Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Christy42

Thepoet85 wrote: »

I see he's taking credit for leading the charge on the liberation of the phrase Merry Christmas.

Would he ever take a day off.

It's a great tactic. Find something not under threat and say you defended it. Reminds of the rock Lisa in the Simpsons had that she claimed warded off tigers. To prove it worked she pointed out there were no tigers around. Homer misses the point Lisa is making and tries to buy it. Same principle here.

Remember he is playing to the same people that got offended over Starbucks having a plain red mug. It is an easy sell.

Itssoeasy

I saw Donald trumps tweet about him claiming to have reclaimed Christmas next to a tweet from 2010 where he used the term happy holidays, not merry christmas.

He's a nasty,vile, egomaniac, who thinks he can bully people but I have hope that he and his crime family will get their comeuppance.

Also I'd love for their to be actual proof of god and he to reappear and tell the collective evangelical base and other conservative Americans that they are wrong and watch their collective blood drain from their faces. It would be brilliant to watch, not because I've any dislike of religion, but because I really dislike the way Americans(mostly) use it to be santimonious and all self rightous.

Itssoeasy

I mean George W Bush might have been a deeply flawed president, but it's clear underneath all that there is a human being who can and has shown empathy to people. Trump has shown none of that ever and doesn't seem capable of it.

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He's a nasty,vile, egomaniac, who thinks he can bully people but I have hope that he and his crime family will get their comeuppance.

Also I'd love for their to be actual proof of god and he to reappear and tell the collective evangelical base and other conservative Americans that they are wrong and watch their collective blood drain from their faces. It would be brilliant to watch, not because I've any dislike of religion, but because I really dislike the way Americans(mostly) use it to be santimonious and all self rightous.

I actually has less and less belief that this will happen. Trump, the GOP and their supporters seem so entrenched that I just cannot see how anything will actually make a difference.

I mean, bar a complete wipeout of the GOP at 2018 elections Trump will simply continue to carry on. And democracy in America just doesn't seem capable of dealing with a situation like this. 40% odd will vote GOP no matter what (and DNC).

Without a significant majority in the two houses Trump is going nowhere and even if they derail his legislation Trump is capable of simply going around them with things like Jeruselum, EO etc. Coupled with that his supporters are simply not interested in hearing anything negative about him.

When you look back at all that has come out in 2017, Trump Jr meetings, Kushners lying repeatedly on his forms, Sessions lying under oath, Trump siding with Neo-Nazi's, Trump passing a tax bill that is clearly aimed at the wealthy, Flynn not only fired but not convicted, Manafort, Papadopolous etc etc etc. In normal times this would me more than enough, but the USA has gone completely into the area of no evidence is enough to move your faith. The fact that so many of them believe in creationism, flat-earth etc is simply the outward appearance of a major portion of their society which is willing to accept anything once they can continue to believe in their faith. (be that political, religious or conspiracy)

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

I actually has less and less belief that this will happen. Trump, the GOP and their supporters seem so entrenched that I just cannot see how anything will actually make a difference.

I mean, bar a complete wipeout of the GOP at 2018 elections Trump will simply continue to carry on. And democracy in America just doesn't seem capable of dealing with a situation like this. 40% odd will vote GOP no matter what (and DNC).

Without a significant majority in the two houses Trump is going nowhere and even if they derail his legislation Trump is capable of simply going around them with things like Jeruselum, EO etc. Coupled with that his supporters are simply not interested in hearing anything negative about him.

When you look back at all that has come out in 2017, Trump Jr meetings, Kushners lying repeatedly on his forms, Sessions lying under oath, Trump siding with Neo-Nazi's, Trump passing a tax bill that is clearly aimed at the wealthy, Flynn not only fired but not convicted, Manafort, Papadopolous etc etc etc. In normal times this would me more than enough, but the USA has gone completely into the area of no evidence is enough to move your faith. The fact that so many of them believe in creationism, flat-earth etc is simply the outward appearance of a major portion of their society which is willing to accept anything once they can continue to believe in their faith. (be that political, religious or conspiracy)

This is the fundamental issue with US Politics.

