Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Abner, Aug 21, 2018.
Another one bites the dust! Trump appears to be really quite lately. Gee, I wonder why?
I am no supporter of Trump. I do lean right of centre. Foolish me thought he would have used the tax break to encourage US corporations that are holding billions overseas and have them invest in the inner cities by a special tax break. That did not happen - stupid me. Now to be fair, where is the Russian collusion? After two years it may nice to see something concrete. Afterall, he was elected President, because Mrs Clinton was that bad. Give me an unlimited budget, and unlimited terms of reference, and I can find you lots of similar people like Manafort.
Differing perspectives here. To me, there's plenty indications of Russian collusion, infamous Trump Tower meeting being just the most stupidly in-your-face of that. Also, I do not recall another US president was cartoonishly avaricious immoral character heavily indebted to one of Putin's most ruthless cronies. But that's not what that thread is about, isn't it? After all, Clinton impeachment was not for what Starr investigation was about (for the record, alleged corruption in the Whitewater affair - a theory Starr ended up disproving). It was about obstruction of justice - Bill lying about his affair. We have so much of this now it's not even funny. I mean, Trunp's lawyer just plead guilty of breaking campaign law - on behalf of and being directed by Trump himself.
I don’t think that there are too many people who think Trump is a person of exceptional moral character. But he won the presidency. He took down some big names in the process. For the sake of future presidency , it will be nice to see what they have on the Russian collusion. Did he won fair or square or did he cheated? To me everything thing else is just partisan drama that will continue under other presidents.
Dude, he broke campaign law. That's not "partisan drama". If Bill's lies were impeachable offense, this surely should qualify.
Russia was influencing election to help Trump - that is a fact. Trump campaign was willing to accept help from Russia (Trump meeting shows this much) - in exchange for what? Trump has this strange deference to Putin - why is that?
Russia was eager to help Trump. Trump was eager to get that help. Trump's campaign crawled with people compromised by Russia, each of whom could be used as backchannel - also a fact. Collusion shmalusion, what we already know is plenty disturbing enough. And, sorry, if them hiring Paul "I'm in the pocket of Deripaska" Manafort not enough for yah, how about Trump campaign editing just one very specific line in the Republican Platform - weakening stance on Russia? How about "we're all killers" Helsinki? dragging feet on sanctions? asserting his right to ignore provisions in new defense appropriation bill saying he can't spend money on "activities that recognize Russia's sovereignty over Crimea? returning spy compounds?
You know, I have a different perspective. Trump won in a few key states by margins below or around 1% - but just large enough not to trigger recounts. Russia, world champion in sham elections, is involved. I'm not sure I can believe such a coincident.
Campaign violation is a big deal everywhere in a true democracy. There is a big shot ex-mp conservative, peter van loanne from peterborough in jail for campaign finance violations.
I dont like the idea of doing whatever it takes to bring down the presidency or any government . I think i will feel the same way if Ms Clinton was the president. I think when it comes to politics i am more of a cynic than a Stoic, I dont care that much and i am almost always skeptical.
Sweet. In this case, the President will probably not be indicted, because there's uncertainty whether it is even possible. He will not remain in office forever though.
You mean like Benghazi, the ultimate "witch hunt"? What goes on now is not remotely like that. If there were the Deep State conspiracy to bring Trump down, he would not have been elected in the first place.
Take it from a guy originally from a country that had 2 mass protests with change of Government and on the front line of the global "hybrid" conflict with Russia: what you see is not. even remotely. "whatever it takes to bring down the presidency". at all. If anything, the so called "Resistance" is timid. Thankfully (in this case, not when Putin and Kim are able to shove him around in his "summits"), Trump is a very weak despot as these things go.
Yeah well, I understand cynicism, I do. Especially now when I deeply dislike all my elected officials and their immediate opponents, and growing weary of Mr. Tudeau (despite thinking of myself as a Liberal). However, I believe cynicism is destructive for a society. US historically was stronger because it was less cynical. These are not the best times for them (perhaps not the worst, either; they had their share of issues) cynicism-wise.
