45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)
Discussion
ferrisbueller said:
Bannon has clammed up.
More than just clammed up. Some reports are saying he answered all of Muellers questions yet would only respond the the House investigation with 25 scripted answers provided by the White House All of the answers provided were basically "No".Since when does the white house get to control investigators? Surely thats contempt and further proof of obstruction?
Or is this that Bannon refused to answer to Nunes, who's been running block for Trump, because he's told Mueller all and doesn't want to reveal that yet
ferrisbueller said:
Hearing more about the shooting. What are the odds that it's used as justification to roll out more surveillance and extend NSA etc powers to US citizens. Rather that than gun control, eh? The FBI appatently couldn't identify a YouTube user. Even with an informant on the phone. Yikes.
You do know that after the Orlando shooting thats exactly what the republicans called for before they came into powerhttps://www.theverge.com/2016/6/21/11986710/fbi-su...
Stroppy teenager posts a single post about shooting up the school? I'm sure more will come out but thats single thing isn't really good intelligence?
Edited by Byker28i on Friday 16th February 08:42
Trumps immigration proposal could have interesting side effects. Melania allegedly illegally worked whilst on a tourist visa, then theres the question on whether her parents are in the US as legal permanent residents on an IR-5 visa as parents of an adult US citizen, exactly what Trump wants to get rid of.
So much for my thoughts that Mike Pence was distancing himself to position for the role of President, he opened his mouth yesterday and said: “Irrespective of efforts that were made in 2016 by foreign powers, it is the universal conclusion of our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.”
A number of papers have pointed out this is simple not true.
A number of papers have pointed out this is simple not true.
Byker28i said:
You do know that after the Orlando shooting thats exactly what the republicans called for before they came into power
https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/21/11986710/fbi-su...
Stroppy teenager posts a single post about shooting up the school? I'm sure more will come out but thats single thing isn't really good intelligence?
Yes and I wouldn't be surprised if it's revisited after every shooting. The FBI didn't say it wasn't acting on the intelligence. The BBC reported that they acted on it but couldn't identify the user.https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/21/11986710/fbi-su...
Stroppy teenager posts a single post about shooting up the school? I'm sure more will come out but thats single thing isn't really good intelligence?
Edited by Byker28i on Friday 16th February 08:42
On a different note, I know you think this is your thread and all but your attitude towards other posters who don't follow the agenda isn't great. Equally the condescending tone isn't necessary.
If the thread's purpose is merely to bash Trump and continue to do so until he's no longer around (it could be a very long 7-ish years) and take out anyone who doesn't join in then the title of the thread should be changed. The irony of such behaviour shouldn't be lost. Again I wonder whether there would be raking through Clinton's life story if the election had gone differently....
Wow that's an attitude? Because I challenge things you say? Still upset over when you claimed that Clinton sacked people so she could employ relatives and I showed evidence otherwise?
You made specific libelous claims, that I pointed out you had to be careful about. It's completely different linking to a story and saying look at this, then we have a discussion around it, than you making those claims.
I don't have an agenda towards other users, quite happy to promote a discussion, but usually when I offer links/evidence others get personal, just as you just have.
You made specific libelous claims, that I pointed out you had to be careful about. It's completely different linking to a story and saying look at this, then we have a discussion around it, than you making those claims.
I don't have an agenda towards other users, quite happy to promote a discussion, but usually when I offer links/evidence others get personal, just as you just have.
Edited by Byker28i on Friday 16th February 09:35
And for the record, this isn't my thread at all, it's a discussion thread, which is what a forum is about. Hence I bring information, discussion points and try to have discussions about it.
Such as - I see Stormy Daniels is now claiming to have kept a dress with Trumps DNA on it, much like Monica Lewinski did.
Such as - I see Stormy Daniels is now claiming to have kept a dress with Trumps DNA on it, much like Monica Lewinski did.
Byker28i said:
Wow that's an attitude? Because I challenge things you say?