Basically there are only 20-25% of the voters that can be influenced in anyway , the rest will blindly follow the D or the R.

That's no way for a functioning democracy to be.

Wanderer78

Quin_Dub wrote:

That's no way for a functioning democracy to be.

A 'democratic' system that strangely looks more 'plutocratic' over time, but continues to call itself so! I wonder do we have similar issues here in Europe?

Billy86

All this said, I would in a weird way absolutely love it if Trump did make it to 2020, were primaried by someone sane like Kasich, and meanwhile Kasich's Dem opponent turned out to be a lunatic of Trump levels. As much as some do blindly vote (D) I'd be pretty certain that candidate would struggle to get to 30mn votes, never mind the 60mn Trump got. The Democratic party doesn't strike me as nearly as much of a cult, which likely ties in to having more educated members on average and in not going out of their way as a party to eradicate critical thinking.

StringerBell

Its pretty tribal, you have your team and that tends to be it. Republican voters do have a larger % of entrenched voters I would suggest, this was shown in the last election even. The backlash against Clinton among sections of the left diluted the vote. Wouldn't happen in such large numbers on the other side imo.

Tell me how

It's hard to see such a system as currently exists in the US changing positively without a disruptive influence.

Unfortunately, when it comes to disruptive influences in politics the most common event is war.

I think in 500 years, history will record this period as staunchly partisan voting but I suspect it will be different by then.

What odds on artificial intelligence being allowed to govern a society by that time?

Manic Moran

Surprising video crossed my feed this morning, from CBS News. They took a few tax returns from last year, one a single mother from North Carolina, one a small business owning couple from California, and one from a married middle-class family in Rhode Island, and handed them to an accountant to see what would happen to their tax bills under the new Republican plan.

Remember when I was surprised by the apparent reduction in my tax bill the basic calculator showed me a day or two ago? These families were surprised as well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-the-returns-of-three-american-families/

Billy86

What is very interesting is that Jill Stein has been forced to hand over election documents and I think I heard has been called in for questioning by Mueller. This could really be anything, there's a huge chance it's just him talking to all candidates just to cover bases etc, it could be to see what is behind her claims around the election (wanting recounts etc), or it could be something else. Completely unfounded here but just kind of interesting is the conspiracy theory that she's seen as a suspect, which would be kind of interesting.

- She campaigned most in states competitive between Trump and Clinton (where she was only ever going ot take votes away from Clinton) for some reason and apparently by a distance, barely even touched deep red territory (which I guess makes sense given how hard a sell that would be) but also completely avoiding safe and deep blue states... which is weird as a tactic. Remember that party's in the US need to get 5% of the vote for federal funding moving forward, and I think it is 15% for equal coverage (being in debates, etc) so chasing a loose few thousand votes in Wisconsin when there are much, much more to be gotten in far bigger, bluer areas makes absolutely no sense.

- For some bizarre reason she was attacking Clinton far more aggressively than Trump throughout, even saying Trump would be a 'less dangerous' president than Clinton. She was a big pusher of the Clinton = NATO = Big Giant Nuclear WW3 theory, literally calling it "the Cuban missile crisis in reverse."

- She was shouting about Russian interference immediately (as were others) and pushed hard for the voting machines to be looked at, which was always a moronic suggestion as I said at the time because it would be way, way too blatant of a way to go about it. This acted as perfect defense back in Nov/Dec/Jan about claims of election interference for those who remember... and why would she call for it if she felt Clinton was 'more dangerous' than Trump in the first place?

- Weirder yet, she has since gone on in recent months to claim that there is "not much evidence" of Russian interference. Despite calling for the recounts?

- She is also doing a Trump, simultaneously claiming that she met Putin and did not meet Putin, despite being pictured with Putin.

