Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

rossie1977

kilns wrote: »

The problem was Hillary as a candidate could not connect with those states, she was seen as an establishment elite from New York who would do nothing for them. When they pick the next candidate they need to focus on who will win in those states, if they pick another Clinton type candidate (i.e. Warren) Trump could win again. I would be in favour of Beto but it would be a big jump up for him and unlikely the Dems would like someone jumping the queue like that, if was up for it a Biden/Beto ticket would be fantastic but again the Dems would never field two white males on the ticket

Warren wouldn't be considered establishment, she is more progressive than pretty much every major name being linked with obvious exception of Bernie and Beto.

I honestly don't see a Biden/Beto ticket getting anything in the south. O'Rourke would be an excellent choice had he won Texas. Florida didn't vote either the progressive or establishment candidate in November which is a really bad sign for Dems in 2020.

kilns

thecretinhop wrote: »

thought so. 2 forensic accountants said the clinton foundation used up to 60pc of funds for admin. normal rate 15pc.
also between 400m and 2.5 billion dollars could have been illegally gained. (yesterday)

second the payments violation for trump is very weak the dnc and obama had record fines hmm not so important then.



third, which is it lads. it has gone from treason to a totally different topic do you not thing muller has been outrageous with his scope?

well done getting 41 likes well done well done! it is salient to talk about hillary and obama for that matter as this boards are constantly on about trumps character.

i think trumps approval rating is good considering its literally 24/7 rabid press after him. its quite funny too in here there is never anything about any positives..

i find any one who tries to argue in this forum gets ran out of it. i have loads more to say but not really bothered as well.

Your point about him not getting a fair craic of the whip from the press - who's fault is this? He is own worst enemy. If Twitter was deleted on him and he was told to shut up then his policies would be looked at it in more detail but he dictates what the press talk about it (usually as a distraction to something) and it is usually something he knows is untrue and controversial. If he keep his mouth shut I am sure even his most hardest critics will concede there are some good policies and some bad ones but he deserves no sympathy for the coverage he gets

The man very immoral guy (having affairs on his wife while his baby his at home) and has done some very dodgy dealings in the past which are and will ultimately come back to haunt him

However, I think he is actually an intelligent guy who knows he must keep up this act to appease his base, I believe he doesnt believe in half the stuff he is doing, but his based love him for it and if loses them, he is nothing

Stallingrad

thecretinhop wrote: »

thought so. 2 forensic accountants said the clinton foundation used up to 60pc of funds for admin. normal rate 15pc.
also between 400m and 2.5 billion dollars could have been illegally gained.


i find any one who tries to argue in this forum gets ran out of it. i have loads more to say but not really bothered as well.

I have heard dodgy things about the Clinton Foundation before, you should start a separate thread on it. If there is nefarious activity they should certainly be called out it.

If you are willing to engage please hang around. Most of us would love a Trump supporter to explain how they can support the man despite all his obvious failings.

kilns

rossie1977 wrote: »

Warren wouldn't be considered establishment, she is more progressive than pretty much every major name being linked with obvious exception of Bernie and Beto.

I honestly don't see a Biden/Beto ticket getting anything in the south. O'Rourke would be an excellent choice had he won Texas. Florida didn't vote either the progressive or establishment candidate in November which is a really bad sign for Dems in 2020.

Warren doesnt have the charisma nor the common touch to win the swing states needed, she is a harvard professor, that will not relate to the rust belt states, no matter how good she could be

Beto didnt win Texas but he came very close, which is nearly unheard of for a democrat, but again who cares about the south, if they win those 3 key states back they win.

Water John

In that case Biden would be a certainty, would need a balance on the ticket, to ensure a wide a franchise as possible.

pixelburp

thecretinhop wrote: »

thought so. 2 forensic accountants said the clinton foundation used up to 60pc of funds for admin. normal rate 15pc.
also between 400m and 2.5 billion dollars could have been illegally gained. (yesterday)

second the payments violation for trump is very weak the dnc and obama had record fines hmm not so important then.

third, which is it lads. it has gone from treason to a totally different topic do you not thing muller has been outrageous with his scope?

