This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
OK, Trump is a dangerous liability as President, but the evidence of an illegal or dangerous relationship with the Russians seems, so far, to be thin on the ground.
Supposing it turns out there was none?
The media establishment have whipped themselves into a frenzy on the topic on the basis of weak evidence and their own distaste for the man. If he is cleared that leaves them discredited and Trump looking like he was indeed the subject of a "witch hunt".
Even if they get their man, without a an incontrovertible "smoking gun"it will likely just enrage and strengthen Trump's base.
Hmmm...
5
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
That's the problem when there's so much tribalism in today's politics. When people stop thinking and blindly support, that's when democracy fails.
> Even if they get their man, without a an incontrovertible "smoking gun"it will likely just enrage and strengthen Trump's base. Hmmm...
That's the problem when there's so much tribalism in today's politics. When people stop thinking and blindly support, that's when democracy fails.
12
In reply to Postmanpat:
The Trump base is already enraged, I don't think they would turn against him even if he was found shitting on the American flag revealing a hammer and sickle tattoo on his buttocks. On the other hand, I doubt anything will change the minds of those against him either. There's enough for them to cling to anyway, we know there was some collusion with Flynn and we know that the WH covered the fact they knew this before the appointment. There's enough of a whiffy smell about the whole thing for them to save face. I don't think he'll be impeached.
> Even if they get their man, without a an incontrovertible "smoking gun"it will likely just enrage and strengthen Trump's base.
The Trump base is already enraged, I don't think they would turn against him even if he was found shitting on the American flag revealing a hammer and sickle tattoo on his buttocks. On the other hand, I doubt anything will change the minds of those against him either. There's enough for them to cling to anyway, we know there was some collusion with Flynn and we know that the WH covered the fact they knew this before the appointment. There's enough of a whiffy smell about the whole thing for them to save face. I don't think he'll be impeached.
6
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Incidentally, in what way do you think this could reasonably be described as a witch hunt? Have any of the questions asked been unreasonable so far? He's simply being called to account for some very strange actions.
Obviously Tumpists might describe it as such but would anyone else, even if cleared?
Incidentally, in what way do you think this could reasonably be described as a witch hunt? Have any of the questions asked been unreasonable so far? He's simply being called to account for some very strange actions.
Obviously Tumpists might describe it as such but would anyone else, even if cleared?
13
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Then they will get him for something else. Look at what happened to Clinton, Ken Starr went at it for years, the investigation branched out and branched out as it collected testimony and what started as an investigation into a land deal eventually got him for oral sex with an intern. Compared with an intelligent and careful person with a background in the law like Clinton investigating Trump is like shooting fish in a barrel.
> OK, Trump is a dangerous liability as President, but the evidence of an illegal or dangerous relationship with the Russians seems, so far, to be thin on the ground.Supposing it turns out there was none?
Then they will get him for something else. Look at what happened to Clinton, Ken Starr went at it for years, the investigation branched out and branched out as it collected testimony and what started as an investigation into a land deal eventually got him for oral sex with an intern. Compared with an intelligent and careful person with a background in the law like Clinton investigating Trump is like shooting fish in a barrel.
15
In reply to Postmanpat:
Dangerous relationship - probably yes - things like Russian state banks backing co-investors
Something illegal with Russia by Trump himself - probably not but he's got such a history of being sued you wonder what else he's been up to, hence the media frenzy
Russian interference in US and other elections - definitely, loads of credible news stories on this - the one to be most concerned about
Evidence is of secondary importance to dogma across the political spectrum.
Dangerous relationship - probably yes - things like Russian state banks backing co-investors
Something illegal with Russia by Trump himself - probably not but he's got such a history of being sued you wonder what else he's been up to, hence the media frenzy
Russian interference in US and other elections - definitely, loads of credible news stories on this - the one to be most concerned about
Evidence is of secondary importance to dogma across the political spectrum.
2
In reply to elsewhere:
"It's always the cover-up that is worse than the crime"
It does often seem to me that the original sin is not criminal as such - Trump clearly revelled in Russian leaks. A normal candidate would have distanced himself from such help but he egged them on. I'd be surprised (but admittedly not that surprised) even now if he or his compatriots were in cahoots directly with the leakers.
But following that he and Sessions have directly misbehaved...
1. Not firing Mike Flynn when they knew he had inappropriate contacts with Russian officials and financial arrangements with Turkish officials - until it became public knowledge.
2. Suggesting the Mike Flynn case be dropped by the FBI.
I suggest if Hilary Clinton was president and the Congress was Republican either of those two actions would have seen her impeached by now.
"It's always the cover-up that is worse than the crime"
It does often seem to me that the original sin is not criminal as such - Trump clearly revelled in Russian leaks. A normal candidate would have distanced himself from such help but he egged them on. I'd be surprised (but admittedly not that surprised) even now if he or his compatriots were in cahoots directly with the leakers.
But following that he and Sessions have directly misbehaved...
1. Not firing Mike Flynn when they knew he had inappropriate contacts with Russian officials and financial arrangements with Turkish officials - until it became public knowledge.
