Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Phonehead

listermint wrote: »

For someone who was/is part of the miltary machine in the US though is it not concerning to you that the US soft power is being undermined by what could be construed as your biggest enemy of the last 60 years.

I mean you seem rather okay with the idea based solely on the fact you are a republican voter anyway.



Have to say Manic its a perplexing viewpoint especially from an Irishman.

It's not really that perplexing if Manic is a pragmatic/liberalized military man, It's no secret that the US has a long history of interfering in other nations elections so why beat the shocked drum when it's shown that another nation successfully utilized the power of social media and caused disharmony in the US at election time.

Really Interested

notobtuse wrote: »

Steele’s past is irrelevant.

Just because Steele might have been clueless in that he seemingly was being played by the Russian government through their informants doesn’t negate his actions regarding his trying to influence the election.  First, he was a foreign agent. Second, his motives appear political.  Steele relayed to Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."  It is also important to note that Ohr's wife  is a former CIA researcher who was hired by Fusion GPS to collect anti-Trump material, and was paid for my the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.  And this was after the FBI cut Steele loose after discovering he shared the dossier's contents with journalists in efforts to influence the election.  

Pertinent factors that Steele might be looking at criminal proceedings.

I’m going to say what everyone else is thinking, how’s the weather in Russia?

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Another indictment in this whole nothingburger.

I never heard of the guy but he's the son in law of German Kahn, Russian Oligarch. Kahn worked for Alfa Group who own Alfa Bank, if anyone wants to take a look down the rabbithole.

I got that one wrong. It's not an indictment. Just another guilty plea.

Hande hoche!

See that Trump has ordered a ban on the sale of bump fire stocks. Seems sensible.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43135584

aloyisious

Hande hoche! wrote: »

See that Trump has ordered a ban on the sale of bump fire stocks. Seems sensible.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43135584

Good, if correct. I'll wait for HSS to announce it at a press briefing. I saw mention yesterday, think it was in a US newspaper article, where the manufacturer of the bump fire stocks was advertising a special deal on them for Presidents Day, claiming since the news broke about their capability, sales figures had rocketed. It might be B/S as it seemed not in good taste. F*** it, he's only asked the DOJ to have a look and see if a law can be made to ban the bump stock, so it's either Jeff or Rod who'll have to reply. Something tell's me Jeff will get Rod to supply the answer.

Sales were halted by the maker in Oct last after the Las Vegas shooting but resumed in early Nov. https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/562619837/bump-stock-manufacturer-to-resume-sales-of-controversial-device

Thargor

Wow that is not how I pictured bump stocks working at all, I thought they were going to be way way more complicated:

Hande hoche!

aloyisious wrote: »

Good, if correct. I'll wait for HSS to announce it at a press briefing. I saw mention yesterday, think it was in a US newspaper article, where the manufacturer of the bump fire stocks was advertising a special deal on them for Presidents Day, claiming since the news broke about their capability, sales figures had rocketed. It might be B/S as it seemed not in good taste.

Sales were halted by the maker in Oct last after the Las Vegas shooting but resumed in early Nov. https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/562619837/bump-stock-manufacturer-to-resume-sales-of-controversial-device

Fair point. As regards the special deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/18/rapid-fire-rifle-device-on-special-offer-in-salute-to-donald-trump

aloyisious

I know some people don't trust [or let on not to] the media when it comes to stories about this topic. I have a feeling that the NYT, as a New York paper, has sources in NYC, the city that Don Trump lives in and has property in.

The NYT are running a story that a former Skadden lawyer has pleaded guilty to lying to the Russia Special Counsel about work he did with Rick Gates in Ukraine, before he went to serve on President Trump's campaign. Alex Van Der Zwaan arrived at the F.B.I.’s field office in Washington on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON — An attorney whose firm was accused of whitewashing abuses by the former president of Ukraine in cooperation with Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to lying to the special counsel investigating Russian election interference.

The attorney, Alex van der Zwaan, worked in London for the prominent New York law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. He was accused of making false statements regarding communications he had with Rick Gates, a longtime associate of Mr. Manafort and a former Trump campaign aide, about work they did in 2012 for the Ukrainian government, according to court papers.

