President Trump talking to journalists on Air Force One

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:34 am

On the way to France yesterday. I don't know what to say, except that its going to be a long four years for the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/us/p ... cript.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buxtonclaret · Post by **Buxtonclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:14 am

Scarey.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:20 am

His stupidity is unpresidented.

mikeS · Post by **mikeS** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:30 am

Que for a song...
https://youtu.be/oJBHWgB5Vpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:37 am

It sounds like severe head trauma

criminalclaret · Post by **criminalclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:46 am

On North Korea, China, and trade
They have an 8,000 year culture. So when they see 1776 — to them, that’s like a modern building. The White House was started — was essentially built in 1799. To us, that’s really old. To them, that’s like a super modern building, right?

There are drunk toddlers who who can speak more adult like than this clown. They'd probably be less petulant as well.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:46 am

Rambling a bit, seems confused. How old is he now?

ExistentialWanderer · Post by **ExistentialWanderer** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:52 am

NottsClaret wrote:Rambling a bit, seems confused. How old is he now?

Young enough to have his eyes on Macron's wife. Mind you that's not difficult and probably is the polar opposite of him and his wife. If Trump scored an older woman he'd be impeached for necrophilia alone!

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:58 am

While some of the things he says and tweets beggar belief I do think there is a concerted effort by the establishment to undermine Mr Trump at every opportunity.

As a political animal he is a complete amateur and often speaks with the gut instead of seeking advise and formulating responses - but that is what the people voted for; emotional human responses rather than the mechanical official line. I think given chance it would be interesting to see how much of what he comes out with is actioned in reality. It will not happen though, he'll be impeached and probably before Christmas, for good or ill.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:02 am

Based on what?

They report what he says, and what he does.

Its not their fault he talks **** and doesn't understand the difference between being a boss of a company and being President of the United States.

ExistentialWanderer · Post by **ExistentialWanderer** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:07 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Based on what?

They report what he says, and what he does.

Its not their fault he talks **** and doesn't understand the difference between being a boss of a company and being President of the United States.

In fairness, they don't really need to report anything other than what he Tweets. That in itself will probably get him impeached.
All this fake news crap is a smokescreen. The guy clearly is out of his depth and his list of appointed aides reads like a who's, who of dodgy businessmen and financiers. Now who does that remind me of?!...........

Bush!

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:09 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Based on what?

They report what he says, and what he does.

Its not their fault he talks **** and doesn't understand the difference between being a boss of a company and being President of the United States.

He does talk some complete tosh... and that is my point, he is not a career politician - he speaks from the gut; and I'm sure regrets it as often as not. What he needs to learn fast is not to open his mouth until he has got the facts and the input of those he employs to help him. Well he? I very much doubt it.

I find it interesting that the Impeachment process hasn't already started; I can only surmise that despite the seemingly endless stream of ill advised (or rather unadvised) stream of crap he comes out with - he has not actually done anything wrong... that they can yet prove; which is why what his son came out with and who gave the authority for him to talk to his Russian contacts could and probably will end his Presidency.

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:20 am

As far as Statecraft goes, Trump makes Dubya Bush look like Franklin D Roosevelt.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:30 am

Lord Beamish wrote:As far as Statecraft goes, Trump makes Dubya Bush look like Franklin D Roosevelt.

You have a point

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:26 pm

It would have been great if we'd had 24 hour news, social media etc when Ronald Reagan was president in the 80s. A right wing patriot, average actor - I bet he said plenty of things which would scare the crap out of us now.

Different times etc...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:59 pm

Guich wrote:It would have been great if we'd had 24 hour news, social media etc when Ronald Reagan was president in the 80s. A right wing patriot, average actor - I bet he said plenty of things which would scare the crap out of us now.

Different times etc...

I don't agree. Trump has been a racist **** for decades, long before social media and 24-hour news was a thing. And i don't think there's any reason to question Reagan's loyalty to his country like there is with Trump and his family.

For example, can you imagine Reagan having a son who attends a meeting with a russian government lawyer and a former Soviet spy in order to receive documents from a supportive Russian government in order to help him get elected?

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:38 pm

I'm with you on your view of Trump IT, I'm just saying we didn't hear more than a fraction of what Reagan did or said and, from what we did, he was clearly unsuitable for the job at the outset. You're right, Trump's a much more unsavoury character.

But I would expect even the most naïve of presidential candidates to at least listen to someone who claims to have damaging information on their opponent. If it turns out to be nothing then fair enough. The fact that the offer came from Russia, of course, does make for more excitement for Cold War enthusiasts.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:12 pm

Guich wrote:I'm with you on your view of Trump IT, I'm just saying we didn't hear more than a fraction of what Reagan did or said and, from what we did, he was clearly unsuitable for the job at the outset. You're right, Trump's a much more unsavoury character.

But I would expect even the most naïve of presidential candidates to at least listen to someone who claims to have damaging information on their opponent. If it turns out to be nothing then fair enough. The fact that the offer came from Russia, of course, does make for more excitement for Cold War enthusiasts.

In 1968 the Russians sought to help the Democrats and the Dems refused it. In 2000 the Democratic candidate was anonymously sent tapes of George Bush's debate preparations and he reported it to the FBI. Naivity isn't an excuse. This is three people walking into a meeting knowing that they're attempting to collude with a foreign national to receive help from the Russian government to win an American general election, it was illegal. And not just a little bit illegal either. You have to be particularly corrupt to even take such a meeting, and you have to be working for someone particularly corrupt to think they'd want you to.

Edit: Also, Paul Manafort was the campaign manager at the time. He definitely knew what was going on. There's no way he didn't know it was illegal.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:23 pm

I'll bow to your deeper knowledge of this IT. I assumed it was information potentially damaging to Clinton's reputation, rather than the democrats campaign/strategy plans. Would the latter be illegal and the former not?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:44 pm

Guich wrote:I'll bow to your deeper knowledge of this IT. I assumed it was information potentially damaging to Clinton's reputation, rather than the democrats campaign/strategy plans. Would the latter be illegal and the former not?

No, you were right. It was supposed to be damaging to Clinton in some way.

criminalclaret · Post by **criminalclaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:50 pm

The thing that I can't get my head around is the Trump team seem to have no understanding of the word 'intent'. They believe they did the right thing by walking out of the meeting when they realised there was no substance to it. What they can't seem to admit is that went their intentionally because they believed their campaign would be helped enormously by this information.

It's like breaking into a house, rummaging around, walking away empty handed when you couldn't find the jewellery, and then trying to justify it to the police officer that caught you that you never actually took anything so you didn't really do anything wrong. And then convince yourself that its totally OK to do that.

Un-be-f*ckin-leivable.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:06 pm

A long 8 years you mean 2nd term very likely looking at the state the Dems are in ! I mean who is their leader ?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:12 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:A long 8 years you mean 2nd term very likely looking at the state the Dems are in ! I mean who is their leader ?

Tom Perez

But i think you're talking about who is their leading candidate for president, am I right? It's 3.5 years to the election. Why do you think an opposition party should have a clear frontrunner? 12 years ago it wasn't Barack Obama.

And what quality do you think Trump has that makes you think that he's going to get re-elected after being the fastest president in history to acheive a majority disapproval rating. What is it about him that makes you think he's going to turn that around?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:14 pm

criminalclaret wrote:The thing that I can't get my head around is the Trump team seem to have no understanding of the word 'intent'. They believe they did the right thing by walking out of the meeting when they realised there was no substance to it. What they can't seem to admit is that went their intentionally because they believed their campaign would be helped enormously by this information.

It's like breaking into a house, rummaging around, walking away empty handed when you couldn't find the jewellery, and then trying to justify it to the police officer that caught you that you never actually took anything so you didn't really do anything wrong. And then convince yourself that its totally OK to do that.

Un-be-f*ckin-leivable.

Trump tried to blame Obama. I'm not kidding. He blamed the Obama administration for allowing Veselnitskaya being in the country.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:29 pm

Since when have approval ratings counted for anything? or anything that comes from the US MSM
Clinton was something like 90% likely to win the week of the election whether you lads like it or not
Trump has massive support but as his side don't own 90% of the media it doesn't reach the news..

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:39 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Since when have approval ratings counted for anything? or anything that comes from the US MSM
Clinton was something like 90% likely to win the week of the election whether you lads like it or not
Trump has massive support but as his side don't own 90% of the media it doesn't reach the news..

I believe 538 had Trump at a 30% chance of winning. But even if they has him at 10% that doesn't mean they were wrong. Sometimes the 1 in 10 outcome happens.

And approval ratings have been a massively important tool to measure public perception of job performance throughout their history. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise? Or is this just one of your "it feels true so it must be true" opinions.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:52 pm

Well he did win ...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:07 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Well he did win ...

And he did collude.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:37 pm

Bullshit and deep down you know it...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:34 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Bullshit and deep down you know it...

Keep telling yourself that. I promise you don't look ridiculous when you try to tell others.

RattyClaret · Post by **RattyClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:40 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And he did collude.

Evidence?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:40 pm

RattyClaret wrote:Evidence?

Fill your boots

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpInvestigation/wiki/doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RattyClaret · Post by **RattyClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:53 pm

Yeah cause Reddit is such a creditable source of facts and evidence

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:24 pm

The problem with turtle and his crew is just like Brexit they just cannot bring theirselves to accept that the majority voted against them and it's the same with Trump he won fair and square in fact the way Soros and the Dems are trying to block a Independant commission investigating voter fraud probably by a bigger margin ! No collusion just desperate delusion..

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 2:58 am

RattyClaret wrote:Yeah cause Reddit is such a creditable source of facts and evidence

Lol. Reddit isn't the source for any of those facts.

Even Fox News' two decent reporters have seen the light.
https://twitter.com/LeanneNaramore/stat ... 9875262465" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Shep's right. People like you who deny, and deny, and deny the facts and evidence that has already mount up and is continuing to mount every day are going to look around one day and realise that the rest of us were right from the beginning. But you're going to be either too prideful or too scared to embrace the truth with the rest of us. So i'll make this deal with you. Bo back through that Reddit page - because you obviously didn't go through it in the first place - so go through it, review each source. Do it with an open mind and if you come out the other side still convinced that Trump is completely innocent of any crimes then fine. I'll still make fun of you but fine. But if you come out the otherside thinking that there is inface something to investigate because it all looks dodgy as ****, i promise not to make fun of you for getting to the same place as the rest of us late, and instead embrace the fact that you turned up at all.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:02 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:The problem with turtle and his crew is just like Brexit they just cannot bring theirselves to accept that the majority voted against them and it's the same with Trump he won fair and square in fact the way Soros and the Dems are trying to block a Independant commission investigating voter fraud probably by a bigger margin ! No collusion just desperate delusion..

It's always Soros with you crackpots, isn't it? Last i check the number of states refusing to submit the voter data to the Trump's voter suppression commission (sorry, i means voter fraud commission) was up to 48. Yes, 48 out of 50. And since about two-thirds of all the states are Republican controlled you're saying that George Soros is paying off the Republican governors and Secretaries of State, or something. Because the majority of those state refusing Trump's request are Republican.

And it's hilarious that you retards can see that there should be an investigation into voter fraud when there's zero evidence of it, yet can't see any reason to investigate Trump and Russia despite mountains of evidence of a cover-up.

Edit: And the lies are continuing. https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/sour ... 20831.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kushner is saying that the reason he didn't disclose these hundreds of foreign contacts is because a staffer prematurely hit send on the form. The form requires a wet signature.

Why all these lies if there's no case to answer? If these people were completely innocent then why are all of them trying to cover up perfectly innocent meetings by failing to disclose them either on official forms, or in front of congress, when failing to do so could see them in prison? There's huge evidence of a cover-up, everwhere you look there's a lie or an omission that looks like a lie intended to cover up a more damning truth. That's the massive amount of smoke, and from Trump Jr.'s emails we saw the first flames of a fire that might end up being a raging inferno behind all that smoke.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:39 am

So turtle let's say you get your way and Trump gets impeached but then it becomes undeniably apparent it was false allegations and lies,
would you as a liberal with integrity speak out and insist he be reinstated? I think we know the answer and the reason is as I said before you simply cannot accept that the majority or Americans preferred him to HC,democracy for some is a hard pill to swallow..