- Remember the dinner Mike Flynn had with Putin that really kick started a good few questions being asked over him? Someone else was at that dinner too - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696 . She had also met with Sergei Lavroc around that time and was very close to putting Ajamu Bakara as her running partner, who is very anti-NATO and has been highly pro-Russia in the past, to the point of claiming the shooting down of the Malaysian flight back in 2014 (over Ukraine, not the Indian ocean one!) was a false flag conspiracy against the Russians, and that the US was supporting a Nazi coup into the Crimea area, that the US is behind Boko Haram, that Bernie Sanders was running a white supremacist campaign and on and on.

- Stein herself was a big advocate that the 2014 Ukrainian revolution (hi, Paul Manafort!) was a 'coup' formulated by the US. Of course she was never ever going to win the election last year, but if by some random madness she had won, that would have made her the only world leader of any nation to hold such a view... well along with Putin himself and the head of Kazhakstan.

- The Greens in the US are completely irrelevant and the highest office Stein has held was 'Lexington Town Meeting Representative, Precinct 2' - in a town with a population of 30,000 (less than Leitrim). She ran for Massachusetts governor and... finished last, with 1.2% of the vote. What exactly is she doing sitting at the table with Putin? Not just at a function with it should be mentioned, sharing the same table for dinner, along with Mike Flynn.

- Remembering that Stein is from the Green Party, it is interesting that even Russian environmentalists were highly critical of her visit to Putin as being against what she was supposed to be standing for as he party's leader, calling her comments "shocking" and saying she was acting as an "accomplice" of the Kremlin's agenda - http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359

- Despite the Green in the US being irrelevant, their 2016 debate was broadcast over RT, who made big efforts to promote Stein - despite a lot of Green party members actively boycotting the debate because Stein had given RT the right to broadcast it, she continued to promote this heavily.

- Her campaign received a lot of backing from fake Russian Facebook and Twitter, etc accounts - https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172

- Why would Putin back a far left candidate at the same time as a far right one? Look up Vladislav Surkov for your answer - basically, play everyone against everyone, plant in lots of lies from all sides mixed in with a tiny handful of truths, and watch society capitulate as they lose track of what is real/true and what isn't.

Even with all the above, it's very possible that this is just a case of wild levels of incompetence from Stein and the Greens around here plus Russian backing in social media etc that would not necessarily have to have any link to her (see: many 'Bernie Bros' trolls), while she and some around her are tinfoil hat wearing weirdos who make contradictory claims, that Putin just happens to like to have dinner with, that national broadcaster RT feel are worthy of broadcasting the debates of for whatever reason despite their being a 1-2% party, who Russian human rights advocates and environmentalists are perplexed by due to their close and pally relations with a regime (Russia) that one would think would be almost antithetical to what they (The Green Party) would tend to stand for.

Either way it will be interesting to see how that develops.

dudara

Manic Moran wrote: »

Surprising video crossed my feed this morning, from CBS News. They took a few tax returns from last year, one a single mother from North Carolina, one a small business owning couple from California, and one from a married middle-class family in Rhode Island, and handed them to an accountant to see what would happen to their tax bills under the new Republican plan.

Remember when I was surprised by the apparent reduction in my tax bill the basic calculator showed me a day or two ago? These families were surprised as well.

https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-the-returns-of-three-american-families/

Pity there’s no text summary. Can you summarise? Can’t really watch videos at the moment

Itssoeasy

Top post billy. To see it all laid out like that makes for some very bizarre reading. I mean I'd heard someone about her and Putin, but it's clear that the 2016 us presidential election will go down as one of the strangest ever.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote:

Surprising video crossed my feed this morning, from CBS News. They took a few tax returns from last year, one a single mother from North Carolina, one a small business owning couple from California, and one from a married middle-class family in Rhode Island, and handed them to an accountant to see what would happen to their tax bills under the new Republican plan.

dudara wrote:

Pity there’s no text summary. Can you summarise? Can’t really watch videos at the moment

All 3 samples, single mother, educated couple, small business owner couple with children stand to benefit in a pretty significantly positive way next year.