2. Suggesting the Mike Flynn case be dropped by the FBI.
I suggest if Hilary Clinton was president and the Congress was Republican either of those two actions would have seen her impeached by now.
11
In reply to Tyler:
Well, if all that happened is that he or members of his campaign had 18 contacts with Russian representatives in the run up the election wouldn't that be considered pretty normal?
If this has been turned into a massive media campaign and the rest (eg. nights out with hookers and financial connections) turns out to be baseless tittle tattle then it will look, with hindsight, as mass media hysteria.
Which is not to say that Trump's reaction has not been hysterical in itself (and I don't mean funny)
> Incidentally, in what way do you think this could reasonably be described as a witch hunt? Have any of the questions asked been unreasonable so far? He's simply being called to account for some very strange actions. Obviously Tumpists might describe it as such but would anyone else, even if cleared?
>Well, if all that happened is that he or members of his campaign had 18 contacts with Russian representatives in the run up the election wouldn't that be considered pretty normal?
If this has been turned into a massive media campaign and the rest (eg. nights out with hookers and financial connections) turns out to be baseless tittle tattle then it will look, with hindsight, as mass media hysteria.
Which is not to say that Trump's reaction has not been hysterical in itself (and I don't mean funny)
Post edited at 11:06
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I guess like 90% of Internet arguments this is semantic issue, what some are calling a witch hunt I'd say is a legitimate line of questioning. Trump has made a habit of removing transparency from his office (not releasing tax returns, not releasing visitor details) so what do you want/expect the press to do. Which parts of the media do you think could be viewed as behaving hysterically (even in retrospect)? What's the alternative, take trump at his word?
I guess like 90% of Internet arguments this is semantic issue, what some are calling a witch hunt I'd say is a legitimate line of questioning. Trump has made a habit of removing transparency from his office (not releasing tax returns, not releasing visitor details) so what do you want/expect the press to do. Which parts of the media do you think could be viewed as behaving hysterically (even in retrospect)? What's the alternative, take trump at his word?
2
In reply to Tyler:
Problem is that Clinton is not any more fragrant.
Edit more not less
> There's enough of a whiffy smell about the whole thing for them to save face. I don't think he'll be impeached.
Problem is that Clinton is not any more fragrant.
Edit more not less
Post edited at 13:34
1
2
In reply to Jim C:
That is debatable, but completely irrelevant to this discussion given that she holds no public office, and would not stand to do so if Trump were impeached or even convicted.
> Problem is that Clinton is not any more fragrant.
That is debatable, but completely irrelevant to this discussion given that she holds no public office, and would not stand to do so if Trump were impeached or even convicted.
7
In reply to Jim C:
Respectfully I think that is nonsense. It is bizarre beyond belief that Trump should claim to be victim of:
"The single biggest witch hunt of a politician in American history"
...when that is almost certainly the mix of hyperbole, half-baked conspiracy theories, whataboutery, and misogyny that have dogged Hilary Clinton. When you look at these there really is little to see. When she has done something wrong - like the emails server - she has just come clean. And when you trawl through the actual emails it's just remarkably unscandalous.
The contracts with Trump is that she just always did everything by the book - regardless if you like her politics - and was hounded none the less. Whenever someone says they - Trump and Clinton - are the same my eyes just practically roll out of their sockets.
Respectfully I think that is nonsense. It is bizarre beyond belief that Trump should claim to be victim of:
"The single biggest witch hunt of a politician in American history"
...when that is almost certainly the mix of hyperbole, half-baked conspiracy theories, whataboutery, and misogyny that have dogged Hilary Clinton. When you look at these there really is little to see. When she has done something wrong - like the emails server - she has just come clean. And when you trawl through the actual emails it's just remarkably unscandalous.
The contracts with Trump is that she just always did everything by the book - regardless if you like her politics - and was hounded none the less. Whenever someone says they - Trump and Clinton - are the same my eyes just practically roll out of their sockets.
6
In reply to Jim C:
Do you genuinely believe this? What are HC's misdemeanours as you see them?
> Problem is that Clinton is not any more fragrant.
Do you genuinely believe this? What are HC's misdemeanours as you see them?
Post edited at 14:22
In reply to Postmanpat:
Pretty much the whole of the US intelligence community, as well as GCHQ, have confirmed that Russia interfered with the US election.
Suspicions of collusion are therefore entirely legitimate, and apparently there was enough evidence corroborated for the FBI to issue warrants.
The fact the Trump fired the guy in charge of what seems to be a legitimate investigation doesn't help his case, there is nothing suggesting the media coverage is particularly blown out of proportion.
> OK, Trump is a dangerous liability as President, but the evidence of an illegal or dangerous relationship with the Russians seems, so far, to be thin on the ground.Supposing it turns out there was none? The media establishment have whipped themselves into a frenzy on the topic on the basis of weak evidence and their own distaste for the man. If he is cleared that leaves them discredited and Trump looking like he was indeed the subject of a "witch hunt". Even if they get their man, without a an incontrovertible "smoking gun"it will likely just enrage and strengthen Trump's base. Hmmm...
Pretty much the whole of the US intelligence community, as well as GCHQ, have confirmed that Russia interfered with the US election.
Suspicions of collusion are therefore entirely legitimate, and apparently there was enough evidence corroborated for the FBI to issue warrants.
The fact the Trump fired the guy in charge of what seems to be a legitimate investigation doesn't help his case, there is nothing suggesting the media coverage is particularly blown out of proportion.
4
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I hope he doesn't get impeached:
a) He's so wildly ineffective and interested in cultivating petty arguments, he'll continue to barely get any policy even raised let alone through Congress;
b) He's doing massive amounts to the idiot wing of the Republican party who held their noses and supported him, despite knowing what a liability he is, all in the name of partisan politics;
c) It's wildly entertaining, sometimes drama, sometimes comedy, sometimes horror;
d) Mike Pence.
Okay, there is the moderate increased threat of nuclear holocaust with him there, but I'm willing to accept that on the basis of c) alone.
I hope he doesn't get impeached:
a) He's so wildly ineffective and interested in cultivating petty arguments, he'll continue to barely get any policy even raised let alone through Congress;
b) He's doing massive amounts to the idiot wing of the Republican party who held their noses and supported him, despite knowing what a liability he is, all in the name of partisan politics;
c) It's wildly entertaining, sometimes drama, sometimes comedy, sometimes horror;
d) Mike Pence.
Okay, there is the moderate increased threat of nuclear holocaust with him there, but I'm willing to accept that on the basis of c) alone.
9
1
1
In reply to Tyler:
They are starting to. Losing healthcare access means people die. It really is that simple.
Large families are losing insurance for their kids under his plan, the 'get ready to go to work' miners are still unemployed.. peoples patience is wearing thin.
He's already distancing himself from his teams involvement. 'I speak for myself when I say there as no collusion"..
They are starting to. Losing healthcare access means people die. It really is that simple.
Large families are losing insurance for their kids under his plan, the 'get ready to go to work' miners are still unemployed.. peoples patience is wearing thin.
He's already distancing himself from his teams involvement. 'I speak for myself when I say there as no collusion"..
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
So here's the thing. Under US law it's illegal for non state actors to conduct international diplomacy of any form. So with that in mind what conceivable reason would there be for numerous senior members of the Trump camp to have multiple contacts, in the middle of a gruelling election campaign, with the Russians?
So ignoring all of the subsequent cover ups, denials and downright odd, and by the public appearance incriminating, behaviour. It's pretty much as simple as why were they talking to representatives of the Russian state as representatives of an unelected candidate because on paper there's virtually no transparent reason for them to be doing this.
Or to use your own language this is not anything that would be considered pretty normal.
> > Well, if all that happened is that he or members of his campaign had 18 contacts with Russian representatives in the run up the election wouldn't that be considered pretty normal?
So here's the thing. Under US law it's illegal for non state actors to conduct international diplomacy of any form. So with that in mind what conceivable reason would there be for numerous senior members of the Trump camp to have multiple contacts, in the middle of a gruelling election campaign, with the Russians?
So ignoring all of the subsequent cover ups, denials and downright odd, and by the public appearance incriminating, behaviour. It's pretty much as simple as why were they talking to representatives of the Russian state as representatives of an unelected candidate because on paper there's virtually no transparent reason for them to be doing this.
Or to use your own language this is not anything that would be considered pretty normal.
1
In reply to Frank4short:
I suppose that comes back to the definition of "diplomacy". If I remember rightly (I may not) the British embassy was lambasted for not having established a relationship with the Trump team pre-the election (unlike Farage). This implies that such contacts are considered "normal". Where is the line?
> Or to use your own language this is not anything that would be considered pretty normal.
>I suppose that comes back to the definition of "diplomacy". If I remember rightly (I may not) the British embassy was lambasted for not having established a relationship with the Trump team pre-the election (unlike Farage). This implies that such contacts are considered "normal". Where is the line?
In reply to Postmanpat:
At a guess probably somewhere between 1 and 5 publicly disclosed meetings. Not 18+ covert meetings that were completely denied about up until the point it was irrefutably proven they had happened.
I know nothing of this business about the british embassy being panned over not having a relationship with team trump but from what little i know of diplomatic affairs and the business of US elections it's unlikely this would have happened with the Clinton camp either, and even if it had no doubt contact would have been extremely limited at best as, well, US elections are pretty much hell. Talking to people not relevant to your campaign doesn't get you votes, so why bother?
> > I suppose that comes back to the definition of "diplomacy". If I remember rightly (I may not) the British embassy was lambasted for not having established a relationship with the Trump team pre-the election (unlike Farage). This implies that such contacts are considered "normal". Where is the line?
At a guess probably somewhere between 1 and 5 publicly disclosed meetings. Not 18+ covert meetings that were completely denied about up until the point it was irrefutably proven they had happened.
I know nothing of this business about the british embassy being panned over not having a relationship with team trump but from what little i know of diplomatic affairs and the business of US elections it's unlikely this would have happened with the Clinton camp either, and even if it had no doubt contact would have been extremely limited at best as, well, US elections are pretty much hell. Talking to people not relevant to your campaign doesn't get you votes, so why bother?
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Presumably if Flynn said (or is believed to have said) that the sanctions would be lifted under a Trump presidency with the expectation that Russia would in return support Trump in the campaign by releasing the hacked DRC emails etc.
More generally I think the reporting in the UK is missing the what seems like utter hysteria and panic from the executive branch in DC. I was listening to a great discussion yesterday on Trumpcast with one of the Politico's White House correspondents on just how leaky Trump's crew are - they are both briefing against each other (due to the various factions within the administration) but also asking the journalists what they've heard from the other factions! Also, that Trump doesn't listen to anyone, so "close advisors" literally leak to Fox or CNN because he does obsessively watch cable news, so to get information in front of him you might have more luck by going via the tv news! http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2017/05/the_comey_fire_is_...
Sean Spicer might seem like the world's least enviable employee currently, but just think of the number he's gonna get when he finally says "**** this for a game soldiers, I'm off" and goes in search of a book deal. You get the feeling that when its crumbles, it is really going to go. Not just "heavy spindrift" of leaks but a full depth, roaring, tree ripping, road tearing utter melon-farmer of a political avalanche. Hopefully we will still all be around to laugh.
> Where is the line?
Presumably if Flynn said (or is believed to have said) that the sanctions would be lifted under a Trump presidency with the expectation that Russia would in return support Trump in the campaign by releasing the hacked DRC emails etc.
More generally I think the reporting in the UK is missing the what seems like utter hysteria and panic from the executive branch in DC. I was listening to a great discussion yesterday on Trumpcast with one of the Politico's White House correspondents on just how leaky Trump's crew are - they are both briefing against each other (due to the various factions within the administration) but also asking the journalists what they've heard from the other factions! Also, that Trump doesn't listen to anyone, so "close advisors" literally leak to Fox or CNN because he does obsessively watch cable news, so to get information in front of him you might have more luck by going via the tv news! http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2017/05/the_comey_fire_is_...
Sean Spicer might seem like the world's least enviable employee currently, but just think of the number he's gonna get when he finally says "**** this for a game soldiers, I'm off" and goes in search of a book deal. You get the feeling that when its crumbles, it is really going to go. Not just "heavy spindrift" of leaks but a full depth, roaring, tree ripping, road tearing utter melon-farmer of a political avalanche. Hopefully we will still all be around to laugh.
12
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ufG_fQgIQJM&autoplay=1
You don't even need a direct hit, the shockwaves are enough
> Then they will get him for something else. Look at what happened to Clinton, Ken Starr went at it for years ..... Compared with an intelligent and careful person with a background in the law like Clinton - investigating Trump is like shooting fish in a barrel.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ufG_fQgIQJM&autoplay=1
You don't even need a direct hit, the shockwaves are enough
1
In reply to TobyA:
I read somewhere that if an advisor has to ask Trump to read something they make sure it is a) Very short b) Sprinkled with the word "Trump" to maintain his attention.....
I read somewhere that if an advisor has to ask Trump to read something they make sure it is a) Very short b) Sprinkled with the word "Trump" to maintain his attention.....
2
In reply to TobyA:
I suspect Trump will shaft Spicer before Spicer cuts and runs. The latter will hang around to get more stuff for his book.
Yup, it's all bizarrely entertaining but in reality it's quite scary: how come the world's richest democracy elects a lunatic and what happens if it ditches him?
I suspect Trump will shaft Spicer before Spicer cuts and runs. The latter will hang around to get more stuff for his book.
Yup, it's all bizarrely entertaining but in reality it's quite scary: how come the world's richest democracy elects a lunatic and what happens if it ditches him?
Post edited at 20:09
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Short sharp information summaries is normal in the corporate world, I spent my working life writing summaries for directors on Procurment decisions. The detail was what they paid me to do.
Short sharp information summaries is normal in the corporate world, I spent my working life writing summaries for directors on Procurment decisions. The detail was what they paid me to do.
1
In reply to Tyler:
How far back do you want to go? ( I'm old)
> Do you genuinely believe this? What are HC's misdemeanours as you see them?
How far back do you want to go? ( I'm old)
1
In reply to Jim C:
Liberally sprinkled with the recipient's name?
> Short sharp information summaries is normal in the corporate world, I spent my working life writing summaries for directors on Procurment decisions. The detail was what they paid me to do.
Liberally sprinkled with the recipient's name?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
No I think that is a particular requirement of Trump
Executive summaries are , however, quite normal.
> Liberally sprinkled with the recipient's name?
No I think that is a particular requirement of Trump
Executive summaries are , however, quite normal.
1
In reply to Jim C:
Of course, but advisors have apparently been forced to reduce them to one page maximum. Sometimes more is needed when addressing complex issues.
> No I think that is a particular requirement of Trump Executive summaries are , however, quite normal.
Of course, but advisors have apparently been forced to reduce them to one page maximum. Sometimes more is needed when addressing complex issues.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
All very interesting, do we know if George Bush could read more than one page ?
Trump could well be dummer than Bush, but is he more crooked than Clinton, who knows !
> Of course, but advisors have apparently been forced to reduce them to one page maximum. Sometimes more is needed when addressing complex issues.
All very interesting, do we know if George Bush could read more than one page ?
Trump could well be dummer than Bush, but is he more crooked than Clinton, who knows !
4
In reply to Jim C:
Are you for real?!
> Problem is that Clinton is not any more fragrant.Edit more not less
Are you for real?!
6
1
In reply to Jim C:
WTF has HC ever been convicted for? Name one sodding thing. The most powerful and richest pressure group in the history of the entire world hasn't been able to charge her with so much as a parking offence, and yet tinfoil hat idiots like you - who can't even spell 'dumb', so f*ck knows what your bosses are like - still think she's a crook.
The problem with Clinton is that she's a woman, she's bright, and after 40 years of overcoming issues can come over as a tad complacent. But she's done more for women, poor people, the impoverished and the disadvantaged than you, I or any of her critics would have achieved in several lifetimes.
WTF has HC ever been convicted for? Name one sodding thing. The most powerful and richest pressure group in the history of the entire world hasn't been able to charge her with so much as a parking offence, and yet tinfoil hat idiots like you - who can't even spell 'dumb', so f*ck knows what your bosses are like - still think she's a crook.
The problem with Clinton is that she's a woman, she's bright, and after 40 years of overcoming issues can come over as a tad complacent. But she's done more for women, poor people, the impoverished and the disadvantaged than you, I or any of her critics would have achieved in several lifetimes.
25
1
In reply to Jim C:
Everyone who hasn't swallowed the neo-con agenda whole knows
> is he more crooked than Clinton, who knows !
Everyone who hasn't swallowed the neo-con agenda whole knows
3
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
More abuse, can you not just make a point pleasantly?
I do accept that neither Trump or Clinton have has as much as a parking ticket. The situation is that you are happy to believe that Trump is a crook, and he may be. I happen to be happy to believe that they both could be crooks.
By being against Clinton, does not mean support for Trump. My guess is justice will catch up with both of them, eventually.
More abuse, can you not just make a point pleasantly?
I do accept that neither Trump or Clinton have has as much as a parking ticket. The situation is that you are happy to believe that Trump is a crook, and he may be. I happen to be happy to believe that they both could be crooks.
By being against Clinton, does not mean support for Trump. My guess is justice will catch up with both of them, eventually.
2
6
In reply to Jim C:
I can't see any abuse. You are being wilfully ignorant if you can't judge between them.
Edit OK I can, but.seriiusly what do.expect with posts.like that?
I can't see any abuse. You are being wilfully ignorant if you can't judge between them.
Edit OK I can, but.seriiusly what do.expect with posts.like that?
Post edited at 21:37
1
In reply to Jim C:
No, I can't. You purport to be rational; you are as blind to all sources of reliable data as the most assiduous birther or moon landing conspiracy theorist. The wilful, deliberate ignorance of people like you makes some sort of descent into the abyss a possible, even probable nightmare.
No, I can't. You purport to be rational; you are as blind to all sources of reliable data as the most assiduous birther or moon landing conspiracy theorist. The wilful, deliberate ignorance of people like you makes some sort of descent into the abyss a possible, even probable nightmare.
7
2
In reply to MG:
You can't see any abuse,( 'Tin had idiots') but you then call me ignorant, brilliant !
> I can't see any abuse. You are being wilfully ignorant if you can't judge between them.Edit OK I can, but.seriiusly what do.expect with posts.like that?
You can't see any abuse,( 'Tin had idiots') but you then call me ignorant, brilliant !
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Have they really whipped themselves into a frenzy? (a petulant frenzy) I'm not sure they have ...considering
Have they really whipped themselves into a frenzy? (a petulant frenzy) I'm not sure they have ...considering
1
In reply to Postmanpat: the news seems to be overtaking you. But investigations have already revealed Michael Flynns illegal non declaration of being paid by a foreign government, and Trumps disregard for that ltransgression and the law. Time will tell , but more is coming.
Go to the better American new sources for information on this - the uk press is miles behind. Npr, wash post, the Atlantic, CNN. Not Breitbart . The real news is amazing enough without fairy stories
Go to the better American new sources for information on this - the uk press is miles behind. Npr, wash post, the Atlantic, CNN. Not Breitbart . The real news is amazing enough without fairy stories
2
1
In reply to wbo:
OK folks, you saw it here first. There will shortly be some response from the WH based on the concepts of 'fake law' or 'alternative law.'
OK folks, you saw it here first. There will shortly be some response from the WH based on the concepts of 'fake law' or 'alternative law.'
1
1
In reply to wbo:
Yup. I do like the concept of Trump describing Comey as a "nutjob" !!
> the news seems to be overtaking you.
>Yup. I do like the concept of Trump describing Comey as a "nutjob" !!
2
In reply to Jim C:
As long as you want.
For the avoidance of doubt we're talking about HC not BC, not that that makes any difference to my position.
> How far back do you want to go? ( I'm old)
As long as you want.
For the avoidance of doubt we're talking about HC not BC, not that that makes any difference to my position.
Post edited at 23:09
2
1
In reply to Jim C:
Don't try to defend him.. he may be right wing but the man has the vocab of a 6th grader.. at most.
We all know that.
He has incredibly poor grasp about things he talks confidently about.. FFS he's now turned around and said 'nobody knew healthcare was so complicated..'
The man has no idea and his administration is crumbling.
> Short sharp information summaries is normal in the corporate world, I spent my working life writing summaries for directors on Procurment decisions. The detail was what they paid me to do.
Don't try to defend him.. he may be right wing but the man has the vocab of a 6th grader.. at most.
We all know that.
He has incredibly poor grasp about things he talks confidently about.. FFS he's now turned around and said 'nobody knew healthcare was so complicated..'
The man has no idea and his administration is crumbling.
7
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
You seem to be placing the blame for the investigations on the media without acknowledging that the Justice Department, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are all, separately, investigating links between Trump and Russia. Of course the media are doing their own digging but there are plenty of official investigations underway.
And, while I don't know much about what evidence is available, I'm not so sure that the charges are just part of normal business. Specifically in the case of Mike Flynn the charges are pretty serious: Promising the Russian ambassador - before the inauguration - that Trump would drop Obamas latest sanctions would be illegal; if the 500kUSD he received from the president of the Turkish-American association is linked to his blocking of an attack on ISIS opposed by Turkey (but supported by the Obama administration and later carried out by Trump after Flynn was sacked) it would seem that US foreign policy was up for sale.
You seem to be placing the blame for the investigations on the media without acknowledging that the Justice Department, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are all, separately, investigating links between Trump and Russia. Of course the media are doing their own digging but there are plenty of official investigations underway.
And, while I don't know much about what evidence is available, I'm not so sure that the charges are just part of normal business. Specifically in the case of Mike Flynn the charges are pretty serious: Promising the Russian ambassador - before the inauguration - that Trump would drop Obamas latest sanctions would be illegal; if the 500kUSD he received from the president of the Turkish-American association is linked to his blocking of an attack on ISIS opposed by Turkey (but supported by the Obama administration and later carried out by Trump after Flynn was sacked) it would seem that US foreign policy was up for sale.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
At this point unfortunately I think the main danger is that he starts a war somewhere to try to divert from his disastrous presidency at home.
I hope you like the sounds of the nukes flying over your head in the morning
> Don't try to defend him.. he may be right wing but the man has the vocab of a 6th grader.. at most.We all know that.He has incredibly poor grasp about things he talks confidently about.. FFS he's now turned around and said 'nobody knew healthcare was so complicated..'The man has no idea and his administration is crumbling.
At this point unfortunately I think the main danger is that he starts a war somewhere to try to divert from his disastrous presidency at home.
I hope you like the sounds of the nukes flying over your head in the morning
Post edited at 09:13
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Just to be clear, I'm not sure either!
> And, while I don't know much about what evidence is available, I'm not so sure that the charges are just part of normal business.
>Just to be clear, I'm not sure either!
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think the danger maybe that if they find no evidence of "collusion" but find out that he is upto his eyeballs in dept to Russian oligarchs (all of whom have links to the Russian government) that this may shrugged of by the voting public as a clever guy doing business, just as they did when he admitted paying no tax, impeachment depends on the republican perception of the voters reaction to trump misdomeaners and how that will affect them directly in the house elections.
I think the danger maybe that if they find no evidence of "collusion" but find out that he is upto his eyeballs in dept to Russian oligarchs (all of whom have links to the Russian government) that this may shrugged of by the voting public as a clever guy doing business, just as they did when he admitted paying no tax, impeachment depends on the republican perception of the voters reaction to trump misdomeaners and how that will affect them directly in the house elections.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>The problem with Clinton is that she's a woman, she's bright, and after 40 years of overcoming issues can come over as a tad complacent. But she's done more for women, poor people, the impoverished and the disadvantaged than you, I or any of her critics would have achieved in several lifetimes.
Would have liked that twice over if I could.
>The problem with Clinton is that she's a woman, she's bright, and after 40 years of overcoming issues can come over as a tad complacent. But she's done more for women, poor people, the impoverished and the disadvantaged than you, I or any of her critics would have achieved in several lifetimes.
Would have liked that twice over if I could.
In reply to mbh:
I don't think many, even in the US realize how much she has achieved.
Trump is just an idiot. He makes errors a 15 year old wouldn't.. admitting to the Russians he sacked Comey to relieve pressure on himself and that he was a nut job.
The American press are the 5th branch of Government and there has been some unbelievably good investigative journalism.
Without the press Flynn would still be in the White House and that's a thread that is really pulling.
I don't think many, even in the US realize how much she has achieved.
Trump is just an idiot. He makes errors a 15 year old wouldn't.. admitting to the Russians he sacked Comey to relieve pressure on himself and that he was a nut job.
The American press are the 5th branch of Government and there has been some unbelievably good investigative journalism.
Without the press Flynn would still be in the White House and that's a thread that is really pulling.
Post edited at 14:07
2
In reply to mbh:
Trump keeps calling the NYT the failing NYT, likewise WaPo and CNN.. all we're struggling pre Trump now their ratings are great...
Trump keeps calling the NYT the failing NYT, likewise WaPo and CNN.. all we're struggling pre Trump now their ratings are great...
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
You seem to be reading into things I write that are not there. I have never defended Trump, I just see people using every and any possibility to attack him, and simply pointed out that that particular attack was not a great one.
There is plenty to go on with Trump, but there is a danger that he will get away with saying there is a witch hunt if almost anything he does is attacked, better to praise him for the things he does well ( or at least not as bad as we thought he might be) , but certainly challenge him on what he does not do well, then there can no charge of a witch hunt.
There seems to be a case on here of , if your not 100% with us on attacking Trump, then you are 100% against us !
Similarly, when I pointed out that Clinton was not particularly squeaky clean herself. That too was seen as some kind of endorsement of Trump that was never written anywhere, and of course because I'm not towing the attack Trump for anything line, I'm an idiot etc.
I'm not into name calling, I will continue being ( possibly annoyingly polite, and leave that for others who seem to think that it enhances their point.
Some people need to calm down,m and read what was said and not immediately assume things just because it suits their prejudices, and then try not to descend to insults.
> Don't try to defend him.. he may be right wing but the man has the vocab of a 6th grader.. at most.We all know that.He has incredibly poor grasp about things he talks confidently about.. FFS he's now turned around and said 'nobody knew healthcare was so complicated..'The man has no idea and his administration is crumbling.
You seem to be reading into things I write that are not there. I have never defended Trump, I just see people using every and any possibility to attack him, and simply pointed out that that particular attack was not a great one.
There is plenty to go on with Trump, but there is a danger that he will get away with saying there is a witch hunt if almost anything he does is attacked, better to praise him for the things he does well ( or at least not as bad as we thought he might be) , but certainly challenge him on what he does not do well, then there can no charge of a witch hunt.
There seems to be a case on here of , if your not 100% with us on attacking Trump, then you are 100% against us !
Similarly, when I pointed out that Clinton was not particularly squeaky clean herself. That too was seen as some kind of endorsement of Trump that was never written anywhere, and of course because I'm not towing the attack Trump for anything line, I'm an idiot etc.
I'm not into name calling, I will continue being ( possibly annoyingly polite, and leave that for others who seem to think that it enhances their point.
Some people need to calm down,m and read what was said and not immediately assume things just because it suits their prejudices, and then try not to descend to insults.
Post edited at 03:50
1
In reply to Jim C:
'Similarly, when I pointed out that Clinton was not particularly squeaky clean herself. '
But she pretty much is.
And Trump hasn't, actually, achieved anything yet other than already make a great deal of money for him, his family and his supporters, with plenty more on the way. And he's failed at pretty much at everything he promised he would do.
'Similarly, when I pointed out that Clinton was not particularly squeaky clean herself. '
But she pretty much is.
And Trump hasn't, actually, achieved anything yet other than already make a great deal of money for him, his family and his supporters, with plenty more on the way. And he's failed at pretty much at everything he promised he would do.
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Its not designed to be a smoking gun - more maneuvering by the deep state to keep the guy they didnt want to be President isolated, incapacitated and weak.
NYT is a known CIA mouthpiece and unapologetically anti Trump. Its actually become a joke newspaper, filled with fake news, NYT protesteth too much about its campaigning independant journalism and devotion to integrity.
D
Its not designed to be a smoking gun - more maneuvering by the deep state to keep the guy they didnt want to be President isolated, incapacitated and weak.
NYT is a known CIA mouthpiece and unapologetically anti Trump. Its actually become a joke newspaper, filled with fake news, NYT protesteth too much about its campaigning independant journalism and devotion to integrity.
D
1
3
In reply to TobyA:
You do get the strong sense that everyone, bar none, in Washington, including those in the WH, are finding it almost impossible to keep anything together now and realise just what a total liability and idiot Trump is. Because of that, I think he will be out before his term is up, some way or other, but I'm sure he personally will hold on as long as possible and he will clearly always have a huge part of the electorate that back him because anything against him is just establishment-driven false news.
As MonkeyPuzzle says, there is a real problem if / when he goes because we'll be left with a frightening Trump agenda still to be pushed through, a strongly right wing Republican leadership across all branches of government who will be keen to implement many parts of that agenda, and none of the loose cannons to f**k it all up.
> Sean Spicer might seem like the world's least enviable employee currently, but just think of the number he's gonna get when he finally says "**** this for a game soldiers, I'm off" and goes in search of a book deal. You get the feeling that when its crumbles, it is really going to go. Not just "heavy spindrift" of leaks but a full depth, roaring, tree ripping, road tearing utter melon-farmer of a political avalanche. Hopefully we will still all be around to laugh.
You do get the strong sense that everyone, bar none, in Washington, including those in the WH, are finding it almost impossible to keep anything together now and realise just what a total liability and idiot Trump is. Because of that, I think he will be out before his term is up, some way or other, but I'm sure he personally will hold on as long as possible and he will clearly always have a huge part of the electorate that back him because anything against him is just establishment-driven false news.
As MonkeyPuzzle says, there is a real problem if / when he goes because we'll be left with a frightening Trump agenda still to be pushed through, a strongly right wing Republican leadership across all branches of government who will be keen to implement many parts of that agenda, and none of the loose cannons to f**k it all up.
1
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Funny, I was just listening to OTM on how the right wing press (from Fox to Info wars) were reporting this week, and they were hitting all the notes you just have. Are you listening to Alex Jones?
"The deep state", I guess it's not just Turkey nerds who use that one now!
Funny, I was just listening to OTM on how the right wing press (from Fox to Info wars) were reporting this week, and they were hitting all the notes you just have. Are you listening to Alex Jones?
"The deep state", I guess it's not just Turkey nerds who use that one now!
1
In reply to TobyA:
Nah. AJ makes me physically ill. Cant abide Trump, hubris and stupidity of the man is beyond the pale.
But it is what what it is.
D
Nah. AJ makes me physically ill. Cant abide Trump, hubris and stupidity of the man is beyond the pale.
But it is what what it is.
D
In reply to Dauphin:
I think deep state is the wrong term for the US because of its structures, even the permanent civil service here makes the UK establishment closer to what I understand Turks mean by the phrase.
I think deep state is the wrong term for the US because of its structures, even the permanent civil service here makes the UK establishment closer to what I understand Turks mean by the phrase.
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
C'mon man Turkish politics is far more complex and intriguing than anything that happens in the U.S. - deep state decribes a powerful but changing cabal of interest money and priveledge that sit underneath or on top of notional 'democracies', it's not that important to know specific structures of influence and everything that happens isn't a conspiracy. U.S. Intelligence agencies where openly opposed ( without precident) to the Trump campaign and election, because he has friends in Russia? Probably not. Guy will have been screened for decades and all his connections, probably for half that as his desire for the top job became more public and definitive. If they had anything on him concrete they would finish him in a minute.
D
C'mon man Turkish politics is far more complex and intriguing than anything that happens in the U.S. - deep state decribes a powerful but changing cabal of interest money and priveledge that sit underneath or on top of notional 'democracies', it's not that important to know specific structures of influence and everything that happens isn't a conspiracy. U.S. Intelligence agencies where openly opposed ( without precident) to the Trump campaign and election, because he has friends in Russia? Probably not. Guy will have been screened for decades and all his connections, probably for half that as his desire for the top job became more public and definitive. If they had anything on him concrete they would finish him in a minute.
D
Post edited at 12:49
1
In reply to Jim C:
What has he done well?
Removing health insurance for 25 million?
My wife is currently waiting to turn the machines off on a woman who didn't have health insurance and had a perfectly curable breast cancer. People do die through lack of healthcare.
Deporting immigrants who are no threat?
Defunding public schools?
Allowing coal mines to dump polluted water in river ways?
Defunding climate change science?
The man has been an ignorant unmitigated disaster. As we all knew he would be. Clintonin squeeky clean in comparison.
What has he done well?
Removing health insurance for 25 million?
My wife is currently waiting to turn the machines off on a woman who didn't have health insurance and had a perfectly curable breast cancer. People do die through lack of healthcare.
Deporting immigrants who are no threat?
Defunding public schools?
Allowing coal mines to dump polluted water in river ways?
Defunding climate change science?
The man has been an ignorant unmitigated disaster. As we all knew he would be. Clintonin squeeky clean in comparison.
3
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Nonsense. Flynn was national security advisor advising the president to do things that was earning him millions off turkey. Flynns outing makes it pretty clear there was collusion, at least within his team.
Nonsense. Flynn was national security advisor advising the president to do things that was earning him millions off turkey. Flynns outing makes it pretty clear there was collusion, at least within his team.
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Eh? You really are just spouting nonsense.
The NYT has been fantastic recently. Why was Flynn sacked? The US press is far more agressive than the U.K. Press
Eh? You really are just spouting nonsense.
The NYT has been fantastic recently. Why was Flynn sacked? The US press is far more agressive than the U.K. Press
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Jesus. Fantastic recently? I read it daily. Why d'ya suppose its 'hard hitting independent investigative journalism' suddenly grew a pair that is? 44 was flavour of the decade perhaps?
D
Jesus. Fantastic recently? I read it daily. Why d'ya suppose its 'hard hitting independent investigative journalism' suddenly grew a pair that is? 44 was flavour of the decade perhaps?
D
1
1
In reply to Dauphin:
I really don't think you do.
The press have come fighting back after his attacks and he's on the back foot.
Obama banned the odd reporter, he never went so far as trump. The first amendment provides a free press which is directly under attack and they are murdering him. Remember what a president does is rarely an issue. It's the lying which gets them and Trump is playing that same game. Nixon and Clinton both got caught by their cover ups not the deeds.
> Jesus. Fantastic recently? I read it daily. Why d'ya suppose its 'hard hitting independent investigative journalism' suddenly grew a pair that is? 44 was flavour of the decade perhaps? D
I really don't think you do.
The press have come fighting back after his attacks and he's on the back foot.
Obama banned the odd reporter, he never went so far as trump. The first amendment provides a free press which is directly under attack and they are murdering him. Remember what a president does is rarely an issue. It's the lying which gets them and Trump is playing that same game. Nixon and Clinton both got caught by their cover ups not the deeds.
Post edited at 14:58
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...