Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III
Options
Comments
-
Those who have worked against him in probably underhanded manners… President Obama and his Department of Justice and key people within the FBI, his State Department, his UN Ambassador, Hillary Clinton and her campaign organization, and a biased media. I might have forgotten some. But I have already spoken about them all in depth, here.
Seriously, just step back for a moment and honestly ask yourself: If the whole political system was engaged in secret plotting to keep Trump from being elected, how did he get elected?0 -
There are many factors involved in why Trump won and Hillary lost. The remarkable thing is, at least to me, is Trump won despite all the negative and underhanded factors going against him... and how much people, who's roles dictated that they should have been neutral, worked to get Hillary elected.Those who have worked against him in probably underhanded manners… President Obama and his Department of Justice and key people within the FBI, his State Department, his UN Ambassador, Hillary Clinton and her campaign organization, and a biased media. I might have forgotten some. But I have already spoken about them all in depth, here.
Seriously, just step back for a moment and honestly ask yourself: If the whole political system was engaged in secret plotting to keep Trump from being elected, how did he get elected?You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Those who have worked against him in probably underhanded manners… President Obama and his Department of Justice and key people within the FBI, his State Department, his UN Ambassador, Hillary Clinton and her campaign organization, and a biased media. I might have forgotten some. But I have already spoken about them all in depth, here.
So basically what you are saying is that he had some people against him. Nothing insurmountable (which I'm not sure you understand the word since he overcame them).
There were key people in the FBI very much working for him as well. Giuliani clearly had insider info about the HC case for example. Obama, my view is that Obama actually was far too slow, far to reticent to be seen to become involved. In light of what we know Obama knew, it was strange that he didn't call it out at the time. Obama's sense of fair play and seeming belief that people would pay attention blinded him to the potential dangers.
A biased media. You mean Fox News, the largest watched TV network in the US? Or Twitter, or FB. Alex Jones? Or do you mean some of the media? But then he was given large amount of free airtime. He was rarely fact checked and his events were covered as if they were sports events. What about the owners of the Enquirer which we know paid to keep stories out of the media?
Again, you put out these theories without realising that it is these exacts things which helped Trump to win. But in terms of Trump (and part of the reason is of course he is POTUS so if being checked) we know many of these to be true rather than simply theories.
For example, it is plain as day that Comey announcement so close to the election had a major impact. Trump was heading for a loss, such a negative story had to have an impact on turnout for Dems at the very least. So try to argue otherwise is to call into question the very nature of people dislike of HC0 -
So no solid ideas, just an unshakeable belief that Trump had the entire establishment ranged against him, a solid wall of the most powerful people in the US, willing to do pretty much anything to prevent him winning, and they just... let him win?
Do you not see the massive problems with this theory?0 -
My own view is in about a year we won’t even be talking about Trump/Russian collusion as it will be determined to be a total bogus investigation based on a specious dossier based on information provided by Russian operatives and neither verified or investigated by the FBI before they sought a FISA warrant to spy on a presidential candidate. Instead we will be talking about the greatest scandal in US history involving in the lead up and following a presidential election of the illegal work to take out a candidate and then to try and destroy a dully elected president. The major culprits I forecast will be Hilllary Clinton and her cronies, the DNC, the Clinton Foundation, heads of the FBI, heads of the Department of Justice, and the State Department. History, IMO will judge them harshly... if justice isn't blind, that is.
We've been told by Trump supporters for over a year that there is nothing to Russia stuff and it'll be over shortly. No sign of it ending any time soon.0 -
Advertisement
-
Thank you for your opinion, but I noted 'almost insurmountable factors.' Correct?Those who have worked against him in probably underhanded manners… President Obama and his Department of Justice and key people within the FBI, his State Department, his UN Ambassador, Hillary Clinton and her campaign organization, and a biased media. I might have forgotten some. But I have already spoken about them all in depth, here.
So basically what you are saying is that he had some people against him. Nothing insurmountable (which I'm not sure you understand the word since he overcame them).
There were key people in the FBI very much working for him as well. Giuliani clearly had insider info about the HC case for example. Obama, my view is that Obama actually was far too slow, far to reticent to be seen to become involved. In light of what we know Obama knew, it was strange that he didn't call it out at the time. Obama's sense of fair play and seeming belief that people would pay attention blinded him to the potential dangers.
A biased media. You mean Fox News, the largest watched TV network in the US? Or Twitter, or FB. Alex Jones? Or do you mean some of the media? But then he was given large amount of free airtime. He was rarely fact checked and his events were covered as if they were sports events. What about the owners of the Enquirer which we know paid to keep stories out of the media?
Again, you put out these theories without realising that it is these exacts things which helped Trump to win. But in terms of Trump (and part of the reason is of course he is POTUS so if being checked) we know many of these to be true rather than simply theories.
For example, it is plain as day that Comey announcement so close to the election had a major impact. Trump was heading for a loss, such a negative story had to have an impact on turnout for Dems at the very least. So try to argue otherwise is to call into question the very nature of people dislike of HC
What people inside the FBI were working for Trump?
Obama made it know what his feelings were about Clinton's disregard for top secret and classified information and her unsecure bathroom server. His people within the FBI ran with that and even made up new law to support Obama's incorrect assertion.
Sure Fox was for Trump. But they're small potatoes compared to all the media that was for Hillary.
Comey reopened the Hillary email investigation right before the election to give the appearance of legitimacy to Hillary as she was expected to win. Comey even admitted to it. But I have recently heard Comey had to get it out because a NY media group was about to expose that Comey's FBI had the information about Weiner's pc for 5 weeks and were sitting on it. That Comey had to get it out in public to give the FBI cover for sitting on it for so long. But I am waiting for confirmation on that report and therefore it should only be taken as another of the many disturbing reports that have recently come out... many of which are proven to be true.You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
If you back over the last week or two of my posts you will see plenty of examples.So no solid ideas, just an unshakeable belief that Trump had the entire establishment ranged against him, a solid wall of the most powerful people in the US, willing to do pretty much anything to prevent him winning, and they just... let him win?
Do you not see the massive problems with this theory?You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
I don't think so. I would say because of Trump and the potential upcoming summit North Korea is talking about denuclearization. A possible significant movement toward peace. Possibly the best news for peace in decades. Yes, it is prudent to remain skeptical, but a positive development towards peace nonetheless. I know some would never give Trump credit for anything, but it is important to point out that Kim hasn't tested a missile since November. Trump will never get the prize, no matter what, IMO.
Kim hasn't given away one missile yet. Kim just announced no tests he still has a fully functional nuclear deterrent hidden. I am shocked if Kim gave away nuclear weapons the only real defence he got to stop future aggression? America has shown countless times they will not stick to deals signed, Kim is willing to give up, he took a gamble.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
My own view is in about a year we won’t even be talking about Trump/Russian collusion as it will be determined to be a total bogus investigation based on a specious dossier based on information provided by Russian operatives and neither verified or investigated by the FBI before they sought a FISA warrant to spy on a presidential candidate. Instead we will be talking about the greatest scandal in US history involving in the lead up and following a presidential election of the illegal work to take out a candidate and then to try and destroy a dully elected president. The major culprits I forecast will be Hilllary Clinton and her cronies, the DNC, the Clinton Foundation, heads of the FBI, heads of the Department of Justice, and the State Department. History, IMO will judge them harshly... if justice isn't blind, that is.
Of course, it's crap. In what world is working with Russia on important matters a bad thing? How can Russia influence 60 million Americans to vote Trump? The DNC is ignoring they rigged the election for Hilary and made sure she beat Bernie Sanders. The only group pushing this bogus Russian collusion investigation is the DNC. They can't face up to the fact their candidate lost to a reality TV star, they need to blame Russia. There using porn models now to attack him as if we did not know he slept around. CNN is basically the Trump channel now I don't think they actually talk much about anything else on there?0 -
Thank you for your opinion, but I noted 'almost insurmountable factors.' Correct?
My mistake you did indeed.What people inside the FBI were working for Trump?
Let me get this straight. You throw out this conspiracies and then whenever you get called on them you want evidence to back it up, yet never provide any yourself? I already mentioned that Guiliani had an inside track on the HC e-mails, that could only have come from the FBI.Obama made it know what his feelings were about Clinton's disregard for top secret and classified information and her unsecure bathroom server. His people within the FBI ran with that and even made up new law to support Obama's incorrect assertion.
Made up a lawy? What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that people within the FBI made a new law, using the GOP controlled senate, to allow Clinton off with crimes? Based on what Obama wanted? Yet at the same time, despite having a dossier that if released prior to the election would have most likely torpedoed Trump choose to keep that all secret? I mean really?
And that isn't even the point I raised. Obama clearly new the FBI had this stuff, and you claimed Obama was one of those out to get Trump, yet he didn't disclose it, nor the FBI, nor even the DNC. Given that the Pussy gate tape almost knocked him, imagine a story about Russian Hookers and in hock to Putin would have done. But they simply ignored it? Why?Sure Fox was for Trump. But they're small potatoes compared to all the media that was for Hillary.
Right so not the media, just part of the media that you don't like then. Not quite the same is it? Small potatoes? There are the largest network in the US? He had the whole GOP, the NRA, the evangelicals and all the radio and TV stations, newspapers, youtube channels and podcast associated with them lined up behind him.Comey reopened the Hillary email investigation right before the election to give the appearance of legitimacy to Hillary as she was expected to win. Comey even admitted to it. But I have recently heard Comey had to get it out because a NY media group was about to expose that Comey's FBI had the information about Weiner's pc for 5 weeks and were sitting on it. That Comey had to get it out in public to give the FBI cover for sitting on it for so long. But I am waiting for confirmation on that report and therefore it should only be taken as another of the many disturbing reports that have recently come out... many of which are proven to be true.
So Comey gets info, which turns out to be nothing in the end, and rather than release it without looking into it fully decided to hold off. Kind of like they did with the dossier then. So what exactly is your issue?0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Of course, it's crap. In what world is working with Russia on important matters a bad thing? How can Russia influence 60 million Americans to vote Trump? The DNC is ignoring they rigged the election for Hilary and made sure she beat Bernie Sanders. The only group pushing this bogus Russian collusion investigation is the DNC. They can't face up to the fact their candidate lost to a reality TV star, they need to blame Russia. There using porn models now to attack him as if we did not know he slept around. CNN is basically the Trump channel now I don't think they actually talk much about anything else on there?
Yet despite it being crapped dreamed up to help Clinton recover from the shock of defeat we have had multiple indictments, a number of guilty pleas and a widening investigation.
Even the CIA/FBI acknowledge that Russia interfered (although the current POTUS seems totally unconcerned with a direct attack on his own country).
Nobody is using porn models, they are speaking the truth rather than staying silent. That you find nothing wrong with a POTUS having affairs is entirely up to you. What is does show is how he approaches problems. He tries to lie, and then buys his way out. We see that everyday in his position as POTUS. I would have thought that integrity is a key driver for a leader, if lying is so acceptable then I am not sure why so many had issues with Clinton. Sure at least you knew about it right?
If lied about Mexico paying for the wall. He lied about repealing Obamacare. He lied about not getting involved overseas. He lied about draining the swamp. His son meet with Russia to try to use illegally obtained info and he lied about that. He knew Flynn had lied yet continued to back him.
I fail to see any reason to not want to get to the bottom of all of this. What hold does he have over so many in the US that they are willing to give up all their principles?
Maybe none of it turns out to be true, though that likelihood seems to decrease with each news story. But why would you even risk it? Trump is not the messiah, he is not some sort of superman that only he can save America. Why would anybody accept such a level of risk?
There are very people people who would employ such a known liar into their own business, yet they think nothing of allowing him access to the very heart of the US.0 -
@ notobtuse, cheerful, etc...
Just a question, out of interest. If Trump was running as a democrat, what would your opinion be on him & his alleged indiscretions?
Please give an honest reply0 -
Thanks, I actually didn’t remember that. But yes, it seems Giuliani noted that close ties to the FBI told him some outraged FBI agents that were frustrated by how the Clinton investigation was handled, had apparently, two days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency was reviewing the newly uncovered emails, got news out to the Trump campaign.mcmoustache wrote: »
What ever became of that investigation?
But reading about how some FBI agents were frustrated about how the FBI was handling Clinton’s misuse top secret and classified information here is a good read for you (and it’s not from Fox News). Seems the wheels of justice might actually be starting to turn, albeit at a snails pace. Some very big names could be in very big trouble, and none of those names are Trump.
Two very interesting revelations arise from the article. One is from the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That there was no official intelligence that was used to start the investigation of Trump’s aides. That an official investigation was mounted against an American presidential campaign with no official information to support it. And if so, then the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies were weaponized for partisan purposes. The second involves a likely high-level conspiracy to obstruct justice in the Clinton investigation, and the direct political pressure to help the Clinton that might go all the way to the top. IMO.
As I said, this whole thing regarding the actions of high level people to destroy the candidacy of Trump and then to derail his presidency could very well be the biggest scandal in US history.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/23/the_hidden_bombshell_in_the_mccabe_report_136882.htmlYou can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Of course, it's crap. In what world is working with Russia on important matters a bad thing? How can Russia influence 60 million Americans to vote Trump? The DNC is ignoring they rigged the election for Hilary and made sure she beat Bernie Sanders. The only group pushing this bogus Russian collusion investigation is the DNC. They can't face up to the fact their candidate lost to a reality TV star, they need to blame Russia. There using porn models now to attack him as if we did not know he slept around. CNN is basically the Trump channel now I don't think they actually talk much about anything else on there?
5 guilty pleas
1 guy about to be imprisoned for the remainder of his life
13 Russians indicted
3 Russian companies indicted
All from Republican Robert Mueller who got appointed by Republican Rod Rosenstein after Republican James Comey was fired by Republican Donald Trump. I don't know where the democrats fit into your silly conspiracy theory.
Your grip on reality is tenuous at best. You may be better served in the Conspiracy Theories forum because you'll have a bad time in here if you run around presenting nonsense as facts.0 -
If I thought Trump, running as a Democrat, was receiving too much favorable coverage from a biased media and who were failing in their journalistic duties to show the negative stuff… I would provide the information about his negatives that I thought the media was ignoring. And of course I would be against Trump in that case. He would be spouting Democrat ideals which are diametrically opposed to mine. I’m not a journalist. I don’t show fairness in my postings… nobody here does. I’m simply a partisan poster… just like everyone else here apparently is. Does that sound truthful to you?spacecoyote wrote: »@ notobtuse, cheerful, etc...
Just a question, out of interest. If Trump was running as a democrat, what would your opinion be on him & his alleged indiscretions?
Please give an honest reply
Now, how would YOU have felt if Trump ran as a Democrat? Be truthful!You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!
0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Of course, it's crap. In what world is working with Russia on important matters a bad thing? How can Russia influence 60 million Americans to vote Trump? The DNC is ignoring they rigged the election for Hilary and made sure she beat Bernie Sanders. The only group pushing this bogus Russian collusion investigation is the DNC. They can't face up to the fact their candidate lost to a reality TV star, they need to blame Russia. There using porn models now to attack him as if we did not know he slept around. CNN is basically the Trump channel now I don't think they actually talk much about anything else on there?
Okay, let's go through this then.
1/ Yes, the DNC screwed over Bernie Sanders. They are absolutely paying for this with a massive loss in Democratic supporters. They absolutely should suffer for this. Bernie would have won.
2/ No. Mueller is a Republican, something you lot like to forget. So far he's managed to nab quite a few people on collusion.
3/ Trumps love of affairs and pornstars is not new, and somewhat ironic that Trump supporters love to get defensive about considering their previous comments about Bill Clinton.
4/ The bribes payoffs made to the women were made many, many years ago, well before Trump ran for President.0 -
Now, how would YOU have felt if Trump ran as a Democrat? Be truthful!
Being a Democrat wouldn't have changed the fact that he's an appalling person who would have been an appalling candidate who probably wouldn't have become an appalling president.
Why not? Because if he ran as a Democrat, hypocritical evangelicals wouldn't have voted for him; they'd be too busy decrying what an appalling person he is.0 -
If I thought Trump, running as a Democrat, was receiving too much favorable coverage from a biased media and who were failing in their journalistic duties to show the negative stuff… I would provide the information about his negatives that I thought the media was ignoring. And of course I would be against Trump in that case. He would be spouting Democrat ideals which are diametrically opposed to mine. I’m not a journalist. I don’t show fairness in my postings… nobody here does. I’m simply a partisan poster… just like everyone else here apparently is. Does that sound truthful to you?spacecoyote wrote: »@ notobtuse, cheerful, etc...
Just a question, out of interest. If Trump was running as a democrat, what would your opinion be on him & his alleged indiscretions?
Please give an honest reply
Now, how would YOU have felt if Trump ran as a Democrat? Be truthful!
You didn't even try to answer the question asked. You started on about media coverage!
You have called Obama scummy, yet you see nothing wrong with Trump simply because he fits in with your ideology.
At least you are honest, unlike many others. This has nothing to do with MAGA, its all down to make my view dominant again.
Its a shame to see so many people sell out their principles for such short termism.
To have lost any sense of balance or reasoned review is the most worrying aspect of all this.0 -
Advertisement
-
I’m having a little problem understanding this. Are we saying flight records cast doubt on Trump's account of trip to Moscow and the whole thing revolves around the term 'overnight?'. That Trump lied to the FBI about not staying overnight in Moscow, when records state after he attended the Miss Universe pageant he went to an after-party at 1 am, then went to the airport to fly out at 3:58am, which wasn’t a fully overnight stay in Russia? I guess if the guy found time to gallivant with hookers in that busy schedule, he must be freakin’ Superman?
Eh... He was there the Friday night too. So yes, one "fully overnight" stay, and then a full day (remember Brendan Gleeson did his business with the hookers in the daytime in The Guard) and then a second overnight stay with an early start (though no baggage queues for those private jets).0 -
@notobtuse: If yoyu had the chance to re-run the 2016 GOP candidate race, who would your choice be, Don or one of the other original candidates?0
-
mcmoustache wrote: »5 guilty pleas
1 guy about to be imprisoned for the remainder of his life
13 Russians indicted
3 Russian companies indicted
All from Republican Robert Mueller who got appointed by Republican Rod Rosenstein after Republican James Comey was fired by Republican Donald Trump. I don't know where the democrats fit into your silly conspiracy theory.
Your grip on reality is tenuous at best. You may be better served in the Conspiracy Theories forum because you'll have a bad time in here if you run around presenting nonsense as facts.
My grip on reality is better than yours. If there was even a good case here to remove Trump they would have done it by now. That trump surrounded himself with people, who he liked before and after he won and they got caught lying to US investigators ie (FBI), that shocked you? They are basically hoodlums like the guys in Wallstreet gambling money they did not own.
The Americans have sanctioned Russia and Russian citizens over various things they disagreed with. They are just sanctioning again here to look tough and strong, but the reality is those sanctions don't hurt, they are a just safe facing measures to please people like you and media.
Robert Mueller works for the US political establishment they dislike Trump. He only is too happy to remove Trump and place an establishment Republican in his place.0 -
spacecoyote wrote: »@ notobtuse, cheerful, etc...
Just a question, out of interest. If Trump was running as a democrat, what would your opinion be on him & his alleged indiscretions?
Please give an honest reply
I dislike Trump always have not sure where you got the opinion I thought he is a good guy? He won the election by race baiting, talked a lot of crap about a lot of people to win. Trump constant lying annoys me, but sometimes he surprises me not often, but I will say that's interesting did not expect that but he then goes and messes that up.
