Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Taytoland · 30-07-2018 1:11pm

If Trump was more nice and diplomatic in his tweets that would cause more shock and bewilderment than his twitter rants which most people now just roll the eyes or don't even blink at them which tells it's own story. A President threatening war with Iran on Twitter 4 years ago would have caused a crisis in US politics.

Captain Obvious · 30-07-2018 1:17pm

People are simply jaded. He has done so much worse than any before him have been accused of and the GOP congress are happy to let it go. There's also the fact that the GOP are allowing Russia to interfere with the elections with the very real possibility of Republicans keeping congress as a result. It has to do serious damage to any kind of hope.

dr.fuzzenstein · 30-07-2018 1:24pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is it me or has the Trump effect started to wear off.

Both the good (economy and GDP 4.1%) and the bad (Cohen, Mueller etc) don't seem to generate as much talking points as before.

His tweets certainly, to me anyway, don't seem to be having the same effect.

Have people just got bored of his constant stream of consciousness at this stage and are simply ignoring most of it?

Whilst that is good in terms of the bad news, I was struck by how little impact the GDP numbers had. My reading of it was that his speech actually took away from the news. By trying to claim it was historic, and shift the conversation back to Obama, he lost what should have been the focal point, ie the 4.1%.

And people seem simply aware of his game-plan. Number of highly charged (and factually dubious) tweets, followed by nothing much at all. For example, he threatened to shut the government down unless the Dems give in. But how many times has he marched up that hill already.

Just my POV, could be that I am simply not paying as much interest as before.

I used to do the same with Bush and his incoherent mumblings.
But with 9/11, the Iraq war, the NSA going full X-Files and the biggest economic crash since the 1920's, it was had to ignore the fcuker.
If Trump manages to keep everything pottering along with no major disasters, he might eventually become background noise.
With a bit of luck the interest in him will fade, people will get bored and stop listening to the man and he will end his presidency in a one-term whimper.
Unless he decides to start a war somehwhere, that is always popular with the American voters, you know, bringing freedom and democracy to the desert or the jungle. Murdering thousands of people is always wildly popular with the yanks. Well, the whole country is build on genocide.

looksee · 30-07-2018 1:39pm

I was, admittedly, following the tweets a bit like perverse entertainment, with the exasperation that this is a person with an important role and control of world events. I just glance at them now since there is dubious entertainment in a continuous flow of lies, exaggeration and illiterate hyperbole. His attempts to deflect from other matters are just laughable. Except they really are not funny.

Somewhere in the mix I even feel a bit sorry for him, he is totally out of his depth; not only does the world need to be saved from him, he needs to be saved from himself.

No doubt the numbers are open to interpretation - he supposedly has the support of something like 89% (I haven't checked that figure, it doesn't matter, say a high percentage) of Republicans, but how many Republicans are there now, compared with when he was elected?

We do seem to have achieved what was promised/threatened in the early days of social media, rule by the lowest common denominator - whatever that means. Rule by the ignorant, bigoted, unimaginative, 'great unwashed' who use their vote to 'get back at' whatever or whoever they perceive as being responsible for their current complaint in any particular moment, or whoever catches their imagination with promises of bread and circuses.

Probably off topic for this thread, but its arguable that Trump and his base are beyond redemption, so the question is what are the rest of the population going to do to rescue the situation? Is the whole country so utterly corrupt that no effort will be made to put in place some sort of rational (whether left or right) government? It doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. And does it matter to the rest of us? Will this admiration for the cult of personality, and ability to accept whatever rubbish is offered, spread to the rest of the world? Is his administration destabilising society?

Is there anything to be said for the arguments put forward by the Trumpists - though granted those arguments on here at any rate are largely limited to 'everyone is bullying us' which is remarkably similar to Trump's own line of argument.

Taytoland · 30-07-2018 1:58pm

Ed Balls in Trump Land documentary on the BBC last night. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bdpvhf/travels-in-trumpland-with-ed-balls-series-1-1-proud

Quin_Dub · 30-07-2018 2:15pm

looksee wrote: »

I was, admittedly, following the tweets a bit like perverse entertainment, with the exasperation that this is a person with an important role and control of world events. I just glance at them now since there is dubious entertainment in a continuous flow of lies, exaggeration and illiterate hyperbole. His attempts to deflect from other matters are just laughable. Except they really are not funny.

