Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Itssoeasy

Headshot wrote: »

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Yeah but this time its different, he's in an absolutely dire spot now

This is the same guy who got elected after saying on film "Grab them by the pussy"

Anything is possible, he'll worm his way out of it and the Republicans wont impeach him anyway as they've sold their soul to the devil

I doubt he’ll be gone within a week. But those comments happened when trump was a candidate not the sitting POTUS. He made that call and it was decided to put this transcript in a system it wasn’t fit for while he was president of the United States. Big difference.

Itssoeasy

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Headshot wrote: »

This is the same guy who got elected after saying on film "Grab them by the pussy"

Anything is possible, he'll worm his way out of it and the Republicans wont impeach him anyway as they've sold their soul to the devil

The republicans arent as tied to Trump as you think they are they will throw him overboard if the heat gets turned up enough..Trump may be a moron but he isnt completely stupid he'll know when the gig is up

That’s what I’ve been surprised this time around. Normally it’s been a circling the wagons moment, but they seem to be saying nothing or being less than all behind trump. This is different but given the senate is GOP controlled so this will likely be the same as the Bill Clinton impeachment.

Stacksofwacks

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That’s what I’ve been surprised this time around. Normally it’s been a circling the wagons moment, but they seem to be saying nothing or being less than all behind trump. This is different but given the senate is GOP controlled so this will likely be the same as the Bill Clinton impeachment.

I have watched a few interviews where they've been challenged and they have struggled big time, quite simple the facts are 100% against them this time, there is maybe a little bit of wriggle room that Trump was so completely dumb that he didnt realize what he was asking for but thats no defence really

aloyisious

There's a piece of W/house history coming back to bite Don in the ass. WaPo is running a story that after the closed "no media" meeting he had with the Russian ambassador and colleague in the Oval Office in 2917 in order to keep the content of the conversation quiet, a record was made that Don had reportedly told the two Russians he wasn't concerned that they had interfered in the US [sic:his} election as the US had done the same in other countries. If that story is true, then some-one recently leaked to Wapo, after which it got the story prepped for publication. This is two private conversations between Don & the two Eastern European warring state Reps that have come out.

The Russians may well have been laughing at the story of Don playing hardball with Ukraine's President over Mil Assistance funds provided by the US senate to get dirt on his latest opponent but won't be when they read about the latest leak to WaPo.

aloyisious

I have to say that this period of US history will go down as the most stupendous presidential period ever. I know Don rode into town saying he was going to drain the swamp, It will have to be accepted that he meant he was going to replace it with his personal style of doing deals. He's no ingenue, he planned to do things his way, thinking everyone would bow and scrape to his every command. It just has turned out badly for the US that the new GOP crew had their own plans and the Dems just didn't know how to deal with the carpetbagger who'd evicted them.

listermint

More crimes coming out from the US.

He's going , I think the dam has breached tbh.

Republicans will start to turn. Not all but enough


https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1177698621548048385

Stacksofwacks

I dont see many out supporting Trump right now, besides Giulliani who also seems to incriminating himself in the process along with others in the state department. What a mess

Gbear

I think if there's a difference now it's that the defense sounds unhinged and desperate, rather than consistent, aloof and arrogant.

I'm not sure this really is any worse than lining your pockets at the taxpayers expense, misuse of campaign funds to pay off a pornstar you ****ed, brazen nepotism, pay to play, courting a foreign power to interfere in your election (the first time), being repeatedly credibility accused of sexual crimes against women, being credibly accused of sexual crimes against children, bragging about sexual assault, obstructing justice as a matter of course, crimes against humanity, and so on, but the reaction by Republicans inside and outside the administration is different.

It could be a simple case of attrition. Trumps cabinet has been worn down to a nub, Trump has faced unceasing attack due to his presidency being a scandal and crime-ridden cluster****, and he's had very few, if any concrete victories.

It could be that he just can't handle the unending firehose of criticism he's opened himself up to as an equal and opposite reaction to his perfidy.

duploelabs

It appears calls with MBS and Putin, that weren't state sensitive but politically sensitive, were also buried

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/white-house-restricted-trump-calls-putin-saudi/index.html

Outlaw Pete

listermint wrote: »

More crimes coming out from the US.

He's going , I think the dam has breached tbh.

Nope, the underlined parts below (which of course were disgracefully suggesting a quid pro quo - do the NYT never learn) is as much fake news as your accusation that Trump threatened the Ukraine that he'd withhold money if they didn't give him dirt on Biden was.

The New York Slime have now changed the text of the article to remove the quid pro quo suggestion ...

So from this:

To this:

Not so juicy now, eh. Nevermind.

Democrats getting desperate. Two years of barrel scraping and what do they have? Zilch. If only they could use Schiff's imagination as evidence.

everlast75 wrote: »

Rudy's 1st victim. This is what happens when Rudy reads out your texts on tv......

Yup, nothing sends rats scurrying more than shining a light on them.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1177669563477118976

Stacksofwacks

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, the underlined parts below (which of course were disgracefully suggesting a quid pro quo - do the NYT never learn) is as much fake news as your accusation that Trump threatened the Ukraine that he'd withhold money if they didn't give him dirt on Biden was.



The New York Slime have now changed the text of the article to remove the quid pro quo suggestion ...

So from this:




To this:



Not so juicy now, eh. Nevermind.

Democrats getting desperate. Two years of barrel scraping and what do they have? Zilch. If only they could use Schiff's imagination as evidence.



Yup, nothing sends rats scurrying more than shining a light on them.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1177669563477118976

You need serious help, you've lost it mate, get some help

Outlaw Pete

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

You need serious help

Yeah, that's twice in as many days I have been told on this thread that I need help merely because I had the audacity to point out that something a user posted was false.

You want more proof? Okay, here's a left leaning news source for you:

NRA denies discussing 'special arrangements' with Trump in return for its support

The National Rifle Association confirmed that CEO Wayne LaPierre met with President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday, but denied any discussions took place about "special arrangements" involving their ongoing support of the president.

The response came after the New York Times reported on the meeting Friday, stating Trump and LaPierre "discussed prospective gun legislation and whether the N.R.A. could provide support for the president" amid upcoming impeachment proceedings and his reelection campaign.

“The NRA is not inclined to discuss private conversations with the President,” an NRA spokesman said in a statement. “However, many of the accounts of the meeting, as reported in The New York Times, are inaccurate. The NRA categorically denies any discussion occurred about special arrangements pertaining to the NRA’s support of the President and vice versa.”

The Times' original reporting, which was later updated, stated LaPierre offered "financial support for the president's defense" if, in return, Trump committed to "stop the games" on gun control legislation.

Trump ain't getting impeached folks.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, that's twice in as many days I have been told on this thread that I need help merely because I had the audacity to point out that something a user posted was false.

You want more proof? Okay, here's a left leaning news source for you:



Trump ain't getting impeached folks.

Hey Pete,

What's your view on consealing calls to other foreign leaders that weren't state sensitive but were politically sensitive or otherwise?

Stacksofwacks

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, that's twice in as many days I have been told on this thread that I need help merely because I had the audacity to point out that something a user posted was false.

You want more proof? Okay, here's a left leaning news source for you:



Trump ain't getting impeached folks.

I'm not interested in your crazy posts, you've lost your mind, you need to check yourself in and get help somewhere

drunkmonkey

We're slowly getting to the real story. Is it any wonder Crooked Crazy Hillary is shouting for impeachment.

duploelabs

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We're slowly getting to the real story. Is it any wonder Crooked Crazy Hillary is shouting for impeachment.

Who? Is she in office or a representative?

banie01

drunkmonkey wrote: »

We're slowly getting to the real story. Is it any wonder Crooked Crazy Hillary is shouting for impeachment.

One would have to wonder what those corrupt bastards in the UK Germany and Ireland in particular are after from someone who currently holds no political office...

Or perhaps in the 15yr period the graph covers is actually just quite reflective of the manner in which the US lobbying and influence peddling system works.

Is there a similar chart showing origins of funding to Trump's foundation or campaign from 2014 to date?

listermint

Have to say I'm really enjoying the grasping at straws from outlaw. It's just excellent. Id be careful though straws are sharp and hanging on so long with the weight will cut your hands.

drunkmonkey

duploelabs wrote: »

Who? Is she in office or a representative?

She's a former US secretary of state in case you haven't heard of her. She held office within those timelines. You should look her up a proper crook.

EltonJohn69

The amount of pressure Trump is under and considering his age, his health is at serious risk. I don’t think he can take another year of this, he looked broken at the UN. Removing him from office will probably save his life.

Wanderer78

EltonJohn69 wrote:

The amount of pressure Trump is under and considering his age his health is at serious risk. I don’t think he can take another year of this, he looked broken at the UN. Removing him from office will probably save his life.

Ah he's grand, he might be a little battered after his second term, but he ll be grand, he loves it

EltonJohn69

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Ah he's grand, he might be a little battered after his second term, but he ll be grand, he loves it

I would say he is missing his tower and his golden toilet a lot...... but then again he has made a lot of money off of this presidency......

Wanderer78

EltonJohn69 wrote:

I would say he is missing his tower and his golden toilet a lot...... but then again he has made a lot of money off of this presidency......

I'd say he's loving it, any narcissist would

Igotadose

banie01 wrote: »

One would have to wonder what those corrupt bastards in the UK Germany and Ireland in particular are after from someone who currently holds no political office...

Or perhaps in the 15yr period the graph covers is actually just quite reflective of the manner in which the US lobbying and influence peddling system works.

Is there a similar chart showing origins of funding to Trump's foundation or campaign from 2014 to date?

Pointless to look into the Trump Foundation. It did very little and was closed down by the authorities.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-foundation-shutdown-lawsuit

"A New York judge has signed off on a deal to shut down Donald Trump’s personal charity after a lawsuit exposed a “shocking pattern of illegality”"

Basically, Trump's checkbook. Paid for portraits of himself via the foundation as I recall.

Outlaw Pete

listermint wrote: »

Have to say I'm really enjoying the grasping at straws from outlaw.

