Trump - how long has he got?

Random chat: movies, books, games, technology, etcetera.

Moderators: Mexicola, 2020k, Fredd-E, Aesthetics

How long do you think Trump will last as US President?

< 1 week
0
No votes
< 1 month
0
No votes
gone before 2018
4
16%
< 6 months
4
16%
serves full term
11
44%
serves both terms
2
8%
gone once the magic bullet from the grassy knoll finds it's mark
2
8%
at the end of the forth Reich
2
8%
 
Total votes: 25

User avatar
Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1741
Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Kinda feels like it's all starting to snowball, doesn't it? Can't remember what I voted now but "this side of Christmas" looks good to me

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
Image

Oh dear. Who isn't in on it? It seems like people from all sides are being implicated.

I am not sure if this will lead to anything related to Trump in reality though. I think this is a cross-party 'deep state' (for lack of a better term) plot. I could easily be wrong though, we will have to see.

No wonder one of the Podestas just resigned, though. Holy shit.

User avatar
Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 8553
Joined: 30 May 2007
Location: Dorset, UK
What was it Jim Garrison said again? Justice be done though the heavens fall? Thing is, the 'Gods' never seemed lower.
Image

Slow down...

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
I can't wait for Halloween

Image

But, in reality, how do we establish whether Trump was in on this or whether a cross-party scandal was happening beneath his nose?

A reminder that Podesta was Clinton's 'second in command' last year for those reading that aren't aware of his role; The man who had to tell everyone to go home because Hillary was having an emotional breakdown and spitting at people on election night*


*Unconfirmed, but an amusing mental image.

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
*Tries very hard not to let this turn into a thread about my intense disliking of Mrs. Hilldawg*

What do other people feel that the evidence so far is pointing towards?
Perhaps Russian involvement on both sides of the situation, trying to work their way into the US Establishment regardless of whether one uses the 'Left' or the 'Right' wing to do so. The people involved all have something in common and that is a love for the Military Industrial Complex and the status quo of backroom deals and conspiracy.

It would be nice to have transparent government in the States one day (And surely the UK would follow suit) but perhaps that is being a little too optimistic. I only ever liked Trump due to his apparent transparency. Politics turned into a 'Look into their eyes and figure out if they have had their soul removed yet' for me. You can't ever believe policies alone because it is in the nature of politicians to lie through their teeth.

User avatar
Friendly Stranger
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO
Ok, I know I'm a newbie to the board but I feel I had to share. Today was one of the best days of my life. Because of Papadopoulus, I feel there may be a light at the end of the nightmare tunnel this country's been in since last November...

User avatar
Friendly Stranger
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO
For my new UK friends: the story to follow is Papadopoulos. Manafort and Gates (IMO) were offered as public bait so Mueller could drop Papadpoulos as an "OK, here's where you shut your fucking twitterhole." This is the beginning of the domino collapse of the Trump administration.


I'm excited.

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
OrangeRomeda wrote:For my new UK friends: the story to follow is Papadopoulos. Manafort and Gates (IMO) were offered as public bait so Mueller could drop Papadpoulos as an "OK, here's where you shut your fucking twitterhole." This is the beginning of the domino collapse of the Trump administration.


I'm excited.


What are your thoughts on the connection to H Clinton's campaign manager?
I know in situations like these (what other situation could possibly be like this) people tend to only focus on one side of the situation that is in favor of the outcome they want, and don't get me wrong, this could well spell the end of the Trump administration but the fact that a lot of this is now known to have been done through the Podestas (Clinton campaign manager) points to a cross-party situation. Hillaries' dirty Uranium deal (Where Russia payed millions into the supposed charity, 'The Clinton Foundation' in exchange for US Uranium) combined with the Trump situation makes it seem like Russia may well have had their fingers in both pies trying to gain influence in the US. Revalations about both the DNC and GOP side of last year's election have been coming out in massive quantities recently and the real question is to ask is how many people on both sides of the coin were in on the situation?

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
(If the media is to be believed) Its a fairly level playing field in terms of corruption at the moment.
Clinton campaign paying millions to create a fake Dossier about Trump using Russian prostitutes, getting urinated on etc etc, but people seem to be forgetting that yes it is actually true and yes the Clinton campaign actually did that.