Somewhere in the mix I even feel a bit sorry for him, he is totally out of his depth; not only does the world need to be saved from him, he needs to be saved from himself.

No doubt the numbers are open to interpretation - he supposedly has the support of something like 89% (I haven't checked that figure, it doesn't matter, say a high percentage) of Republicans, but how many Republicans are there now, compared with when he was elected?

We do seem to have achieved what was promised/threatened in the early days of social media, rule by the lowest common denominator - whatever that means. Rule by the ignorant, bigoted, unimaginative, 'great unwashed' who use their vote to 'get back at' whatever or whoever they perceive as being responsible for their current complaint in any particular moment, or whoever catches their imagination with promises of bread and circuses.

Probably off topic for this thread, but its arguable that Trump and his base are beyond redemption, so the question is what are the rest of the population going to do to rescue the situation? Is the whole country so utterly corrupt that no effort will be made to put in place some sort of rational (whether left or right) government? It doesn't seem to be happening at the moment. And does it matter to the rest of us? Will this admiration for the cult of personality, and ability to accept whatever rubbish is offered, spread to the rest of the world? Is his administration destabilising society?

Is there anything to be said for the arguments put forward by the Trumpists - though granted those arguments on here at any rate are largely limited to 'everyone is bullying us' which is remarkably similar to Trump's own line of argument.

The GOP support figures are intriguing - As you say it's somewhere in the high 80's but I wonder how much of that is support for Trump himself and how much is a "Not Dem" support level. And the Democrat voter support for Trump is the complete inverse.

It seems to me that the US has become so utterly divided and polarised that the actual opportunity for changing someone minds in terms of support is growing smaller by the day.

It used to be that both parties probably had a floor support level somewhere in the low to mid 30's that were immovable in their support for the (D) or the (R) , but it now seems that that floor has moved up for both side to somewhere in the mid 40's as both sides have become more and more entrenched and virulently opposed to the other.

At present it looks like any future elections are going to be decided by an ever decreasing number of voters - Realistically there's maybe 10-15% of the US electorate that would be willing to "change sides" right now.

Trump has shown less than zero interest in appealing to that cohort and to be fair , the Dems aren't doing a great job either in that respect at present.

The upcoming mid-terms seems to be less about changing peoples mind and more about getting them to be bothered to vote. Whoever gets more of their ~45% out on polling day will prevail , but it will do nothing to fix the ever increasing societal problems in the US.

pixelburp · 30-07-2018 2:17pm

Oh yeah, I can echo the sentiments here: the Trump Presidency exhausts me. It's a storm of bullsh*t from the biggest bluffer to occupy a political position since ... I dunno really. Backed up by a ravenous horde of what I can only describe as 'sports fan' supporters who treat the whole thing as an excuse to 'own the libs' over their own insecurity for being sociologically / culturally left behind.

It's near impossible to keep up with the constant barrage of lies, spoofery and brazen, industrialised incompetence the administration demonstrates on a daily basis. Just in the last couple of days, Trump blagged about a private meeting with the NYT owner, said owner having to clarify a bunch of falsehoods Trump claimed. Cue Trump going on an even bigger Twitter rant.

In any other - literally any other - normal, functional democratic cabinet this would be the biggest scandal of the year: with the USA, it's a Monday.

And when the exhaustion manages to coalesce into a point, my thoughts have resigned themselves into an apathetic shrug: why get mad, when the GOP could run a three-legged baby-killing rotweiller and would command a healthy default Republican base of voters - purely because it's not a "Tax and spend, abortion loving" Democrat.

Water John · 30-07-2018 2:25pm

It isn't just that the centre ground, what we in Europe would consider quite right wing, has narrowed to 10/15%, you also have it boiled down to about 6/8 States. The Candidates could actually ignore the other 40+, or 80/85% of the population.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 3:15pm

everlast75 wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It indicated that a salacious and unverified Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC product was in fact the driving force behind the Trump/Russia investigation by the FBI. Each FISA application presented to FISA judges were labeled “VERIFIED APPLICATION.” But reports indicate the information was never verified for accuracy. And apparently Obama’s Justice Department bought into the Steele dossier allegations, seemingly relying only on Steele’s credibility, and without verifying his information.

