|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Later, in April 2016, Marc Elias ” a top Democratic campaign lawyer ” retained Fusion GPS through his firm of Perkins Coie on behalf of both Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign...
Fusion GPS is a US company. But still, retaining a foreign company to do research for a fee is legal. He should have asked if you had any evidence of illegal foreign dealings.
Hillary's games with foreign entities.
Got any evidence of illegality or a coverup? Didn't think so.
quote:Evidence? Didn't think so. Were any illegal or unethical actions involved? Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Trump didn't say "he'd accept", he only said he'd listen, and I think there's a difference.
Why? Oh, he said much more than that.
He's still learning, understandably, about the intensity of the hate against him, and how he needs to be on his guard more in quickly answering loaded questions.
He's an awfully slow learner. What about the question made it a loaded question?
Agreed, but it makes one wonder how many dinners Hillary attended when she was Secretary of State, and how many suggestions she had to look into things from heads of socialist and communist nations, who agree with her on many things. How many times she called the FBI about it, and how diligently the news media focused on it.
You really can't learn that it is illegal for a campaign to accept a donation form a foreign entity. In those instances she was not a campaign. And of course, your accusation is unfounded innuendo. No evidence, as usual.
It seems to be taken as a given that Russia preferred Trump to be president over Hillary. I've never seen it made very clear, just why a socialist / communist nation like Russia would favor a free market capitalist like Trump over a socialist, big government advocate like Hillary.
Senate report affirms intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia favored Trump over Clinton:
quote:The reason is obvious. Trump adores ruthless dictators. He's said several times he believes Putin's claims over the unanimous conclusions of our intelligence agencies. He's refused to record what he said in his meetings with Putin, illegal by at least two laws (the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act ). He's easily manipulated; give him some meaningless pomp and circumstance, tell him billions are coming somewhere down the road, and he goes home happy with the wool over his eyes. Unless they have a "D" behind their name. All the sensationalism, all the wasted time, all the confusion created by the phony Steele dossier wasn't condemned by the mainstream media to anywhere near the frenzy that two words from Trump; "I'd listen" did.
Some of the dossier is true, some is false, some is unknown. BUt there's nothing illegal there. However, Trump said a lot more than two words:
quote:BTW, they don't all do it. I'm not using ratings to judge what the truth is or is not, I'm using them to gauge how the general public is likely to vote in the next election.
For which they are ridiculously unsuited. I see you have no comment on the polls I posted, including one from Fox.
Straight news from CNN, white supremacy from Fox News? Okay, not much to discuss there
Way off topic, but when white supremacists hail Tucker Carlson as on of their own I listen. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : Fixed a quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
marc9000 writes: Trump didn't say "he'd accept", he only said he'd listen, and I think there's a difference. There's no difference. Once you say "I'm listening" you've stated that you're accepting the information provided. Once you've heard the information you can't unhear it. The acceptance of information from foreign agents creates vulnerabilities in the form of blackmail and extortion, and the agents will have hidden agendas.
It's a new day in America when a president says he'd respond to something by "listening" to it, and gets wildly attacked by the press. If the press criticism was wrong then why was Trump also criticized by Republicans, some of them prominent like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and why did Trump later change his answer to say that of course he'd notify the FBI?
In addition to losing freedom of speech, it looks like freedom to listen could also be coming under attack. But Trump has changed his answer, and you're still arguing for the original answer that Trump now won't admit to providing, now claiming that he always said he'd notify the FBI, despite being recorded saying listening to foreign agents was fine. After claiming for over two years that there was no collusion in 2016 his original answer was thick with irony as he described how he'd be willing to collude with a foreign agent.
He's still learning, understandably, about the intensity of the hate against him, and how he needs to be on his guard more in quickly answering loaded questions. Because of Trump's proclivity for giving voice to what he believes or wants to be true or what he wants people to believe to be true rather than to what is actually true, in this case what the law actually says (campaign laws and conspiracy laws), every question to Trump is a loaded question or a trap question. For people who don't lie they're just simple questions. Remember those polls that he told Stephanopoulos didn't exist? He just fired people for leaking information about those non-existent polls. Trump lies constantly, so every question is fraught with danger for him because the real world is full of facts that don't lie. Trump is the first person in American political history to give truth to the old joke, "If his lips are moving he's lying."
Agreed, but it makes one wonder how many dinners Hillary attended when she was Secretary of State, and how many suggestions she had to look into things from heads of socialist and communist nations, who agree with her on many things. How many times she called the FBI about it, and how diligently the news media focused on it. You continue to have trouble distinguishing between a government official and a candidate for office. The Secretary of State is not an elected position, and Hillary Clinton was not running for office while she was Secretary of State, resigning in 2013 well before the 2016 election.
It seems to be taken as a given that Russia preferred Trump to be president over Hillary. I've never seen it made very clear, just why a socialist / communist nation like Russia would favor a free market capitalist like Trump over a socialist, big government advocate like Hillary. That Russia greatly preferred Trump over Clinton has been proven and verified nine ways from Sunday. Mueller indicted a great many Russians for their illegal election interference efforts on Trump's behalf. Russia support for Trump and whatever they have on him that we don't know about might explain Trump's obsequious behavior toward Putin.
Unless they have a "D" behind their name. All the sensationalism, all the wasted time, all the confusion created by the phony Steele dossier wasn't condemned by the mainstream media to anywhere near the frenzy that two words from Trump; "I'd listen" did. I think you're just repeating dubious conservative media chatter about the Steele dossier. It wasn't a factor in the FBI's decision to investigate the Trump campaign for possible conspiracy activity. One of it's most significant allegations is undeniably true, that Russian agents engaged in efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign (the email dumps, Pizzagate, etc). Another of its significant allegations has a great deal of supporting evidence, that Trump campaign operatives conspired with Russian agents to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, and while the evidence was not sufficient for Mueller to indict, it is likely more than enough to begin an impeachment inquiry. The other allegations have not been verified, and one was dismissed by the Mueller report.
I was one of the first to insist that Al Franken should resign after information about his sexually questionable conduct became public, so I'm on record as not letting my like/dislike for a person influence me. "On record"? What record is that? Right here at EvC. Start at Message 123 of the Senator Al Franken? thread and read forward.
I voted against Mitch McConnell in his last election. Why? He's doing everything Trump could ask, and you love Trump. If the House happens to vote articles of impeachment then McConnell will probably refuse to consider those articles in the Senate, meaning there wouldn't even be a trial. Anyway, please vote against him again.
Have you ever had anything good to say about Trump at all? I grew up in the New York metropolitan area where Trump was a known scumbag real estate developer from the early 1970's on. If you name some things he's done that you think are good I'll let you know what I think.
I expect Fox News ratings to continue strong as long as they continue selling tall tales, conspiracy theories and white supremacy. Compared to all that drama, straight news is boring. Straight news from CNN, white supremacy from Fox News? Okay, not much to discuss there. Tucker Carlson is responsible for the majority of the white supremacy talk on Fox News. Though as he'll tell you, you have to understand that making the point that this is a white country and all the other such points are not white supremacy talk. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add a missing quote/unquote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Tucker Carlson is responsible for the majority of the white supremacy talk on Fox News.
and don't forget Cucker also protects you from the scourge of the metric systemIt's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yes! Go Freedom Units!
Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Slugs per hogshead! No kilos per liter for Real Murricans!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Yep, spare us the horror of 1ml of H2O=1gm of H2O=1cc of H2O. It just makes calculations so much harder than using 1 gallon of H2O=8.34 pounds of H2O=231 cubic inches of H2O.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Some evidence of Trump's love of despots:
”Credible evidence’ Saudi crown prince liable for Khashoggi murder: UN expert quote:But not even the gentlest of criticism from the US government. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
From the New York Times:
Globalization Is Moving Past the U.S. and Its Vision of World Order A poll last month by the American Chamber of Commerce in China found that 40 percent of its member companies had moved factory operations out of China or were considering doing so. Among those leaving, fewer than 6 percent were going to the United States, while more than a third were focused on Southeast Asia or Mexico. Yeah, just like large corporations used their tax cuts to buy back stocks rather than raise workers' wages, tariffs are causing businesses to move operations to different, not the US, countries. So far, the axing of the neoliberal free trade regime has resulted in instability as companies have to readjust and because Trump and his cabinet full of fraud are too unpredictable to make proper plans. Paul Krugman has already pointed out that in the long run, the US economy probably won't have any more jobs than it would have had under free trade, but the protected markets will be less efficient (that is, the same goods will be more expensive to make).It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
Fusion GPS is a US company. But still, retaining a foreign company to do research for a fee is legal. He should have asked if you had any evidence of illegal foreign dealings. Got any evidence of illegality or a coverup? Didn't think so. Here's your evidence, you and Percy have been doing quite a dance to show a huge difference between what Hillary did, and Trump saying he would possibly do, if he was offered information. The following is from this link, that you showed in your Message 2901. Very straightforward, very hard to twist and distort;
quote: Nothing about whether or not the information is paid for, nothing about whether the foreign national is an ally or an enemy, nothing about if it involves solicitations or unsought offers, nothing about a third party being involved. Nothing that shows any difference between what Trump was asked, versus what Hillary actually did.
quote: Evidence? Didn't think so. That quote came from this news source. That's my evidence. Do you have evidence that it's false?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
What about the question made it a loaded question? I answered that in Message 2903.
quote: You really can't learn that it is illegal for a campaign to accept a donation form a foreign entity. In those instances she was not a campaign. I don't see any distinguishable difference in what Hillary's intentions could have been as Secretary of State as she was weighing her options in running for the presidency after Obama was through, versus Trump's intentions for possible re-election during the second year of his presidency.
quote: So what are some details of this "sound intelligence product"? That Russia believes in an unarmed citizenry, and Hillary and the Democrats also believe in and unarmed citizenry? That Russia believes in heavy government involvement in business, that Hillary and the Democrats also believe in heavy government involvement in business? There is so much similarity in Russian communism and U.S. Democrat socialism, when compared with Russian communism versus Trump's beliefs in smaller government involvement with business, Trump's belief in and armed citizenry etc. Is Russia happy that their young people, (those who have internet access) are able to see the U.S. prosperity under Trump, lowest unemployment in 50 years etc., and have them wonder if their country had less government meddling that maybe it could be more prosperous? Wouldn't Russia prefer that U.S. prosperity was stifled with a government that was more like their own?
The reason is obvious. Trump adores ruthless dictators. Is that why he favors smaller government, and armed citizenry, fewer regulations, lower taxes?
For which they are ridiculously unsuited. I see you have no comment on the polls I posted, including one from Fox. Those polls are laughable, I don't care where they come from. I'd bet they don't take the Electoral College into consideration at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
There's no difference. Once you say "I'm listening" you've stated that you're accepting the information provided. Once you've heard the information you can't unhear it. The acceptance of information from foreign agents creates vulnerabilities in the form of blackmail and extortion, and the agents will have hidden agendas. If that were true, then there would have to be laws prohibiting a lot of former cabinet members, including Secretaries of State, from ever running for the presidency. Maybe if Mike Pompeo decides to run in 2024, the Democrats will work to get that done.
If the press criticism was wrong then why was Trump also criticized by Republicans, some of them prominent like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and why did Trump later change his answer to say that of course he'd notify the FBI? He didn't "change" his answer, he only expounded on it. There have always been ~business as usual~ Republicans who enjoy playing "moderate" when Trump says some things. Trump isn't focused on only doing things that please Republicans. That's what a lot of voters like about him, myself included.
Because of Trump's proclivity for giving voice to what he believes or wants to be true or what he wants people to believe to be true rather than to what is actually true, in this case what the law actually says (campaign laws and conspiracy laws), every question to Trump is a loaded question or a trap question. For people who don't lie they're just simple questions. Remember those polls that he told Stephanopoulos didn't exist? He just fired people for leaking information about those non-existent polls. Trump lies constantly, so every question is fraught with danger for him because the real world is full of facts that don't lie. Trump is the first person in American political history to give truth to the old joke, "If his lips are moving he's lying." Every single president in recent history is always accused of lying. Lying is always an accusation in discussions between Republicans and Democrats. The big difference today is all the lies that the supposed free press, the ones who are supposed to give unbiased information, are filling the airwaves with. People are getting wise to them - mainly because of the constant stream of lies for the past 2+ years that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election, something that the Mueller report disproved.
You continue to have trouble distinguishing between a government official and a candidate for office. The Secretary of State is not an elected position, and Hillary Clinton was not running for office while she was Secretary of State, resigning in 2013 well before the 2016 election. Do you think there was a chance that she had a run for president in mind for her future? Trump is in the second year of his presidency. Is the second year of a presidency now defined as a "campaign"?
That Russia greatly preferred Trump over Clinton has been proven and verified nine ways from Sunday. Lay it on me, you could start by explaining how Russian society benefits from a Trump presidency more than it would a socialist Democrat presidency. Does Russia want a second amendment now? More free markets? Don't get me wrong, I know this has all been carefully dreamed up. But I suspect it's only really intended to amuse Trump haters, I don't know that it would hold up to some common sense questioning.
marc9000 writes: I voted against Mitch McConnell in his last election. Why? He's doing everything Trump could ask, and you love Trump. That was 2014, Trump didn't have a thing to do with it. I didn't think McConnell's (seemingly forever) Senate leadership represented actual conservatism in how he dealt with the Obama presidency. I voted for Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes - if she'd have won, the Senate would have still had a Republican majority, and it would have had a new leader. Then in 6 years, Grimes could have been beaten by an actual conservative. Grimes wasn't the world's worst liberal, she supported Kentucky's coal industry, and actually invited McConnel to go shooting with her. Not sure what she had in mind, but however that turned out, it would have been a win/win for Kentucky.
I grew up in the New York metropolitan area where Trump was a known scumbag real estate developer from the early 1970's on. If you name some things he's done that you think are good I'll let you know what I think. How about a 3.2 GDP, lowest unemployment in 50 years, 500K new manufacturing jobs? Now I know the early talking point is that all this is due to the actions of Barrack what-magic-wand-do-you-have Obama, but after 2 + years, it's getting a little bit old. Getting taxes and regulations off the back of risk takers and job creators is what makes good economic things happen, everyone knows that, though some still stubbornly refuse to admit it. A "scumbag"? You have an unchangeable personal hatred? He's 73 now, you can't accept that maybe he's learned from a few actions of his past, and just might have a desire to do what's best for the country where his children and grandchildren live? He's recently done charitable things and admirable private things that go completely unreported by the press.
marc9000 writes: Straight news from CNN, white supremacy from Fox News? Okay, not much to discuss there. Tucker Carlson is responsible for the majority of the white supremacy talk on Fox News. Though as he'll tell you, you have to understand that making the point that this is a white country and all the other such points are not white supremacy talk. Glad it wasn't Harris Faulkner, or Charles Payne. Carlson is a very small part of Fox News, and I agree, his talk isn't white supremacy any more than the anti-America talk that comes from all the Hetrophobes at CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Fox does seem to hire a lot of white people, and the mainstream media seems to hire a lot of hetrophobes. Balance makes the world go round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
marc9000 writes: Here's your evidence, you and Percy have been doing quite a dance to show a huge difference between what Hillary did, and Trump saying he would possibly do, if he was offered information. The following is from this link, that you showed in your Message 2901. Very straightforward, very hard to twist and distort;
quote: Why do you think this is difficult to "twist and distort"? You're twisting and distorting it with ease and alacrity right now. I quoted the full text of the FEC chair's comments in Message 2898 over a week ago where she spoke of the illegality of accepting foreign help. This refers to things that Trump did, such as meeting with Russians at Trump Tower about dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Trump campaign chair Manafort handing internal Trump polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence to be used in their social media misinformation campaign. It refers to Trump stating that he would listen to help offered by foreigners, then decide on his own whether it was good or bad before deciding whether to inform the FBI. There is, of course, no good or bad when it comes to such information. It's all illegal. It does not refer to the Clinton or Trump campaigns hiring opposition research firms who would obviously have to talk to foreigners in order to do their job, for instance, the Clinton firm talking to Russians and the Trump firm talking to Libyans (think Benghazi).
quote: Evidence? Didn't think so. That quote came from this news source. That's my evidence. Do you have evidence that it's false? What is true is that the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump, and they in turn hired Daniel Steele to carry out Russian-related research. Steele was not informed who was funding the research, though it seems likely he would have assumed it was the Clinton campaign. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What the FEC chair says is not law, and she misspoke slightly. The FEC web site is clear:
FEC | Candidate | Who can and can't contribute
quote:As is the previously posted law itself: 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
quote:Note the words "contribution" and "donation".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But the cause for latest Democrat hysteria is Trump's response to Stephanopoulos's gotcha question, which Trump couldn't possibly answer without setting Democrats / mainstream media into a frenzy. He said "he'd listen", and we see what's happening. If he'd said; "oh no, I wouldn't listen", then we'd have heard "LIAR LIAR LIAR, WHAT WERE YOU DOING WHEN YOU SENT YOUR SON TO MEET WITH THE RUSSIANS?" Maybe he could have just said "no comment", do you think the media would have had something to say about that?
Republicans oppose Democrats because of what Republicans say Democrats do. Democrats oppose Republicans because of what Republicans do. Of course the answer to "LIAR LIAR LIAR, WHAT WERE YOU DOING WHEN YOU SENT YOUR SON TO MEET WITH THE RUSSIANS?" is "not meeting with Russians or aware of any meeting". Duh.
I don't see any distinguishable difference in what Hillary's intentions could have been as Secretary of State as she was weighing her options in running for the presidency after Obama was through, versus Trump's intentions for possible re-election during the second year of his presidency.
The law doesn't care what you can or cannot see. Thinking about running for office is not the same as being a candidate. A candidate is someone who's filed the appropriate paperwork. When Hillary was Secretary of State, she was not a candidate and not subject to that law. Trump was definitely a candidate in 2015-2016, and since Trump filed the appropriate paperwork immediately after his inauguration, he's been a candidate (with an organized campaign) since then and subject to the law I posted.
So what are some details of this "sound intelligence product"?
Well, they certainly aren't the moronic fantasies you made up. Remember:
Republicans oppose Democrats because of what Republicans say Democrats do. Democrats oppose Republicans because of what Republicans do. But we realize that you and your ilk are deathly afraid of reality.
The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency (the Russian organization carrying out the campaig).:
quote: The other report referred to is at Documents: Senate Intelligence Committee Publishes Two Reports on Internet Research Agency (near the bottom)
quote: The reason is obvious. Trump adores ruthless dictators.
Is that why he favors smaller government, and armed citizenry, fewer regulations, lower taxes? Those polls are laughable, I don't care where they come from. I'd bet they don't take the Electoral College into consideration at all.
And yet they are the best data we have. No doubt there will be big changes, but that's waht we have. It's sad that you don't even trust Fox News. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024