everlast75 wrote: » I'm going out on a limb here. I know this is absolutely out of left field.. but perhaps... and stick with me... just maybe... he is an utter moron? I mean objectively - what if the explanation here is his I.Q. is negligible. That would account for an awful lot of his behaviour.
sid waddell wrote: » Putin wants Trump in power. He's only using Sanders to split the Democratic party to grease the path for Trump. Here's why Putin wants Trump and not Sanders. A Sanders administration would be competent for a start. It would not treat the European Union as an enemy. It would not be a haven of naked corruption and intent on destruction of the rule of law or widespread vilification of ethnic and sexual minorities. It would not fire anybody in the intelligence services who spoke up about Russian interference. It would mean the social liberals would be firmly in the ascendant. Because the US is still seen as the leader of the international community, it would dampen much of the momentum surrounding the worldwide far right that Russia depends on to create division in different countries. If Sanders won, it's likely you'd see the end of Bolsonaro in Brazil by 2022, Duterte in the Philippines would be gone by then also and UK public opinion might well swing against Boris Johnson. Nothing would kill the far right internationally than to see Trump as a loser. There would be the possibility of a domino effect. Trump is the spiritual king of the far right internationally and they would have a much harder time without him, and thus so would Putin.
Water John wrote: » Trump is the biggest hope for the Dems of him losing the election. As the more Trump annoys and angers the general public, outside the GOP, the more will turn out to vote. Voter turnout will defeat Trump.
peddlelies wrote: » He's bitter over the fact that the intelligence agencies went to town on his campaign in 2016, in a fraudulent manner(forging documents, dossier etc). He's such a narcissist he didn't want to admit Russia interference because it delegitimizes his election victory. He's weary of actual military threats like Russia, China etc so he panders to the leaders of those countries to avoid conflict. There's multiple factors at play so I don't think it's as black and white as some make out, though clearly part of his thinking is that if a foreign nation do prop him up in 2020 he won't refuse that help, and his past statements on the matter certainly allude to that way of thinking. I don't agree with it but nothing will stop interference from invested parties if they wish to do it. He should publicly and lawfully take a hard stance against it but I don't think that's ever going to happen, and it's a valid point of criticism.
Nody wrote: » Well to bad your understanding is wrong; have a look at this where an actual lawyer goes through what happened in the case. Yes; it is that bad that the president and the DOJ are breaking up the justice system. Yes; the sentencing proposal was anchored within DOJ and yes even the judge ripped DOJ a new one on how the DOJ handled it. Oh and those people quitting happened to be among the best laywers in the country that were well respected and over 2000 prosecutors and all the federal judges are meeting to discuss how to handle it. But yea, clearly a minor issue here with only Trump tweeting or something.
PopePalpatine wrote: » A Sanders administration would also give further impetus to greener energy sources. Guess what makes up over 50% of Russia's exports and 70% of its government's revenue?
RIGOLO wrote: » Seems to be a lot of bluster and opinion recently about TRump being some kind of Russian or Putin stooge. One would have thought after Mueller fell on his face, the anti-TRumpers would have learned something. I guess not. But its all just bluster and opinion.. none of it based in reality. The reality is Lithuanians were cheering the increase and arrival of US troops and tanks to bolster their Baltic border with Russia.https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/14/on-the-borders-of-putins-baltic-fortress-lithuania-cheers-the-build-up-of-us-forces-in-the-baltics/ So its all just baseless opinon thats been expressed in recent posts about TRump being Putins stooge. Just cos Putin may prefer to see TRump win, doesnt mean TRump is a puppet of Putins. Meanwhile the Lithuanian vice minister of national defence is cheering the measures taking by TRump administration. Trump has bolstered the US military levels on Russias border to never before seen levels from Lithuania stretching to javelin defense missile systems in the ukraine.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » The judge agreed with the revised memorandum sentence almost to a tee. She threw out the idea that the non-threat threat required more than double sentence. If this was a heinous injustice, what's your take on why the judge didn't give a sentence closer to the initial recommendation? Why did she not correct it?
sid waddell wrote: » It's literally a textbook definition of whataboutery. A Taoiseach filling an Irish senate seat has no relevance whatsoever to the topic.
Caquas wrote: » This is a truly astonishing assertion. Have you not heard of reasoning by analogy? Or reasoning by precedent, which is for lawyers. By your logic, we should never draw any analogy between Irish and American politics (except I suppose on Paddy’s Day when the Irish turn up in Washington). So when we elect the Irish Trump, at least you won’t join the chorus of “I told you so”. I’ll finish here. If other posters agree with you, I’ve been wasting my time.
looksee wrote: » It doesn't really matter all that much what the lawyers said or did, or what the Judge decided; what matters is that the President of the United States saw fit to offer an opinion/ propose an action/ try and influence a matter that is before the courts.
sid waddell wrote: » I just stumbled upon this story. So much for a "strong economy", eh? The detachment in the US as a whole to this is astonishing. Is it any wonder people are turning to Sanders, who apart from Warren has been alone in recognising the utterly grotesque inequality that lies at the heart of US society? What does Trump, the apex of corporate kleptocracy, have to say about this? The answer is nothing, this type of inequality is exactly what he wants to exaggerate.Nearly 40% of Americans can't cover a surprise $400 expensehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cover-a-surprise-400-expense/17% of U.S. adults are unable to pay all of their bills in full every month, according to the Fed data. A quarter of Americans skipped necessary medical care in 2018 because they couldn't afford the cost.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Yea that's what I said, his influence failed and the system is unmoved. The sentence matters because if it was the crisis that we're told the judge would have given the proper sentence( or close to it) because it is their decision. As we've seen in the instance with the FISA abuse, where the courts lambasted the FBI (or CIA?) there have been issues going the other way, where people in government are active against Trump and his associates.
Leroy42 wrote: » Trump is ripping the US democracy apart. He is ripping apart the FBI,CIA, the judicial system. He has completely (or better said greatly enhanced) the partisan nature of House and Senate. He has weakened Nato and alliances. People don't believe the media, and are willing to believe whatever they are told once that comes from their guy. It isn't Trump in particular that Russia wants, he is simply the perfect option to get the outcome they want. A divided US is far easier to take on than a focused US. A US with no strong allies, and a weakened Europe due to lack of alignment with the US.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Yea that's what I said, his influence failed and the system is unmoved
Caquas wrote: » Don’t strain your brain. Posters here are outraged about what (they mistakenly think) Blagojevich did with Obama’s Senate seat. I try to educate them and I also point to what the caretaker Taoiseach did with a Senate vacancy here. But hey, nothing to see here, move along now.
aloyisious wrote: » So are you happy that the sentence the judge handed down to Roger Stone was a reasonable sentence and that she was not swayed by either the original DOJ sentence advice or the remarks of President Trump in the making of her decision? With reference to your "people in government are active against Trump and his associates" do you have in mind those in the DOJ who opposed the presidents attempt to influence the judges decision and who walked away from the DOJ publicly in opposition to the attempt or do you have in mind those referred to as "the deep state"? Maybe I misunderstood the first part of yours above when I took it to be a criticism of Don's attempt to influence the judges sentencing decision.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Yes, I think the judge was not swayed. If congress and the executive can have wars of words without either losing any power or legitimacy, I don't see why the judiciary will just roll over especially when it seems they are held in the most high esteem of three. Again, I think it's bad for the country and doesn't help his own situation for him to tweet about cases. To be honest, my biggest bias is not pro Trump, it's anti-establishment. I hear a lot of sea change even on the democratic side since 2016 who realise that Bernie will face the same kind of opposition Trump got. Sure he couldn't get past the establishment in the democratic party last time, imagine what'll happen when the bureacracy and top level intelligence and military people hear him saying he wants to go against their whole philosophy to pay for healthcare and college for all including welcoming the immigrants of the world. It won't be pretty. Basically there is a sandbox within which the candidates of both parties have been playing in. There's selective pressures that usually ensure the only people who get near the top are essentially pre-vetted allowing very little real change to happen either from the left or the right. I think the internet has changed the situation where there isn't such control of the narrative, so you get Trump and Bernie, AOC etc. and we are seeing what happens when candidates offer genuine change.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » so you get Trump and Bernie, AOC etc. and we are seeing what happens when candidates offer genuine change.
volchitsa wrote: » What genuine change is Trump offering? I know he said he would provide healthcare etc, stop mines from closing down etc, but in practice he has basically given tax cuts to the rich, and been happy enough with this to boast about it, so it's not like he's desperately trying to bring change but is being prevented from doing so. He'd be the first to complain if his ground breaking changes were being blocked by Congress, and there's been very little sign of this happening.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » You'd want to be blind not see so I'm skeptical it's worth mentioning: bringing China's all but-kinetic-war into the public consciousness, not getting dragged into regime change war in Syria (which is painted as letting Putin run amok, yet before Trump every democrat to tee would not have fallen for that crap). Not buying into the Iran deal,economic nationalism, border security etc etc. none of that is a judgement of the policies themselves.
I've heard it said a few times from a number of US mouthpieces in passing that the country's infrastructure was crumbling and in desperate need of rebuilding or modernisation to manage to larger numbers. Watching this video, I hadn't realised just how bad the problem was, thinking it was merely grumbling from commuters; obviously caveats apply as being one source, but the numbers and scale thrown around is eye watering. It's sometimes remarkable the country is regarded as top of the heap, as much of its internal economy often appears barely above Third World.
volchitsa wrote: » None of that is relevant to what he promised American voters in their own lives (healthcare for example) and in most cases it's not even accurate - for instance one of the Obama administration's biggest failures was their lack of energy in Syria precisely because they were afraid of getting dragged into a regime-change scenario. Instead they waited until the original secular opposition had been worn down before they got involved, by which time the Islamists had filled the power gap. As for what the democrats "would have done", well that's pure speculation and whataboutery. So maybe you could give it another go and actually answer the question this time?
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Not a hope