I don't like this Trump guy, either. Didn't vote for him, never will (unless God Himself tells me to--which I doubt will happen). But darn it, I still don't get the significance of this breathless reporting about people formerly associated with Trump who've committed some bank fraud here or tax fraud there or done other things they hadn't ought to do--what does that have to do with Russian collusion? If Trump really sat down with agents of Russia and conspired with them to somehow throw the election in his favor, to flat out commit election fraud and manipulate the election system--how, I don't know, hacking into the voting machines of key districts and manipulating the results?--or did so through his agent, then nail him to the wall, impeach and remove and throw him in prison and forget about a pardon. But at this point, I just think the media's full of that which exits the lee side of a bull and am saying to them put up or shut up and stop with the fanciful speculation. Amazingly, I find myself actually agreeing with people like Sean Hannity here (even if he is smarmy personified). And that's coming from someone who threatened to leave the country if this guy was elected (but I didn't follow through because I'm gutless, I guess).
You're a fraud examination expert. Trump hires this guy who made 60 million literally helping to tear a country apart (I'm Ukrainian and have very justified special hearts for Paul Manafort, a long term hired minion to a group that literally stole, by some reports, $100 BILLION from Europe's poorest country and left it at bloody war that is freaking ongoing as we freaking speak), hid it from taxation, managed to piss it all off and saw himself broke and in debt (to the tune of $11 million) to a guy who made billions (yeah, with a "B", as in top 10 richest person in notoriously oligarch-rich Russia) by HAVING TIES TO RUSSIAN MOB AND TO RUSSIAN "LAW ENFORCEMENT" AND INTELLIGENCE. Yes, at the same time. A billionaire filmed (by a call girl he hired) on his yacht discussing American affairs with Deputy Prime Minister of Russia in charge of sensitive foreign affairs? "Some bank fraud here or tax fraud there"? You realise how this sounds?
That is your standard? It's OK unless they literally hacked the machines (which I strongly suspect might have happened)? Coordinated dissemination of stolen DNC emails is not sleazy enough for you? Yet this is exactly what allegedly happened at Watergate. Nixon being thrown out for IMPEDING INVESTIGATION INTO BREAKING INTO OPPOSITION PREMISES TO FIND SOME DIRT ON AN OPPONENT? This used to be enough you know.
Trump matches crookedness of Nixon on what we know already. Except Nixon did not cave in to Russians and is not known to accept investments from Iranian Revolutionary Guard money launderer.
...and the press didn't ever do it to Clinton or her inner circle (like, I dunno, Huma)? Except her people are not convicted of hiding blood money from taxation.
Trump is a celebrity. You want the media to ignore a trial with famous connection and a freaking ostrich jacket as an exhibit? Will not happen. People who don't like it should really rethink voting for Trump.
You mean like this guy?
My guess is that ultimately someone or some group of people will be charged with some collusion-like crime. The President may not be in that group. There may not be evidence to link him directly to whatever Fredo was doing in Trump Tower that day (or any of the other shenanigans that have occurred). But if in the process of the Mueller investigation they discover tax fraud or some other similar white-collar financial crime, and they charge the President with that, well then he’s no less a criminal just because they couldn’t bring a collusion charge. The fact is, this case is waaaay beyond the question of collusion at this point and my guess is that little Mikey Cohen just sealed Trump’s fate. Look for some serious “wag the dog” in the coming weeks.
I agree with this. Of course, if the guy's guilty of any sort of fraud-related crime, that's a crime no less than Clinton committed when perjuring himself, maybe a worse one, depending on the nature of the fraud, and Trump should likely be impeached and/or removed. I just don't see the collusion thing has been demonstrated yet at all, in any manner except through innuendo and absurd media hysteria (but that may change, the evidence may become more substantive, as it eventually did with Watergate), and I'm not comfortable, from a balance-of-powers analysis, with this free-ranging special counsel picking away at the Executive Branch with what appears to be an ongoing treasure hunt. I don't think it was a particularly good idea with Clinton/Starr (and Democrats certainly agreed with this notion at the time, James Carville went apoplectic about it) and I don't think it's a good idea with Trump. If you have something very specific, and darned good evidence at that, then OK, but otherwise, I think it's a horrific idea for the president to be subject to an ongoing, free-ranging inquiry into his business dealings and associates going back years. I fully expect business people and politicians alike, especially those who've attained levels of great power, to have at least some people who've crossed their paths or collaborated with them on this or that to have something nefarious in their past. That does not excuse it--a laissez-faire attitude on that front by a former president, Harding, led to him surrounding himself almost exclusively with corrupt people and led to a major scandal--but it just seems to be a petty thing, this present media-generated scandal. There are a host of reasons to despise Trump, this seems like a big wad of nonsense.
It might make Manafort a dirtbag, I'll grant you, but I don't know how any of that makes Trump a colluder with the Russians.
Whoa! Where did I say that was my standard? I love, you, Stan, but straw man fallacies do not become you. Realize that you're dealing with one who is most decidedly not a Trump man here. It is just possible that I am capable of pointing out a weakness that those of us who oppose the guy have stumbled into--maybe one that has occluded your vision a bit? Perhaps...
On February 20, 2014, security forces and snipers on protesters around Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine. In all, over 100 people were slaughtered during protests, significant number on Feb. 20. This was the day the "Heavenly Hundred" was born for eternity, the bloodiest day in Kyiv since WWII (now eclipsed by battles with Russia and its proxies). For context: Independence Square is where I went to grab lunch at my first real job, at Dutch Internet startup.
Paul Manafort was the top advisor of the man who authorized this. By some accounts, he advised the bloodbath itself. Moreover, he is among the chief architects of processes that led to Russo-Ukrainian War, 10,000 dead by very conservative UN estimates, 2 million displaced. Dirtbag.
More importantly, he did this in close collaboration with Russian interests, most directly Oleg Deripaska (Russian oligarchs and the Kremlin, under Putin, are for all intents and purposes the same entity). Paul's top aide Alexei Kilimnik, "Manafort's Manafort", is a professional Russian spy. Kilimnik was present in Trump Tower meeting with another spy, the " Russian lawyer". You seriously think there was no collusion, and Russians just helped Trump win WITHOUT tapping any of their many assets around Trump?
I have a good friend who's from that region, in fact, he taught my daughter ballet. That sounds like awful stuff, reprehensible. But none of it sounds to me like evidence sufficient to undertake an impeachment proceeding against Trump. Again, it's all innuendo and fairly fanciful speculation, like the stuff about the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. None of it is anything but guesswork. There are a lot of reasons to dislike Bill and Hillary Clinton that do not have to involve some great conspiracy over some meeting that could have been anything at all, even a couple friends just sharing a drink, some ribald jokes, and bad-mouthing their political opponents in the privacy of a plane. In the same way, there are a lot of reasons to dislike Donald Trump that do not have to involve some great conspiracy over some meeting that could have been anything at all, including Trump just trying to make more money with more land deals, and it doesn't surprise me at all that Russians would try to get a spy into meetings with political candidates,. of course, I expect that. That's the way they roll.
Now who's building strawmen? It's not enough to build an impeachment case. It, and many other details like this, together with fairly unprecedented effort by Russia to help Trump get elected, is more than enough to start investigation.
Nevertheless, people keep inventing great conspiracies since basically the time Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham emerged on the radar in Arkansas. Newly appointed head of Italian state broadcasting company expressed belief that the Clintons are part of a cabal that hold regular feasts with dishes made with human blood. And sperm. But, of course, public opinion about the Clintons only stem from legitimate, factual concerns.
There are I guess many superficial reasons to dislike the Clintons, and one serious, objective one - Bill is a creep. #timeisup #metoo. Unreformed one, judging from his disastrous TV appearance lately. I'm struggling to see how discussing this retiree is relevant to incumbent POTUS and his gang of grifters.
TRY??? Accept one thing: Veselnitskaya is a spy. Russia does not have independent lawyers, especially among those hired to lobby US Congress and represent entities sanctioned on human rights grounds (under Magnitsky Act, biggest thorn in Putin's side for years). She is a Russian spy, and Donny Jr. knowingly agreed to meet with this spy to get information on Clintons obtained by other Russian spies, by spying on US soil. Knowingly so. Then incumbent POTUS lelped Donny lie about all this by drafting his statement. And then incumbent POTUS lied about having any knowledge of the meeting, or the cover-up. The fact that this meeting was also attended by Russian intelligence asset, Manafort, who brought his partner Kilimnik, a spy educated at the USSR General Staff Academy to be a spy in the main military spy agency for spies, (Main Intelligence Directorate of the Generall Staff of the Ministry of Defence), is just an interesting spying turn in this spy story about freaking SPIES.
In all likelihood, the British "producer" who organized the meet is also an intelligence asset; the fact that Donnie is apparently on a first-named basis with the "pop star" who is grandson-in-law of Comrade Geydar Aliev himself (a top KGB general and Communist Party boss who, after 1991, successfully manipulated a civil war he most likely started to turn the Presidency of Azerbaijan into his family's hereditary fief), is another delicious piece of spy spyness. FBI would be amiss NOT investigating this mess, and the fact that all Trump associates (like Jess Sessions) are compromised brought us Special Counsel Mueller. Trump brought it on himself. And he better start using funds Congress allocated for cyberprotecting the elections; it starts to look really obvious.
Separate names with a comma.