The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is worth noting the possible timing association...
The USA led battle for Raqqa has begun on Tuesday.
Shortly afterwards Qatar is effectively quarantined, shut down and out...
( this may have even been sanctioned clandestinely by the Qatar government as a away of dealing with a "hidden" internal Qatar problem that relates to ISIL in Raqqa )

Now we have the attacks in Iran

So ...uhm...something is up..
 
Last edited:
No, it is operative yet. That's why I'm actually not yet changing sides. But I would, if the Anti-Trumpers would present a replacement which is plausibly less dangerous for world peace than Trump.
Not "world peace" - nuclear war.
They did -= all the alternatives, including Clinton. There is no higher risk of nuclear war than Trump - recall that the most likely initiation would be accident or incompetence, and that's Trump all the way.
That he would bluff a lot was expected by everybody, and everybody expects that nobody will be bluffed.
Why would you assume he is bluffing?
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/...ump.html?_r=1&referer=https://www.google.com/
Comey Told Sessions: Don’t Leave Me Alone With Trump

The day after President Trump asked James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, to end an investigation into his former national security adviser, Mr. Comey confronted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and said he did not want to be left alone again with the president, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

Mr. Comey believed Mr. Sessions should protect the F.B.I. from White House influence, the officials said, and pulled him aside after a meeting in February to tell him that private interactions between the F.B.I. director and the president were inappropriate. But Mr. Sessions could not guarantee that the president would not try to talk to Mr. Comey alone again, the officials said.

Mr. Comey did not reveal, however, what had so unnerved him about his Oval Office meeting with the president: Mr. Trump’s request that the F.B.I. director end the investigation into the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, who had just been fired. By the time Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last month, Mr. Comey had disclosed the meeting to a few of his closest advisers but nobody at the Justice Department, according to the officials, who did not want to be identified discussing Mr. Comey’s interactions with Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions.

Mr. Comey will be the center of attention on Thursday during testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he is expected to be quizzed intensely about his interactions with Mr. Trump and why he decided to keep secret the president’s request to end the Flynn investigation.
His unwillingness to be alone with the president reflected how deeply Mr. Comey distrusted Mr. Trump, who Mr. Comey believed was trying to undermine the F.B.I.’s independence as it conducted a highly sensitive investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, the officials said. By comparison, Mr. Comey met alone at least twice with President Barack Obama.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment on Mr. Comey’s request. A Justice Department spokesman, Ian Prior, said, “The attorney general doesn’t believe it’s appropriate to respond to media inquiries on matters that may be related to ongoing investigations.”

The Justice Department typically walls off the White House from criminal investigations to avoid even the appearance of political meddling in law enforcement. But Mr. Trump has repeatedly injected himself in law enforcement matters, and never more dramatically than in his private meetings with Mr. Comey.

“You have the president of the United States talking to the director of the F.B.I., not just about any criminal investigation, but one involving his presidential campaign,” said Matthew S. Axelrod, who served in senior Justice Department roles during the Obama administration and is now a partner at the law firm Linklaters. “That is such a sharp departure from all the past traditions and rules of the road.”

Well well well...
 
You don't? Ok, I take back my "everybody".

I don't believe Trump thinks he is/was bluffing regarding any of his claims... at least, not when he made said claims.

The man previously ran a business where nobody could/would tell him "NO"... he thought he could run a country / the world the same way. Unfortunately for him, that just isn't reality.
 
The man previously ran a business where nobody could/would tell him "NO"...
Really? In the business nobody could tell him No? What's this for a business? (Or do you simply mean his staff? This would make some sense, he probably has not faces in any of his firms such a complete sabotage as he faces now. But this would not be the correct analogy in the context. I was talking about bluff against other independent players like NK or Iran.)
 
Really? In the business nobody could tell him No?
Pretty much - otherwise, do you think he would have left so many contractors, builders, and others out hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars in unpaid costs and fees? Any accountant worth a damn would make sure those get paid... but they're probably all afraid of the orange tyrant shouting "YOU'RE FIRED!"

What's this for a business? (Or do you simply mean his staff? This would make some sense, he probably has not faces in any of his firms such a complete sabotage as he faces now. But this would not be the correct analogy in the context. I was talking about bluff against other independent players like NK or Iran.)

So you claim the requirement that he follow the laws and constitution of the United States, as well as international agreements, is somehow sabotage?
 
It is worth noting the possible timing association...
The USA led battle for Raqqa has begun on Tuesday.
Shortly afterwards Qatar is effectively quarantined, shut down and out...
( this may have even been sanctioned clandestinely by the Qatar government as a away of dealing with a "hidden" internal Qatar problem that relates to ISIL in Raqqa )

Now we have the attacks in Iran

So ...uhm...something is up..