Wikileaks/ Assange has an astounding record for honesty. Not just astounding. 100%.
They where the ones that received the Clinton emails and the person that was physically handed the briefcase with the thumbdrives etc in it containing said emails has actually given an interview.

Wikileaks claims that it was and always had been a disgruntled Bernie sanders supporter from within the DNC who leaked the Clinton emails to them. The DNC unfairly undermined Bernie and his supporters. They literally turned the lights off over their section, had white noise generators to drown out them chanting 'No more war' at Clinton. And when they came in fluorescent green shirts so that even turning the lights off wouldn't make them invisible, instructions came on the screen to other people in the room to hold up their blank pieces of colored card in front of the Bernie supporters. It was an illusion to make it seem as if every democrat was 100% behind Hillary.

Trump may well be crooked, but he isn't wrong when he accuses Clinton of the same.
Hopefully this investigation will be unbiased and people from both administrations/ campaign teams will be arrested.

It seems like a massive distraction from all of the intensely scandalous things found within the Clinton emails, regardless of how they where obtained.

Boqurant
Status: Offline
Posts: 99
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
I read this today and thought it was an interesting read https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/robert-mueller-s-investigation


The Economist journalist made a good point..

"But it is Mr Trump who remains consistently and inexplicably incurious about Russia, and whether it attacked American democracy. It is the president who calls the entire Russian investigation a hoax, fake news, and a witch hunt. He has scorned the findings of the intelligence agencies that now report to him that Russia did indeed interfere in the election, and with the clear aim of helping him to win. He presents the very idea of Russian collusion as a partisan Democratic conspiracy to call into question his victory. Even some Republicans cannot understand this strange refusal to criticise Russia and its strongman president, Vladimir Putin. In the words of Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican foreign policy hawk, the Trump administration has “a blind spot on Russia that I still can’t figure out.”

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
TheFadeBeta wrote:I read this today and thought it was an interesting read https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/10/robert-mueller-s-investigation


The Economist journalist made a good point..

"But it is Mr Trump who remains consistently and inexplicably incurious about Russia, and whether it attacked American democracy. It is the president who calls the entire Russian investigation a hoax, fake news, and a witch hunt. He has scorned the findings of the intelligence agencies that now report to him that Russia did indeed interfere in the election, and with the clear aim of helping him to win. He presents the very idea of Russian collusion as a partisan Democratic conspiracy to call into question his victory. Even some Republicans cannot understand this strange refusal to criticise Russia and its strongman president, Vladimir Putin. In the words of Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican foreign policy hawk, the Trump administration has “a blind spot on Russia that I still can’t figure out.”


Interesting. It could mean one of two things in reality. He could be refusing to mention it because of the risk of exposing himself, but in that situation one would think that he would at least pretend to have an interest to a certain degree to throw people off the scent. One would think that he would "Play dumb" in the situation generally and act as if when people (From both the DNC and GOP) who have 'Russia Ties' exposed, that it is a revelation to him and something he was completely unaware of.

The second explanation is the one I feel is most credible though. If he knows in his heart that he has genuinely never been involved in any kind of 'Collusion' scandal and that it genuinely is a witch hunt, his silence on the matter shows that he is in such disbelief at the level of propaganda the establishment will pump out when their candidate of choice loses that he feels it is beneath him to even comment on the tidal wave of hollow accusations.

Edit: In before someone says "Playing dumb? Isn't that exactly what he is doing" :lol:

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
Why the Clinton campaign invented the Russia scandal:

Every point that one feels there are loose ends surrounding has a valid and essentially bulletproof explanation. Wikileaks have genuinely never released an untrue statement and are essentially 100% unbiased. Assange rose to popularity on the back of exposing the George Bush II lies and corruption regarding the Iraq war. Where there is corruption and someone willing to talk, they are willing to publish and withhold the identity of whoever blew the whistle.

Assange has always maintained that the leak came from directly inside the DNC and was handed to one of his staff physically in a park in Washington D.C by said anonymous disgruntled DNC member.

As soon as the emails where released, the DNC accused Assange of working for Russia and being heavily biased. Also stating that "They never reveal Russian corruption" - A blatant lie, one can find many examples of them exposing actions of the Russian Government.

At this time, and it is now admitted by the DNC (This is fact without a grain of speculation) they instantly started working on 'The Russian Dossier' - something the DNC payed Millions to compile false accusations against trump about prostitutes in Russia etc.

They had to cover up the various scandals in the Clinton emails by creating a scandal of their own out of thin air.
This is a quote from CNN regarding the Clinton emails: "Remember that its illegal for you to look at these emails, but it isn't illegal for us, so everything you get - you get from us" - Blatant damage control in trying to prevent people looking at the leaks themselves and finding various strong elements of corruption. CNN have spent the last solid year dedicating much of their air time to repeating 'Trump. Russia. Impeachment. Collusion. Trump. Russia. Impeachment. Collusion'. And spent less than two minutes, not a day but two minutes t o d a t e talking about the fact that the DNC where being implicated in a dodgy Uranium deal and the money directly passed through the Clinton Foundation.

User avatar
Friendly Stranger
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO
Ok, full disclosure: I am left-leaning Bernie supporter, wasn't a fan of Hillary at all and definitely thought that she was not punished enough for her behavior with Wasserman at the DNC. And honestly, with her campaign manager's brother resining, I think there will be more information coming out. Both Clinton and Trump had contacts and were contacted by Russian agents, this is well known, what is interesting is that it's rumored Trump 'kept an open door' to direct Russian collusion. And Clinton's wrongdoing at this point seems to be buying a dossier on Trump from the Russians when it's quite possible that Trump paid Russia to hack the outcome of the 2016 election.

That being said, look at who benefited from the hack ultimately: Trump. Also, many in the US think that Assange had some pro-Russia agenda prior to the election due to the timing of the release of the emails. Roger Stone (of Team Trump) had said several times that he had 'a connection' to Assange and wikileaks. Also, the emails dropped on wikileaks right after the Access Hollywood tape dropped which had Trump bragging about grabbing women by the genitals. Also, Assange was appearing on only right-wing news programs on Fox News at the time: very not good for credibility in the US.

That aside, Mueller (the FBI investigator) was appointed to his position within the FBI by Trump after he fired James Comey. Mueller is a fellow Republican. If he were a democrat, Trump would be having a Twitter stroke. There's defiantly something here.

This an excellent timeline of the known facts regarding Trump and Russia since 2015 for those interested. A Ton of information here:

https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events

User avatar
Friendly Stranger
Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Location: Denver, CO
A few more thoughts:

Mueller's actions in the last two days are basically an "opening statement" or 'chess move' of sorts from the FBI, with the Papadopoulus drop occurring later in the day than the unsealed documents released indicting Manafort and Gates. The timeline is this:

Friday Oct. 27 (1): Mueller drops off sealed indictments to the D.C. courts, 2 scheduled for reveal on Monday ('sealed' means "closed to the public" since if public knew, it would compromise the investigation).

Monday Oct. 30 (1) AM: Manafort and Gates. After this reveal, Trump tweets about Manafort and Gates charges being from 2012 and, again, there was no collusion with Russia.

Monday Oct. 30 (2) PM: The Papadopoulus 'Guilty' plea becomes public. The White House (being Trump's twitter feed) goes dead. Nothing for 17 hours. The WH silence speaks volumes. This is because the Papadopoulus name was Mueller's message to Trump that Mueller is not fucking around here. Mueller hasn't played his whole hand of cards yet.. This is just a small piece of a much larger investigation.

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
My last essay on the subject for now :lol:

I must admit, the Papadopoulos plea caught me entirely off guard. I knew that Manafort was effectively lifelong Democrat who had worked for Trump for only two months or so before Trump evidently realised he was (for lack of a better term) shady as shit. I will say that foreign leaders (Particularly of powerful states such as Russia) wanting to converse and meet with presidential candidates is effectively status quo, that alone doesn't prove anything much. It entirely depends on the timeline, but this would also mean the first documented lie in the History of Wikileaks which is something I would rather not have to consider might be the case as I rather admire Assange.

Papadopoulos' recent admissions point to the possibility that Russia was primarily interested in Influencing the Trump campaign, but that Trump didn't reciprocate. Papadopoulos states that he only told the Trump team that he had “some interesting messages coming in from Moscow” - Being very unspecific as to what. I am guessing that Putin's aim was to host Trump and tell him in person, but that meeting never occurred and the wiretapping of Trump tower by the Obama admin, First described as 'Fake news' and 'Delusional Trump' by almost all media outlets but was quietly admitted a few months later, literally found nothing to suggest any fowl play on Trump's part personally.

An updated theory of mine? I think that Trump made grave errors in hiring his team, not realising just how much of the Political establishment where prepared to play dirty and had a history of corruption. Trump, knowing that the establishment was already against him and that anything that could leak, would leak, was probably keen to keep things as kosher as possible hence the fact he fired Manafort so hastily after his serving only a few weeks in his campaign team. And also the fact that the meeting with Putin never went ahead despite Russia claiming they had dirt. Another possibility is that Wikileaks weren't the only ones the disgruntled DNC member gave the emails to, maybe as Hillaries rhetoric about ramping up sanctions (effectively preparing for war) with Russia over the Syria situation was something a Bernie supporter (Remember them chanting 'No more war' at the DNC convention when Hillary first took the stage as the confirmed nominee) detested the idea of so much that he also leaked it to Russian officials. This is the only way that both Assange's statements and Papadopoulos updated testimony could both be true... It actually ties the narratives together quite nicely and would explain an awful lot... Also I am 90% sure that person was Seth Rich, but that is still considered a Kooky conspiracy theory and we are supposed to believe that someone would precisely shoot him three times in the back in a posh neighborhood of DC in an 'Attempted Robbery' but fail to take any of his belongings and apparently this 'Amateur robber' was so good that not a trace of him could be found and there is not a single suspect in the case that they closed straight away effectively. Luckily for him the CCTV in the area wasn't working that night either.


I find this exchange between Podesta and Assange to be quite revealing. It implies that basic security flaws at the DNC where covered up by claims that it was 'Advanced Russian Hackers'. At least from Assange's point of view. If my theory that it was leaked to both Russia and Wikileaks (without any hacking) is correct, it accounts for almost everything actually.
Image

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
Very last sentiment: Papadopoulos was a very low level member of the Trump campaign team that no one was really aware of and I am inclined to believe Trump when he says that he has a history of confirmed lying. Without recorded/ documented proof of his interactions with this mysterious 'doctor' character and the fact he said that he had met Putin's niece (Despite the fact Putin doesn't have a niece) or someone higher up coming forward with further information regarding this situation, I feel that it might be a hallway that leads nowhere. A reminder that Manafort was working for the Clintons when the crimes he is being charged with took place. If the Clinton campaign payed twelve million dollars to create that fake dossier on Trump, how much do you think buying the testimony of a very low level member of his campaign team was? Just a theory though.

I will wait this one out, might give this thread a break for a while as I am getting RSI from compulsive typing :lol:

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
Oh dear, it seems that things I mention keep turning out to be true, News today that the DNC admitted rigging the primaries against Bernie. Shameful -__-

Boqurant
Status: Offline
Posts: 99
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Valotonin wrote:Oh dear, it seems that things I mention keep turning out to be true, News today that the DNC admitted rigging the primaries against Bernie. Shameful -__-



:cry: Aww Valotonin, are you really siding with Trump's twitter page ?

Nooo Valo don't do it :(

:D I guess you wouldn't be Valotonin if you didn't stir the pot, ya little bugger :D

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
TheFadeBeta wrote:
I guess you wouldn't be Valotonin if you didn't stir the pot, ya little bugger :D


Now you're getting it :lol:

Dayvan Cowboy
Status: Banned !
Posts: 2242
Joined: 7 Feb 2014
Location: Banned by request
Entire media go ape-shit about Trump 'Ruining the sacred feeding ritual' by pouring the whole box of fish food into the Koi pond when 'He was supposed to use a spoon'.

Image

Doesn't mention the fact that the Japanese PM poured his entire box in first, and Trump followed suit.
Why am I even wasting my time with this though?

Why are the majority of Journalists a really pathetic breed

PreviousNext

Return to The Playground

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests