Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the mod charter at the start of this thread and see where you've been in breach

Does the charter allow you all to label other posters with a difference of opinion as Russian trolls and Bots?

nthclare

Why would people here, think genuine poster's are russian trools ?

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Does the charter allow you all to label other posters with a difference of opinion as Russian trolls and Bots?

Whataboutism is a flawed argument to start off with, but I don't believe I did label you as either

Professor Moriarty

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

So calling people trolls and bots is ok, but replying and calling people idiots, imbeciles or morons is beyond the pale? A funny standard to apply. My language has been pretty reasonable in the face of repeated personal insults. I'm ok with that. You guys get pretty sensitive though when the tables are turned in any way. Too used to your echo chamber 'discussions' I suspect. I'm happy to disturb that cosey consensus. It's been an entertaining pleasure.

I didn't call you a troll or a bot, or anything at all, yet you insulted me. I think you might be the sensitive one. Anyway, best of luck.

weisses

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh no, the Mueller Report is real, it's just politicised garbage. The claim that the Russian State interfered in the US election to aid the election of Trump is a conspiracy theory unsupported by one single piece of actual evidence. I thought we'd gone through this? It's literally a claim of a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory.

Sorry I rephrase ... The Mueller report is Based on a conspiracy theory and therefore is part of that conspiracy theory .... Yes ?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

'Effort' being the operative word.

“Attempted murder isn’t a crime!”

everlast75

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh no, the Mueller Report is real, it's just politicised garbage. The claim that the Russian State interfered in the US election to aid the election of Trump is a conspiracy theory unsupported by one single piece of actual evidence. I thought we'd gone through this? It's literally a claim of a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory.

1) Mueller and Rosenstein are Republicans
2) Trump and Barr say the report is credible.
3) however, the report says Russia interfered
4) Putin says he wanted trump to win
5) Manafort gave polling data to the russians

Overheal

Surely we don’t have another poster confused between the interference which occurred and the hacking of voting machines? Oh dear.

Overheal

For those interested here is the CIA joint-briefing material to both outgoing President Obama and newly minted President Trump

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3254239-Russia-Hacking-report.html

Midlife

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh no, the Mueller Report is real, it's just politicised garbage. The claim that the Russian State interfered in the US election to aid the election of Trump is a conspiracy theory unsupported by one single piece of actual evidence. I thought we'd gone through this? It's literally a claim of a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory.

What's your point??

There was a highly coordinated, well funded Russia-based attempt to interfere in the Us election.

Is all you're saying that this couldn't be directly linked to the Russian state?

or are you denying any interference at all?

Dohnjoe

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

The claim that the Russian State interfered in the US election to aid the election of Trump is a conspiracy theory unsupported by one single piece of actual evidence.

It's a widely accepted fact that Russia meddled in the 2016 US election. All US intelligence agencies support it. Even Trump has acknowledged it several times (often followed by some quick backtracking due to the investigation)

https://time.com/5341137/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russian-meddling-correction/
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/30/donald-trump-acknowledges-russia-helped-his-election-then-backtracks/1221107001/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/05/trump-admits-russia-helped-him-win-denies-it-20-minutes-later

PropJoe10

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh no, the Mueller Report is real, it's just politicised garbage. The claim that the Russian State interfered in the US election to aid the election of Trump is a conspiracy theory unsupported by one single piece of actual evidence. I thought we'd gone through this? It's literally a claim of a conspiracy, a conspiracy theory.

This is absolute nonsense of the highest order. Russia's interference in the US electoral process has been confirmed by every US intelligence agency multiple times. Unless you work for one of these agencies, which I personally doubt, then you are the one engaging in conspiracy theories.

everlast75

I forgot to mention the Senate intelligence committee, ran by a Republican, found that they interfered.

You are not living in the real world if you think otherwise.

listermint

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Yeah, and add a lack of any factual basis or evidence to the thinking of those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Sorry quite busy today just seeing this now.

You indicated you were a lawyer therefore im assuming there was some lengthy education involved with that.

You are aware trump derangement syndrome isn't actually a thing....

Right ?

looksee

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Misquoting me there, I said draining, not drained.

DC is brim full of those that make money from leftist politicking. Trump's attack on the Biden's for what they partook in won't have gone down well with those kind of people. It threatens their summer home in the Hamptons.

Also, only 4% voted for Trump there. It's extremely left leaning. Which is why I wouldn't read too much into the boos.

The act of draining something of necessity implies that at any stage in the draining some must have drained and some be waiting to drain, it is not static. So, some have been drained, can we have a few names?

If there are no names then he is not 'draining the swamp'. He may be anticipating doing it, but like his other claims, it hasn't happened yet.

The Phantom Jipper

looksee wrote: »

The act of draining something of necessity implies that at any stage in the draining some must have drained and some be waiting to drain, it is not static. So, some have been drained, can we have a few names?

If there are no names then he is not 'draining the swamp'. He may be anticipating doing it, but like his other claims, it hasn't happened yet.

Mad how quickly it went from "other people are as bad as Trump" before descending into pro-Russia nonsense. Poorly done.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1188903046614585345?s=19

Seems to me she has reason be believe she need not be worried about the Dems in the purple districts anymore...

Outlaw Pete

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Mad how quickly it went from "other people are as bad as Trump" before descending into pro-Russia nonsense. Poorly done.

Who said 'other people are as bad as Trump' and pro-Russia? What are what you jabbering about?


Pic of the brave talented dog:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1188909031403900928

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Who said 'other people are as bad as Trump' and pro-Russia? What are what you jabbering about?


Pic of the brave talented dog:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1188909031403900928

First decent tweet I've seen from Trump

Hande hoche!

That is a great tweet in fairness.

kowloon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you if think he believed everyone in a DC crowd would cheer him, then you absolutely know nothing of DC. Nothing.

That's the issue. The narcissism, the claims of the biggest crowd all cheering for him at every event he goes to. Does he believe it or does he boast about how popular he is knowing it's not true? He's either delusional or lying.

gizmo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm not ignoring them, but DC is undeniable leftist leaning and so before you get to anything else, that's a major factor to consider with regards to why Trump was booed. Add to that, that the crowd is largely related to, or at least friends with, DC lobbyists & bureaucrats and you have a large hive of folks that for one reason or another are not happy with the fact Trump is in office.

So the rest is all just incidental then? Well, incidental or not, it's a factor in these people's lives and a president that threatens a status quo (which these people have come to depend on - in one way or another) is not going to be all that appreciated, hence the reception imv. Anyone who feels it was a barometer on how America might be viewing the current impeachment effort, is fooling themselves.

With regard to D.C itself being a left leaning city, this is demonstrably true by any reasonable metric, not least the fact that as of 2016 around 76% of the registered voters in the district were Democrats compared to just 6% Republican. With that in mind, I wouldn't call it a major factor as to why he was booed, I'd call it the definitive one. Similarly, I also don't believe the response offers any reasonable indication of current attitudes towards the impeachment proceedings for precisely the same reason.

Where I disagree is the reasoning why the district swings so sharply blue, my contention being it is primarily due to the demographics of the region, not the fact that it is also home to such a large number of politicking firms. Not only will a cursory examination of those stats indicate an abnormally large proportion of voters who have historically identified with the Democratic Party but there is also the fact that since residents of the district were extended the right to vote in the Presidential elections back in the 60s, well before political lobbying became so utterly pervasive in the US, a Democratic candidate has been returned on every occasion. So, this is neither a new phenomenon nor can the presence of Democratic or Liberal based politicking firms provide a reasonable explanation when you factor in that nearly every major Conservative and Republican oriented firm are also based in D.C with the exception of, off the top of my head, The Heartland Institute.

26000 Elephants

everlast75 wrote: »

I forgot to mention the Senate intelligence committee, ran by a Republican, found that they interfered.

You are not living in the real world if you think otherwise.

I kinda formed that opinion when he kept saying the Mueller report "didn't contain any actual evidence", as If the printed report should have had human hair or memory sticks physically stuck to it as 'evidence'.

