The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

93Flareside said:
US Government run websites usually look really sketchy to the point you're not sure if they're legitimate or one of those "I mis-typed the web address" type of sites.
Click to expand...
Damn it, rep is deactivated in this subforum so I can't +rep you for this... :lol:
 
It's missing the ?I'm afraid to go to the toilet in case president Trump decided to nuke Venezia in the meantime?-option.

The domain belongs to the Republican National Committee. I've checked.
 
The GOP is not a government site or entity.

The option for negative feedback is other with a comment box below. The comment should be in a form that Donald John Trump can understand.


"Superb! Completely spectacular shit show! Believe me, I have seen some shit shows, and this one blows them all away! 0 stars, would not recommend."


I think the poor sap that had to go through the comments would get fired for laughing.
 
They could at least add a ?Performance has yet to meet expectations?-option or ?Donald could do better in his Statecraft?.
 
He's like a mix between Woodrow Wilson and John Adams, but without their redeeming qualities.
 
More on the Russian connections:

Top Trump aide's email draws new scrutiny in Russia inquiry


Washington (CNN)Congressional investigators have unearthed an email from a top Trump aide that referenced a previously unreported effort to arrange a meeting last year between Trump campaign officials and Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter.
The aide, Rick Dearborn, who is now President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, sent a brief email to campaign officials last year relaying information about an individual who was seeking to connect top Trump officials with Putin, the sources said.
The person was only identified in the email as being from "WV," which one source said was a reference to West Virginia. It's unclear who the individual is, what he or she was seeking, or whether Dearborn even acted on the request. One source said that the individual was believed to have had political connections in West Virginia, but details about the request and who initiated it remain vague.

The same source said Dearborn in the email appeared skeptical of the requested meeting.

Sources said the email occurred in June 2016 around the time of the recently revealed Trump Tower meeting where Russians with Kremlin ties met with the president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner as well as then-campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
While many details around the Dearborn email are unclear, its existence suggests the Russians may have been looking for another entry point into the Trump campaign to see if there were any willing partners as part of their effort to discredit -- and ultimately defeat -- Hillary Clinton.
Dearborn's name has not been mentioned much as part of the Russia probe. But he served as then-Sen. Jeff Sessions' chief of staff, as well as a top policy aide on the campaign. And investigators have questions about whether he played a role in potentially arranging two meetings that occurred between the then-Russia ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, and Sessions, who has downplayed the significance of those encounters.

Dearborn was involved in helping to arrange an April 2016 event at the Mayflower Hotel where Trump delivered a major foreign policy address, sources said. Kislyak attended the event and a reception beforehand, but it's unclear whether he interacted with Sessions there.
Dearborn did not respond to multiple inquiries seeking comment. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to comment, and would not respond to inquiries about Dearborn's email and whether the campaign carried through with that meeting.
"We aren't going to comment on potentially leaked documents," Sanders said.
Intelligence experts say the request made by the unidentified West Virginian fits a pattern of Russians trying to gather human intelligence and seek unwilling -- and sometimes unwitting partners -- as part of their covert operations.
"The Russians are really experts at this," said Steve Hall, a retired CIA chief of Russia operations.
But Hall added that it would be unusual to set up a meeting with Putin himself before meeting with operatives tied to the Kremlin.
Emails about potentially meeting Putin
The Russian "active measures" campaign to influence the US election was fully underway when Dearborn sent his email. This included cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's senior staffers, as well as pro-Trump messaging by Kremlin-backed propaganda outlets, according to a report declassified by the US intelligence community in January.
And Dearborn wasn't the only person within the Trump campaign emailing about potential Russia meetings. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos sent an email to top campaign officials in March 2016 about arranging meetings with Russians, sources said. The subject line was "Meeting with Russian Leadership -- Including Putin," according to the source.
Sources told CNN that senior campaign officials dismissed that proposal. Papadopoulos has not responded to CNN's previous requests for comment.

Despite the fact that his idea was brushed aside, Papadopoulos continued his emails about arranging meetings with Russians to other Trump campaign officials for months, The Washington Post reported
"Putin wants to host the Trump team when the time is right," Papadopoulos wrote in an email on April 27 to then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, according to the Post. On that same day, Trump delivered his foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel.
The emails from Dearborn and Papadopoulos were included in the batch of 20,000 emails that the Trump campaign handed over to multiple congressional committees earlier this summer.
CNN has reported that the FBI saw intelligence last summer suggesting that Russian operatives tried to use Trump advisers to infiltrate the campaign. Sources said this intelligence referenced foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Page denies ever working for Russia or having any improper contact with Russians.
Sessions led the campaign's foreign policy team, which included Page and Papadopoulos.
Undisclosed meetings with Kislyak
Sessions met at least twice during the campaign with Kislyak, and congressional investigators want to question whether Dearborn was involved in arranging those meetings, which took place in July and September 2016, sources said.
The Attorney General first acknowledged the meetings in March, despite testifying at his confirmation hearing that he "did not have communications with the Russians" and repeated denials from Trump officials that there were any contacts between the campaign and Russians.
The kerfuffle over Sessions' meetings and his lack of disclosure helped trigger his recusal from overseeing the Russia investigation, an action that was widely praised but angered Trump.

CNN reported in May that congressional investigators were examining whether Sessions attended a third private meeting with Kislyak, at the Mayflower event that Dearborn apparently helped plan.
Sessions later told the Senate intelligence committee he didn't remember meeting with or talking to Kislyak at the hotel. Kushner also helped organized the event, and he told congressional investigators earlier this summer that he briefly "shook hands" and "exchanged brief pleasantries" with Kislyak at a reception before Trump's speech.
During the speech, Trump said that "an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia, from a position of strength, is possible." Kislyak watched from his seat in the front row.
Sessions ally lands in the White House
Dearborn spent nearly two decades working for Sessions in the Senate, eventually rising to chief of staff, a position he held for 12 years, including throughout the 2016 campaign.
Like his boss, who was a top Trump surrogate on the presidential campaign trail, Dearborn played dual roles last year. He ran Sessions' Senate office and also led the Trump campaign's Virginia-based policy shop, handling congressional relations and crafting policy proposals.
The Trump campaign paid Dearborn more than $28,000 last year, mostly for "policy consulting" but also to reimburse travel expenses, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Shortly after Trump's victory, Dearborn emerged as executive director of the Trump transition.
Dearborn was later appointed Trump's deputy chief of staff for legislative, intergovernmental affairs and implementation, cementing his position in the White House as a senior policy aide. He is among the handful of Sessions aides who landed plum jobs in the administration.
Click to expand...



For a story with nothing there, there sure does seem to be a lot of it.
 
I'm so annoyed with hearing "alleged" and "could be." Once this asshole finally gets some real court prosecution, then it will worth reporting. Otherwise, it doesn't seem to make a damn bit of difference how many times we hear about it.
 
You are still worried about the wrong emails. Remember, one of the Trump kids already gave himself and others up, and a former cabinet member wants to spill what he knows to stay out of jail.
 
kunedog said:
Majority of Democrats believe Russia altered vote totals
Click to expand...


I always wonder how they pick those that are polled. Or is it simply that those that are willing to take time out to answer a poll are just the gullible ones.



LeVeL said:
You're not even trying to defend the article you posted. I'm glad that you realize that it's pure shite.
Click to expand...


It is not really whether or not I believe it, it is just more in the already interesting line of possible links to meetings with Russian officials and representatives that the Trump campaign seem to have wanted to take.


This, 100%. Dems are just butthurt that the worst candidate ever lost an election that was hers to win.
Click to expand...



With how easily manipulated our voting machines are, it is not outside the realm of possibility. While I personally don't believe this, I still want to see voting machine security improved, and a paper trail that can be compared to the results.

I am still far more curious to see what the Democrats are going to change with the blatant actions they took on the part of Clinton during the campaign.
 
LeVeL said:
This, 100%. Dems are just butthurt that the worst candidate ever lost an election that was hers to win.
Click to expand...
Not really. They're panicking because a mentally unstable megalomaniac with an inferiority complex and no self control, who is also by all accounts a terrible person, is president.

