Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[Garson007]

This meeting wasn't known about before a few days ago, though? It's one of the things Donny Jr. lied about.

What reason do we have to think there's a tape of this? Trump constantly makes up these 'threats' that he's taping people, or in this case he made up that Obama was taping him.

I'm just spitballing.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Pretty succinct and accurate explanation of Trump's worldview:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-russia-election-putin-meeting-2017-7

Trump doesn’t really believe in institutions or rules. He doesn’t like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act because he thinks it’s inconvenient not to be able to bribe foreign officials. He doesn’t see any reason a president shouldn’t try to get the FBI director to stop an investigation into one of his close associates. He took the position that the pledge obligating Republican presidential candidates to support the party’s eventual nominee was binding if he was the nominee and optional if somebody else was the nominee.

So why would Trump care about an abstract concept like “the United States should resist foreign interference in our elections?”

Instead of heeding rules and institutions, Trump follows a simple principle of his own: Things that are good for Trump are good, and things that are bad for Trump are bad.

So, leaning on the FBI director is definitely bad if you’re doing it to benefit one of Trump’s political opponents, but it’s fine if you’re doing it to benefit one of his friends. The GOP candidate pledge didn’t bind him because he had been treated “unfairly,” but once he won the nomination it was horrible that some of his defeated opponents wouldn’t endorse him.

Obviously, Trump would think foreign election interference was bad if the interference had been against him. But if the interference was for him? What’s wrong with that? Maybe that’s even a good thing.

Of course, it would be politically problematic for Trump to come out and say he doesn’t care if Putin interfered on his behalf. Acting like he’s not sure the Russians did anything gives him a pretext for his choice not to do anything to them in return.

 

[AfricanTech]

@realDonaldTrump
If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother,as her mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES!

@ChelseaClinton
Chelsea Clinton Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Good morning Mr. President. It would never have occurred to my mother or my father to ask me. Were you giving our country away? Hoping not.

:crylaugh:

 

[OrbitalDawn]

:crylaugh:

https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart/status/884583174390632448

When Malia Obama + David Axelrod held secret meeting to get anti-Romney info from govt of Iran, Republicans said it was just fine

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Pretty succinct and accurate explanation of Trump's worldview:
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-russia-election-putin-meeting-2017-7

:crylaugh: that is neither succinct nor accurate, do I need to put my left-leaning glasses on before reading it? All I see is an obvious agenda without even a single attempt at making it look like anything else.

 

[Garson007]

:crylaugh: that is neither succinct nor accurate, do I need to put my left-leaning glasses on before reading it? All I see is an obvious agenda without even a single attempt at making it look like anything else.

Once a narrative is established it's impossible to get rid of. Hillary knows this /very/ well.

 

[cerebus]

:crylaugh: that is neither succinct nor accurate, do I need to put my left-leaning glasses on before reading it? All I see is an obvious agenda without even a single attempt at making it look like anything else.

It certainly explains the very obvious double standard that Trump has applied to identical behaviours, depending on whether they benefit him or an adversary.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

It certainly explains the very obvious double standard that Trump has applied to identical behaviours, depending on whether they benefit him or an adversary.

Double standards? Won't be surprised in the least, we're not talking about someone familiar with the moral high ground here :crylaugh:

But "identical behaviours" would depend on the specific example, the dinner he had at his one resort (or whatever it was) where classified information may or may not have been discussed was compared far and wide in the press to Hillary's decade long spree of compromising classified information.

There's no way in hell that is identical, the sheer volume of one vs the other makes it different, then mix in the fact that the POTUS has the power to classify/declassify information at will legally, whereas the Secretary of State does not and it becomes even more laughable to compare the two.

That is but one example.

 

[cerebus]

Double standards? Won't be surprised in the least, we're not talking about someone familiar with the moral high ground here :crylaugh:

But "identical behaviours" would depend on the specific example, the dinner he had at his one resort (or whatever it was) where classified information may or may not have been discussed was compared far and wide in the press to Hillary's decade long spree of compromising classified information.

There's no way in hell that is identical, the sheer volume of one vs the other makes it different, then mix in the fact that the POTUS has the power to classify/declassify information at will legally, whereas the Secretary of State does not and it becomes even more laughable to compare the two.

That is but one example.

Plenty of examples, the James Comey firing being the most blatant. He had nothing but praise to say about Comey for releasing Hillary's emails during his own campaign, but when it came to the Russian investigation, he fired him and then backtracked to say it was because of Hillary's emails.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Plenty of examples, the James Comey firing being the most blatant. He had nothing but praise to say about Comey for releasing Hillary's emails during his own campaign, but when it came to the Russian investigation, he fired him and then backtracked to say it was because of Hillary's emails.

That's another pathetic example, Comey has done a bang up job of discrediting himself and the FBI, Obama should have fired him actually, but of course he was never going to fire such a valuable campaign contributor.

Comey deserved to be fired 100 times over, f-him and the horse he rode in on. Whatever Trump's motivation, it doesn't seem like Comey had much in terms of the Russia investigation anyway, no smoking gun certainly or it would already be all over the news given how he leaked classified info despite his lofty super spy position.

 

[cerebus]

That's another pathetic example, Comey has done a bang up job of discrediting himself and the FBI, Obama should have fired him actually, but of course he was never going to fire such a valuable campaign contributor.

Comey deserved to be fired 100 times over, f-him and the horse he rode in on. Whatever Trump's motivation, it doesn't seem like Comey had much in terms of the Russia investigation anyway, no smoking gun certainly or it would already be all over the news given how he leaked classified info despite his lofty super spy position.

Yeah, if Comey was doing such a bang-up job of discrediting himself and the FBI, Trump shouldn't have been singing his praises when Comey's work benefited him.

 

[AfricanTech]

https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart/status/884583174390632448

How many do you think will think that's actually true

 

[Garson007]

Plenty of examples, the James Comey firing being the most blatant. He had nothing but praise to say about Comey for releasing Hillary's emails during his own campaign, but when it came to the Russian investigation, he fired him and then backtracked to say it was because of Hillary's emails.

Nothing in any of this seems weird. Trump fired him because he had the recommendation to do so (based on Clinton's emails) and he wasn't pleased with the way he was handling the Russian collusion narrative, even after privately telling Trump he isn't under investigation.

 

[cerebus]

Nothing in any of this seems weird. Trump fired him because he had the recommendation to do so (based on Clinton's emails) and he wasn't pleased with the way he was handling the Russian collusion narrative, even after privately telling Trump he isn't under investigation.

No, none of it seems at all weird, that's why Comey had to testify before Congress and it was televised everywhere, and Trump changed his story. Completely normal, nothing to see here.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Yeah, if Comey was doing such a bang-up job of discrediting himself and the FBI, Trump shouldn't have been singing his praises when Comey's work benefited him.

Trump's gonna Trump, he's a reality TV star after all ... the anti-Trump brigade however better learn the lesson damn fast that their tactics are reflecting worse on them than him with these incessant, boring attacks that are devoid of evidence.

Build your case properly if you truly believe there is one, try him in the court of law instead of the media, or STFU. Nobody needs 4 (or 8 the way this is going) years of this bullcrap.

 

[Gnarls]

Trump's gonna Trump, he's a reality TV star after all ... the anti-Trump brigade however better learn the lesson damn fast that their tactics are reflecting worse on them than him with these incessant, boring attacks that are devoid of evidence.

Build your case properly if you truly believe there is one, try him in the court of law instead of the media, or STFU. Nobody needs 4 (or 8 the way this is going) years of this bullcrap.

But muh ratings!

 

[cerebus]

Trump's gonna Trump, he's a reality TV star after all ... the anti-Trump brigade however better learn the lesson damn fast that their tactics are reflecting worse on them than him with these incessant, boring attacks that are devoid of evidence.

Build your case properly if you truly believe there is one, try him in the court of law instead of the media, or STFU. Nobody needs 4 (or 8 the way this is going) years of this bullcrap.

The media can only report on what is known, as it becomes known. For instance, the Trump Jr story came out yesterday, and then this morning NYT reported on the email. None of them are claiming that there's a smoking gun in any of it, but it sure isn't a good look.

 

[Unhappy438]

Yes Wolf, try Hillary in a court of law or STFU.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The media can only report on what is known, as it becomes known. For instance, the Trump Jr story came out yesterday, and then this morning NYT reported on the email. None of them are claiming that there's a smoking gun in any of it, but it sure isn't a good look.

They can report objectively on what is known, I've yet to see them try. We already have the "Kremlin-connected" statement without any evidence backing it up, that is the opposite of objective reporting.

 

[cerebus]

They can report objectively on what is known, I've yet to see them try. We already have the "Kremlin-connected" statement without any evidence backing it up, that is the opposite of objective reporting.

The article reported that the email contents were verified by "three people with knowledge of the email." The fact that the leaks were anonymous doesn't make it less objective. It's either fake or it isn't, but journalists are allowed to report on anonymous sources.