nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Blowfish

pixelburp wrote: »

In all seriousness though - what HAS happened with ISIS and Trumps' boasting that he'd sort them out?

So much water has passed under the bridge, and they've only come up during the aftermaths of that spate of terrorist attacks in the EU. Has the back of their attempted caliphate been broken? Has Trump actually signed off on any executive action or policy?

ISIS has been losing territory pretty much since the Siege of Kobani in late 2014/early 2015. By the time Trump came to Office, they had lost most of Northern Syria, with the battle for both Mosul and Raqqa (ISIS' capital) underway. For all intents and purposes, the back of ISIS had already been broken and it was more a matter of finishing them off than anything.

Of course Trump being Trump, he'll attempt to take full credit for defeating ISIS.

weisses

RIGOLO wrote: »

And here is where the left gets all tangled up in its own web of inept analysis. So last week the left are moaning Trump is pushing the pace of NATO expansion and now this week the left are moaning Putin has no deterrent.
Talk about going round in circles, no wonder a first time political novice came from left field and swept the WH from under their self-annointed queen.

Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending as a whole , with over 40billion extra already spent in NATO European operations this year alone since Trump started his drive to get NATO to expand. All of which goes against Putins public statements looking for a decrease in NATO eastern european expansion.
Trump wont criticise , wont take action .phooey ... $40 billion EXTRA and a US Armoured division, is plenty action .
This will blow over by the time most US voters come back from vacation, a vacation Im sure they are enjoying what with the extra dollas in their 401Ks and their booming economy.
Putin has put a spotlight back on Mueller to 'piss or get off the pot' , with his invite of the Mueller team to Russia to interview the indicted 12 . I expect before we see the final Mueller report their will be at least 5 more occassion for the left to call for impeachment, high treason and to bring out the stripper and her lawyer again.
None of which are going to deliver them the WH in 2020 or even the mid-terms in Nov.
Meanwhile the American voters continue to enjoy their booming economy.

Already agreed in 2014 ... was explained to you a couple of times already

Deflect .... but the left ....Hysteria .... whataboutery about boomin economy .... but russia is doing it for 200 years .... bla bla bla ... facebook .... hillary .... CiA bad ...FBI bad .......

But not one instance of critical thinking regarding the POTUS ....

It was hilarious for a while ... But these posts are starting to be an embarrassment for anyone looking for a serious discussion

Hurrache

RIGOLO wrote: »

look at the actions and those speak to being tough on Russia.

How are those new sanctions that Nikki Haley announced going?

Leroy42

So its not the left or MSM but social engineering internet giants in silicon valley?

Yet Trump is starting trade wars and looking to increase NATO spending? Seems he doesn't agree with you on this.

RIGOLO

Hurrache wrote: »

pixelburp wrote: »

Again I ask: why do you focus on 'the Left', when Republicans and even Fox News have condemned Trumps behaviour? Is that not a clear indicator that all is not right - not this time.

Do you accept that Trumps assessment of the US's intelligence agency is superior?

Others have asked this RIGOLO, I think people would appreciate if you engaged in discussion rather than cherry-pick tacit putdowns towards others trying to make sense of this political contradiction.

Just in case RIGOLO missed your post, as he/she often does when it comes to questions they've no answer for, I'll quote your question as I believe they've no reason not to see any of my posts.

Russia did what Russia has been doing for 200 years, interefering in US issues. Ive a wall full of books that discuss this. Equally theres another set that discusses US interference in Russian affairs.
Russia just did what it always did, started in 2015 kicking the tyres on the election see what they could come up with, had a look at the new social media platforms and found it could step it up a notch.
Russia just wanted to disrupt, with no leaning to Trump as he wasnt a serious candidate. They wanted to disrupt both GOP and DNC and especially Hilary, to favour bernie, then Trump campaign took off and they leant towards him.
Plus the HRC and DNC gave them the keys to the vault, so why wouldnt a Rusisian spy take advantage of this, if they gave them a key.
But the Russian efforts were small scale compared to the Trump campaign itself which got every vote for every dollar from social media they could, and all with the direct help of FB and others. rough figures, if Trumps win was 60% due to a phenomenal socuial media campaign, then the Trump Campaign played 95% role in that with the Rusisians accounting for 5% of that 60%. (guesstimate numbers)

