Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

rossie1977

VicMackey1 wrote: »

So you argument against the Google video is to just smear the source? Forget the Google employees and what they have said? Forget about the documents produced?

The source is a known fraud who had had to pay out damages to victims in the past for similar videos.

What they said is irrelevant as it was edited in such a way to look bad. This is same guy who edited footage to make it look like acorn employees wanted to setup prostitution ring for underage illegal immigrants (footage that aired all over us tv for weeks) when in reality the employees were going along with sting and then called police directly after.

VicMackey1

rossie1977 wrote: »

What they said is irrelevant as it was edited in such a way to look bad.

In what way was it edited?

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

Didn't she walk that back in subsequent interviews? I feel like she make subsequent comments on TV that she didn't say anything of the sort during a deposition.

From snopes...


Ivana Trump, Donald’s first wife, used the word “rape” under oath during a court deposition to describe an alleged violent sexual encounter with her soon-to-be ex-husband. Ivana’s testimony was described in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon by Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III:

After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

“Your f***ing doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.

What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.'”

Ivana Trump released a statement shortly before this book was published to clarify that although she did truly use the word “rape” during her deposition, she did not mean it in a “literal” or “criminal sense”:

When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had “felt violated” and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement.

“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

The statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.

VicMackey1

Chips Lovell wrote: »

O'Keefe has a fairly lengthy track record of mounting dubious "investigations". There's was a great piece on him in the New Yorker a few years ago.

Regarding the current fuss, I'm assuming that "preventing the next Trump situation" is reference to the 2016 election where social media outlets were used to mount a large propaganda operation and preventing that happening again. Poor choice of words on her part, I'd agree, but then again, she didn't know she was being recorded.

Its possible that is what she meant! But is it really a good idea for tech companies such as google twitter and youtube to decide to remove what they consider to be false or against their way of thinking?

Chips Lovell

VicMackey1 wrote: »

But is it really a good idea for tech companies such as google twitter and youtube to decide to remove what they consider to be false or against their way of thinking?

Well what occurred in 2016 was that a huge network of Twitter accounts pretending to be news outlets, political organizations and (mostly) regular people was used to mount a disinformation campaign targeting U.S. voters. We have no idea just how successful that campaign was, but for companies who own these social media platforms such as Google or Twitter, they're well within their rights to block or remove people who misuse them and violate the terms of use.

mcmoustache

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Well what occurred in 2016 was that a huge network of Twitter accounts pretending to be news outlets, political organizations and (mostly) regular people was used to mount a disinformation campaign targeting U.S. voters. We have no idea just how successful that campaign was, but for companies who own these social media platforms such as Google or Twitter, they're well within their rights to block or remove people who misuse them and violate the terms of use.

And if the disinformation happens to be coming mostly from conservative activists and organisations targeting conservative voters, that shouldn't be google's or facebook's problem.

Chips Lovell

Actually, in the case I'm referring to, it didn't originate from conservative activists, but rather a St Petersburg based company called the Internet Research Agency, likely acting on behalf of the Russian government. Mueller report has a lot of detail on this. As does Mueller's own indictment of the IRA.

Manic Moran

hcf500 wrote: »

I imagine millions of his followers have probably been banned from twitter. It would make sense that a lot of trump followers would also be promoting and sharing content that would get them banned. Nazi propaganda etc

I refer you back to my previous post in which it was observed that what people believed their opposition to be was, in fact, merely an unfounded caricature...

VicMackey1

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Well what occurred in 2016 was that a huge network of Twitter accounts pretending to be news outlets, political organizations and (mostly) regular people was used to mount a disinformation campaign targeting U.S. voters. We have no idea just how successful that campaign was, but for companies who own these social media platforms such as Google or Twitter, they're well within their rights to block or remove people who misuse them and violate the terms of use.

There is plenty disinformation presented by both sides. The likes of Google and Twitter are so powerful now that it is hard to imagine that they would have any serious competition. If they can control the content that they publish, they will be able to win elections for whomever they wish. Is it such a good idea to allow these companies to have this power? Some will argue that they are a private company and they have the right to do what!

Chips Lovell

VicMackey1 wrote: »

There is plenty disinformation presented by both sides.

You're kinda right on that front (excepts the "sides" themselves had very little to do it). The Russian campaign targeted both sides. It's goal was to stir up people on both ends of the spectrum and raise tensions.

As one of the IRA documents obtained by Mueller outlined (pg 23):

"Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them)."

VicMackey1 wrote: »

The likes of Google and Twitter are so powerful now that it is hard to imagine that they would have any serious competition. If they can control the content that they publish, they will be able to win elections for whomever they wish. Is it such a good idea to allow these companies to have this power? Some will argue that they are a private company and they have the right to do what!

I think the issue is less what Google and Twitter do and more what people using (or abusing) their services are doing. The moral of the story from 2016 (for anyone who didn't know it already) was "don't get your news from strangers on social media".

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

I refer you back to my previous post in which it was observed that what people believed their opposition to be was, in fact, merely an unfounded caricature...

I believe Trump has become a caricature of himself at this stage ...

VicMackey1

everlast75 wrote: »

I believe Trump has become a caricature of himself at this stage ...

I read a quote before that very similar to that. Think it was something like, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has become a parody of herself at this stage. There was a twitter comedy parody account of AOC that was banned! The parody was too close to the real Cortez!

everlast75

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I read a quote before that very similar to that. Think it was something like, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has become a parody of herself at this stage. There was a twitter comedy parody account of AOC that was banned! The parody was too close to the real Cortez!

Is that the equivalent of "i know you are, but what am I?"

VicMackey1

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think the issue is less what Google and Twitter do and more what people using (or abusing) their services are doing. The moral of the story from 2016 (for anyone who didn't know it already) was "don't get your news from strangers on social media".

I agree that social media is a breeding ground for bad information. Are they making any attempt to clean it up though? I reported a false story on FB about Trump about 3 months ago and it is still on there being spread about!

VicMackey1

everlast75 wrote: »

Is that the equivalent of "i know you are, but what am I?"

No, just reminded me of it! I have no idea who on here likes of dislikes AOC!

its_steve116

In case you missed it, journalist Elizabeth Jane Carroll has accused him of raping her back in 1995.
https://noqreport.com/2019/06/23/mainstream-media-seems-dismiss-e-jean-carrolls-claims-president-raped/

VicMackey1

its_steve116 wrote: »

In case you missed it, journalist Elizabeth Jane Carroll has accused him of raping her back in 1995 and many media outlets are ignoring it.
https://noqreport.com/2019/06/23/mainstream-media-seems-dismiss-e-jean-carrolls-claims-president-raped/

Which media outlets are ignoring it? Its on Sky news, Fox, CNN, huffpost, NY Times, the Guardian, Washington Post etc

Chips Lovell

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I agree that social media is a breeding ground for bad information. Are they making any attempt to clean it up though? I reported a false story on FB about Trump about 3 months ago and it is still on there being spread about!

To a certain extent. For example, a lot of what we know about the Twitter bot operations has been released by Twitter itself. But they're corporations at the end of the day. They'll do just enough so as to seem like they're doing something about it. And if it starts affecting the bottom line....

As I said before, I wouldn't be getting my news off Facebook.

VicMackey1

its_steve116 wrote: »

In case you missed it, journalist Elizabeth Jane Carroll has accused him of raping her back in 1995.
https://noqreport.com/2019/06/23/mainstream-media-seems-dismiss-e-jean-carrolls-claims-president-raped/

Did you read the article you linked to?

"Bottom Line
Women who make false accusations harm women who are truly victims. Nothing in E. Jean Carroll’s tale makes sense, which is why the media is suddenly ignoring her so soon after the story broke. It’s the best thing they’ve done in a while."

Stallingrad

A slight change of tack. This is a genuine question for Trump supporters.

I'm curious as to what Trump supporters here feel about how his Presidency has divided people. It is too simplistic to simply fob it off on an irate left, let's try and leave right and left out of it.

The man goes out of his way to pit factions within his own country against each other, and attack other Americans with a ferocity not directed at any other foreign targets. Is this not unsettling? Do you not feel that the President should be a unifying figurehead of the USA? Do you believe he acts in a manner befitting the President?

I see this divide not as left or right, but one the one hand of people who feel he is an assault on democracy, not respecting his brief, of dividing instead of uniting and suffering and enormous morality deficit. Of failing to act like a President.

On the other hand his supporters seem to be able to overlook the above, I don't know how they do it but they do. I get that they like that he does not play by the rules and is willing to shake things up, speak unscripted and be a disrupter. But do those qualities make for a good President?

Genuinely curious, I would love to hear from any trump supporters on this.

VicMackey1

Stallingrad wrote: »

A slight change of tack. This is a genuine question for Trump supporters.

I'm curious as to what Trump supporters here feel about how his Presidency has divided people. It is too simplistic to simply fob it off on an irate left, let's try and leave right and left out of it.

The man goes out of his way to pit factions within his own country against each other, and attack other Americans with a ferocity not directed at any other foreign targets. Is this not unsettling? Do you not feel that the President should be a unifying figurehead of the USA? Do you believe he acts in a manner befitting the President?

I see this divide not as left or right, but one the one hand of people who feel he is an assault on democracy, not respecting his brief, of dividing instead of uniting and suffering and enormous morality deficit. Of failing to act like a President.

On the other hand his supporters seem to be able to overlook the above, I don't know how they do it but they do. I get that they like that he does not play by the rules and is willing to shake things up, speak unscripted and be a disrupter. But do those qualities make for a good President?

Genuinely curious, I would love to hear from any trump supporters on this.

Trump is not entirely innocent when it comes to dividing the people. The media, IMO, are also to blame and I'm not just talking about CNN and MSNBC. Fox news are also guilty. Any celebrity that feels the need to publish their hatred for either side is also guilty. There is a long list. Some politicians on the left and right are hell-bent on division too.

duploelabs

Interesting to see Barr killed 7 of Mueller's investigations ten days after he submitted his report.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/ag-bill-barr-killed-7-robert-mueller-investigations-10-days-after-he-submitted-his-report/

VicMackey1

duploelabs wrote: »

Interesting to see Barr killed 7 of Mueller's investigations ten days after he submitted his report.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/06/ag-bill-barr-killed-7-robert-mueller-investigations-10-days-after-he-submitted-his-report/

Is rawstory.com a reputable source that we should trust?

Edit: I found some dirt on them! I can now safely discredit their articles!

DreamsBurnDown

Stallingrad wrote: »

A slight change of tack. This is a genuine question for Trump supporters.

I'm curious as to what Trump supporters here feel about how his Presidency has divided people. It is too simplistic to simply fob it off on an irate left, let's try and leave right and left out of it.

The man goes out of his way to pit factions within his own country against each other, and attack other Americans with a ferocity not directed at any other foreign targets. Is this not unsettling? Do you not feel that the President should be a unifying figurehead of the USA? Do you believe he acts in a manner befitting the President?

I see this divide not as left or right, but one the one hand of people who feel he is an assault on democracy, not respecting his brief, of dividing instead of uniting and suffering and enormous morality deficit. Of failing to act like a President.

On the other hand his supporters seem to be able to overlook the above, I don't know how they do it but they do. I get that they like that he does not play by the rules and is willing to shake things up, speak unscripted and be a disrupter. But do those qualities make for a good President?

Genuinely curious, I would love to hear from any trump supporters on this.

Not a Trump supporter but an American with many Democratic, Republican and Independent friends, workmates and acquaintances. Most people are appalled by the level of discourse in politics and have been for some time, this is the primary reason Congress has a 20% approval rating, regardless of who is in the majority. Trump has taken the vitriol to a whole new level but there is already a level of desensitization to it which is why he somewhat gets away with it. Most people just expect politicians to be assholes these days.

I would say what is new is attacks on the electorate, and Democrats are not innocent here. Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" was unfortunate, whatever about guns, mocking people for their religious beliefs is frankly dumb in a country where so many are religious or at least claim to be. Hillary's "deplorables" comment was one of the turning points in the 2016 election, it's the sort of thing you might think but shouldn't say.

Hopefully the Democratic nominee for 2020 will focus on the issues and attacking Trump, as attacking the electorate is never a wise move.

Stop moaning ffs

His comments about his latest accuser are repugnant. Inhuman. Deranged.

Odd the way his supporters magically disappear when these stories emerge.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

I've deleted a number of off-topic posts. If someone calls someone else a troll, report the post and let the mods deal with it. The topic is the presidency of Donald Trump, so lets discuss that please.

UPDATE: More posts deleted, another poster banned. The topic is Trump. If you think someone is a bot or a troll, report them. Don't bring it up on thread.

Itssoeasy

I was just listening to a lawyer describe what they saw at a detention facility in Texas holding children. Sweet Jesus if I treated my dog that way the ISPCA would do me for animal neglect. You can have different opinions on how to handle the situation at the southern border but at least treat the children there through no fault of their own something resembling slightly humanly.

VicMackey1

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

His comments about his latest accuser are repugnant. Inhuman. Deranged.

Odd the way his supporters magically disappear when these stories emerge.

I don't think they are. As I said before, I would say the same thing if someone falsely accused me of rape! The media seem to think the story is unbelievable! Far too many holes in it.

Odd the way some people on here make false statements about his supporters disappearing!

Leroy42

Too many holes in it, yet Trumps very first statement about it was incorrect as he had met her.

So we know one of them is lying, we only suspect that the other one is lying.

We know of no history of this woman making false accusations in the past, we have plenty of evidence (including from Trump himself) that he feels free to simply take what he wants from women. We also know that he lies about sexual encounters.

Yet somehow, you seem to be very quick to give him the benefit of the doubt but place all the weight of evidence onto her? Fine in a court of law, but from a starting position this seems very strange.

FatherTed

WTF was Trump's response all about "she's not my type"? Does that mean if she was his type he would rape her or is he equating sex=rape?