An interesting response.I've been brought up and encouraged to think for myself. A liberty I enjoy due to history and the good fortune to be born into a free country. I don't have an issue with alternative views - I look at things as being potential learning and things to consider when forming views, rather than being told what to think.
Politics is nowhere near the top of my list of interests, I'm a casual observer who does a bit of reading now and again to gain understanding.
Byker28i said:
Still upset over when you claimed that Clinton sacked people so she could employ relatives and I showed evidence otherwise?
I wasn't upset then, I'm not upset now. I read your Guardian reference and duly considered the content and how it was written.Byker28i said:
You made specific libelous claims, that I pointed out you had to be careful about. It's completely different linking to a story and saying look at this, then we have a discussion around it, than you making those claims.
I provided a link, albeit to a video, and picked out some key points. I subsequently provided other links, including a quote from someone well positioned."Rep. William F. Clinger Jr. (R-Pa.), who chaired a recent House hearing on the travel office, reacted to the verdict by saying, "What started as a botched takeover for political cronies ends today with a jury rejecting a transparently political prosecution."
I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea whether repeating the thoughts of Rep. Clinger is libelous. He doesn't appear to have been sued for it. However, I am not trying to perpetuate that debate as I can see how it is O/T.
Byker28i said:
I don't have an agenda towards other users, quite happy to promote a discussion, but usually when I offer links/evidence others get personal, just as you just have.
I was saying I don't appreciate the tone of your posting - specifically the condescending and dismissive nature. Is that personal? It is in so much as I'm raising it as an indication of how I read it. If you talked to me like that in person I'd ask you to alter your tone, too. Further to that, I was merely pointing out the almost entirely one sided theme of the thread. Meanwhile, anti-Trumpism will continue - he clearly has some significant flaws as a human being. However, he is in the chair and he has, to an extent, been allowed to be. He may become too much of a liability and be pulled out and replaced. If he is, will the GOP policies and agendas changed or will they just be forged ahead by a slicker front man more conditioned in how to present themselves? One of Trump's main issues is he doesn't have a filter. FWIW I don't think other politicians are necessarily better people than Trump, it's just the front end is managed much more effectively. You can form arguments for and against whether a genuine bad person is better or worse than a bad person projected to be good.
As someone posted earlier, why would people want to be politicians? The virtuous "good of the people" angle doesn't seem to be the primary motivator in many cases and the most capable people I know would IMO be wasted as politicians in the current system. Draining the swamp may well be required but how is that going to be done. Personally I believe we need some significant change in the world before it's too late but I struggle to see how that change comes about when the people calling the shots benefit from the status quo. Trump may have been voted in by people who want that change but I don't see that change coming and if it does it is unlikely to match their expectations. The people who determine the forward path are concerned about their own personal positions - the majority of which must be getting better almost every day, certainly financially. Some significant political and economic reforms appear to be required, home and abroad, but that's probably another thread, too.
Edited by ferrisbueller on Friday 16th February 10:42
Byker28i said:
So much for my thoughts that Mike Pence was distancing himself to position for the role of President, he opened his mouth yesterday and said: “Irrespective of efforts that were made in 2016 by foreign powers, it is the universal conclusion of our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.”
A number of papers have pointed out this is simple not true.
I still think he wants to teflon it out though he's running close to the wire.A number of papers have pointed out this is simple not true.
There's nothing in his statement supporting or denying collusion and I'd agree with his premise. The Russians may have made efforts to influence the election but saying a few twitter bots and fake facebook articles could undermine the greatest democracy money can buy is an insult to republican voters, many of whom were well aware that trump was a wrecking ball and many of whom were Obama voters who didn't get the changes they were promised.
Previous generations of American politicians gave us institutions as far sighted as Bretton Woods or strategies that fitted their time such as the cold war and neoliberalism. The current crop have nothing to offer except dubious foreign wars, corruption, inequality and tired reruns of previous political thinking that's unfit for the 21st century.
IMO Pence is correct, if anything Russian soft power is less than it was in the 70's era of deindustrialisation when Trotskyism was rife so to blame the election result on Russian meddling is lazy thinking by democrats unable to admit that they themselves are their biggest barrier to popular election.