And while I agree Hillary Clinton was a very bad campaigner, she was good enough to beat Trump as the choice of the people, by a very large margin.*

Questions regarding Trump and Russia haven't being answered yet. That may change, or it may not. Trump hasn't acted like he's innocent, but that only proves he's Trump, and a big cry baby who isn't capable of doing the job.

Could go both ways.

_HighVoltage_ said:
Trump voters say they would rather have Jefferson Davis as President than Barack Obama 45/20
Click to expand...
That's bloody terrible. That's the sign of an idiot.

* I'm not questioning the legitimacy of his being president. The system elected Trump, so he's president despite the will of the people. Fully legitimate. He is the president. He shouldn't be. But he is.
 
Dems may be a bit "butthurt", but so are the GOP. They are still pissed that he got through, and now they see what an unruly child he really is.
 
LeVeL said:
Remind me again how many nuclear wars we're now in, how many gays are in jail, how many blacks have been murdered, and how many legal immigrants have been placed in concentration camps, now that Trump has been president for eight months? All of these were sound bites when he first won the election.
Click to expand...
Gays in jail? I've followed both conservative and liberal US media quite a bit, and I didn't see that soundbite once. Where's that even from? Same with legal immigrants and concentration camps, and blacks being murdered. And I tend to look at the nuclear war bit as more or less hyperbole, obviously there won't be a nuclear war. Just like there wouldn't have been war with Russia if Clinton had been elected, something I did hear from somewhat prominent conservative pundits.

On the other hand, is the fight for equal rights for LGBTQ people being set back? Yes. Has Trump increased tensions foreign policy wise? Yes. Has the justice department shifted its focus away from racial profiling and police misconduct? Yes. Has a number of otherwise law abiding and decent illegals been put into an immigration detention system that's woefully underequipped to deal with them? Yes.

Has he helped increase divisions in America? Yes. Has he been a total failure legislatively? Hell yes. So far, I am struggling to find any good results from his presidency, and we're more than half a year into it.

LeVeL said:
Look, I'm not his biggest fan but 99% of what the left is throwing a fit over isn't worth it. That, combined with this:


Is caused by:
Click to expand...

You're defending him a lot for a non-fan.

But no, you're wrong. It's not about that. It's about what I stated above (?They're panicking because a mentally unstable megalomaniac with an inferiority complex and no self control, who is also by all accounts a terrible person, is president.?). And it's about the fact that for the second time in less than two decades, someone becomes president despite the will of the electorate, and not because of it. I've taken a very strong stance on the insanity and stupidity of sticking to the archaic electoral college in the 21st century. When you elect a legislature, it's a little harder to get perfect proportional representation (although gerrymandering is a disgrace, that's for another time), but this is very easy. You're picking one president and one vice president. The only logical mode of election for that is to let people vote, then count all the votes, and give it to the candidate who wins. Not the candidate that looses, like you did last November.

And you know who agrees with me?

trumpy.jpg


- - - Updated - - -

GRtak said:
Dems may be a bit "butthurt", but so are the GOP. They are still pissed that he got through, and now they see what an unruly child he really is.
Click to expand...

Some southern republicans are still butthurt they lost the civil war, so go figure.

Edit: And dems, I'm sure. Although I doubt that many remain this long after LBJ.
 
Last edited:
nomix said:
G
but this is very easy. You're picking one president and one vice president. The only logical mode of election for that is to let people vote, then count all the votes, and give it to the candidate who wins.
Click to expand...
EC is the lesser problem than FPTP and the winner take all. You can have EC be proportional to what people choose but only a couple of states do that. I would get rid of FPTP completely and go for a different voting system altogether as in the end FPTP always ends in two party system and we end up with an election where we are not voting FOR our candidate but AGAINST the other one. This is the real reason why HC actually got the popular vote, many people thought DJ Trump to be larger of two evils.
 
Last edited:
Trump is an imbecile, but the overwhelming majority of complaints against him are pure hyperbolic fear mongering. If our universities weren't quickly becoming a national embarrassment, I would expect them all to be carefully documenting all this Trump hysteria to be used as a case study in confirmation bias for decades to come. It's actually amusing to watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top