EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9092
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2655 Posts
On October 31 2017 03:44 xDaunt wrote: Okay, the Daily Caller connected the dots on the Podesta Group and Manafort. Looks like the Podesta Group is fucked, which is why Tony resigned: Source. Tony Podesta looks pretty screwed. No tears will be shed by me. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 31 2017 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't understand how the Trump team think they can spin this in such a way that it doesn't look bad for him. He hired a fucking criminal as his campaign manager. Aren't presidents supposed to have good judgement? alot of people have drunk deeply of the koolaid; they can probably convince enough of them to still have a substantial base of support. I may not understand people who think that way, but they demonstrably exist. Nixon still had a fair bit of support even after he resigned to avoid impeachment after all. and anyone who hasn't realized by now that trump has terrible judgment, well, I'm not sur ehow to actually finish that sentence, but I think it's clear enough without a proper ending. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 31 2017 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't understand how the Trump team think they can spin this in such a way that it doesn't look bad for him. He hired a fucking criminal as his campaign manager. Aren't presidents supposed to have good judgement? It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment. Yes, the Clinton campaign knew what Elias knew (obviously), but Trump was just innocently fooled (by his campaign manager). | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9651 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment. Yeah its bad for everyone. If this is draining the swamp I'm all up for it. I hope both sides are shown to be what they are (in the more elite circles, anyway). As far as the Dem elite go, I'm sure there's dirt on them for years and if there is I hope this investigation brings it all out. The fact is, though, a president is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with. Trump is going to be shown to have made consistently terrible decisions. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 31 2017 03:44 xDaunt wrote: Okay, the Daily Caller connected the dots on the Podesta Group and Manafort. Looks like the Podesta Group is fucked, which is why Tony resigned: Source. Goodbye Podesta Group and good riddance! This Manafort scandal is so juicy it has bites for both left and right to chow down on. | ||
|
brian
United States9619 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:10 xDaunt wrote: It's not just Trump that was fooled. Manafort was well-known in political circles nationally, and he was a major figure in the republican party. A lot of people worked with him, including Tony Podesta. You need to look beyond Trump and consider the magnitude of how all of this potentially affects the political establishment. Knowing this, why is it you think Trump was fooled and not just a willing (but maybe even reluctantly) participant? | ||
KwarK
United States42753 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Ryan, at least, is way too spineless to have made this comment without knowing Mueller is sticking around. Which makes me pretty sure the anti-Mueller sentiment is more a smokescreen than anything Trump intends to pursue in earnest, formally at least. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:14 Doodsmack wrote: Yes, the Clinton campaign knew what Elias knew (obviously), but Trump was just innocently fooled. There's a bit of a difference between Clinton knowing what her GC is doing with millions of her campaign's dollars and Trump (and others) being aware of what Manafort did before joining the Trump campaign. But let's just consider the following: what if everyone in politics (Trump included) knew exactly who and what Manafort was? What does that say about the state of American politics in general and how dirty it is? It's clear that Tony Podesta knew who Manafort was and what he was doing. Tony Podesta is a major political operator (John gets the press, but I'm pretty sure that the Tony is the bigger deal). Who may Tony have tipped off? How many other operators in Washington would know -- both democrats and republicans? One thing that seems obvious to me is that there is a very good chance that one or both of the Podestas tipped Clinton off during the campaign regarding Manafort and Trump's possible issues with the appearance of impropriety regarding Russia. I don't really know what the full implication of that is right now, but it's definitely an interesting piece of information that I'd pocket for the time being. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:17 brian wrote: Knowing this, why is it you think Trump was fooled and not just a willing (but maybe even reluctantly) participant? I'm not ruling out that he was a willing participant. I just think that it's more likely that he was fooled. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:25 xDaunt wrote: There's a bit of a difference between Clinton knowing what her GC is doing with millions of her campaign's dollars and Trump (and others) being aware of what Manafort did before joining the Trump campaign. But let's just consider the following: what if everyone in politics (Trump included) knew exactly who and what Manafort was? What does that say about the state of American politics in general and how dirty it is? It's clear that Tony Podesta knew who Manafort was and what he was doing. Tony Podesta is a major political operator (John gets the press, but I'm pretty sure that the Tony is the bigger deal). Who may Tony have tipped off? How many other operators in Washington would know -- both democrats and republicans? One thing that seems obvious to me is that there is a very good chance that one or both of the Podestas tipped Clinton off during the campaign regarding Manafort and Trump's possible issues with the appearance of impropriety regarding Russia. I don't really know what the full implication of that is right now, but it's definitely an interesting piece of information that I'd pocket for the time being. I dunno if the tipping off could possibly matter. Everyone knew when Manafort resigned that he was a Russian stooge, and he resigned pretty damn early on-it was basically public knowledge. It's more interesting that none of the Republican folks brought it up in the primaries. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:25 xDaunt wrote: There's a bit of a difference between Clinton knowing what her GC is doing with millions of her campaign's dollars and Trump (and others) being aware of what Manafort did before joining the Trump campaign. But let's just consider the following: what if everyone in politics (Trump included) knew exactly who and what Manafort was? What does that say about the state of American politics in general and how dirty it is? It's clear that Tony Podesta knew who Manafort was and what he was doing. Tony Podesta is a major political operator (John gets the press, but I'm pretty sure that the Tony is the bigger deal). Who may Tony have tipped off? How many other operators in Washington would know -- both democrats and republicans? One thing that seems obvious to me is that there is a very good chance that one or both of the Podestas tipped Clinton off during the campaign regarding Manafort and Trump's possible issues with the appearance of impropriety regarding Russia. I don't really know what the full implication of that is right now, but it's definitely an interesting piece of information that I'd pocket for the time being. Still the notion that Trump was innocently fooled is preposterous. The laundering continued during the campaign, Manafort along with other launderers and mobsters lived in Trump's building, and as far as getting hacked dirt from Russia during the campaign goes, we'd be beyond gullible to think Manafort and Trump were in the dark. EDIT: You're also making the Elias oppo research sound pretty justified there. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
U.S. court blocks Trump's transgender military ban NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge in Washington on Monday blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, handing a victory to transgender service members who accused the president of violating their constitutional rights. Trump in July said he would ban transgender people from the military in a move that would reverse Democratic former President Barack Obama’s policy and halt years of efforts to eliminate barriers to military service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The transgender service members sued in August to try to block the ban. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction halting enforcement of the ban until their case is resolved. The service members asserted that Trump’s policy violated their rights to due process and equal protection under the law under the U.S. Constitution. Trump signed a memorandum in August that directed the U.S. military not to accept transgender men and women as recruits and halted the use of government funds for sex-reassignment surgeries for active-duty personnel unless the process is already underway. Kollar-Kotelly said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims that the ban was unconstitutional because the reasons given for the ban “do not appear to be supported by any facts.” She said that other factors, including “the unusual circumstances surrounding the president’s announcement” of the ban, weighed in her decision. The judge, however, tossed out the suit’s challenge to the sex-reassignment surgery directive, saying none of the plaintiffs had shown they would be impacted by that prohibition. Trump’s action appealed to his hard-line conservative supporters. The president in February also rescinded protections put in place under Obama for transgender public school students. Reuters | ||
|
brian
United States9619 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:27 xDaunt wrote: I'm not ruling out that he was a willing participant. I just think that it's more likely that he was fooled. eh, honestly? fingers crossed. i feel real naive saying it though. we definitely have different opinions on what’s likely here. if Hil-dog got elected you have to wonder- would this still have even come out? You have to imagine there would still have been an investigation at the very least. But would there have been a special counsel appointee? I assume not- would her AG need to recuse? and then to that end, would there be as strong a push for ‘the truth’ This’ll be the one part of this investigation that i’ll avoid thinking on too much. How much of this is fact finding and how much is finding the right people to take the fall and will we know between the two by the time we’re done here? because to get even as far as Flynn and Manafort have speaks to, i think, a larger problem here. i feel like a conspiracy theorist now. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:14 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah its bad for everyone. If this is draining the swamp I'm all up for it. I hope both sides are shown to be what they are (in the more elite circles, anyway). As far as the Dem elite go, I'm sure there's dirt on them for years and if there is I hope this investigation brings it all out. The fact is, though, a president is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with. Trump is going to be shown to have made consistently terrible decisions. Lots of things that Trump does is to uniquely piss off the people opposing to him. The country is split ideologically, some people would think what Trump is doing is absolutely brilliant, others would be like "This person doesn't fit into MY definition of a president, so I don't like him." | ||
|
KwarK
United States42753 Posts
On October 31 2017 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote: Lots of things that Trump does is to uniquely piss off the people opposing to him. The country is split ideologically, some people would think what Trump is doing is absolutely brilliant, others would be like "This person doesn't fit into MY definition of a president, so I don't like him." That's not why people don't like Trump. If your employee rarely showed up, stole from you when they did show up, and sexually harassed everyone in the office you wouldn't say that the issue was that the employee doesn't fit into your definition of an employee. Trump is really, really bad at being President. By anyone's definition. The man hasn't managed to achieve a single part of his legislative agenda, despite controlling all three branches of government, and he can barely utter a coherent sentence. | ||
| ||
