Donald Trump and US politics

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

We have diplomatic and trade relations with Russia. A Russian lawyer providing opposition research is no different than a former MI-6 guy doing same.

Politico‘s Kenneth Vogel and David Stern reported in early January that the DNC contacted officials from the Ukrainian government for their own oppo research efforts. These contacts did not involve cut-outs, as Veselnitskaya may or may not have been, but did directly assist in searching for damaging information that could be used in the election.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Where is investigation? Calls of Treason here?

This is just more nothing burger by hysterical liberal media

The right is also full of nothingburger. I am just not pointing it out because I are lazy.

Isn't it funny how the one place that isn't completely looney left leaning is somehow a giant problem or an echo chamber to people like Charry? Basically any forum without massive amounts of moderation and censorship or an asinine voting system will display a lot of right leaning opinions (because there is no suppression mechanism aside from custom made censorship scripts). This rule really only applies to forums with neutral topics (i.e. a forum for video games)

every other place which is 90% left/10% right and has mechanism to suppress minority opinions from being viewed is just great.

But a place that skews 60% right /40% left with no suppression mechanism is just the worst place ever and so terrible and like literally the worst echo chamber ever that some people won't even argue in them or need a script to censor opinions they don't want to see to make the forums more like the forums they are used to.

Nancy Pelosi called Trump "President Bush" again. The Democrats really got a keeper there...

"

Manocean wrote:

Isn't it funny how the one place that isn't completely looney left leaning is somehow a giant problem or an echo chamber to people like Charry? Basically any forum without massive amounts of moderation and censorship or an asinine voting system will display a lot of right leaning opinions (because there is no suppression mechanism aside from custom made censorship scripts). This rule really only applies to forums with neutral topics (i.e. a forum for video games)

every other place which is 90% left/10% right and has mechanism to suppress minority opinions from being viewed is just great.

But a place that skews 60% right /40% left with no suppression mechanism is just the worst place ever and so terrible and like literally the worst echo chamber ever that some people won't even argue in them or need a script to censor opinions they don't want to see to make the forums more like the forums they are used to.

If you support bias and prejudice, why aim for 60% or 90%? Aim for 100%.

/sarcasm

"

deathflower wrote:

If you support bias and prejudice, why aim for 60% or 90%? Aim for 100%.

/sarcasm

If I was like other forum users I would start throwing wrongthinkers into my censorship script to make it 100%. But who wants that?

"

鬼殺し wrote:

That you can still support Trump despite noting he's not a uniter is oddly admirable, or perhaps just speaks to your (and others'?) feeling that being a uniter is not an essential quality in a world leader.

Not being a uniter in a position where your job is to unite the country, is like being a color blind fashion designer. Whether Trump could be cajoled by his handlers into at least attempting to become a uniter will probably have to wait until he isn't on the defensive all the time.

If the Russian narrative dies by end of summer, and both GOP and DNC come back with a legislative mindset, then we will see whether Trump's skills are up to the task. Right now, Trump is like the dog being constantly tormented by all the neighborhood kids with sticks and rocks.

We should know by mid September which way the various sides are going to choose to play the game. If they choose to battle it out until the 2018 elections, we will have lost an even bigger chunk of functional government, no matter who ends up winning. The idea that the voters want to see something actually getting done is not likely to garner positive ratings, so I doubt we'll see that storyline talked about until the 2018 campaigns begin in earnest.

If the DNC had any brains (I'm sure they do, just unsure why they aren't being listened to) they would be settling on a middle of the road, pleasant, but smart candidate for the 2020 elections and then start pushing key members to work on selective, yet cooperative bills with the president. The party that gets things done will be the party that wins more seats next election, and right now watching the GOP is like waiting for duck decoys to make their next move.

"

solwitch wrote:

Wow... I can't believe you two actually believe that Trump runs the country.

The president can set the tone for policy, he or she can try to guide policy, bring people towards certain viewpoints and propose policy. That the president is NOT the US government and is held in check was something I pointed out several times in the original Trump thread that got egged.

"

solwitch wrote:

I think this is what upsets the traditional upper EDUCATED wealthy class. The disregard for knowing the history and dynamics of how the USA is actually controlled.

It isn't so much controlled as it is influenced. To get anything done, you want businesses, people, and the legislative folks on your side. Trump has significant support from those who voted for him, but he also has significant opposition from those who dislike him. Winning that public sentiment is a large part of getting the other power players to work with the president.

"

solwitch wrote:

You actually believe POTUS wakes up one day and says, "today I'm going to make a new resolution." LOL

While he could do so, it would be like an average person waking up and saying "I want to be a billionaire" It is possible through dint of hard work and careful planning to make progress toward that goal (such as getting a better wage and saving money). Whether the end goal is achievable depends on many other things.

What is far more likely, is that the president wakes up at 2 am and while tweeting says to himself "I've got to get 3 more GOP senators and 5 DEM senators on board for revising the H1B visa process"

The president has more potential because the POTUS can determine what they want to do, but also more limitations, because they are a sole voice in advocating for what they want.
Discussing the limitations of the POTUS is nuncupatory.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Again, not the most promising of metaphors.

It was my lame attempt at a multiphor, but obviously it didn't sit well. As for whether the future holds much promise given our current leader, I would say we are on a moving roller coaster that has no brakes and is being actively sabotaged. Whether it is more dangerous to stay on or to jump off remains to be seen. More accurate info would help us make a better decision, even if it didn't guarantee a good outcome.

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

'Kay: https://youtu.be/1Qf6bM_NnF8

Did you watch that video? Or did you just google a lawyer that thinks DJTJR did nothing wrong and sent me the link without verifying if he makes an good argument?

He didn't even mention the law that we were discussing here(the law about soliciting and accepting something of value from a foreign official).

Here's an article from a law professor at George Washington University refuting the possible criminality based on
1)Treason.
2) the Logan Act
3) 18 U.S.C. 371
4) 36 U.S.C. 510

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/341461-opinion-don-jrs-russia-meeting-wasnt-collusion-just

If the legal sources people are reading are using the word collusion (other than refuting it) then I would be skeptical of that source. Here is why:

Paul Rosenzweig deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security: "Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. "

James Comey - when asked by Mike Quigley on details about how the FBI might find collusion with a foreign power, Comey corrected him, stating that he was investigating whether there had been coordination:

"Collusion is not a legal term. It is not one I have used today. I said we are investigating to see if there is any coordination between people associated with the campaign"

"

soneka101 wrote:

Look, I don't like to push conspiracy theories here on the forum, but... What if DJT was the one that leaked DJTJr's emails to the NYT so he could distract people of this HUGE SCOOP that just came out:

Sometimes the decisions make themselves. When a subordinate brings up a "decision" that needs to be made, they often know what the executive will decide. Trump did say he based the firing of Comey off of other's decisions:

"I have received the attached letters from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the United States recommending your dismissal as the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have accepted their recommendation and you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately..."

im surprised Charan shows up here given that he has blocked so many of us :(