On a normal day in a normal time one would be more skeptical of conspiracies like the one you have hinted at, but today, one has to seriously consider it, especially when you consider the fact that it now appears Russia set up Qatar with its hackers. But it's not working. The heat is still on Thrumper and it's not going away.
 
So you claim the requirement that he follow the laws and constitution of the United States, as well as international agreements, is somehow sabotage?
Of course not. Your "so" suggests some strange fantasies about how to interpret my texts.
 
Of course not. Your "so" suggests some strange fantasies about how to interpret my texts.

Then what and who is supposedly sabotaging Trumps administration?

Was it Democrats that prevented the passage of an abysmal health care bill the first time around? Nope, it was Republicans.
Who is it that keep taking to twitter and calling his own executive orders a "travel ban" or a "muslim ban"? Maybe it was Rudolph!

Sorry, the only one sabotaging Trump is his own ineptitude.
 
(Or do you simply mean his staff? This would make some sense, he probably has not faces in any of his firms such a complete sabotage as he faces now.
It's not sabotage, it's the setup. Government is not business - he owns none of it, it's not working for him but for the country, the only people in it who are even allowed to take orders from him uncritically are the military folks (and notice with whom he gets along the best).
Why would you assume he is bluffing?
You don't? Ok, I take back my "everybody".
He will bluff.

He will also come in high and hard and even unreasonable when negotiating - a good tactic in private and sequestered negotiations, can be a liability in public ones. That's not bluffing, per se, though similar.

But he will also act - he's not all talk, and he has a very capable military (that supports him, btw, as they supported W and Reagan).

If people start carelessly assuming he is bluffing, he will be cornered into following through even if he didn't want to in the first place. And there's a likely place your nuclear war starts, if it starts in the US.
 
If people start carelessly assuming he is bluffing, he will be cornered into following through even if he didn't want to in the first place. And there's a likely place your nuclear war starts, if it starts in the US.
Trump cornered into following what he claimed yesterday? LOL. His bluff was already called by Kim Jong Un, and he appeared not cornered at all.

And those who have to care most, the Iran, is not carelessly assuming whatever, but is well-prepared over many years now to meet an American aggression, which was always on the table, as well as they were the probable target of Hitlary http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/07/28/middle-east-prepares-for-hillarys-war/
 
On a normal day in a normal time one would be more skeptical of conspiracies like the one you have hinted at, but today, one has to seriously consider it, especially when you consider the fact that it now appears Russia set up Qatar with its hackers. But it's not working. The heat is still on Thrumper and it's not going away.
I don't believe it was intended or planned to be a diversion ( of course it is possible but i don't think Trump admin has the nous to pull something like that off.)
It is possible that Trump leaked confidential intel to the Saudis during that "big" meeting that provided compromising insight into Qatar's ISIL involvement or alternatively that Qatar has provided info to the USA that has somehow breached a code of conduct, trust between the ARAB states involved.
Who knows?
Either way it must have been extreme to force the shut down of an entire nation in such a ruthless fashion. (including telecommunications?) The sheer dollars involved would be enormous and growing by the hour.
I do not think the Russian hacker fake news planted idea washes too well, given the extreme and unprecedented outcomes. Nay! Something a hell of lot more significant has happened to bring this on...IMO

As posted in another thread, CIA reluctance to give testimony is also telling...Perhaps the timing is not good all round...and the CIA is between a rock and a hard place due to "someones" indiscretions and they are attempting to discover just how much damage has and will be done.
So... we have many associated events all happening like a roller coaster and I believe it all finds it's starting point at the announcement that the attack on Raqqa has begun. ( trigger )
( You may recall that Trump did ask for plans to be put forward in dealing with ISIL sometime ago..well no news is good news yes?)
 
Last edited:
Also I sat through a most extraordinary "Meet the press" event via SBS national TV involving ex CIA Clapper.
I find it incredible that a patriot such as Clapper could be so strong in his public criticism of the Trump administration to a gallery of Australian press. He came across as a man sitting helplessly on a sinking ship with nothing to be done but hold his breath as he fielded serious questions about the competency of the current USA administration.

I found it unprecedented... but maybe I am just ignorant of precedent!
 
Last edited:
I don't believe it was intended or planned to be a diversion ( of course it is possible but i don't think Trump admin has the nous to pull something like that off.)
It is possible that Trump leaked confidential intel to the Saudis during that "big" meeting that provided compromising insight into Qatar's ISIL involvement or alternatively that Qatar has provided info to the USA that has somehow breached a code of conduct, trust between the ARAB states involved.
Who knows?
Either way it must have been extreme to force the shut down of an entire nation in such a ruthless fashion. (including telecommunications?) The sheer dollars involved would be enormous and growing by the hour.
I do not think the Russian hacker fake news planted idea washes too well, given the extreme and unprecedented outcomes. Nay! Something a hell of lot more significant has happened to bring this on...IMO

As posted in another thread, CIA reluctance to give testimony is also telling...Perhaps the timing is not good all round...and the CIA is between a rock and a hard place due to "someones" indiscretions and they are attempting to discover just how much damage has and will be done.
So... we have many associated events all happening like a roller coaster and I believe it all finds it's starting point at the announcement that the attack on Raqqa has begun. ( trigger )
( You may recall that Trump did ask for plans to be put forward in dealing with ISIL sometime ago..well no news is good news yes?)
Trump doesn't have the nous, but his Russia sponsor does.
 
Trump cornered into following what he claimed yesterday? LOL. His bluff was already called by Kim Jong Un, and he appeared not cornered at all.
He wasn't. Sooner or later he will be.
And those who have to care most, the Iran, is not carelessly assuming whatever, but is well-prepared over many years now to meet an American aggression
And so that is one of the several arenas in which Trump is more likely to start a nuclear war than most other people - certainly far more likely than Clinton.
 
He wasn't. Sooner or later he will be.
Hm. Once a war against NK was not on the wish list of the deep state, he was not cornered to start it. But if it goes against Iran, where the war is on the wish list, he will be cornered? Ok, this cannot be excluded as a possibility. Remember how great became Trump for all the Anti-Trumpers in the media once he bombed Syria.
 
#dysfunction | #WhatTheyVotedFor


Click to do what you're told.

Of course not. Your "so" suggests some strange fantasies about how to interpret my texts.

Not quite. As an Americanism, the word can convey a certain range of uncertainty including earnest, sarcastic, or cynical among its myriad potential. But interpretation does come into it because the "so" is also just a marker, in this case perhaps a bit resigned, attending definitions↱ such as "thus", "then, subsequently", and, "therefore, consequently". The marker indicates a reengagement or reestablishment.

You did, after all, play the fool↑, and rather quite foolishly. Donald Trump was and is infamously controlling and demanding in his business dealings. As the general figure of speech goes, nobody told him no. Compared to your later analysis of the word "so", that manner of idiotic, clodhopping naïveté—

Really? In the business nobody could tell him No? What's this for a business?

—stands out even more than it would on its own. Still, even in its own context—

(Or do you simply mean his staff? This would make some sense, he probably has not faces in any of his firms such a complete sabotage as he faces now. But this would not be the correct analogy in the context. I was talking about bluff against other independent players like NK or Iran.)

—your invocation, ex nihilo, of sabotage is precisely non sequitur. The word "so" reestablishes the discourse as a quasi-conclusion: If this bit about sabotage is relevant, then how? To the one, yes, it requires interpretation. To the other, Kittamaru's question—

So you claim the requirement that he follow the laws and constitution of the United States, as well as international agreements, is somehow sabotage?

—is, in that context, pretty straightforward. Well, you know, unless the whole "sabotage" bit really is irrelevant. You kind of boxed yourself in, there.

The question remains:

Then what and who is supposedly sabotaging Trumps administration?

I can think of a few answers, but none of them attend a narrative sympathetic to President Puerile Trump.
____________________

Notes:

"So". Merriam-Webster. 2011. Merriam-Webster.com. 7 June 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so
 
If you look at the investigations into Trump, there is no evidence of anything against the law. This was not a big deal until Trump won the election. The entire push was based on the liberal dual standard and PC gossip, that does not apply to themselves.

For example, yesterday Attorney General Sessions just ended a practice, started under the Obama Administration and his Attorney General Holder, where corporations could be shaken down to give donations to left wing organizations, in exchange for lenient sentences. This is the type of lawlessness that should be investigated. If Trump was to do this, it would be called a crime, even if Obama did this on many occasions to pad liberal coffers. The dual standard of leftist hypocrisy would be in affect.

The same is true of the trump up collusion charges against Trump, since Obama had secret meetings with Iran, a known terrorist state. While Hillary's private server had finger prints from at least five countries who hacked her server. Trump is only concerned with the law, and not leftist gossip, conspiracy theory and hypocrisy, which appeals to the left.

Former FBI director Comey will testify today and will say there is nothing against the law. But he will also cater to the gossip mongers who will think Comey is helping their case in the court of busy bodies, who have too much time on their hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top