And yes the American intellegince agency have alot of egg on their face, they were let down by their senior mgmt, they became politicised, a few bots and 200k in FB adds defeated the might of Langley and the Pentagon (how embarrassing is that) . The intellegienc agencys need a root and branch reform, sure Trumps words were not well spoken but ignore the body language and the Oxford english dictionary analysis and look at the actions and those speak to being tough on Russia.
So yeah its just the same story, a 200 year old story, played out over a new media. I dont get the fuss, the left are acting like they just been woke!
Like I previously said, people are asking the wrong question, not that Russia interefered , or collusion (thats never going to be proven) , they should be asking when/why did we lose control of our society(democracy and other things) to social engineering internet giants in silicon valley ? Thats the real issue here, its a fight both left and right should be fighting together, but theres no chance of that, the left threw all the toys out of the pram along time ago, heck they even burned the pram once Trump got elected.
This is a world of the lefts making. Better get used to it.

everlast75

Rigalo - you are full blown delusional if you think for one moment there is a jot of pressure on Mueller or Rod. For Don to go after them now would be political suicide. That avenue is well and truly closed.

He has no legal recourse.

He has no political moves left.

All he can hope for, is to repeat buzz words to his base and hope that when impeachment comes (and it will - just ask Rudy)he will be able to stave it off.

And if you think I'm being hysterical, book mark this post. It'll make it easier for you to come back later and quote it while apologising

molloyjh

RIGOLO wrote: »

And here is where the left gets all tangled up in its own web of inept analysis. So last week the left are moaning Trump is pushing the pace of NATO expansion and now this week the left are moaning Putin has no deterrent.
Talk about going round in circles, no wonder a first time political novice came from left field and swept the WH from under their self-annointed queen.

Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending as a whole , with over 40billion extra already spent in NATO European operations this year alone since Trump started his drive to get NATO to expand. All of which goes against Putins public statements looking for a decrease in NATO eastern european expansion.
Trump wont criticise , wont take action .phooey ... $40 billion EXTRA and a US Armoured division, is plenty action.

Are you really sure you know what you are talking about re NATO? Or what peoples issue with Trumps NATO statements were? I'm really not sure you do. So let's get a few things straight.

Trump was not initially pushing for NATO expansion per se. He was pushing for the NATO members to fulfil their obligations under the Wales Summit Declaration from 2014 (before Trumps time), which just formalised an informal agreement from 2002. Well before Trumps time.
The Declaration specified that NATO countries were to spend 2% of GDP on defence by 2024, so countries still have time to meet that commitment.
The investment is in countries own defence budgets. It doesn't go into a central pot. Countries resources then participate in NATO operations.
Trump complained that NATO allies owed the US money due to their supposed arrears. Clearly, as you can see from the above, this isn't how it works. At all. There are no arrears and there are no payments made.
Trump stated that NATO allies agreed to both increase the amount of investment and speed up the timeline on the investment, something nobody else seems to think happened other than himself. This came out of nowhere and wasn't mentioned before the meeting to my knowledge.
"The Left", that bizarre catch all you seem to think captures the opinions and positions of a majority of people in the western world who have issue with Trump, complained about how he managed the situation and how he outright lied about the meeting itself. If "The Left" (should there be a TM there?) were complaining about expansion, it wouldn't be Trump they'd be targeting there as he wasn't involved in the decision making on that one at all. It was before his time. They'd be looking at the likes of Obama, Trump, Merkel etc.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

And here is where the left gets all tangled up in its own web of inept analysis. So last week the left are moaning Trump is pushing the pace of NATO expansion and now this week the left are moaning Putin has no deterrent.

Who was claiming that NATO shouldn't expand?

NATO had agreed, with Obama, to expand all levels to 2%, Trump decided that wasn't good enough but instead of discussing it with his allies he choose to berate them instead. But in the end he got them all to agree with hi.....oh wait!

But you are right, the way in which he went about it was seen as a negative and commented as such on here and many other places. So to then have Trump completely reverse course on Russia, to take a line that he is willing to put peace in front of politics, that the past should be left there. What is the reasoning behind this change. And what did he achieve with the summit.

As per usual, you are totally unable to answer any actual questions. It all left this, HC that, whingers here, MSM there.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending as a whole , with over 40billion extra already spent in NATO European operations this year alone since Trump started his drive to get NATO to expand. All of which goes against Putins public statements looking for a decrease in NATO eastern european expansion.

This is all part of the agreement struck whilst Obama was POTUS, Trump has done nothing in regards to the $40bn.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Trump wont criticise , wont take action .phooey ... $40 billion EXTRA and a US Armoured division, is plenty action .

But according to Trump Russia is not a threat, sure doesn't he believe Putin? So which is it. You talk about going around in circles, but you cannot even work out what Trump is trying to achieve.

RIGOLO wrote: »

This will blow over by the time most US voters come back from vacation, a vacation Im sure they are enjoying what with the extra dollas in their 401Ks and their booming economy.

Totally agree on this point. capitalism has found it logical conclusion. Money is all that matters. Everything else is irrelevant once one gets a increase in tax home pay. US stands for nothing.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Putin has put a spotlight back on Mueller to 'piss or get off the pot' , with his invite of the Mueller team to Russia to interview the indicted 12 .

I assume you mean Trump at the start here, you can't really mean that Putin should have anything to do with an internal US investigation can you? But spotlight? You mean the charging of Flynn wasn't enough?
What about Papadopolous?
Manafort?
The 13 Russian individuals?
The further 12 GRU individuals just charged
Trumps own lawyer?
Roger Stone admitting that he had contact with Guccifer and Wikileaks?
Maria Butina?

Yeah, I'm sure Mueller is really feeling the pressure all right.

RIGOLO wrote: »

I expect before we see the final Mueller report their will be at least 5 more occassion for the left to call for impeachment, high treason and to bring out the stripper and her lawyer again.

Well maybe if Trump stated to act in the interest of the US instead of himself, maybe if he actually agreed to be interviewed rather than running away, maybe if he simply fessed up to sleeping with porn stars rather than lying about it (or you know, not sleeping with them in the first place). He brings all this on himself, He had an easy out to that question yesterday. A simple "We discussed it, Putin knows where I stand and the consequences of it happens again. Putin has denied any involvement and I am prepared to work with him on that basis. He has agreed to extradite the 12 charged so that we can get to the bottom if it and work on ways that the US, Russia and all countries can protect ourselves and the democracies we value so much, from those that look to destroy what we love and what the brave men and women of our great law enforcement and security services risk their lives to protect every day". It really is not that difficult.

RIGOLO wrote: »

None of which are going to deliver them the WH in 2020 or even the mid-terms in Nov.
Meanwhile the American voters continue to enjoy their booming economy.

same point as above, and I agree. The US has sold any values it had for the sake of the dollar.

everlast75

B0jangles wrote: »

This is Trump leaving his private meeting with Putin.

Trump looks very hunched, and very afraid.
Putin looks like the cat that got the cream.

Now hang on. None of us are body language experts... unless there are some dentists here?

aloyisious

RIGOLO wrote: »

And here is where the left gets all tangled up in its own web of inept analysis. So last week the left are moaning Trump is pushing the pace of NATO expansion and now this week the left are moaning Putin has no deterrent.
Talk about going round in circles, no wonder a first time political novice came from left field and swept the WH from under their self-annointed queen.

Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending as a whole , with over 40billion extra already spent in NATO European operations this year alone since Trump started his drive to get NATO to expand. All of which goes against Putins public statements looking for a decrease in NATO eastern european expansion.
Trump wont criticise , wont take action .phooey ... $40 billion EXTRA and a US Armoured division, is plenty action .
This will blow over by the time most US voters come back from vacation, a vacation Im sure they are enjoying what with the extra dollas in their 401Ks and their booming economy.
Putin has put a spotlight back on Mueller to 'piss or get off the pot' , with his invite of the Mueller team to Russia to interview the indicted 12 . I expect before we see the final Mueller report their will be at least 5 more occassion for the left to call for impeachment, high treason and to bring out the stripper and her lawyer again.
None of which are going to deliver them the WH in 2020 or even the mid-terms in Nov.
Meanwhile the American voters continue to enjoy their booming economy.

I'm not sure if the American [US] voters are enjoying their booming economy.

Re the Mueller investigation and Putin's offer to have his team visit Russia and question the 12 Russians there, I agree with Don, it is an incredible offer, which Don can use as a get-out clause if it is refused by Mueller "well, I didn't turn it down. Rob did".

What I find more extra-ordinary is that the sitting US President finding it an acceptable offer, as against the 12 Russians going to the US and answering Mueller's questions there. After all, Putin stated at the press conference that the Russian Govt had nothing to do with the interference [a clear statement that the 12 Russian suspects are not Govt people] getting himself and his administration in the Kremlin [at face value] off the hook unless, of course, he was standing next to Don and lying to him face to face at the news conference.

Re the NATO spending by European countries, that has nothing to do with Don's problems with the Mueller investigation. It's a distraction attempt.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I would say chucking little kids into cages also counts as worse than that conference.

"Chucking little kids into cages"? You'd swear he did it personally or ordered it specifically. As pointed out, there were kids held in cages under Obama's administration also. Was there similar outrage? Of course not.

Even IF it happened more under Trump, as soon as it was brought to his attention, he said he wouldn't be in agreement with it. That doesn't matter though, it's all just exaggerated nonetheless. A barrel scraping exercise if ever there was one. Death by a thousand cuts is the obvious hope.

And yeah the conference was pretty bad. It was a message saying the US president will not do anything if Russia keeps messing with US elections (and they will). All Putin will have to do is simply assure his friend he didn't do it. Not like Trump will believe anyone else.

Show me a press conference where Obama was antagonistic to a leader he was trying to improve relations with? We know Trump accepts that Russia attempted to interfere with the election. He has referenced it numerous times. However, such things are always raised behind the scenes or at least before the day they meet and Putin has made it clear that Trump raised the matter with him. Did you really expect public face to face chastisement?

One thing is for sure, had Mrs Hot Sauce won the election, nobody would give two hoots about Russia's apparent meddling. It would be brushed under the carpet and all of liberal nitpickers who are Looking at Trump's tenure 24/7 under a microscope would no doubt be saying that anyone that was raising the issue just had sour grapes about Trump losing.

You ignored the pretty massive differences between the Obama situation and the Trump situation. At this point it is beyond flogging a dead horse. If you want to address them then fine. Otherwise I see no reason to get into a loop of hearing the same already countered discussion points again.

Trump has said he believes Russia interfered in the election and that he does not believe it. Obviously he only meant the statements you want him to have meant right:p. See pro Trump arguments here both for and against nato involvement. You don't have a direct line into his train of thought.

Hurrache

pixelburp wrote: »

Again I ask: why do you focus on 'the Left', when Republicans and even Fox News have condemned Trumps behaviour? Is that not a clear indicator that all is not right - not this time.

Do you accept that Trumps assessment of the US's intelligence agency is superior?

Others have asked this RIGOLO, I think people would appreciate if you engaged in discussion rather than cherry-pick tacit putdowns towards others trying to make sense of this political contradiction.

Just in case RIGOLO missed your post, as he/she often does when it comes to questions they've no answer for, I'll quote your question as I believe they've no reason not to see any of my posts.

dr.fuzzenstein

RIGOLO wrote: »

Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending as a whole , with over 40billion extra already spent in NATO European operations this year alone since Trump started his drive to get NATO to expand.

He has done no such thing

Water John

Anyone got info on Trump addressing a closed Congress session later today?

pixelburp

RIGOLO wrote: »

And here is where the left gets all tangled up in its own web of inept analysis. So last week the left are moaning Trump is pushing the pace of NATO expansion and now this week the left are moaning Putin has no deterrent.
Talk about going round in circles, no wonder a first time political novice came from left field and swept the WH from under their self-annointed queen.

Again I ask: why do you focus on 'the Left', when Republicans and even Fox News have condemned Trumps behaviour? Is that not a clear indicator that all is not right - not this time.

Do you accept that Trumps assessment of the US's intelligence agency is superior?

Others have asked this RIGOLO, I think people would appreciate if you engaged in discussion rather than cherry-pick tacit putdowns towards others trying to make sense of this political contradiction.

aloyisious

robinph wrote: »

You also don't hold a summit with a hostile power and in between saying how great they are declare that you don't believe a word that your own intelligence services are telling you.

Has any world leader in history ever spoken in such a way about their own forces... unless they were about to get shot at in a coup?

Plus doing it after coming out of an hour-long two-on-two private meeting and winking at the O/P on their arrival at the rostrums. I wonder if Putin gagged at that moment fearing that Don would come out with a "Don-ism" that would make the situation worse.

RIGOLO

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ask yourself, if you are Putin, what possible deterrent is there to do whatever you want? Putin, in case he wasn't before, now knows that Trump wil do absolutely nothing. He won't criticise, he won't take action. The only way is if the WH can trick Trump into agreeing more than he thinks as was the case with the expulsion of diplomats.

And here is where the left gets all tangled up in its own web of inept analysis. So last week the left are moaning Trump is pushing the pace of NATO expansion and now this week the left are moaning Putin has no deterrent.
Talk about going round in circles, no wonder a first time political novice came from left field and swept the WH from under their self-annointed queen.

Trump has pushed NATO to increase defense spending as a whole , with over 40billion extra already spent in NATO European operations this year alone since Trump started his drive to get NATO to expand. All of which goes against Putins public statements looking for a decrease in NATO eastern european expansion.
Trump wont criticise , wont take action .phooey ... $40 billion EXTRA and a US Armoured division, is plenty action .
This will blow over by the time most US voters come back from vacation, a vacation Im sure they are enjoying what with the extra dollas in their 401Ks and their booming economy.
Putin has put a spotlight back on Mueller to 'piss or get off the pot' , with his invite of the Mueller team to Russia to interview the indicted 12 . I expect before we see the final Mueller report their will be at least 5 more occassion for the left to call for impeachment, high treason and to bring out the stripper and her lawyer again.
None of which are going to deliver them the WH in 2020 or even the mid-terms in Nov.
Meanwhile the American voters continue to enjoy their booming economy.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

When the US President got elected off the back of bold, noisy repeated claims of building walls and draining swamps, then YES, he is going to be subject to more 'nitpicking' than others.

He ran on a platform that 'only he' could solve the problems of America - let's not forget he even boasted he knew more about ISIS than the generals (hey, remember ISIS?)

In all seriousness though - what HAS happened with ISIS and Trumps' boasting that he'd sort them out?

So much water has passed under the bridge, and they've only come up during the aftermaths of that spate of terrorist attacks in the EU. Has the back of their attempted caliphate been broken? Has Trump actually signed off on any executive action or policy?

It bares repeating: the sitting US President is a man who declared that he knew more about ISIS than 'the generals'. A man, revealed later, who refuses to read intelligence reports given to him, necessitating 1 page bullet point summaries (with his name apparently peppered throughout to maintain his focus).

Or is it 'nitpicking' to ask where his follow-through is, having confidently declared ISIS would be no more? I mean Trump loves golf, he should know the importance of good follow-through.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1018803468805566464

Embarrassing.

robinph

You also don't hold a summit with a hostile power and in between saying how great they are declare that you don't believe a word that your own intelligence services are telling you.

Has any world leader in history ever spoken in such a way about their own forces... unless they were about to get shot at in a coup?

molloyjh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Show me a press conference where Obama was antagonistic to a leader he was trying to improve relations with?

You're aware that there is a middle ground between being sycophantic and being antagonistic, right? It's that middle ground that experienced politicians tend to operate in as much as possible. You'll struggle to find many examples of experienced and half decent world leaders being openly antagonistic towards someone while being in their country. It doesn't tend to happen in real life.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We know Trump accepts that Russia attempted to interfere with the election. He has referenced it numerous times. However, such things are always raised behind the scenes or at least before the day they meet and Putin has made it clear that Trump raised the matter with him. Did you really expect public face to face chastisement?

Again, there's a world of difference between not chastising someone about something you believe that they did and stating that you believe that they didn't do it. Another middle ground that the vast majority of experienced politicians would occupy in this situation.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One thing is for sure, had Mrs Hot Sauce won the election, nobody would give two hoots about Russia's apparent meddling.

I'd imagine plenty of people within the US intelligence community would have still been very concerned by it. But it would have failed and so wouldn't be as much of a news story for the rest of us.

Leroy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Even IF it happened more under Trump, as soon as it was brought to his attention, he said he wouldn't be in agreement with it. That doesn't matter though, it's all just exaggerated nonetheless. A barrel scraping exercise if ever there was one. Death by a thousand cuts is the obvious hope.

Brought to his attention? He ordered it. Are you suggesting he didn't understand what he was ordering?

Death by a thousand cuts? Should people not bring up issues like this then for fear it might add up. Should we maybe have a limit, after which no-one is allowed criticise?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Show me a press conference where Obama was antagonistic to a leader he was trying to improve relations with? We know Trump accepts that Russia attempted to interfere with the election. He has referenced it numerous times. However, such things are always raised behind the scenes or at least before the day they meet and Putin has made it clear that Trump raised the matter with him. Did you really expect public face to face chastisement?

Show me a conference where Obama acted like Trump did with Nato,or an interview where he undermines the PM of the UK? Why had Trump totally changed his mode when faced with Putin? Still no one can answer that, fairly basic, question. A man known for his front foot tactics, attack being the best form of defence, who has attacked gold star families, called out Mexico and Canada, threatened to leave NATO, suddenly because this shy, worried about antagonising anybody diplomat?

Whether Trump wanted to or not, the election interference issue is a major issue within the US. The security forces believe that not only did it happen but it is continuing. So what exactly was Trump hoping to get from this summit?

Unlike with the NK summit, Trump isn't even pretending that anything was actually achieved. 2 hours and not a single agreement. Crimea, Syria, election interference (yes he asked him and Putin denied it, that seems to be about it).

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One thing is for sure, had Mrs Hot Sauce won the election, nobody would give two hoots about Russia's apparent meddling. It would be brushed under the carpet and all of liberal nitpickers who are Looking at Trump's tenure 24/7 under a microscope would no doubt be saying that anyone that was raising the issue just had sour grapes about Trump losing.

You can bet your ass that had HC won she would be dealing with Putin far more that Trump. 1st off, the interference would have failed and those involved in it consigned to the wastelands rather than access to the WH. The reason why Putin wanted Trump over HC was laid out in plain sight for everyone to see yesterday. A POTUS totally constrained by Putin.

Ask yourself, if you are Putin, what possible deterrent is there to do whatever you want? Putin, in case he wasn't before, now knows that Trump wil do absolutely nothing. He won't criticise, he won't take action. The only way is if the WH can trick Trump into agreeing more than he thinks as was the case with the expulsion of diplomats.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One thing is for sure, had Mrs Hot Sauce won the election, nobody would give two hoots about Russia's apparent meddling. It would be brushed under the carpet and all of liberal nitpickers who are Looking at Trump's tenure 24/7 under a microscope would no doubt be saying that anyone that was raising the issue just had sour grapes about Trump losing.

You are aware that the counter intelligence investigation had started before the election, right? The outcome of the election didn't affect events that happened prior to it. This idea that the Russian meddling, the meddling that actually happened and has lead to indictments, arrests and guilty pleas would just not be happening and of no interest to people is just nonsense.

Dohnjoe

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We know Trump accepts that Russia attempted to interfere with the election.

He doesn't. He sides with Putin on this issue and blames the US.

I've never come across and read any situation where a US president has ever taken such a position. It's unthinkable.

McTigs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Chucking little kids into cages"? You'd swear he did it personally or ordered it specifically. As pointed out, there were kids held in cages under Obama's administration also.

No there wasn't.

pixelburp

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

[...]
One thing is for sure, had Mrs Hot Sauce won the election, nobody would give two hoots about Russia's apparent meddling. It would be brushed under the carpet and all of liberal nitpickers who are Looking at Trump's tenure 24/7 under a microscope would no doubt be saying that anyone that was raising the issue just had sour grapes about Trump losing.

When the US President got elected off the back of bold, noisy repeated claims of building walls and draining swamps, then YES, he is going to be subject to more 'nitpicking' than others.

He ran on a platform that 'only he' could solve the problems of America - let's not forget he even boasted he knew more about ISIS than the generals (hey, remember ISIS?)

He promised the earth, moon and stars and it's not unreasonable that he's marked accordingly. It's not about Liberal, hysterical left or whatever - it's about accountability based on the metrics Trump himself set. He doesn't get a pass because he's a newbie when - shock horror - a trustfund real estate billionaire isn't doing a great job running a country, doesn't bother doing his homework and tries to wing it from one week to the next.

Outlaw Pete

Christy42 wrote: »

I would say chucking little kids into cages also counts as worse than that conference.

"Chucking little kids into cages"? You'd swear he did it personally or ordered it specifically. As pointed out, there were kids held in cages under Obama's administration also. Was there similar outrage? Of course not.

obama-officials-rushed-to-explain-photos-from-2014-that-went-viral-showing-locked-up-immigrant-children--and-trumps-facilities-look-the-same.jpg

obama-officials-rushed-to-explain-photos-from-2014-that-went-viral-showing-locked-up-immigrant-children--and-trumps-facilities-look-the-same.jpg

Even IF it happened more under Trump, as soon as it was brought to his attention, he said he wouldn't be in agreement with it. That doesn't matter though, it's all just exaggerated nonetheless. A barrel scraping exercise if ever there was one. Death by a thousand cuts is the obvious hope.

And yeah the conference was pretty bad. It was a message saying the US president will not do anything if Russia keeps messing with US elections (and they will). All Putin will have to do is simply assure his friend he didn't do it. Not like Trump will believe anyone else.

Show me a press conference where Obama was antagonistic to a leader he was trying to improve relations with? We know Trump accepts that Russia attempted to interfere with the election. He has referenced it numerous times. However, such things are always raised behind the scenes or at least before the day they meet and Putin has made it clear that Trump raised the matter with him. Did you really expect public face to face chastisement?

One thing is for sure, had Mrs Hot Sauce won the election, nobody would give two hoots about Russia's apparent meddling. It would be brushed under the carpet and all of liberal nitpickers who are Looking at Trump's tenure 24/7 under a microscope would no doubt be saying that anyone that was raising the issue just had sour grapes about Trump losing.

Billy Mays

molloyjh wrote: »

To be honest, I think the worst part of Trumps statement was the fact that he could see no reason why Russia would want to interfere in the US Presidential elections. If that isn't a sign of guilt, it's certainly a sign of utter stupidity.

He could see no reason why Russia would want to interfere despite Putin actually saying at the very same press conference that he wanted Trump to win

StringerBell

weisses wrote: »

But Hillary .......... servers......... witch hunt ....... No collusion .... Vlad denying it.... Deep state ....

At times Putin was really struggling to keep a straight face up there and that man has one hell of a poker face! He can't believe his luck with how good this has turned out for them to tbf

Zubeneschamali

In other words, back before the election, Trump laid out in the debate a reason why Putin and Russia would want to interfere in the election - he stated up front that Putin had no respect for Clinton or Obama.