To be clear, the prosecution over the payoffs via Cohen are NOT the Mueller investigation; it's a case with the SDNY. A case in which Trump's own federal pick had to recuse himself from. There are overlaps because the same individuals are Persons of Interest in both cases, but this recent development is NOT the Mueller investigation.

And quit bringing up Clinton - start a thread about their impropriety if you want - but banging the drum here as some "j'accuse" insults everyone's intelligence, including your own. Trump's affairs are suspect. So are the Clintons'. One does not invalidate the other.

phater phagan

Stallingrad wrote: »

I have heard dodgy things about the Clinton Foundation before, you should start a separate thread on it. If there is nefarious activity they should certainly be called out it.

If you are willing to engage please hang around. Most of us would love a Trump supporter to explain how they can support the man despite all his obvious failings.

I believe that the Trump fan-base knows exactly what kind of man he is, and the only argument that they make is whataboutery; attacking previous admins. etc. and distracting it away from the core question of why they support such an obviously corrupt and disingenuous person.
Anyway I'm hereby giving myself a break from Trump - he just depresses me. More important things ( and cheerful ones too ) to occupy myself with. Bye for now.

demfad

kilns wrote: »

The problem was Hillary as a candidate could not connect with those states, she was seen as an establishment elite from New York who would do nothing for them. When they pick the next candidate they need to focus on who will win in those states, if they pick another Clinton type candidate (i.e. Warren) Trump could win again. I would be in favour of Beto but it would be a big jump up for him and unlikely the Dems would like someone jumping the queue like that, if was up for it a Biden/Beto ticket would be fantastic but again the Dems would never field two white males on the ticket

Hilary's problem was that a foreign power influenced the election for Trump in her favour. She lost by a total of 80,000 votes total over the 3 vital States. The Comey letter alone would have swung it for Trump. Comey's interference in the roles of the Attorney General were predicated on the Russian disinformation that Loretta Lynch had discussed the Clinton case with a Democrat politician. "A" Loretta Lynch had discussed it not "The" Loretta Lynch USAG. Comey actually discovered this but ploughed ahead anyway because the optics were bad.

That's where montsh of "lock her up" came from and that's why the Comey letter posed a knock out blow.

Before assigning blame for Hilary Clinton for losing, you must show that she would have lost a fair election. Clearly she would not have lost.

Stallingrad

phater phagan wrote: »

Anyway I'm hereby giving myself a break from Trump - he just depresses me. More important things ( and cheerful ones too ) to occupy myself with. Bye for now.

Room in the taxi for one more?

I'll be taking a break from T and this thread for a while too. Happy Christmas!

Professor Moriarty

Stallingrad wrote: »

Room in the taxi for one more?

I'll be taking a break from T and this thread for a while too. Happy Christmas!

I'll stay and mind the kids.

demfad

https://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/

Hamilton site: (Russian Trolls) is trending "Page".
Have I missed a recent story hear or do they know something we don't?

mcmoustache

thecretinhop wrote: »

thought so. 2 forensic accountants said the clinton foundation used up to 60pc of funds for admin. normal rate 15pc.
also between 400m and 2.5 billion dollars could have been illegally gained. (yesterday)

second the payments violation for trump is very weak the dnc and obama had record fines hmm not so important then.

If only there had been a Republican President with a Republican House and a Republican Senate and years of investigations into Hillary, we might get to the bottom of it. Oh wait...

thecretinhop wrote: »

third, which is it lads. it has gone from treason to a totally different topic do you not thing muller has been outrageous with his scope?

I see you haven't read his appointment document. I'll include it here so that you can have a quick read of it before posting what can only be described as ill-informed nonsense.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

thecretinhop wrote: »

well done getting 41 likes well done well done! it is salient to talk about hillary and obama for that matter as this boards are constantly on about trumps character.

This is a Trump thread. You're welcome to start your own thread for Hillary or any other washed-up politician that nobody cares about outside of the white-skin-enthusiast websites that you appear to be frequenting.

thecretinhop wrote: »

i think trumps approval rating is good considering its literally 24/7 rabid press after him. its quite funny too in here there is never anything about any positives..

I see you've fallen for Trump's lies. I have some news for you - he lies all the time. The press reports on what he says and what he does. It just so happens that he is somewhat out of his depth, nasty, dishonest and a criminal to boot so the reporting reflects that.

thecretinhop wrote: »

i find any one who tries to argue in this forum gets ran out of it. i have loads more to say but not really bothered as well.

Not quite.

What often happens is that Trumpers pop in here armed with Trump-facts and unfortunately that doesn't work out very well in a fact-based forum. It's like showing up to a gunfight with a gun made from jelly. Their trump-facts get corrected rather easily and after a while it begins to look like these people don't know what they're talking about.

Others come in sounding like the North Korean News Lady praising Trump and don't engage. Speaking of North Korea, remember that awesome deal? Some users were praising Trump for whatever the hell that was while the reality-based people were thought this was just Trump being played. It's interesting how that turned out.

And of course, let's not forget the Hillary-obsessed posters. They wander in here thinking they're going to blow the whole case wide open with Uranium One or whatever. When it's pointed out that the Hillary thread is somewhere else, they get a bit petulant and whine about being a victim of group-think. The only problem is that this is a thread about Trump and discussion is meant to be fact based. When trump-facts are presented as actual facts that can give an impression that the reality-based posters are ganging up on the non-reality-based posters. That's not because of some inbuilt collusion among the posters here - it's because trump-facts are in direct opposition to reality itself.

mcmoustache

demfad wrote: »

https://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/

Hamilton site: (Russian Trolls) is trending "Page".
Have I missed a recent story hear or do they know something we don't?

I've been keeping up with this and I'm unaware of anything Carter Page related in the news recently.

There was, however some reporting yesterday about the indictment of a man called Page Carter-Smith. Maybe the Russians misread that and decided to push it?

kilns

demfad wrote: »

Hilary's problem was that a foreign power influenced the election for Trump in her favour. She lost by a total of 80,000 votes total over the 3 vital States. The Comey letter alone would have swung it for Trump. Comey's interference in the roles of the Attorney General were predicated on the Russian disinformation that Loretta Lynch had discussed the Clinton case with a Democrat politician. "A" Loretta Lynch had discussed it not "The" Loretta Lynch USAG. Comey actually discovered this but ploughed ahead anyway because the optics were bad.

That's where montsh of "lock her up" came from and that's why the Comey letter posed a knock out blow.

Before assigning blame for Hilary Clinton for losing, you must show that she would have lost a fair election. Clearly she would not have lost.

To be honest I think its a bogus claim Russia influenced the election, its on her that it was so close to start with, she is a divisive figure who represents elitism and people voted for something different and you cant blame them for that, just that the different thing they got was Trump.

The Dems need to learn their lesson and pick someone who can tap into the general population and someone they can relate to in some way, a little bit like Obama was able to do

duploelabs

kilns wrote: »

To be honest I think its a bogus claim Russia influenced the election, its on her that it was so close to start with, she is a divisive figure who represents elitism and people voted for something different and you cant blame them for that, just that the different thing they got was Trump.

The Dems need to learn their lesson and pick someone who can tap into the general population and someone they can relate to in some way, a little bit like Obama was able to do

It still baffles me that people still peddle this line, yet there are flat-earthers around the world

Professor Moriarty

kilns wrote: »

To be honest I think its a bogus claim Russia influenced the election, its on her that it was so close to start with, she is a divisive figure who represents elitism and people voted for something different and you cant blame them for that, just that the different thing they got was Trump.

The Dems need to learn their lesson and pick someone who can tap into the general population and someone they can relate to in some way, a little bit like Obama was able to do

Serious?

spacecoyote

jooksavage wrote: »

I agree something like a Biden/Beto ticket would have a great chance. When I hear the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders I shudder. Nothing against them personally - I think they're both fine politicians and people. But they're lightning rods for the worst kind of anti-Democrat sentiment and they're not going to win over Trump voters.


I think Gillum and Abrams and those other progressives will get their shot down the line but as much as I hate to say it, I think the Dems need to play it safe this time around. If it takes 2 white men to get Trump out of the Oval Office, then so be it.

Agreed, I think they do have to run with a White Man at the top of the ticket, but I think that someone like Harris could be a good match from an optics perspective, plus lay the foundation for a potential future run when the environment might be more open to the possibility of a female president.

Igotadose

kilns wrote: »

To be honest I think its a bogus claim Russia influenced the election, its on her that it was so close to start with,...

Nah. The intelligence services have said they've meddled. Dozens of indictments since of Russian Operatives. The 3 states that swung the electoral vote had about 100k votes make the difference. HRC won the popular vote. Comey helped swing it, not sure why he's being lionized in the media, he definitely blew his job assignment.

Not honest. There's nothing bogus about the claim Russia influenced the election.

kilns

Igotadose wrote: »

Nah. The intelligence services have said they've meddled. Dozens of indictments since of Russian Operatives. The 3 states that swung the electoral vote had about 100k votes make the difference. HRC won the popular vote. Comey helped swing it, not sure why he's being lionized in the media, he definitely blew his job assignment.

Not honest. There's nothing bogus about the claim Russia influenced the election.

They meddled no doubt about that but how influencial it was is debatable. Its the one thing that really annoys me about Americans, there has to be a bad guy, just like the movies. Russia are made out to be this really evil nation that cant be trusted and the world must be saved from them. You could argue America are the real bogey man of the world, how many elections have they meddled in, how many regimes have they overthrown for their own benefit which has resulted in wars..

duploelabs

kilns wrote: »

They meddled no doubt about that but how influencial it was is debatable. Its the one thing that really annoys me about Americans, there has to be a bad guy, just like the movies. Russia are made out to be this really evil nation that cant be trusted and the world must be saved from them. You could argue America are the real bogey man of the world, how many elections have they meddled in, how many regimes have they overthrown for their own benefit which has resulted in wars..

More whataboutism (i.e america is bad and therefore deserve to be influenced nefariously).

As I've said before, watch Active Measures and then revert

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8135494/

Tell me how

kilns wrote: »

They meddled no doubt about that but how influencial it was is debatable. Its the one thing that really annoys me about Americans, there has to be a bad guy, just like the movies. Russia are made out to be this really evil nation that cant be trusted and the world must be saved from them. You could argue America are the real bogey man of the world, how many elections have they meddled in, how many regimes have they overthrown for their own benefit which has resulted in wars..

A fair point,. The hypocrisy of the US in many ways is astounding. The examples you've given for one. Their attitude to other countries building up Nuclear weapon capability when between themselves and Russia they control over 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons is another.

But, all that being said, the fact that Russia interfered in an election needs to be dealt with. It is scary that in a country of hundreds of million, that a social media campaign targeting just a few hundred thousand people could influence the outcome but that is the way America now is.

Given that 40% will always vote blue and 40% will always vote red, each party needs to only gain 11 more % to gain power. So, they are more and more just targeting the fluctuating 20% to try to get their 11%. Given this fact, groups like Russia, Cambridge Analytica can influence the direction of a country so it really does need to be exposed and eradicated if possible.

kilns

duploelabs wrote: »

More whataboutism (i.e america is bad and therefore deserve to be influenced nefariously).

As I've said before, watch Active Measures and then revert

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8135494/

I didnt say they deserved to be influenced no democratic election does, I am saying can any quantify the influence Russia had on the election and it is definitely a legitimate thing to highlight when the US are so up in arms regarding someone trying to influence their election when they have no issues doing it to other countries for their own benefit

eire4

Tell me how wrote: »

A fair point,. The hypocrisy of the US in many ways is astounding. The examples you've given for one. Their attitude to other countries building up Nuclear weapon capability when between themselves and Russia they control over 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons is another.

But, all that being said, the fact that Russia interfered in an election needs to be dealt with. It is scary that in a country of hundreds of million, that a social media campaign targeting just a few hundred thousand people could influence the outcome but that is the way America now is.

