man is a crude charlatan who is full of empty braggadocio. And he has put himself out there as a swamp draining, America first alpha male. He has caused this climate by his own Twitter fuelled cycle of extremes.

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

Why is it when it's about Trump, it invariably becomes about Hillary? I find it ironic that speculation about Trump is hysteria, then what's the the constant callbacks to his rival? Trump himself can't shake his own obsession with her; It's kinda remarkable how Clinton still gets referenced ad nauseum. Besides, who said there was conspiracy? Clinton's pneumonia was pretty widely covered and that footage of her stumbling, if it didn't finally kill her chances, certainly alongside Comeys 11th hour decision to reopen an investigation managed to swing important momentum towards the Reps.

I wrote a reply but I deleted it. She's brought up because many on the right side of US politics feel there's a double standard/large media bias when it comes to Repub vs Dem and all those investigations along with the dossier are intertwined together.

Back to Donald in the UK then... good night

Manic Moran

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is a deeply disingenuous comment. Every President (since it emerged as an issue) has sought to confront and control the advancement of the North's nuclear plan, every single one. The methods have been varied, the success has been very limited, and ultimately unfruitful, but to suggest that it was a matter of kicking the can down the road betrays your bias plainly

"Let's try this to deter the development of the North Korean nuclear ICBM capability. If it doesn't bring them to heel, the worst that happens is that they are only closer to a good ICBM capability. My advisors are saying they won't actually have one for a couple years yet, even if they don't bow to the sanctions/pressure/niceties. Then we can try something else". That's the way it was up until recently, and if it didn't work out, hey, at least they tried.

I'm not in any way saying that the previous presidents were wrong in their course of action. They were trying. And, as you observe, failing. The difference between the situation last year and the situation which faced Obama, Bush or Clinton is that the DPRK no longer is no longer 'trying to obtain' the capability, but they now all but have it. There's the old phrase that you will go further with a kind word and a gun than you will with just a kind word. DPRK now basically has the gun. And guns tend to be an attention-getter. The US may not negotiate with terrorists, but you can damned well be assured that if a terrorist takes hostages with a gun, the second person they call for is the negotiator.

You can think what you may, it won't change the fact that you are demonstrably wrong.

Perhaps you and I have a different definition of "Demonstrably"

The South Korean so called 'Sunshine Policy' emerged in 1998, and continued without interruption until 2008. During this entire period two Presidents, Democratic and Republican, managed never to hand North Korea the victory of meeting with the murderous leader of that country.

The strategic situation has changed somewhat in the last ten years.

Have they been working on cloaking in the Marines Manic? Because you are grade-A transparent at this point.

I wouldn't know. I'm Army. And I am curious as to why you should think that someone in the military should default to a position of not being considerate of the positions of allies. Or have you come up with some sort of image in your mind that I'm a flag-waving, truck-driving hillbilly who has never left the country and thinks the US by divine right should be in charge of everything and all other nations may be ignored as inferior?

FatherTed

peddlelies wrote: »

I wrote a reply but I deleted it. She's brought up because many on the right side of US politics feel there's a double standard/large media bias when it comes to Repub vs Dem and all those investigations along with the dossier are intertwined together.

Back to Donald in the UK then... good night

Trump and his followers are always bringing up Hilary. You guys sure have some fascination with her. 2016 is over. She got more votes than Trump but he won under the rules with a little help from his Russian friends. Deal with it. You need to move on from Hilary.

batgoat

George Nader who was part of Trump's transition team has been charged with child pornography offenses. The guy appears to be absolute scum.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/uae-adviser-george-nader-charged-in-child-pornography-case?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google

TomOnBoard

batgoat wrote: »

George Nader who was part of Trump's transition team has been charged with child pornography offenses. The guy appears to be absolute scum.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/uae-adviser-george-nader-charged-in-child-pornography-case?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google

I think we'll be seeing quite a lot of Mr Nader's name in print. As a Mueller witness in respect of the Seychelles meeting with Erik Prince (Betsy de Vos's bruv) we've already had an introduction. Expect him to feature further as the investigation into United Arab Emirates involvement with the Trump Campaign and Presidency ramps up in the SDNY, and other good fellows like Broidy are outed for their shady dealings.

everlast75

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I think we'll be seeing quite a lot of Mr Nader's name in print. As a Mueller witness in respect of the Seychelles meeting with Erik Prince (Betsy de Vos's bruv) we've already had an introduction. Expect him to feature further as the investigation into United Arab Emirates involvement with the Trump Campaign and Presidency ramps up in the SDNY, and other good fellows like Broidy are outed for their shady dealings.

Agreed.

And loathe as I am to allow this person a deal (if of course he is guilty), there is a massive incentive for him to cooperate with any ongoing investigations

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Agreed.

And loathe as I am to allow this person a deal (if of course he is guilty), there is a massive incentive for him to cooperate with any ongoing investigations

He has already allegedly cooperated with Mueller. However, if he was in any way dishonest or held back in cooperation up to now, then the incentive is made even greater by the fact that he has already been found guilty of similar charges in 1991. So if convicted this time, he faces a minimum 15 and maximum 40 years in prison.

I find it noteworthy that these charges result from search warrants on his phones taken from him in January 2018. It seems to me that someone hasn't been fully co-operative during 2018, which might explain the lack of clarity on what did happen in the Seychelles...