In that respect he was absolutely right - "The Mueller report did not contain any evidence!!"

Of course, it described in some detail all the circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Russian state went to significant lengths to interfere with, and effect the result of the election. These were not allegations: these were facts that in many cases were used to convict individuals connected with Trumps campaign and beyond. Anyone who questioned this was free to challenge the report through the courts. However, no one has done so.

Overheal

That’s a good boy.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a good boy.

The dog or the pinocchio poster?

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Who said 'other people are as bad as Trump' and pro-Russia? What are what you jabbering about?


Pic of the brave talented dog:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1188909031403900928

I've been following the way the thread is being diverted away from Donald J Trump and distractions deliberately planted to assist the diversion process. If you ask aretheymyfeet, or look through his posts, if he thinks other people are as bad as Trump I think you will find at least one name there, that of his predecessor in the Oval Office. I note the way you linked that aspect with Pro-Russia when the post you copied both did not link them but had them separated. There are several words between them that seem to have slipped off the page when you did your copying from that post.

Your "what are you jabbering about" question is plainly one overtly intended to raise the ire of the posters you are debating with.

Your copying and posting of Don's tweet about the dog is clearly an attempt at distraction the success of which you are clearly not worried about.

Edit: While what I wrote above may be called back-seat mod-ding. I don't see it that way, more I'm stating what I understand you to have written.

26000 Elephants

Following Kuppermans no show before congress today, what's to stop Schiff declaring him in contempt right now? Why all the 'may be in contempt...' "we will consider..."

aloyisious

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Following Kuppermans no show before congress today, what's to stop Schiff declaring him in contempt right now? Why all the 'may be in contempt...' "we will consider..."

To avoid giving Don and the GOP the opportunity to slap him around in public again. Kupperman has asked a federal court judge to give him what amounts to an "advisory" ruling on whether a congressional subpoena outweighs a presidential instruction to ignore the subpoena. Schiff jumping the gun on the judge's decision [whichever way it would come out] would give the GOP strategists what they want "Schiff says he has more power than a federal judge on matters of law".

The judge may well tell Kupperman's lawyer the matter is not for him to decide on, that it's up to the lawyer to advise his client on what to do in respect of the subpoena. I note that the judge is not being asked to rule that the subpoena, and it's serving, are unlawful in law, just WHICH HAS PRECEDENCE IN FEDERAL LAW. Point to note: a court has already ruled in the past week that the president is not above the law.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer expert in US constitutional law.

Outlaw Pete

aloyisious wrote: »

Your "what are you jabbering about" question is plainly one overtly intended to raise the ire of the posters you are debating with.

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia. Often to the degree that they'll be called a bot if they continue. It's farcical. Vast majority of those I have encountered online expressing doubts about the official stance on Russia's level of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the impact that it had, or could have had, have also had no problem whatsoever simultaneously condemning Putin and his kind when it comes to human rights and other issues.

Indeed, Obama was one such individual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intent was to get an answer. I think there is an irrational notion that exists on here (and throughout the hivemind of the left in general) that anyone who disagrees with the left's consensus on matters concerning Russia, are somehow pro-Russia. Often to the degree that they'll be called a bot if they continue. It's farcical. Vast majority of those I have encountered online expressing doubts about the official stance on Russia's level of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the impact that it had, or could have had, have also had no problem whatsoever simultaneously condemning Putin and his kind when it comes to human rights and other issues.

Indeed, Obama was one such individual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4

Note at this point there was little evidence that there was interfence in the election.

Second of all Obama is referring to rigging the votes directly which is not the official version which is a different accusation of interference (I know some have accused Russia of directly vote hacking but that has never been the official version).

Finally you know well that Obama was the first to accuse Russia of interference. Obama is not one such individual and to state as such is flat out wrong. Obama does believe that Russia interfered with the election. He has stated this many times so why would you state the opposite?

Finally your argument adds little. There is no discussion as to why the findings from multiple intelligence agencies from across the western world are all wrong (noting France and Germany reported interference in their own election but we're better prepared to deal with it having seen what happened in the US). It seems to boil down to my view is reasonable because because.