You post grossly inaccurate / deliberately false news reports and when a user points that out, you label that as them 'grasping at straws'?? Ha.

Funny how you are all mad keen to keep posting stories which suggest Trump is guilty of quid pro quos ven when there is little or no evidence to back these allegations up, but when a democrat politician who it certainly appears did engage in a quid pro quo (and where there is even footage of him admitting to doing so) the reaction is 'nothing to see here' and generally just crickets in response.

Which tells me that all the outrage we are seeing at the mere possibility that Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo (with the MSM backing it up and joining in on the mass pearl clutching) is fake and motive driven, as if it wasn't, then there would be a similar reaction, or even a somewhat closer reaction, to the fact that a politician admitted in public that when they were Vice-President of the United States they used the granting of a billion dollar loan as leverage to ensure that a prosecutor within a foreign country was fired. One can only imagine the reaction if footage was released of Trump laughing his ass off at withholdng such an approved payment before a prosecutor was fired in the Ukraine ... especially if that prosecutor had been investigating a company that had made Don jnr rich.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You post grossly inaccurate / deliberately false news reports and when a user points that out, you label that as them 'grasping at straws'?? Ha.

Funny how you are all mad keen to keep posting stories which suggest Trump is guilty of quid pro quos ven when there is little or no evidence to back these allegations up, but when a democrat politician who it certainly appears did engage in a quid pro quo (and where there is even footage of him admitting to doing so) the reaction is 'nothing to see here' and generally just crickets in response.

Which tells me that all the outrage we are seeing at the mere possibility that Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo (with the MSM backing it up and joining in on the mass pearl clutching) is fake, as if it wasn't, then there would be a similar reaction, or even a somewhat closer reaction, to the fact that a politician admitted in public that when they were Vice-President of the United States they used the granting of a billion dollar loan as leverage to ensure that a prosecutor within a foreign country was fired. One can only imagine the reaction if footage was released of Trump laughing his ass off at withholdng such an approved payment before a prosecutor was fired in the Ukraine ... especially if that prosecutor had been investigating a company that had made Don jnr rich.

Hey Pete. Can you answer my question please? Or are you going to dodge it as usual?

duploelabs

drunkmonkey wrote: »

She's a former US secretary of state in case you haven't heard of her. She held office within those timelines. You should look her up a proper crook.

Can you provide a citation where she's been convicted of a crime? I'll even settle for her being mentioned as an unindicted co-conspirator in a court document.

banie01

drunkmonkey wrote: »

She's a former US secretary of state in case you haven't heard of her. She held office within those timelines. You should look her up a proper crook.

How many of her aides have been jailed for corruption?
How many have been jailed for corruption relating directly back to Ukraine?

Campaign funding or donations is not an actus reus, whereas Trump's circle has already been decimated by convictions of members at its highest level.

That money came from Ukraine is fairly irrelevant in terms of how US political funding works.
What matters far more is the actions and impact of that money

Was it to direct and potentially influence discussion and research regarding potential policy?
Or was it to direct and influence actual policy implementation?

Comparing "Crooked Hilary" who's campaign failed, who holds no office and has peddled no influence to or been recorded inciting a foreign country to pursue kompromat against a political opponent is straw grasping.

I say that as someone with no real interest in the US left or right or the distinction between them as to most European eyes they are both very much shades of red.

When defending the actions of an openly corrupt and poor president becomes an exercise in whataboutery...
The argument is already lost.
Compare him to another elected head of state whom has acted in a similar at least?
Not his defeated opponent.

Igotadose

First Ukraine casualty: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/kurt-volker-resigns/index.html

This book was an interesting read, written by GOP political operative and a "Never Trumper" Rick Wilson. Title is appropriate: :https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everything-Trump-Touches-Dies-Republican/dp/1982103124/

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You post grossly inaccurate / deliberately false news reports and when a user points that out, you label that as them 'grasping at straws'?? Ha.

Funny how you are all mad keen to keep posting stories which suggest Trump is guilty of quid pro quos ven when there is little or no evidence to back these allegations up, but when a democrat politician who it certainly appears did engage in a quid pro quo (and where there is even footage of him admitting to doing so) the reaction is 'nothing to see here' and generally just crickets in response.

Which tells me that all the outrage we are seeing at the mere possibility that Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo (with the MSM backing it up and joining in on the mass pearl clutching) is fake and motive driven, as if it wasn't, then there would be a similar reaction, or even a somewhat closer reaction, to the fact that a politician admitted in public that when they were Vice-President of the United States they used the granting of a billion dollar loan as leverage to ensure that a prosecutor within a foreign country was fired. One can only imagine the reaction if footage was released of Trump laughing his ass off at withholdng such an approved payment before a prosecutor was fired in the Ukraine ... especially if that prosecutor had been investigating a company that had made Don jnr rich.

It seems to me the pertinent words in yours covering both persons is suggests and appears, which means there is nothing definite for a court to lock up either character. I think the NRA did nothing to help Don by contacting him at this time, except giving the appearance of substance to alleged connections outside the bounds of convention and legitimate emolument.