It confirmed the dossier was not the reason for the FISA.
It confirmed the reason for the FISA was popadopolous and the conduct of Page.
4 republican judges signed off on the warrants.
When the dossier was mentioned the court were advised of the possible motive
The republican party engaged steele to prepare the dossier in the 1st place.

Next conspiracy please?

I disagree. Even though much of the FISA warrants were heavily redacted, it’s pretty clear the FBI used the politically motivated Steele dossier as the primary basis for their applications. Yes it seems the FBI disagrees and claims a Yahoo News article being the primary tool to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page. But court records show that it was Steele himself who briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS, which was the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton and the DNC who was behind the dossier. Remember that James Comey admitted under oath that in January 2017 that when was briefing President-elect Trump on the sensational parts of the dossier he described the document to Trump as salacious and unverified.

The court were advised of the possible motive??? A stretch if I ever saw one -- The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit (Trump being Candidate 1) the campaign.

The FBI identified Trump. So why didn’t they identify and make clear that the source of the dossier was paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Probably because they never would have gotten approval to spy on the Trump team, IMO.

Water John · 30-07-2018 3:24pm

Round and round on The Dossier wheel of fortune again. FBI did not rely alone or even primarily on the Dossier. Primary source was Australian speaking to Popodopolous in London.
Australians inform FBI, hey you have a problem here. Also scanned internet traffic in Cyprus, I think. These were the main flags. But we won't let that get in the way of you version of the truth.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 3:35pm

The pro-Trump view is always not the findings of any detail, but moreover attack the basis of the delivery of the detail.

We can disagree all day about whether the FISA warrant was phony or not - they can take a cause of action in Court if they want, but the fact remains that by his own admission in writing Page admitted to be a Russian advisor.

Michael Cohen's tape indicates strongly that Trump said to pay in cash to buy McDougal's story. Pro-Trumpers complain about how the tape got out rather than admit the implications are that Trump tried to cover up the transaction, or accept that he lied when he said he knew nothing about her or the story.

You cannot rationalise with someone who would rather believe the lie than face the truth.

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2018 3:37pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagree. Even though much of the FISA warrants were heavily redacted, it’s pretty clear the FBI used the politically motivated Steele dossier as the primary basis for their applications. Yes it seems the FBI disagrees and claims a Yahoo News article being the primary tool to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page. But court records show that it was Steele himself who briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS, which was the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton and the DNC who was behind the dossier. Remember that James Comey admitted under oath that in January 2017 that when was briefing President-elect Trump on the sensational parts of the dossier he described the document to Trump as salacious and unverified.

The court were advised of the possible motive??? A stretch if I ever saw one -- The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit (Trump being Candidate 1) the campaign.

The FBI identified Trump. So why didn’t they identify and make clear that the source of the dossier was paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Probably because they never would have gotten approval to spy on the Trump team, IMO.

I look forward to The Donald synopsising this explanation in a tweet that his followers will understand.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 3:40pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I look forward to The Donald synopsising this explanation in a tweet that his followers will understand.

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2018 3:49pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

From the show that gave you 'alternative facts'. Increasingly shrill and desperate. Oh happy day.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 3:50pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

I do wonder where the collusion narrative came from. I can't recall when it was first floated as an idea.

But it is telling that Trump and Guiliani are very heavily stating that collusion is not a crime, but never get into conspiracy (which it is more likely to be) and campaign finance violations.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 3:53pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder where the collusion narrative came from. I can't recall when it was first floated as an idea.

But it is telling that Trump and Guiliani are very heavily stating that collusion is not a crime, but never get into conspiracy (which it is more likely to be) and campaign finance violations.

Tbf Rudy has admitted that they are only rubbishing the investigation as the end game is impeachment and they want the public to apply pressure on their reps not to impeach, so I don't know why the networks keep giving him airtime

Stallingrad · 30-07-2018 3:54pm

I'm beginning to wonder are witnessing the beginning of the end of American democracy. To everyone who says he has achieved nothing and is an idiot and bluffer you've been watching the ball not the player. He has pitted the country against itself, torn the Rupublican party apart and made it a party of 1, neutered the EPA, defunded Planned Parenthood, discredited the media, attacked the judiciary, re-aligned the supreme court, given the wealthy tax breaks, eroded all the markers for what we deem to be acceptable (caged kids?), exposed the myth of a robust democracy, now he's trying to take down the investigation into collusion, I don't need to go on, you all know the score.

He's done little or nothing for the US, but done an astonishing amount in 2 years to achieve what he wants for himself.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 3:56pm

At this point who will the Democrats put up against Trump in 2020? To me it’s looking like the top 3 choices appear to be Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

Biden has stayed low key for the most part. Even so, he’s old and has never gained much support in his prior runs for president. And the other two are far too progressive to appeal to moderate voters.

If the Democrats go with any of these three I foresee a Trump reelection.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 3:56pm

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 4:00pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

The idea was floated at the weekend that he was on speaker phone.. so i wonder is that why he was careful of how he phrased that

Professor Moriarty · 30-07-2018 4:03pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Hmmm. Telephone conferencing? Telephone conversations can be taped. Apparently.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:10pm

This is following the exact same path as all the other stories.

Its a complete fabrication, fake news, anonymous sources.
He didn't do it/know anything about it.
He only knew about it after when he read the papers - fake news etc.
He knew about it but only after it happened.
He knew about it but wasn't involved.
He was involved but not actually there.

It is actually quite amazing that the same trick works every time.

We can be pretty sure, given Guiliani's wording, that Trump was involved in the meeting. Probably by speaker phone, but at the very least he was informed by Trump Jr about it, probably before and certainly afterwards.

Which goes directly against the official WH statement, signed off by POTUS, at the time the story broke.

So now we have the reality that, even if he wasn't involved with the Russians, when the CIA/FBI told him about the Russians attempts to interfere, and knowing what he knew about the Trump Tower meeting, and as such had direct evidence, he choose not only not to tell them about it but to actively try to tell the public that the FBI were in fact wrong.

That is pretty serious stuff.

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:11pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Well it is interesting to note that the narrative being put forward by Rudy is now that "there was no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

He's been crazier than usual today. I wonder if he was made aware of something coming out soon, other than the Manafort trial, that would indicate actual collusion?

I mean, "Collusion isn't a crime anyway" is the talking point that one would use AFTER the "there was no collusion" talking point gets debunked. I don't see why he would push this line just yet unless he knows something we don't.

Oh, I almost forgot something. Giulliani also said that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting. Not physically at the meeting. That's a bit of a weird phrase to use, in my opinion. It opens up all sorts of possibilities.

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

everlast75 · 30-07-2018 4:12pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

I'll engage with you, but only if you accept the facts when they are presented to you.

If you continue to ignore facts and shift the discussion away rather than make an admission, then I for one, am not interested.

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 4:14pm

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea was floated at the weekend that he was on speaker phone.. so i wonder is that why he was careful of how he phrased that

Another possibility is that he knew about it in advance, sent his crew instead of himself and had Junior fill him in immediately afterwards.

Then again, these theories aren't mutually exclusive.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:14pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. Telephone conferencing? Telephone conversations can be taped. Apparently.

Come to think about it, it all starts to make sense why he had such a blowout in terms of Obama wiretapping Trump Tower (which was of course false).

If he heard that the possibility of his conference call being recorded he would have known he was rightly snookered.

Leroy42 · 30-07-2018 4:16pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

You don't think it is illegal to try to buy drugs from a drug dealer? Or go out trying to find a prostitute on the street?

You don't think it is legal to meet a hitman to discuss knocking off your other half?

really? So conspiracy to commit a crime is not an offence?

mcmoustache · 30-07-2018 4:20pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

You're either lying or you're so poorly informed that it may as well make no difference. It's getting ridiculous as this stage.

jooksavage · 30-07-2018 4:23pm

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

Quite a lot wrong with this. The "someone" in question is connected to the Kremlin, not some randomer who lucked upon some salacious gossip. Also, based on your qualifying criteria to make the meeting a crime, presumably we should empty the prisons of those folks who didn't manage to pull off their respective offenses successfully? As Sideshow Bob said "Attempted murder! What is that anyway?! They don't give a Nobel Prize for attempted physics!"

notobtuse · 30-07-2018 4:28pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It's not illegal to meet with someone to find out what they have to offer. And nothing came out of the meeting that was utilized by the campaign.

You're either lying or you're so poorly informed that it may as well make no difference. It's getting ridiculous as this stage.

It really doesn’t matter what I think. Here is what CNN thinks, and they believe the meeting was not illegal. And remember... CNN is absolutely no friend of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Comments