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:00 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:I think we know the answer and the reason is as I said before you simply cannot accept that the majority or Americans preferred him to HC

No they didn't.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:16 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:So turtle let's say you get your way and Trump gets impeached but then it becomes undeniably apparent it was false allegations and lies,
would you as a liberal with integrity speak out and insist he be reinstated? I think we know the answer and the reason is as I said before you simply cannot accept that the majority or Americans preferred him to HC,democracy for some is a hard pill to swallow..

Firstly, there is no constitutional mechanism by which someone can be appointed president outside the presidential line of succession so the question wouldn't make any sense. The only way a president can be reinstated was if he was removed in accordance with the 25th amendment and was either reinstated by the cabinet, or successfully fought it. There is a process by which a president can fight an unwilling removal through the 25th but i've forgotten exactly how. I'm looking it up. (Edit: a president can reverse his/her unwilling removal through the 25th amendment by asking congress to vote on it. If fewer than two-thirds of congress uphold the invocation of 25 then it is reversed. Edit #2: Interestingly, in such an event the vice-president would almost certainly face impeachment (unless he or she resigned) despite not committing a crime. That's because impeachment isn't a criminal trial but a political trial)

And secondly, there's already enough to impeach if there was the political will from the party in control of congress to do so. Trump has already admitted to obstruction of justice when he explained that he fired James Comey to end the FBI's investigation into General Michael Flynn. There's also witness tampering when he boasted, quite amazingly on TV, that he threatened James Comey with tapes of their meeting in order to affect Comey's testimony infront of congress. So the crimes we know about are already enough to impeach him, and the reason we know it's enough to impeach is because obstruction of justice is what Richard Nixon was about to be impeached over before he resigned.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:26 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:The problem with turtle and his crew is just like Brexit they just cannot bring theirselves to accept that the majority voted against their own interests

Fixed it for you.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:49 am

Riley if the term "he didn't win the popular vote" makes you feel better then fine but he's still in the WH...

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:52 am

Turtle how many links or revelations about HC/Obama would you ignore simply to stop the democratic decision from standing?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:12 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Turtle how many links or revelations about HC/Obama would you ignore simply to stop the democratic decision from standing?

What are you talking about? What is it you think i'm ignoring, and how do you think ignoring it makes any difference whatsoever to my view of the Trump/Russia investigation?

Also, nice projection. Very Trump-esque. You're ignoring overwelming evidence of a cover-up to criticise those of us talking about what Trump and his team are trying to cover up. While accusing me of ignoring some imaginary Clinton/Obama scandal. The double-think is astounding.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:23 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Riley if the term "he didn't win the popular vote" makes you feel better then fine but he's still in the WH...

It doesn't make me feel better, I was just pointing out that you were wrong when you stated that the majority voted for Donald Trump. Nearly 3m more people voted for Clinton.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:27 am

Do you know what ? when on CM I remember complaining that politics kept creeping onto the forum so I'm going to stick to footy from now on...UTC

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:30 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Riley if the term "he didn't win the popular vote" makes you feel better then fine but he's still in the WH...

If the term "he's still in the WH" makes you feel better then fine. But he's still a crook who probably colluded with an enemy country to win the presidency and is surrounded by people so obviously guilty of a cover-up that that they're forced to hire criminal defence lawyers and retroactively admit to meetings with senior russians because they "forgot" to do so previously when not disclosing the meetings is a crime.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:31 am

SmudgetheClaret wrote:Do you know what ? when on CM I remember complaining that politics kept creeping onto the forum so I'm going to stick to footy from now on...UTC

Whatever you need to tell yourself to save face. Cheerio.

ian · Post by **ian** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:42 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:On the way to France yesterday. I don't know what to say, except that its going to be a long eight years for the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/us/p ... cript.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just needed to correct the OP.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:24 am

I think he had been on the duty free.
I think the American President has to much power. Perhaps it should be more like our head of state and it is ceremonial the Senate has the power so democratically elected people of all persuasions forge policy.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:31 am

bfcjg wrote:I think he had been on the duty free.
I think the American President has to much power. Perhaps it should be more like our head of state and it is ceremonial the Senate has the power so democratically elected people of all persuasions forge policy.

While the president is the single most powerful person in the government, the Executive Branch is actually the weakest of the three branches of the U.S. government. For example, he, and the Executive Branch, can't fire anyone in congress, but congress can throw him out of office if they wish. He can't even fire his own VP, but that VP can throw him out with majority support from the cabinet.