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

I know some people don't trust [or let on not to] the media when it comes to stories about this topic.

I'm just going to hijack this to segue into another point that I need to make on this.

The so called mainstream media in the US is actually fairly accurate. Sure there are editors who decide which stories they run but the stories that they do run are well researched. There have been times where in the rush to publish or from being deceived by sources that they make mistakes and issue corrections but that doesn't make them fake in any way. It's important to note too that news and editorials are kept well separated from each other. WSJ is a good example of this.

On the other side you have FOX, truepundit, breitbart, infowars and others who deliberately confuse news with editorial and opinion. Some used to be dismissed as batsh!t crazy but are seen as legitimate now.

When I was in school, Media Studies was a part of the English curriculum. The difference between news and opinion is an easy concept to grasp. It's also easy enough to work out when you're being deceived by something pretending to be news.

This whole nonsense of categorising accurate but unflattering reporting of Trump's bumbling through the presidency as fake news only started in the english speaking world with Trump. It actually has no logical basis. Think of all the events that he and his toadies described as fake news that ended up being confirmed later. It's pretty much everything. In fact, if there were actual lies being told about Trump in papers, he'd probably sue for libel instead.

Thankfully, when most people here Fake News from a trumper, they aren't believed, if they ever were. Running around yelling Fake News has run its course.

Fake News is disinformation dressed up to look like news. It's not news that Trump doesn't like. People know that now.

david75

As to above. We’re living in an era where if trump said he was opening a resort on the Moon, a huge amount of people would believe it and probably give him money in bookings to go there.

Try and have half a brain and think beyond what you’re being forcefed. Even for a minute.

Quin_Dub

mcmoustache wrote: »

Another indictment in this whole nothingburger.

I never heard of the guy but he's the son in law of German Kahn, Russian Oligarch. Kahn worked for Alfa Group who own Alfa Bank, if anyone wants to take a look down the rabbithole.

Assume this is the same Alfa bank of the alleged server connected to Trump tower ?

jooksavage

Looks like Kushner is about to lose his temporary security clearance thanks to John Kelly. This could be interesting.

Although Kushners limitless portfolio of responsibilities has been scaled back since last year, you'd imagine a high level WH role is untenable without clearance. It also comes on.the back of reports that Mueller is taking a closer look at his finances.

Kelly meanwhile is in the bad books over the Rob Porter incident, has apparently lost much of his authority after basically instructing staffers to lie about the circumstances of that resignation / sacking and Jared/Ivanka already have an axe to grind because of reduced access to Trump himself.

I can't see them both surviving this. I reckon Kelly will walk or be pushed out in the coming weeks. I can't see another COS reissue rescinded security clearance to Kushner though so his days are probably numbered too.

ECO_Mental

I know we are not supposed to be dropping in articles but this one from Thomas Friedman from the NYT sums up the whole Trump Russia fiasco perfectly. The article is getting a lot of coverage and momentum and was written after this weekends Twitter rant by Comrade Trump himself. He says its pretty obvious now that the Russians have stuff on him either Compromat (dirt) or they have him bankrolled up to the hilt with money laundering.

It is pretty incredible really that the President of America has yet to publicly berate Russia or Putin since the Mueller indictments on Friday. He has literally blamed everybody but the Russians over the last few days and why is that.....?

Now a lot of what he is writing about people are saying, but haven't we being saying this for the last year but he sums it up quite good.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/opinion/trump-russia-putin.html

Professor Moriarty

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I know we are not supposed to be dropping in articles but this one from Thomas Friedman from the NYT sums up the whole Trump Russia fiasco perfectly. The article is getting a lot of coverage and momentum and was written after this weekends Twitter rant by Comrade Trump himself. He says its pretty obvious now that the Russians have stuff on him either Compromat (dirt) or they have him bankrolled up to the hilt with money laundering.

It is pretty incredible really that the President of America has yet to publicly berate Russia or Putin since the Mueller indictments on Friday. He has literally blamed everybody but the Russians over the last few days and why is that.....?

Now a lot of what he is writing about people are saying but haven't we being saying this for the last year but he sums it up quite good.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/opinion/trump-russia-putin.html

Excellent. I love this line:

"And if you are really the president — not still head of the Trump Organization, who moonlights as president..."

Leroy42

If you watch the daily press briefing from yesterday, with SHS, the press were quite forceful in their lines about why Trump has done nothing about the interference.

SHS did her usual talking points but, IMO, really struggled. I say that on the basis that she usually does a much better job.

The press, moreso than usual, seemed to realise this was important and even answered back to SHS.

It is hard to understand why Trump, who has shown an uncanny knack to be able to read the mood, especially when it costs him nothing, has been so slow to take this shot into an open goal.

Lets face it, there won't be many that she any move against Russia in a bad light. Obama was always accused of being to light on Putin yet here is a direct attack on American democracy, rather than some eastern European country many haven't heard of, and Trump seems so reticent to even speak about it.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you watch the daily press briefing from yesterday, with SHS, the press were quite forceful in their lines about why Trump has done nothing about the interference.

SHS did her usual talking points but, IMO, really struggled. I say that on the basis that she usually does a much better job.

The press, moreso than usual, seemed to realise this was important and even answered back to SHS.

It is hard to understand why Trump, who has shown an uncanny knack to be able to read the mood, especially when it costs him nothing, has been so slow to take this shot into an open goal.

Lets face it, there won't be many that she any move against Russia in a bad light. Obama was always accused of being to light on Putin yet here is a direct attack on American democracy, rather than some eastern European country many haven't heard of, and Trump seems so reticent to even speak about it.

Because if he takes action , then he is tacitly accepting the legitimacy of the Mueller investigation AND he's also admitting that maybe his Victory wasn't all about him.

He simply cannot accept that , no matter how ridiculous that seems to every other sentient being on the planet.

Of course , there's also the risk that if he were to do what would be normally expected of a President in this situation and heavily sanction Russia , Putin might direct his Troll forces at Trump himself and start releasing compromising information.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you watch the daily press briefing from yesterday, with SHS,

I had to stop watching her press conferences. She's just such a vile, obnoxious liar. That said, i do feel her job is getting more and more difficult and will hopefully end up in a meltdown on live TV.

everlast75

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I know we are not supposed to be dropping in articles but this one from Thomas Friedman from the NYT sums up the whole Trump Russia fiasco perfectly. The article is getting a lot of coverage and momentum and was written after this weekends Twitter rant by Comrade Trump himself. He says its pretty obvious now that the Russians have stuff on him either Compromat (dirt) or they have him bankrolled up to the hilt with money laundering.

It is pretty incredible really that the President of America has yet to publicly berate Russia or Putin since the Mueller indictments on Friday. He has literally blamed everybody but the Russians over the last few days and why is that.....?

Now a lot of what he is writing about people are saying, but haven't we being saying this for the last year but he sums it up quite good.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/opinion/trump-russia-putin.html

First and foremost, I enjoyed the article.

However, a current bugbear of mine are opinion pieces from journalists.

Whilst I accept that there is a place for them, starting the article by calling someone a fool, is never going to convince someone who doesn't already believe it, that he is one.

There are plenty of facts to hang him by - use those.

The article does not come across as impartial, but more so a biased piece which those that support Trump can rubbish easily on those grounds.

Just my tuppence.

demfad

mcmoustache wrote: »

Thankfully, when most people here Fake News from a trumper, they aren't believed, if they ever were. Running around yelling Fake News has run its course.

Fake News is disinformation dressed up to look like news. It's not news that Trump doesn't like. People know that now.

Not sure I agree with this.
An authoritarian knows he is going to be peddling lies and knows the opposition and the regulated media is going to be largely telling the truth.
So you have two conflicting narratives at complete odds with eachother: one side is lying. People want to believe their side is truthful. Ergo the authoritarian must accuse the other side of being the liar.
The authoritarian regime accuses the other side of being what he is. It gets its retaliation in first.

Let's look at Trump's side: the evangelical right has been building power since the 80's when the Council for National Policy was founded. The equivalent grass roots organisation, the Tea Party, rose in response to a black president. Propaganda and lies have been used to radicalise these people over a decade.
The latest indictments have shown that the social media aspect of the Russian operation was to further radicalise and activate this core by infiltration, manipulation and bias confirmation.
Trump supporters believe he is genuine, and that the opposition is dishonest, evil some actually believe satanic.
We are witnessing a democracy in transition to an authoritarian State. Truth and untruths are becoming less distinguishable. When the authoritarian consolidates power, controls the media, cowes the rule of law, then truth is what the authoritarian says it is.
Trump will do what authoritarians do and his base will believe him. The question is can he be stopped?

oscarBravo

everlast75 wrote: »

...starting the article by calling someone a fool, is never going to convince someone who doesn't already believe it, that he is one.

To be fair: anyone who doesn't already believe that Trump is a fool is unlikely to be convinced by anything.

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I know we are not supposed to be dropping in articles but this one from Thomas Friedman from the NYT sums up the whole Trump Russia fiasco perfectly. The article is getting a lot of coverage and momentum and was written after this weekends Twitter rant by Comrade Trump himself. He says its pretty obvious now that the Russians have stuff on him either Compromat (dirt) or they have him bankrolled up to the hilt with money laundering.

It is pretty incredible really that the President of America has yet to publicly berate Russia or Putin since the Mueller indictments on Friday. He has literally blamed everybody but the Russians over the last few days and why is that.....?

Now a lot of what he is writing about people are saying, but haven't we being saying this for the last year but he sums it up quite good.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/opinion/trump-russia-putin.html

First and foremost, I enjoyed the article.

However, a current bugbear of mine are opinion pieces from journalists.

Whilst I accept that there is a place for them, starting the article by calling someone a fool, is never going to convince someone who doesn't already believe it, that he is one.

But they didn't call him a fool. They said was either one or the other. It leaves it up to the reader to decide which they believe it is.

everlast75

oscarBravo wrote: »

To be fair: anyone who doesn't already believe that Trump is a fool is unlikely to be convinced by anything.

So the article is not there to make anyone change their mind, but reinforce it? And by starting it off with an insult? That is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel and doesn't advance the issue at all IMHO

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they didn't call him a fool. They said was either one or the other. It leaves it up to the reader to decide which they believe it is.

That's a bit of a pedantic point. Technically, you are correct, but if I were to ask if you or someone else was a traitor or a fool - its still name calling. That's the point

oscarBravo

everlast75 wrote: »

That's a bit of a pedantic point. Technically, you are correct, but if I were to ask if you or someone else was a traitor or a fool - its still name calling. That's the point

It's really not. If the article consisted of nothing more than "Trump is a fool", it would be name-calling. (It would be true, but it would be name-calling.)

The article instead sets out to demonstrate that Trump must be either a fool or hopelessly compromised, or both - and does a good job. You can take exception to the terms in which that's phrased, but that's just being precious about the language used, which is a bit rich considering who we're talking about.

The article makes its case articulately and well. If you're going to dismiss it because it suggests that Trump is probably a fool (which he is), that's on you, I'm afraid.

Leroy42

mcmoustache wrote: »

I had to stop watching her press conferences. She's just such a vile, obnoxious liar. That said, i do feel her job is getting more and more difficult and will hopefully end up in a meltdown on live TV.

Totally agree and I had stopped watching them myself for those same reasons ( which btw I think that the whole idea) but the reason I mentioned it is I happened to start watching it and it was unusual how much on the back foot she was. It was as if she couldn't bring herself to lie about it.

She gave some pretty poor answers. Maybe even SHS can see how wrong this all is and that this is bigger than either her job or Trump.

everlast75

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's really not. If the article consisted of nothing more than "Trump is a fool", it would be name-calling. (It would be true, but it would be name-calling.)

The article instead sets out to demonstrate that Trump must be either a fool or hopelessly compromised, or both - and does a good job. You can take exception to the terms in which that's phrased, but that's just being precious about the language used, which is a bit rich considering who we're talking about.

The article makes its case articulately and well. If you're going to dismiss it because it suggests that Trump is probably a fool (which he is), that's on you, I'm afraid.

You're missing my point. What I am saying is, that if someone out there who has yet to believe that Trump is a fool*, then an article written in the way that it is, will not convince that person because of the manner in which it was written.

I don't take exception to the words. I am saying if the aim of the article is to convince an undecided, then it will fail because of the way it is written. If they aim of the article is to echo what you already believe, then so be it.

My own view is we don't need articles like that. I could (easily) give you a 20 page dissertation on why Trump is an inarticulate, sexist, elitist megalomaniac and you would agree, but what is the point? I will have spent an hour of my time echoing what you already believe and there is no gain in that no one new has come over to our way of thinking.

Space in newspapers are valuable, and I prefer factual reporting without mentioning words like "fool" which might tip a person against the author.

Anyhoo, you are free to disagree. Like I said, its my tuppence worth.

*and my own personal view is he is most definitely a fool, amongst other things

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree and I had stopped watching them myself for those same reasons ( which btw I think that the whole idea) but the reason I mentioned it is I happened to start watching it and it was unusual how much on the back foot she was. It was as if she couldn't bring herself to lie about it.

She gave some pretty poor answers. Maybe even SHS can see how wrong this all is and that this is bigger than either her job or Trump.

Whatever about Sean seemingly getting a pass from the general public after he left (and I have a problem with that), I sincerely hope she gets even 10% back from the public, the scorn and rudeness she showed on a daily basis. A horrible horrible person from what I can see

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

You're missing my point. What I am saying is, that if someone out there who has yet to believe that Trump is a fool*, then an article written in the way that it is, will not convince that person because of the manner in which it was written.

I don't take exception to the words. I am saying if the aim of the article is to convince an undecided, then it will fail because of the way it is written. If they aim of the article is to echo what you already believe, then so be it.

My own view is we don't need articles like that. I could (easily) give you a 20 page dissertation on why Trump is an inarticulate, sexist, elitist megalomaniac and you would agree, but what is the point? I will have spent an hour of my time echoing what you already believe and there is no gain in that no one new has come over to our way of thinking.

Space in newspapers are valuable, and I prefer factual reporting without mentioning words like "fool" which might tip a person against the author.

Anyhoo, you are free to disagree. Like I said, its my tuppence worth.

*and my own personal view is he is most definitely a fool, amongst other things

I take your point but, TBF, the article is in the 'Opinion' section of the NYT and the author is described as an 'Op-ed Columnist'.

everlast75

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I take your point but, TBF, the article is in the 'Opinion' section of the NYT and the author is described as an 'Op-ed Columnist'.

Fair enough. Maybe it's my general annoyance with opinion pieces coming through. Maybe that annoyance comes from the fact most of our newspapers have become mouthpieces for those that run them and there is a real lack of objective journalistic analysis.

Anyhoo.. I have mentioned before the podcasts of Preet Bahara and do so again. Fascinating insight and real time analysis of the investigation as it continues.

jobbridge4life

everlast75 wrote: »

You're missing my point. What I am saying is, that if someone out there who has yet to believe that Trump is a fool*, then an article written in the way that it is, will not convince that person because of the manner in which it was written.

I don't take exception to the words. I am saying if the aim of the article is to convince an undecided, then it will fail because of the way it is written. If they aim of the article is to echo what you already believe, then so be it.

My own view is we don't need articles like that. I could (easily) give you a 20 page dissertation on why Trump is an inarticulate, sexist, elitist megalomaniac and you would agree, but what is the point? I will have spent an hour of my time echoing what you already believe and there is no gain in that no one new has come over to our way of thinking.

Space in newspapers are valuable, and I prefer factual reporting without mentioning words like "fool" which might tip a person against the author.

Anyhoo, you are free to disagree. Like I said, its my tuppence worth.

*and my own personal view is he is most definitely a fool, amongst other things

I get where you are coming from but my question would be will anything convince those people if the abundant evidence before their own eyes hasn't?

demfad

everlast75 wrote: »

I will have spent an hour of my time echoing what you already believe and there is no gain in that no one new has come over to our way of thinking.

The method's of the Internet Research agency revealed by the recent indictments shows that best results are not gained by 'conversion' rather by hardening, activating, radicalising those who already hold certain opinions. Also be working to make the views of those opposed to this position less intense.

I would not have gone down the 'fool' line as an alternative to his treason: We can clearly see his foolishness. Rather I would have stressed the towards infantessimally small likelihood of him being innocent, fool or not.