Tartan Pixie said:
,,, to blame the election result on Russian meddling is lazy thinking by democrats unable to admit that they themselves are their biggest barrier to popular election.
I think we all agree Clinton was a terrible candidate, yet was leading in the polls until the week before the election when comey reopened the investigation into her emails. I've said all along that Bannons was clever in identifying the direction for trump to concentrate on, not only to appeal to the base, but on the direction to attack Clinton.I think it's also clear there were many factors leading to Trumps victory, a case study in itself in modern us history.
I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea whether repeating the thoughts of Rep. Clinger is libelous.
[/quote]
[quote=ferrisbueller]
The Clintons removed the head of that travel office so she could work there. They didn't fire him - they accused him of a crime he didn't commit. They subjected him and his family to a campaign of abuse and unfounded allegations up to and including a trial in federal court in which he was cleared on all charges.
[/quote]
Specific claims by you
Then on discussing Clinton you said:
[quote=ferrisbueller]
IMO it's like looking at two pieces of s
t and asking which is more repulsive but her history is no less dubious than his, the difference being her issues have been in public office.[/quote]
But hey, you have your views, I think you've made that clear, and this is about Trump, not Clinton although Trumpettes like to constantly bring her up.
Me, I'm actually interested in the history I think we are seeing being made right now. I think if Trump had concentrated on his campaign promises, we'd be discussing policy rather than the hypocrisy and ethics. Some of his tax cuts policy were as promised, some in trying to encourage the return of company funds would be needed. How it all spins out will be interesting, but all it looks like is increased debt.
Whats obvious, what some thought as a strength that Trump was a businessman and not a politician, is that team Trump were totally unprepared and unexperienced for office.
Over 130 officials still without permenant security clearance handling sensitive documents, including McGahn!
ferrisbueller said:
Meanwhile, anti-Trumpism will continue - he clearly has some significant flaws as a human being. However, he is in the chair and he has, to an extent, been allowed to be. He may become too much of a liability and be pulled out and replaced. If he is, will the GOP policies and agendas changed or will they just be forged ahead by a slicker front man more conditioned in how to present themselves? One of Trump's main issues is he doesn't have a filter. FWIW I don't think other politicians are necessarily better people than Trump, it's just the front end is managed much more effectively. You can form arguments for and against whether a genuine bad person is better or worse than a bad person projected to be good.
As someone posted earlier, why would people want to be politicians? The virtuous "good of the people" angle doesn't seem to be the primary motivator in many cases and the most capable people I know would IMO be wasted as politicians in the current system. Draining the swamp may well be required but how is that going to be done. Personally I believe we need some significant change in the world before it's too late but I struggle to see how that change comes about when the people calling the shots benefit from the status quo. Trump may have been voted in by people who want that change but I don't see that change coming and if it does it is unlikely to match their expectations. The people who determine the forward path are concerned about their own personal positions - the majority of which must be getting better almost every day, certainly financially. Some significant political and economic reforms appear to be required, home and abroad, but that's probably another thread, too.
Well said, particularly the line in bold. This is the thing I think people are failing to understand, that many of us view traditional politicians as bad or worse than Trump precisely because they are more professional in their brand of demagoguery. That makes them more dangerous and worse people to have in power.As someone posted earlier, why would people want to be politicians? The virtuous "good of the people" angle doesn't seem to be the primary motivator in many cases and the most capable people I know would IMO be wasted as politicians in the current system. Draining the swamp may well be required but how is that going to be done. Personally I believe we need some significant change in the world before it's too late but I struggle to see how that change comes about when the people calling the shots benefit from the status quo. Trump may have been voted in by people who want that change but I don't see that change coming and if it does it is unlikely to match their expectations. The people who determine the forward path are concerned about their own personal positions - the majority of which must be getting better almost every day, certainly financially. Some significant political and economic reforms appear to be required, home and abroad, but that's probably another thread, too.
A quick google for political trustworthiness turns up this poll by Ipsos Mori:
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/politicians...
Ipsos Mori said:
Just 21% of Britons trust politicians to tell the truth compared with 25% trusting journalists and estate agents and 42% who trust builders. Despite this, the picture for politicians has improved since last year, when just 16% of the public trusted them to tell the truth. This question has been asked consistently since 1983, making it the longest-running series on trust in key professions in the UK. It shows that public trust in politicians has always been low: at no point since 1983 have more than a quarter of the public ever trusted politicians to tell the truth. The lowest trust score was recorded in 2009 in the wake of the expenses scandal, when only 13% said they trusted politicians.
<><><>Don't wish to get in to your little spat with Byker but I will say that I appreciate the links posted by them, jmorgan and others. The news I look for tends to be more foreign policy or economics related so it's nice to read stuff that otherwise would have passed me by.
Tartan Pixie said:
<><><>
Don't wish to get in to your little spat with Byker but I will say that I appreciate the links posted by them, jmorgan and others. The news I look for tends to be more foreign policy or economics related so it's nice to read stuff that otherwise would have passed me by.
I've not said don't post links and articles? I've said be more respectful of others who do so (in this instance, me).Don't wish to get in to your little spat with Byker but I will say that I appreciate the links posted by them, jmorgan and others. The news I look for tends to be more foreign policy or economics related so it's nice to read stuff that otherwise would have passed me by.
Byker28i said:
I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea whether repeating the thoughts of Rep. Clinger is libelous.
ferrisbueller said:
The Clintons removed the head of that travel office so she could work there. They didn't fire him - they accused him of a crime he didn't commit. They subjected him and his family to a campaign of abuse and unfounded allegations up to and including a trial in federal court in which he was cleared on all charges.
Specific claims by youThen on discussing Clinton you said:
ferrisbueller said:
IMO it's like looking at two pieces of st and asking which is more repulsive but her history is no less dubious than his, the difference being her issues have been in public office.
But hey, you have your views, I think you've made that clear, and this is about Trump, not Clinton although Trumpettes like to constantly bring her up.t and asking which is more repulsive but her history is no less dubious than his, the difference being her issues have been in public office.Me, I'm actually interested in the history I think we are seeing being made right now. I think if Trump had concentrated on his campaign promises, we'd be discussing policy rather than the hypocrisy and ethics. Some of his tax cuts policy were as promised, some in trying to encourage the return of company funds would be needed. How it all spins out will be interesting, but all it looks like is increased debt.
Whats obvious, what some thought as a strength that Trump was a businessman and not a politician, is that team Trump were totally unprepared and unexperienced for office.
Over 130 officials still without permenant security clearance handling sensitive documents, including McGahn!
2. I'm not a Trump supporter, nor am I a Clinton supporter. I view them both with equal levels of distrust and scepticism but it's not like we get a vote in this. Our domestic situation is arguably more f
ked up. I guess people bring up the issues of others to provide context to the questioning of the ethics. It's not "because X", it's "hold on, let's not pretend or forget that other people had issues, too". Trump may be flawed but the alternative wasn't Saint Mother Teresa. And I do believe that things raised are relative to public roles e.g backing wars, domestic and foreign policy and the onset of early, highly selective, Alzheimer's. Trump may have been a weapon's grade tosspot elsewhere but it's not been in the public eye or something they bothered themselves with. Trump got the GOP nomination. They knew the baggage, they knew the risks. Power was deemed to be worth it.3. Is the history being made the apparent backwards steps in the progress of civilisation or the fact Trump has lied (just more openly than many other politicians) and has dubious ethics (just like many other politicians)? The GOP backed the policies, so why would the direction be different if someone else were in charge. If so much manpower weren't being expended in dealing with the "issues" would policies be moving more quickly? It's hard to see whether the issue is Trump or the GOP's policies. They've got what they need to make change.
4. Hypocrisy is rife. As are numerous other undesirable traits.
The Karen McDougal story is doing the rounds again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/201...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/201...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff