ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

Except that it does not mention that the ones paying for the wall would be the population. I'm willing to bet many of those that vote yes, would vote no if they had to pay for it.

edit: it's also a ridiculously small sample size for something that affect 325~ millions.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So, he took the notes. Why? Unknown. It doesn't say "confiscated," perhaps (or perhaps not) because that would be libel; the writers are counting on you to fill in the blanks by assuming the worst.

No, it wouldn't be libel, and in this context "confiscate" and "take possession" are obvious synonyms. If you want to play a game of semantics, go ahead, but if the story is accurate him taking the translator's notes and not giving them back for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing as a confiscation.
Not sure what your point here is anyway.

"

So, the meeting between Trump and Putin involved classified information.

It very likely did. But it's pretty much a given that a translator in a summit like this has a high security clearance and is well aware that divulging what has been discussed amounts to a felony. It's just odd that Trump felt the need to put special emphasis on something that needs no special mention whatsoever.

"

What are you basing that opinion on? Most of the time I hear it, it's from Syria hawks who want continued fighting in the region and the forced overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.

I'm basing my opinion on the numerous times Trump has spoken favorably or even in an admiring tone of Putin, and on the several occasions in which he apparently equivalates Putin's word with the findings of US and foreign intellgence agencies, i.e. Putin said he didn't mess with the election, every intelligence agency on the planet says he did and does and that's his thing.
Who you're gonna believe? For Trump a tough question, apparently.

"

Why wouldn't he love dirt on Hilary? Offer ended up being fake anyway.

What is it with Trump apologists and their habit of ignoring vital facts? Or confusing facts with assumptions?
In the email Don Jr. received it was clearly stated that the information came from the Russian government. That's raises a hell of a lot of red flags, wouldn't you think? Apparently not.
And the offer did not end "being fake anyway". That's a claim made by the parties involved. It's not a fact. And given that lying is the Trumps' go-to mode whenever a minor inconvenience pops up on the horizon it's a safe bet that whatever they claim on any given subject is not necessarily the truth.

"

Comey was richly deserving of firing for reasons unrelated to Russia. You're saying her that you disbelieve the official, published rationale for his dismissal.

Trump himself said he fired him for that "Russia thing", and that he would have fired him regardless of recommendations.

"

Ditto [Sessions]

Trump on various occasions publicly lamented Sessions' recusal and stated that had he known in advance that he would recuse himself he wouldn't have appointed him. He seemed to have no other problems with him whatsoever.
But fair enough, it's an assumption, not a fact.

"

Now I'm not saying I don't connect dots too. But I understand that the dots, and the dots alone, are the facts, and that my constellations, the narratives in my head to explain these facts, are not proven. As the beginning of this post demonstrates, the facts in the WaPo article are rather mundane and possibly explained by much less sinister goings-on.

That's sort of true: "possibly". I disagree with your characterization of Trump "taking possession" of a translator's notes and telling her to shut up about it being mundane - at the very least it speaks of a paranoid mindset - but it is entirely "possible" that everything that went down so far can be explained away with various personal shortcomings of the persons involved - very fundamental ones - and that ultimately - although as a whole it might paint a picture of some grand conspiracy - every single instance of suspicious behavior has a comparably innocuous explanation.

I don't believe in a quid-pro-quo, collusion, Trump-the-Russian-asset narrative. But I believe Trump is an incredibly weak person, and incredibly easy to manipulate. He is what you'd call an unwitting conspirator. That's just my opinion, just on a sidenote.

"

Jojas wrote:

I don't believe in a quid-pro-quo, collusion, Trump-the-Russian-asset narrative. But I believe Trump is an incredibly weak person, and incredibly easy to manipulate. He is what you'd call an unwitting conspirator. That's just my opinion, just on a sidenote.

No one who achieved President-Elect of the United States is weak or stupid. The task is too difficult to be achieved by luck alone; it takes both incredible skill and a hefty amount of luck to boot. I'm bipartisan on this; Obama was an evil genius in my book (almost a loveable one a la Frank Underwood), not an idiot. If any President seems to be weak or stupid to you, either you're biased, they're intentionally playing dumb, or both.

What a horrible precedent to be set! Democrats cannot think ahead more than a day. Like an animal intellect.

Whatever you think of Trump, do you really want to go down a road where Presidents can no longer have private conversations with other leaders? Literally, if such conversations were banned all along, we might have had a nuclear war (read memoirs from Ford/Brezhnev era, also Carter/Brezhnev).

If the silly dems have their way, NO ONE will ever consent to a private meeting with a US president again. Due to it not not being confidential.

Personally, I think the executive branch has grown too powerful over the years but this is not an area that I would consider curtailing.

I hope they keep pushing the Russia fairy tale. It clearly isn't working (approval rating rock solid at 40%), Mueller's report will be something to the extent of "he did some questionable things but we can't prove intent" (flashbacks to Crooked Hillary) and Trump will win in another landslide in 2020.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

What a horrible precedent to be set! Democrats cannot think ahead more than a day. Like an animal intellect.

Whatever you think of Trump, do you really want to go down a road where Presidents can no longer have private conversations with other leaders? Literally, if such conversations were banned all along, we might have had a nuclear war (read memoirs from Ford/Brezhnev era, also Carter/Brezhnev).

If the silly dems have their way, NO ONE will ever consent to a private meeting with a US president again. Due to it not not being confidential.

Personally, I think the executive branch has grown too powerful over the years but this is not an area that I would consider curtailing.

This is a unique situation. No other president would tolerate this fake investigation.

Something like this wont happen again, cause any future President isnt going to allow a department, under their control, to spend years investigating them, based on a fake dossier.

Allowing this hoax investigation to happen is probably the dumbest thing Trump has ever done.

Ted Cruz would have shut it down immediately, and it would have been out of the news cycle after 1-2 weeks, and everyone would have forgotten by now, except extremely partisan types.

You think so? Next Dem president elected will be hunted by the repubs from day one. Mercilessly. People will call it payback and they will be right. Another horrid precedent set.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

You think so? Next Dem president elected will be hunted by the repubs from day one. Mercilessly. People will call it payback and they will be right. Another horrid precedent set.

I didnt mean they wont be investigated by the other party, that always happens. This is different, it is an actual FBI investigation by a special counsel.

FBI is under Trump's authority, no future President will allow this to happen; sure the opposing party may "investigate" opposition Presidents, but that's not the same thing.