Given that 40% will always vote blue and 40% will always vote red, each party needs to only gain 11 more % to gain power. So, they are more and more just targeting the fluctuating 20% to try to get their 11%. Given this fact, groups like Russia, Cambridge Analytica can influence the direction of a country so it really does need to be exposed and eradicated if possible.

Just to touch on your voting numbers at the end there. There is nothing like 40% voting for either of the 2 parties in their elections. In fact roughly half of Americans do not vote at all. Presidential elections tend to get turnouts in the mid 50's range and mid terms in the lower 40's. The reality is the groups being targeted are even smaller numbers as only about 20% vote regularly for either of the 2 parties who control the political system in the US.

Tell me how

eire4 wrote: »

Just to touch on your voting numbers at the end there. There is nothing like 40% voting for either of the 2 parties in their elections. In fact roughly half of Americans do not vote at all. Presidential elections tend to get turnouts in the mid 50's range and mid terms in the lower 40's. The reality is the groups being targeted are even smaller numbers as only about 20% vote regularly for either of the 2 parties who control the political system in the US.

40% of those who vote obviously.....

I don't put any value in referring to percentages of those who don't vote in open elections as they have chosen to not participate in the process and have their voice heard.

(Curiously, this might not exactly be the case in the US with several dubious practices of preventing people from voting being reported in recent years).

Den14

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Serious?

"WASHINGTON — There is no evidence that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election affected the actual vote count, according to the first installment of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia report, released Tuesday."

Quoted from USA today dated May 8th 2018

mcmoustache

Den14 wrote: »

"WASHINGTON — There is no evidence that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election affected the actual vote count, according to the first installment of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia report, released Tuesday."

Quoted from USA today dated May 8th 2018

That's not disputed. Nobody is claiming that the vote counts were affected and there is no evidence of the count being affected.


What's being claimed is that Russians were able to target specific people in key states to convince enough of them to either vote Trump or stay at home.

duploelabs

Den14 wrote: »

"WASHINGTON — There is no evidence that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election affected the actual vote count, according to the first installment of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia report, released Tuesday."

Quoted from USA today dated May 8th 2018

The republican senate Committee who said there's no attempt of influence whatsoever?

eire4

Tell me how wrote: »

40% of those who vote obviously.....

I don't put any value in referring to percentages of those who don't vote in open elections as they have chosen to not participate in the process and have their voice heard.

(Curiously, this might not exactly be the case in the US with several dubious practices of preventing people from voting being reported in recent years).

I figured that is what you meant but wanted to clarify in terms of the percentage of people who actually vote.

You also touch on the very valid reality that voter suppression is a very real factor in the US right now. It is another example of how corrupted and broken their system of government is.

As for your comment about people making a choice not to have their voice heard. I get what your saying and why but in the case of the US that comment is not really 100% as their system of elections is so corrupted and their government so broken that I don't agree. There is a 2 party duopoly on power. The 2 parties make sure no alternative voices are allowed to emerge nationally and the only difference economically between the 2 parties is that the Republicans represent the richest 1% while the Democrats maybe stand for the richest 20%. In other words for the vast majority of Americans neither party represents them and has any intention of doing so at least economically. So I am not sure what choice it is the many who do not vote are supposed to make when they are stuck with such a fundamentally broken system. Never mind the fact that the politicians in DC are so bought and paid for that even in areas where the vast majority of Americans agree such as strict gun control background checks absolutely nothings gets done. Hard to find fault for people not voting when the system does not represent their best interests and is so utterly corrupted by money.

Den14

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's not disputed. Nobody is claiming that the vote counts were affected and there is no evidence of the count being affected.


What's being claimed is that Russians were able to target specific people in key states to convince enough of them to either vote Trump or stay at home.

Excuse my ignorance but was that mostly through social media?

mcmoustache

Den14 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but was that mostly through social media?

Yes. One area of the influence operation was micro-targeting, bot-farms and trolling. Oddly enough, that wouldn't necessarily be illegal had it been yanks themselves doing it. There is also the question of how the Russians knew who to target.


Other areas were things like the DNC and RNC hacks which whose release smothered the Grab'em tape and the intelligence community statement on ongoing election interference.