Example, I thought it was a wise decision to pull out of Syria. But then a few days later he fell for the oldest trick in the book a false flag event an staged event planned to push Trump to strike Syria.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »If there was even a good case here to remove Trump they would have done it by now.
June 17, 1972: The plumbers are arrested at 2:30 a.m. in the process of burglarizing and planting surveillance bugs in the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate Building Complex.
August 9, 1974: Nixon resigns from office0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »June 17, 1972: The plumbers are arrested at 2:30 a.m. in the process of burglarizing and planting surveillance bugs in the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate Building Complex.
August 9, 1974: Nixon resigns from office
The similarities between the chants from trump supporters regarding this investigation and those from Nixon supporters and that investigation are extraordinary.
And we all know the Nixon investigation went nowhere, yes??0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »My grip on reality is better than yours. If there was even a good case here to remove Trump they would have done it by now. That trump surrounded himself with people, who he liked before and after he won and they got caught lying to US investigators ie (FBI), that shocked you? They are basically hoodlums like the guys in Wallstreet gambling money they did not own.
The Americans have sanctioned Russia and Russian citizens over various things they disagreed with. They are just sanctioning again here to look tough and strong, but the reality is those sanctions don't hurt, they are a just safe facing measures to please people like you and media.
Robert Mueller works for the US political establishment they dislike Trump. He only is too happy to remove Trump and place an establishment Republican in his place.
So much wrong with this, I'm not sure why I'm picking you up on this point but sanctions DO hurt. It's the most effective weapon against Putin and the oligarchs and if you're not convinced I would suggest you read up on Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. The story of how it came about is fascinating and the consequences for Putins billionaire supporters have been dire. Reversing the Magnitsky Act is among Putins top priorities.
BTW if sanctions were, as you say, ineffective, why didn't Trump just sign off on them, spare Nikki Haley all this embarrassment and not end up looking like a Russian stooge himself?0 -
Speaking from first hand experience sanctions make life very difficult but they do not bring any business to a halt. Russian Oil and gas is still sold to American companies.jooksavage wrote: »Cheerful Spring wrote: »My grip on reality is better than yours. If there was even a good case here to remove Trump they would have done it by now. That trump surrounded himself with people, who he liked before and after he won and they got caught lying to US investigators ie (FBI), that shocked you? They are basically hoodlums like the guys in Wallstreet gambling money they did not own.
The Americans have sanctioned Russia and Russian citizens over various things they disagreed with. They are just sanctioning again here to look tough and strong, but the reality is those sanctions don't hurt, they are a just safe facing measures to please people like you and media.
Robert Mueller works for the US political establishment they dislike Trump. He only is too happy to remove Trump and place an establishment Republican in his place.
So much wrong with this, I'm not sure why I'm picking you up on this point but sanctions DO hurt. It's the most effective weapon against Putin and the oligarchs and if you're not convinced I would suggest you read up on Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. The story of how it came about is fascinating and the consequences for Putins billionaire supporters have been dire. Reversing the Magnitsky Act is among Putins top priorities.
BTW if sanctions were, as you say, ineffective, why didn't Trump just sign off on them, spare Nikki Haley all this embarrassment and not end up looking like a Russian stooge himself?0 -
Speaking from first hand experience sanctions make life very difficult but they do not bring any business to a halt. Russian Oil and gas is still sold to American companies.
This is very odd. I thought that Trump had single handedly brought NK to the table through a regime of tough sanctions.
But you are now suggesting that sanctions have little real effect. So we can cut out all this nonsense talk about NK and peace prizes to bed at least.
And so what will Trump do with Iran is he breaks the international deal that the US only recently signed up to? Obviously sanctions are off the table.0 -
Advertisement
-
Macron was put back in his box by trump yesterday in front of the media. I’d say he is seething. It reminded me of the time that creep sarkozy ruffled Enda’s hair.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement