Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[5th line wingnutt]

1 hour ago, bob_sauve28 said:

 

What don't you understand? Do you know the facts?

What did Trump do that constitutes obstruction of justice?

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, atoq said:

That conspiracy theory post on TBD is nonsense.  I'm totally against unlimited and unsupervised government surveillance, by whichever party is in power, but the jump from that to politically motivated spying and an elaborate deep state conspiracy doesn't seem to have any evidence. Timelines aren't evidence, and it's easy to show a very incriminating timeline about Trump's collusion, but supported by a wealth of evidence and indictments.

The fundamental flaw of this conspiracy theory is: why, after going through all of this trouble to monitor campaign communications, hire intelligence consultants and set up elaborate schemes to 'entrap' Trump campaign officials, why wasn't information released publicly to sway the election? The Steele dossier was finished at the end of October and wasn't released until after the election. If they wanted to improperly affect the election, this information certainly would have been leaked.

Meanwhile, Republicans, through the threat of leaks out of the NY FBI office and NYPD, managed to put enough pressure on Comey to announce the reopening of the investigation into Hillary's emails, which completely changed the complexion of the election (I hope they release private texts from that office like they did with strzok's). The FBI was investigating both campaigns but only publicly announced one of those investigations. Now people are trying to claim there is a conspiracy against the one campaign the FBI didn't publicly damage? That's a ludicrous idea.

Question to republicans including the 'deep state' believers here: if Mueller's report directly states that Trump colluded with Russia, will you accept those results? If that is the conclusion, what would be the ideal next steps for the good of the country.

I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics and head burying on the right to avoid the fairly obvious conclusion about what happened, and is still happening. Seemingly intelligent people are buying into wacky conspiracy theories because they are so invested in their ideological side. 

To respond to another post above: if you say obstruction of Justice isn't obvious, you haven't been paying attention. Trump admitted to it on national television when he explained why he fired Comey, among countless other examples.

 

 

I am prepared for the possibility that Mueller may release a finding that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to throw our 2016 presidential election.  Are you prepared for the possibility that he won't?

Just out of curiousity, did you bother reading any of the linked articles & primary sources in that (admittedly) long post?

I started writing a very long, involved reply but decided to wait on that.   I will though comment on your question about Comey and the timing of the October Clinton revelation.  Pretty sure, and could very well be wrong but this seems to make the most sense to me at the present, is that he was CERTAIN that Clinton would win and that if it came out after the election that the FBI had sat on the e-mails turning up on a convicted felon's laptop that it would start her administration out under a cloud.  By putting the fact that they were "investigating" the e-mails again into the public prior to the election, he could then say that it doesn't matter and everybody already knew that.  Almost positive that he thought he was doing her a favor with that one.

And, honestly, after she'd been in the public eye for roughly 24 years; was there ANY American eligible to vote that hadn't already made up their mind about whether she should be the next President?.  

 

[Sabel79]

32 minutes ago, Taro T said:

I started writing a very long, involved reply but decided to wait on that.   I will though comment on your question about Comey and the timing of the October Clinton revelation.  Pretty sure, and could very well be wrong but this seems to make the most sense to me at the present, is that he was CERTAIN that Clinton would win and that if it came out after the election that the FBI had sat on the e-mails turning up on a convicted felon's laptop that it would start her administration out under a cloud.  By putting the fact that they were "investigating" the e-mails again into the public prior to the election, he could then say that it doesn't matter and everybody already knew that.  Almost positive that he thought he was doing her a favor with that one.

And, honestly, after she'd been in the public eye for roughly 24 years; was there ANY American eligible to vote that hadn't already made up their mind about whether she should be the next President?.  

 

To the first paragraph: that was certainly the reason he gave.  Even assuming that's the truth, he's pretty much admitting he, as the Director of the FBI, had no control over his subordinates in the NY field office who, and there is no other fair interpretation of their conduct, were absolutely hell-bent on taking her campaign down.  Things started leaking. He had a choice, either put his foot down or do what he did.  Either response would be seen as political, but I kind of doubt that he had a hard time choosing which way to go.   

To the second: You're probably right, but that's not really the important question.  How many were dissuaded from voting altogether? Or voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson for the Lulz?  The whole mess was, is and will be an ongoing disgrace, one that won't be repaired for generations, if at all.

[bob_sauve28]

10 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

What did Trump do that constitutes obstruction of justice?

Just curious why you are asking me? Are you actually interested in the topic but not interested enough to go find something out? Do you know anything at all about the topic? Can't you simply look up the topic and read on it? 

 

[5th line wingnutt]

2 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Just curious why you are asking me? Are you actually interested in the topic but not interested enough to go find something out? Do you know anything at all about the topic? Can't you simply look up the topic and read on it? 

 

I have followed this subject.  I have not come across evidence of obstruction.  Maybe i missed something.  Please explain.

[LGR4GM]

Just remember Putin is more trust worthy than the FBI... he said sarcastically. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812 

[That Aud Smell]

Holy sh1tballs, what a performance that was in the joint press conference.

I'll say: I had never imagined a day would come when the POTUS would stand right next to Russia's leader and publicly repudiate the POTUS's own intelligence advisers in favour of representations made by Russia's leader.

[Eleven]

22 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Holy sh1tballs, what a performance that was in the joint press conference.

I'll say: I had never imagined a day would come when the POTUS would stand right next to Russia's leader and publicly repudiate the POTUS's own intelligence advisers in favour of representations made by Russia's leader.

Reagan's corpse is spinning so fast that it's going to create a gravitational pull on all of SoCal.

[Randall Flagg]

Since I probably come off as a "Trump supporter" in this thread, and since a rather broad question was asked to that group earlier, I'll happily declare that he was dreadful and disappointing today. To answer the direct collusion question, if the Mueller probe shows Trump colluded w/ Russia, then he should be impeached and prosecuted, however that process works. 

I'm not a republican though, nor do I know what the deep state is, so I'm answering this as a perceived Trump supporter.

 

[Frieda]

Of all the political forums I have read recently, This discussion is the most well mannered, civilized and common sense one I have come across.

 

That being said,  after today's performance, Trump is a lying, traitor, commie sympathizer. How any American can still support this moron is mind boggling. 

[bob_sauve28]

7 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

I have followed this subject.  I have not come across evidence of obstruction.  Maybe i missed something.  Please explain.

YA, maybe you missed something 

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

Since I probably come off as a "Trump supporter" in this thread, and since a rather broad question was asked to that group earlier, I'll happily declare that he was dreadful and disappointing today. To answer the direct collusion question, if the Mueller probe shows Trump colluded w/ Russia, then he should be impeached and prosecuted, however that process works. 

I'm not a republican though, nor do I know what the deep state is, so I'm answering this as a perceived Trump supporter.

 

The last indictment basically said he colluded. It mentions -- though does not specifically name- Roger Stone as the person Glucifer 2.0 talked to and passed the stolen documents to. Stone often talked to Trump, so Mueller seems to be closing in. Stone has acknowledged he is the person in the indictment. 

Just one more piece of the puzzle. The sucking up to Putin just seems to make the allegation of being compromised seem very legit. 

Perhaps the next round of indictments will hit even closer to home (Don jr?)  If Mueller is able to get that much detail and knowledge about the operation he probably knows a lot more. 

 

 

 

 

[Randall Flagg]

I think today honestly takes the cake as the worst day and thing about Trump's presidency, AINEC.

[5th line wingnutt]

53 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

YA, maybe you missed something 

Maybe i did.  If you have a slam dunk case, why not just state it?  Three evasive responses in a row leaves me in doubt as to the strength of your case.  What is "YA"?

[Randall Flagg]

1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Maybe i did.  If you have a slam dunk case, why not just state it?  Three evasive responses in a row leaves me in doubt as to the strength of your case.  What is "YA"?

I was able to sit and listen to Trump fully during dinner, and I'm actually less convinced than ever that he was colluding with the Russians. The guy still legitimately hasn't figured out that the logical conclusion of Russians hacking us, which they did, doesn't necessitate his own involvement. He hasn't reasoned his way through a two step logical process yet. There's no way he's sharp enough to have colluded IMO. 

I'll change my tune if the hard evidence presents itself, but it hasn't yet. 

Also, this is a case of Trump's rhetoric bothering me more than it ever has, but it's not as if his actual policy concerning Russia has been soft, from Ukraine to what we've done in Syria. Wake me up when he doesn't do anything when Russia, I dunno, invades Europe or something.

And the "sucking up to Putin," which I want to stress, is incredibly vile, is just how he talks to prominent people. It's how he thinks he negotiates. I hate it, but it's certainly not the treason it's being called right now.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Eleven]

3 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Maybe i did.  If you have a slam dunk case, why not just state it?  Three evasive responses in a row leaves me in doubt as to the strength of your case.  What is "YA"?

No one expects even Mueller to have a "slam dunk case" at this point.  You're asking bob_suve28 to build your own strawman for you. 

[5th line wingnutt]

7 minutes ago, Eleven said:

No one expects even Mueller to have a "slam dunk case" at this point.  You're asking bob_suve28 to build your own strawman for you. 

He said obstruction was "obvious".  That seems pretty slam dunky to me.

[bob_sauve28]

Firing FBI director who was investigating him because he was investigating him. He admitted that. There is more, but that's enough right there. 

[SwampD]

I think he is a boor. But that is just style and has nothing to do with his policies. I think there has been some good and some bad to this point.

I'm not an economist, so I can't speak to what Trump has done in that regard. I will say, though, that the last time we saw this kind of unfettered, unregulated capitalism, it ended being only worse than the Great Depression. Take that for what it's worth.

 

But his whole Fake News mantra,… I find this to be the most dangerous thing this country has faced since McCarthyism.

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

I think he is a boor. But that is just style and has nothing to do with his policies. I think there has been some good and some bad to this point.

I'm not an economist, so I can't speak to what Trump has done in that regard. I will say, though, that the last time we saw this kind of unfettered, unregulated capitalism, it ended being only worse than the Great Depression. Take that for what it's worth.

  

 But his whole Fake News mantra,… I find this to be the most dangerous thing this country has faced since McCarthyism.

He's quite crass about it, but I actually think the media (as a broad term)'s news reporting efforts are far more dangerous than Trump's Fake News thing he does. 

I can't believe what a conservative I sound like. I hated them like 3 months ago

17 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Firing FBI director who was investigating him because he was investigating him. He admitted that. There is more, but that's enough right there. 

Didn't Comey say himself that Trump wasn't under investigation at the time? 

BTW, how's your petition for a vote recount going? You were big into that in the last thread, weren't you? ?

[SwampD]

Just now, Randall Flagg said:

He's quite crass about it, but I actually think the media (as a broad term)'s news reporting efforts are far more dangerous than Trump's Fake News thing he does. 

I can't believe what a conservative I sound like. I hated them like 3 months ago

You buy into it then. The standards of accuracy are WAY higher for news organizations than they are for whatever Trump spews. It's been proven. You may have an issue for what they cover, but that doesn't make it fake.

And this is coming from a guy who watched the American people being played.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Just now, SwampD said:

You buy into it then. The standards of accuracy are WAY higher for news organizations than they are for whatever Trump spews. It's been proven. You may have an issue for what they cover, but that doesn't make it fake.

Well, I'd like to distance myself from any notion that I think Trump tweeting and blabbering are more accurate than news media. That ain't what I claimed.

[bob_sauve28]

3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

He's quite crass about it, but I actually think the media (as a broad term)'s news reporting efforts are far more dangerous than Trump's Fake News thing he does. 

I can't believe what a conservative I sound like. I hated them like 3 months ago

Didn't Comey say himself that Trump wasn't under investigation at the time? 

BTW, how's your petition for a vote recount going? You were big into that in the last thread, weren't you? ?

Vote recount? Don't remember saying that. 

Not sure what Comey said, I know Trump said Comey said that. So what I think you are saying is that Trump didn't think he was under investigation? And firing Comey was just something that came up for other reasons? Is that your point? 

 

 

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Well, I'd like to distance myself from any notion that I think Trump tweeting and blabbering are more accurate than news media. That ain't what I claimed.

I think that's the point, though. The media has been made out to be this red herring/scapegoat that gets used as a diversion. Discredit the messenger in order say whatever crazy BS I feel like saying and get away with it.

[Randall Flagg]

Just now, bob_sauve28 said:

Vote recount? Don't remember saying that. 

Not sure what Comey said, I know Trump said Comey said that. So what I think you are saying is that Trump didn't think he was under investigation? And firing Comey was just something that came up for other reasons? Is that your point? 

 

 

I'm almost positive that for like two weeks after the election you were pushing a petition of that nature. It could have been someone else, maybe. 

Comey said it. 
Risch, Senate Intelligence Committee Hearings, June 8 2017: "I gather from all of this, that you're willing to say now, that while you were director, the President of the United States was not under investigation, was that a fair statement?"
Comey: "That's correct."

Was this widely reported? Of course not, which is part of what I was hinting at with my reaction to SwampD above. 

I'm not going to claim I know a lot about Trump's intentions with firing Comey, or his general temperament when dealing with matters like these...other than hindsight suggests he was pretty incompetent.