Caveats were, it's not exactly tax return on a postcard as promised and, some of the benefits will be removed after a couple years so long term impact remains to be seen.

If it was a non-GOP bill, the presenters would have been singing it's praises I suspect.

ECO_Mental

When you consider that the entire election came down to about 100,000 votes in those critical swing states makes you wonder alright. As you say Stein would have only taken votes from Hillary. Putin played a blinder......

recedite

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I saw Donald trumps tweet about him claiming to have reclaimed Christmas next to a tweet from 2010 where he used the term happy holidays, not merry christmas.

He's a nasty,vile, egomaniac, who thinks he can bully people but I have hope that he and his crime family will get their comeuppance.

Also I'd love for their to be actual proof of god and he to reappear and tell the collective evangelical base and other conservative Americans that they are wrong and watch their collective blood drain from their faces. It would be brilliant to watch, not because I've any dislike of religion, but because I really dislike the way Americans(mostly) use it to be santimonious and all self rightous.

Happy Christmas to you too.
Surely the fact that The Donald was made POTUS is proof enough, in itself, of God's existence?

recedite

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Putin played a blinder......

Meanwhile, in the real world....
US agrees to send lethal weapons to Ukraine, angering Russia.
Yeah those funky looking assault rifles are made in Israel.

Itssoeasy

recedite wrote: »

Happy Christmas to you too.
Surely the fact that The Donald was made POTUS is proof enough, in itself, of God's existence?

That's a joke right ? No it's not.

Manach

ECO_Mental wrote: »

When you consider that the entire election came down to about 100,000 votes in those critical swing states makes you wonder alright. As you say Stein would have only taken votes from Hillary. Putin played a blinder......

Leaving aside the Muh Russia narrative, Tim Poole basically stated there was no 1:1 removal of Clinton voters to Stein and pretending otherwise is just wishful thinking.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Happy Christmas to you too.
Surely the fact that The Donald was made POTUS is proof enough, in itself, of God's existence?

Don's claim might be more proven if he was to turn round and say "God told me that say that" except he might be seen as a loon and fake prophet and relieved of office by Mike Pence, the alternative Christian.... The possibilities seem endless.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

What is very interesting is that Jill Stein has been forced to hand over election documents and I think I heard has been called in for questioning by Mueller. This could really be anything, there's a huge chance it's just him talking to all candidates just to cover bases etc, it could be to see what is behind her claims around the election (wanting recounts etc), or it could be something else. Completely unfounded here but just kind of interesting is the conspiracy theory that she's seen as a suspect, which would be kind of interesting.

- She campaigned most in states competitive between Trump and Clinton (where she was only ever going ot take votes away from Clinton) for some reason and apparently by a distance, barely even touched deep red territory (which I guess makes sense given how hard a sell that would be) but also completely avoiding safe and deep blue states... which is weird as a tactic. Remember that party's in the US need to get 5% of the vote for federal funding moving forward, and I think it is 15% for equal coverage (being in debates, etc) so chasing a loose few thousand votes in Wisconsin when there are much, much more to be gotten in far bigger, bluer areas makes absolutely no sense.

- For some bizarre reason she was attacking Clinton far more aggressively than Trump throughout, even saying Trump would be a 'less dangerous' president than Clinton. She was a big pusher of the Clinton = NATO = Big Giant Nuclear WW3 theory, literally calling it "the Cuban missile crisis in reverse."

- She was shouting about Russian interference immediately (as were others) and pushed hard for the voting machines to be looked at, which was always a moronic suggestion as I said at the time because it would be way, way too blatant of a way to go about it. This acted as perfect defense back in Nov/Dec/Jan about claims of election interference for those who remember... and why would she call for it if she felt Clinton was 'more dangerous' than Trump in the first place?

- Weirder yet, she has since gone on in recent months to claim that there is "not much evidence" of Russian interference. Despite calling for the recounts?

- She is also doing a Trump, simultaneously claiming that she met Putin and did not meet Putin, despite being pictured with Putin.

- Remember the dinner Mike Flynn had with Putin that really kick started a good few questions being asked over him? Someone else was at that dinner too - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696 . She had also met with Sergei Lavroc around that time and was very close to putting Ajamu Bakara as her running partner, who is very anti-NATO and has been highly pro-Russia in the past, to the point of claiming the shooting down of the Malaysian flight back in 2014 (over Ukraine, not the Indian ocean one!) was a false flag conspiracy against the Russians, and that the US was supporting a Nazi coup into the Crimea area, that the US is behind Boko Haram, that Bernie Sanders was running a white supremacist campaign and on and on.

- Stein herself was a big advocate that the 2014 Ukrainian revolution (hi, Paul Manafort!) was a 'coup' formulated by the US. Of course she was never ever going to win the election last year, but if by some random madness she had won, that would have made her the only world leader of any nation to hold such a view... well along with Putin himself and the head of Kazhakstan.

- The Greens in the US are completely irrelevant and the highest office Stein has held was 'Lexington Town Meeting Representative, Precinct 2' - in a town with a population of 30,000 (less than Leitrim). She ran for Massachusetts governor and... finished last, with 1.2% of the vote. What exactly is she doing sitting at the table with Putin? Not just at a function with it should be mentioned, sharing the same table for dinner, along with Mike Flynn.

- Remembering that Stein is from the Green Party, it is interesting that even Russian environmentalists were highly critical of her visit to Putin as being against what she was supposed to be standing for as he party's leader, calling her comments "shocking" and saying she was acting as an "accomplice" of the Kremlin's agenda - http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359

- Despite the Green in the US being irrelevant, their 2016 debate was broadcast over RT, who made big efforts to promote Stein - despite a lot of Green party members actively boycotting the debate because Stein had given RT the right to broadcast it, she continued to promote this heavily.

- Her campaign received a lot of backing from fake Russian Facebook and Twitter, etc accounts - https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172

- Why would Putin back a far left candidate at the same time as a far right one? Look up Vladislav Surkov for your answer - basically, play everyone against everyone, plant in lots of lies from all sides mixed in with a tiny handful of truths, and watch society capitulate as they lose track of what is real/true and what isn't.

Even with all the above, it's very possible that this is just a case of wild levels of incompetence from Stein and the Greens around here plus Russian backing in social media etc that would not necessarily have to have any link to her (see: many 'Bernie Bros' trolls), while she and some around her are tinfoil hat wearing weirdos who make contradictory claims, that Putin just happens to like to have dinner with, that national broadcaster RT feel are worthy of broadcasting the debates of for whatever reason despite their being a 1-2% party, who Russian human rights advocates and environmentalists are perplexed by due to their close and pally relations with a regime (Russia) that one would think would be almost antithetical to what they (The Green Party) would tend to stand for.

Either way it will be interesting to see how that develops.

So what you're implying is that there were 2 presidential candidates in the pocket of their evil Russian overlords?

Scrap that, at this stage were any of the candidates not under Russian control. We have links between the Trump campaign and certain Russian individuals. Stein now being implicated and HRC getting over $140 million , by way of Russian donations to her foundation, around the time of the Uranium One deal.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and it appears more likely that there was some Russian interference in all of the campaigns.

Bernie, with his socailist views, needs to thread carefully before he ends up before Meuller.

Hande hoche!

JRant wrote: »

So what you're implying is that there were 2 presidential candidates in the pocket of their evil Russian overlords?

Scrap that, at this stage were any of the candidates not under Russian control. We have links between the Trump campaign and certain Russian individuals. Stein now being implicated and HRC getting over $140 million , by way of Russian donations to her foundation, around the time of the Uranium One deal.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and it appears more likely that there was some Russian interference in all of the campaigns.

Bernie, with his socailist views, needs to thread carefully before he ends up before Meuller.

Well according to Louise Mensch's twitter ranting, Bernie is a Russian agent. Evan McMullin is still okay though.

JRant

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well according to Louise Mensch's twitter ranting, Bernie is a Russian agent. Evan McMullin is still okay though.

Well, for now at least

aloyisious

There's still no final decision on the Virginia Congress-seat vote outcome.... 26/12/2017

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/democrats-to-file-legal-challenge-asking-court-to-reconsider-erroneous/article_4634bd39-bac2-59b9-b288-a114950fc77b.html

Virginia's State Board of Elections has postponed a scheduled tiebreaker in a Newport News-area House of Delegates race after Democrat Shelly Simonds announced an eleventh-hour legal challenge asking the judges that oversaw last week's recount to reverse themselves and declare her the winner. Simonds is expected to file legal paperwork in Newport News Circuit Court Wednesday asking the three-judge recount panel in the 94th House District to reconsider its "erroneous" decision to count one additional ballot for Republican Del. David E. Yancey late in the recount process.

The elections board was scheduled to meet Wednesday in Richmond at 11 a.m. to break the tie by picking a name at random from a bowl. Heeding a request for a delay from Simonds' attorneys, the board decided late Tuesday afternoon to postpone the meeting to an undetermined future date to give the court time to take up the legal challenge. Board member Clara Belle Wheeler confirmed that the meeting would be delayed and said the board was preparing a news release to announce the decision.

The decision to delay the meeting prolongs the drama and confusion hanging over the nearly evenly split House. Democrats picked up 15 other GOP-held seats in the Nov. 7 elections, wiping out what had been a 66-34 majority. Barring other developments, if Simonds were to prevail in the 94th District, the House would be split 50-50. If Yancey is the winner, Republicans would have a 51-49 majority.

Captain Obvious

aloyisious wrote: »

There's still no final decision on the Virginia Congress-seat vote outcome.... 26/12/2017

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/democrats-to-file-legal-challenge-asking-court-to-reconsider-erroneous/article_4634bd39-bac2-59b9-b288-a114950fc77b.html

Virginia's State Board of Elections has postponed a scheduled tiebreaker in a Newport News-area House of Delegates race after Democrat Shelly Simonds announced an eleventh-hour legal challenge asking the judges that oversaw last week's recount to reverse themselves and declare her the winner. Simonds is expected to file legal paperwork in Newport News Circuit Court Wednesday asking the three-judge recount panel in the 94th House District to reconsider its "erroneous" decision to count one additional ballot for Republican Del. David E. Yancey late in the recount process.

The elections board was scheduled to meet Wednesday in Richmond at 11 a.m. to break the tie by picking a name at random from a bowl. Heeding a request for a delay from Simonds' attorneys, the board decided late Tuesday afternoon to postpone the meeting to an undetermined future date to give the court time to take up the legal challenge. Board member Clara Belle Wheeler confirmed that the meeting would be delayed and said the board was preparing a news release to announce the decision.

The decision to delay the meeting prolongs the drama and confusion hanging over the nearly evenly split House. Democrats picked up 15 other GOP-held seats in the Nov. 7 elections, wiping out what had been a 66-34 majority. Barring other developments, if Simonds were to prevail in the 94th District, the House would be split 50-50. If Yancey is the winner, Republicans would have a 51-49 majority.

Such a ridiculous situation. The voter obviously intended to vote republican but he spoiled his vote. That's just tough luck. It's a pretty dangerous precedent to set for judges to be interpreting particular voters intentions.

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

So what you're implying is that there were 2 presidential candidates in the pocket of their evil Russian overlords?

Scrap that, at this stage were any of the candidates not under Russian control. We have links between the Trump campaign and certain Russian individuals. Stein now being implicated and HRC getting over $140 million , by way of Russian donations to her foundation, around the time of the Uranium One deal.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven and it appears more likely that there was some Russian interference in all of the campaigns.

Bernie, with his socailist views, needs to thread carefully before he ends up before Meuller.

Actually I was just posting something I've seen online a few times in recent months but never gave much credence to. The final paragraph in my quote you posted is because as I was typing it, it became apparent that it is quite a long string of coincidences and contradictions on her end. Now that might mean nothing or it might mean a lot of things, such is the ultra secretive nature of Mueller's investigation, but what is interesting is that you're not refuting any of the points I made.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually I was just posting something I've seen online a few times in recent months but never gave much credence to. The final paragraph in my quote you posted is because as I was typing it, it became apparent that it is quite a long string of coincidences and contradictions on her end. Now that might mean nothing or it might mean a lot of things, such is the ultra secretive nature of Mueller's investigation, but what is interesting is that you're not refuting any of the points I made.

It's not interesting at all really. What's becoming more and more obvious is that the Russians seem to have their fingers in all the pies, so to speak. I hope Meuller uncovers any and all interference. He is doing a great job so far.

My only fear is that he either has his funding pulled, thereby crippling his investigation, or it is wound down before he can complete what he has started. One thing is for certain though, he has an awful lot more work to do as this investigation seems to be uncovering new angles all the time.

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

It's not interesting at all really. What's becoming more and more obvious is that the Russians seem to have their fingers in all the pies, so to speak. I hope Meuller uncovers any and all interference. He is doing a great job so far.

My only fear is that he either has his funding pulled, thereby crippling his investigation, or it is wound down before he can complete what he has started. One thing is for certain though, he has an awful lot more work to do as this investigation seems to be uncovering new angles all the time.

I'm not sure someone from the complete 'other side' to Trump possibly being involved isn't interesting if you think it's becoming "more and more obvious is that the Russians seem to have their fingers in all the pies"?

There could be a tonne there, and there could be nothing, haven't checked but hopefully her hearing is broadcast to see what reason they've pulled her in over.

It will also be interesting to see how the funding/propaganda/firing stuff goes with Mueller, my guess is we're at the very earliest going to be 2 months off the November elections before the attacks on him die down. With how the GOP are acting thus far, this is probably one of the most important midterm congressional elections in the country's history.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not sure someone from the complete 'other side' to Trump possibly being involved isn't interesting if you think it's becoming "more and more obvious is that the Russians seem to have their fingers in all the pies"?

There could be a tonne there, and there could be nothing, haven't checked but hopefully her hearing is broadcast to see what reason they've pulled her in over.

It will also be interesting to see how the funding/propaganda/firing stuff goes with Mueller, my guess is we're at the very earliest going to be 2 months off the November elections before the attacks on him die down. With how the GOP are acting thus far, this is probably one of the most important midterm congressional elections in the country's history.

I think we are crossing wires here. You said the fact that I wasn't refuting any of your points was interesting. Hence the "not that interesting" comment.

I do think the investigation itself is extremely interesting. Looking at Meuller slowly untangle all these strings is fascinating stuff.

I don't think the GOP/Trump will allow him get to Nov 2018. They will ramp up their attacks on his team until they feel the time is right to just shut him down completely.

Leroy42

I do think that the 'Russian thing' goes deeper than just Trump. Trump, appears, to have been the perfect weapon though.

I still think that Russia wasn't particularly interested in Trump winning, mainly because it seemed so unlikely, but rather to put HC off kilter from the start. Just think how HC would be being treated by the GOP controlled houses had she won. Russian was trying, IMO, to destroy American democracy. Who won was not really important. Trump winning was merely the icing on the cake but my thoughts is that they were playing on the long game.

Russia may not have got the sanctions lifted, but in essence they have succeeded in not only widening and entrenching the divide within America, but also that neither side is capable of either believing the other or in many cases themselves. The FBI, CIA have been openly questioned. The very fabric of the US has been thrown open. Russia cannot compete directly against the combined might of the USA but if they can rip it apart then then certainly can.

What I HOPE the Mueller investigation uncovers, primarily Trump, but also that money has taken over any semblance of representation for both the GOP and DNC and that the natural path for that is that foreign money will eventually start to have an impact. It appears that it is the GOP, but I don't think for a second that the DNC would do the same (probably have).