Mock
THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Printable Version

+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (/thread-12806.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - ZEROSPHERES - 08-23-2018

FryGuy, I find the scenario you just described as frightening. This polarization is destroying the country. Can this be their intention?

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Maggot - 08-23-2018

Who are "they"? I see extreme opposition to everything Trump does. The left is attacking every person or organization that sides with Trump in anything. They are also willing to do it violently as has been seen quite a few times. To me they are like toddlers that are told "no" then they go to the ground kicking and screaming in the middle of a store for everyone to see.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Fry Guy - 08-23-2018

(08-23-2018, 09:51 AM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: FryGuy, I find the scenario you just described as frightening. This polarization is destroying the country. Can this be their intention?

It depends who the THEY in the equation is. If it is true that Progressives on the Left have been Authoritarian and othered those that present different political views by calling them Deplorables, Nazis, racists, sexists, xenophobic and the like and censoring, outing, banning, firing and excluding those people with differing points of view.....then YES.

But if what you are saying is that Trump reacting and responding in a way that his opponents have laid precedent with going after him, then probably not.

I am not a huge proponent of strictly traditional values. I understand them and such but I do not think I could be a Conservative myself. But the average Conservative IF I do not agree with everything I say will not react like the Progressives. I think that Progressives and the Establishment is the problem at the moment and Trump is likely the best person of our generation to do anything about it.

Now in another era it may have been Abraham Lincoln or Washington or JFK or Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill. Right here and right now I think Trump is that guy and in a funny way I think he flaws are not only an acceptable trade off but perhaps necessary.

I think by the time he is through there will be a fair bit of carnage. I think some really bad actors will be put away and no one or two. I think the establishment on both sides will get hammered and there will as a result be a cultural shift as the decimated and divided Democrat Party will have to go be to traditionally moderate Liberal values. Voila, back to my territory. I think there is far more strength in that and I think it was our fault we let Progressives have too much of a platform.

I think going back to the roots of Liberalism and promoting reasonable views and working co-operatively with the Conservatives and getting a bit of humility back. Not being the font of all morality and wisdom but rather being people with different ideas worth defending and promoting. Whilst excluding the Progressives. I think if Liberals can go through this reformation as a result of Trump dominance and Conservative dominance then they can save or claim back Liberalism and be stronger and better in the long run for it.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - HairOfTheDog - 08-23-2018

(08-21-2018, 04:57 PM)Duchess Wrote: The president's former campaign chairman has been found guilty of 8 felony counts.

I saw a member of the Virginia Manafort jury, Paula Duncan, interviewed last night.  She said that there was one hold out regarding the 10 counts on which the jury hung.  

No matter how hard the rest of the jury tried and showed the hold out juror the document evidence, that sole juror wouldn't budge.

Duncan described herself as an avid Trump supporter who wanted Manafort to be innocent.  She seemed to be swayed by the defense's argument (which aligns with the claims in the tweets that Trump sends out frequently) that Manafort wouldn't have been on trial at this time had he not been connected to Trump.  

Duncan also said the document evidence made it clear that Manafort was guilty as charged on all counts and that some of the jurors felt Rick Gates couldn't be trusted because he'd 'flipped' on Manafort and taken a plea deal.  In the end, the jurors agreed to disregard Gates' testimony altogether and focused on the paper evidence.

Duncan noted that the prosecutors sometimes seemed bored and like they were cat-napping.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/23/manafort-juror-reveals-lone-holdout-prevented-mueller-team-from-winning-conviction-on-all-counts.html

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - HairOfTheDog - 08-23-2018

Juror feedback is valuable for both the defense and prosecution to consider as they strategize heading into Manafort's second trial in DC in September.

I wish President Trump would stop commenting on the ongoing criminal investigations, but that train is never headed back to the station. Presidents should always avoid public statements that can influence the jury pool, in my opinion. I've never seen a President do it frequently and aggressively in the past.

I think the system and process worked largely as designed in the first Manafort trial despite all the public comments from the White House and hope the same holds true in the DC case. Based on Duncan's account, the Virginian jury simply focused on the evidence they considered reliable, as it should be.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Duchess - 08-23-2018

(08-23-2018, 10:39 AM)Maggot Wrote: The left is attacking every person or organization that sides with Trump in anything. They are also willing to do it violently as has been seen quite a few times.

Can you give some examples of that? I'm trying to recall what I've seen the past few years and what stands out to me are those walking through the streets with torches, you know who I mean, trump referred to them as good people on both sides, they are the same people that murdered a girl by running her down.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Duchess - 08-23-2018

(08-23-2018, 10:55 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I saw a member of the Virginia Manafort jury, Paula Duncan, interviewed last night.  She said that there was one hold out regarding the 10 counts on which the jury hung. 

I didn't see the interview live but I've seen some of it this morning. It's downright bizarre that the one juror remained steadfast even in the face of all the proof of wrong doing. It was right there in black & white and she remained unmoved. Facts did not matter to her.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Fry Guy - 08-23-2018

(08-23-2018, 11:01 AM)Duchess Wrote:
(08-23-2018, 10:39 AM)Maggot Wrote: The left is attacking every person or organization that sides with Trump in anything. They are also willing to do it violently as has been seen quite a few times.

Can you give some examples of that? I'm trying to recall what I've seen the past few years and what stands out to me are those walking through the streets with torches, you know who I mean, trump referred to them as good people on both sides, they are the same people that murdered a girl by running her down.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/07/05/rap-sheet-acts-of-media-approved-violence-and-harassment-against-trump-supporters/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFRHX6glTSM

By the way who exactly was Trump referring to? I mean you are not going to pretend that he was calling the Neo-nazis there good people? You DO know that there were peaceful people there opposing having statues torn down and such. People who were good people on the other side to the folk that wanted to tear down statues and who were not against the Right. They did not drive into anyone or kill anyone and were good people and need to be recognise.

It would rise to the level of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that there were peaceful people on one side and the other side was all nasty Neo-nazis who were trying to kill the peaceful Leftists.

You are NOT pretending this was the state of things. You are also NOT saying that Trump was saying that the NeoNazis were good people.

So that said, and understanding that there WERE ABSOLUTELY terrible Antifa scum on one side, and people who were for removing statues and against the White Supremacists on the same side. In the same way there was ABSOLUTELY some scum White Supremacists on the other side as well as some people who wanted to preserve statues and the like.

Good people on both sides despite the fact that someone was killed and the person killed was by one person on from one side of this. BOTH can exist simultaneously. NOTHING wrong in what he said. You may not like it because that poor lady died BUT he was truthfully and factual.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Duchess - 08-23-2018

Breitbart? No, hah but thanks...I guess.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Fry Guy - 08-23-2018

Which of those facts are incorrect.

Which of those attacks did NOT happen?

What exactly is wrong. I know you do not like the name or reputation BUT which is correct.

It would be really silly to ask for evidence and then reject evidence without looking it and I do not think you are a silly lady. I have a lot of time for you

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Duchess - 08-23-2018

(08-23-2018, 11:28 AM)Fry Guy Wrote: I have a lot of time for you

That's so lovely of you to say and I sure do appreciate reading that.

There is nothing that you are anyone else in the world could say that could get me to change my opinion of trump. He is a reprehensible, morally bankrupt individual. I'd even go so far as to say he's a sadist without a single redeeming quality. I loathe him with the heat of a thousand suns. I wouldn't give him credit if he found a cure for cancer because everything else he has done would overshadow even that. He is the most fucked up person of my lifetime.

I'm someone who has always sat a little more to the right than to the left, I could even identify as a republican if it wasn't for my thoughts on being socially responsible for those who haven't been as fortunate as I've been. I LIKE to help people, it is my extreme pleasure to give people a helping hand and I care about the environment too. There is no republican party these days, it's gone.

I didn't read the Breitbart article because I don't consider them to be a legitimate news source. I view them as being in the same category as fox news.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Maggot - 08-23-2018

Are they "fake news"?   Because there's a ton of that going around.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Fry Guy - 08-23-2018

I used to happily source and reference everything with the well established and highly credible publications like The New York Times and Washington Post. The last few years they have sunk their credibility with the animus against Trump. Retraction after editors note after hitpiece. They are fake news

Not to say that right publications are better. But that is the thing, they are now on par. When you read these articles it HAS to be with the understanding the publication you read has political bias that colours what you read. You are reading what is made to relate and reinforce its reader's beliefs.

Duchess you asked for instances I gave you 300 cited sources, which can be reference and your response is you don't like the source. Left leaning sources are not going to tell you inconvenient truths about the Left....and visa versa.

If you really just prefer to hear the views you want to hear spouted back at you then read publications that hold the views you like, but don't then either be surprised you haven't read anything contrary and don't ask for anyone to show you.

I read a variety and watch a variety. Its all biased but you take it with a bucket of salt and tease out truths and facts amoungst it and what is speculation, wishful thinking and blind hope.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - ZEROSPHERES - 08-23-2018

[Image: giphy.gif]

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - HairOfTheDog - 08-24-2018

Different day, more crap seeping out of Trump and company...

[Image: 180823-jeff-sessions-trump-feature.jpg?q...410&crop=1]

Once again today, Trump publicly berated Attorney General Sessions for following the law and recusing himself from the Russian interference investigation.  Trump told a FOX interviewer that he only hired Sessions because Sessions worked on his campaign and was loyal to him.  

This time, Sessions (the first Senator to endorse Trump) hit back with a public statement to the effect that as long as he is Attorney General, the Justice Department will not sacrifice  law in order to represent anyone's political interests.  Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45286906

It's being reported across various media sources that Trump is planning to fire Sessions after the midterms.  I believe those reports are likely accurate because even Lindsey Graham, who fiercely defended Sessions last year and said firing Sessions would be a terrible move, today seemed to be setting the stage and toeing the line.    Ref: https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/graham-trump-should-hold-off-firing-sessions-until-after-midterms/

Sessions is the Attorney General of the U.S. and represents the people of this country.  He is not a personal lawyer for Donald J. Trump.  Trump is either unable or unwilling to understand/respect the separation of powers doctrine and the role of the U.S. AG.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - HairOfTheDog - 08-24-2018

Also today, this toothy Pecker, a long-time buddy of Trump, made the headlines.

[Image: gettyimages-137895227.jpg?quality=90&str...410&crop=1]

David Pecker is the CEO of AMI, which publishes the tabloid National Enquirer.  

The National Enquirer ran all kinds of false and salacious stories about Trump's competitors during the primaries and then focused more of the same against Hillary Clinton once she became the Democrat nominee running against Trump.

We know now that shortly before election day the National Enquirer also pretended to buy,  for the sake of publishing, the stories of Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, both of whom claimed to have had relations with Trump.  

Instead, the paper gave them the money, had the women sign NDAs, and buried the stories to protect Trump.  The arrangement was coordinated by Michael Cohen, who recently released a tape of his discussion with Trump about the plan for McDougal before the deal went down.  

Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney and 'fixer', pleaded guilty on Tuesday to 8 counts of campaign finance violations, tax evasion, and making false statements.  He implicated candidate Trump when he said he was carrying out Trump's orders.

So back to Pecker...............the case against Cohen relies, in part, on his collusion with Pecker to protect Trump.  Today it was reported that Pecker was granted immunity from the federal prosecutors for his cooperation in the Cohen investigation.  That means that if Pecker committed a crime or crimes, he won't be charged if he tells the truth about what transpired.

Today, Trump (who previously denied knowing anything about any of it)  told the FOX interviewer that he paid the hush money to the two women himself.  He said that wasn't a crime and wasn't a campaign finance violation.  Well, if there's evidence and/or witness testimony which proves that Trump hushed the women so as not to hurt his election chances, it is in fact a campaign finance crime since Trump didn't declare the payouts as campaign contributions.  

Stay tuned for more shady shit, double-talking, and back-tracking.

Refs:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pecker-granted-immunity-in-cohen-case-1535041976
https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/david-pecker-looks-to-raise-425m-amid-trump-controversies/

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - ZEROSPHERES - 08-24-2018

The indictments filed in New York against Trump's co-conspirators are immune from Presidential Pardon. Trump has to reconsider his ability to use the pardon as an enticement to get them to protect him. There is no incentive for them to not reveal the truth about his dealings and those of his sons and daughter.

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - HairOfTheDog - 08-24-2018

(08-24-2018, 12:45 AM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: The indictments filed in New York against Trump's co-conspirators are immune from Presidential Pardon. Trump has to reconsider his ability to use the pardon as an enticement to get them to protect him. There is no incentive for them to not reveal the truth about his dealings and those of his sons and daughter.

Yep.  A President does not have the power to pardon anyone convicted in state court (including himself).  The presidential pardon only applies to federal convictions.

The investigation into the Trump Foundation's financials is going down in state court.  If the Trump Organization is also under investigation, that's likely being done at the New York state level as well.  Both organizations are being headed by Ivanka, Donald Jr, and Eric Trump, if I recall correctly.

Edit / Correction:  Ivanka stepped down from the board of directors at the same time as President Trump.   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/nyregion/attorney-general-trump-lawsuit.html

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Duchess - 08-24-2018

(08-24-2018, 12:27 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Once again today, Trump publicly berated Attorney General Sessions for following the law and recusing himself from the Russian interference investigation.  Trump told a FOX interviewer that he only hired Sessions because Sessions worked on his campaign and was loyal to him.  

This time, Sessions (the first Senator to endorse Trump) hit back with a public statement to the effect that as long as he is Attorney General, the Justice Department will not sacrifice  law in order to represent anyone's political interests.  Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45286906

It's being reported across various media sources that Trump is planning to fire Sessions after the midterms.  I believe those reports are likely accurate because even Lindsey Graham, who fiercely defended Sessions last year and said firing Sessions would be a terrible move, today seemed to be setting the stage and toeing the line.    Ref: https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/graham-trump-should-hold-off-firing-sessions-until-after-midterms/

Sessions is the Attorney General of the U.S. and represents the people of this country.  He is not a personal lawyer for Donald J. Trump.  Trump is either unable or unwilling to understand/respect the separation of powers doctrine and the role of the U.S. AG.

I watched Lindsey make that statement. He kept his eyes downcast, he wasn't really engaged with the people around him. I suppose that's not so unusual given his disdain for the media, I just thought it odd not to make eye contact with the people talking to him.

As an aside, Rand Paul is a goddamn weirdo, who the hell lobbies for what the Russians want over what is good for America. Jesus.

I just saw a headline stating that the White House is blocking a bipartisan bill designed to protect our elections from the Russians. Why? WhyWhyWhy? Their own DNI says the threat to our election is blinking red.

With everything that is going on in regards to this circus of an administration do you know what the House Judiciary Committee is working on today? Guess! Secretary Clinton's emails, yup, her emails.   28

RE: THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY - Fry Guy - 08-24-2018

What do you imagine is good for America in relation to Russia and what do you think President Trump SHOULD have done and what Rand Paul should support?

BEFORE you answer I want you to consider:

In 2015 Russia invaded and annexed Crimea from Ukraine



https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-obama-yemen-ukraine-russia-merkel-mueller-islamic-state-perspec-0213-20150212-story.html

He sent fucking blankets and socks. THESE sources meet your standard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

The next year Obama was President prior to Trump both winning the election and taking office. Russia hacked the election. What did Obama do?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/obama-putin-hacking-news-conference.html

Yup "Cut it out". Impressive.

Trump was not in office for any of that. But what did he do any way?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/1/advanced-us-missile-system-arrives-ukraine/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/javelin-missiles-for-ukraine-1514237429

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-expels-60-russian-officers-shuts-seattle-consulate-in-response-to-attack-on-former-spy-in-britain/2018/03/26/8ada3d8e-30f0-11e8-8bdd-cdb33a5eef83_story.html?utm_term=.d321ad52bcd9

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/world/europe/kremlin-russia-trump-list.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-impose-fresh-sanctions-against-russia/2018/04/04/bc09e0b8-3851-11e8-b57c-9445cc4dfa5e_story.html?utm_term=.fb5bbbfef09c

These facts credible?

Arming their enemies, kicking out the most diplomats ever and sanctions.

Worst puppet of Putin ever, am I right?



Now that said Russia HAS been punished by this and only a moron would imagine this has no effect. (Yes there are some so ideologically blind, they think he is a puppet despite this).

SO Trump has shown force BUT he HAS to still have a relationship with Putin and a war or cold war benefits no one. Putin is ALWAYS going to deny interference and has been punished already SO what is left? What is GOOD for America?

That is right, good old diplomacy. Thanks Trump and Paul for being entirely reasonable and rational about Russia. Right? No? He ought to have pulled out a gun and shot Putin? What then?

Maybe he should have just told him to "Cut it out". Nothing like double standards of expectations.