Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

03-16-2017 , 12:33 AM
Since it has been talked about here's the man himself on where he thinks the leak came from. https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/...how_trump_pays
Quote:
AMY GOODMAN: Who do you believe sent you this, David?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, it’s possible that Donald sent it, although his attacks on me today—he tweeted about me today, so I clearly got under his skin—suggest not. When Donald has leaked something about himself, he usually doesn’t have a complaint. He didn’t complain about the really crude pornographic pictures of his wife when she was a porn model or the partial tax returns of his that were released last year, so I suspect those came from him. Most likely, this was somebody who’s familiar with my work, who knows that I have written a great deal about this idea of negative income and the alternative minimum tax, and trusted that I would get the maximum possible value out of these two pages.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, if it were Donald Trump, why do you think he would do this? What even led you to think it might be?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Well, first of all, because Donald has a long, well-documented history of leaking things about himself, of posing as his own PR man and calling himself John Barron or John Miller, planting stories that famous, beautiful women were pounding on his bedroom door, when in fact they had nothing to do with him. In this case, Donald wants to divert people from a couple things. He wants to get us off thinking about his connections to the Russian oligarchs, which raise fundamental questions about whether he is loyal to the United States or disloyal. He wants to get people off what appears to be the fiasco with the Republican healthcare plan, that he has put his name on without clearly understanding what it means and that contradicts his promises, and other matters. And Donald is very big, Amy, on distraction. He’s always trying to get journalists, you know, who are not well known for sticking to something for a long time—they’re generally not book writers—to distract them and get them to go write about something else or put on TV something else. So that may also—if he were to have done it, that would be part of that strategy.
03-16-2017 , 12:44 AM
Love that he calls him "Donald" throughout. So good.
03-16-2017 , 12:47 AM
So I remember seeing Drumpf was going to be on with Tucker Carlson tonight. Switched over for a few minutes and caught this gem of a question(paraphrasing)

TC : Do you think its even possible to integrate Muslims into Western culture?

Drumpf : Well, its not easy.

Here's the link. The question is at the end around the 18 min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5m2y-zqFQ
03-16-2017 , 12:48 AM
Tiny Trumps 4lyfe

03-16-2017 , 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
among other things Trump eliminating Meals on Wheels. Food for seniors. Screw them though.
Forget about Russia for a while. This should be treated like the #1 story in the country. Meals on Wheels would have to have like a 99% approval rating.
03-16-2017 , 12:57 AM
I just noticed my screw them though comment may not come off as the sarcasm it intended to be.

It was, I'm not that bad.
03-16-2017 , 01:00 AM
WP MSNBC This is a Fox infographic btw.
03-16-2017 , 01:00 AM
While it's hilarious that Trump needs to have rallies now, it seems that the more time he spends doing that the less time he spends attempting to govern. Perhaps to take advantage of that some D just needs to announce a run for pres and then just start campaigning full tilt. Donald will have to respond of course, which means more rallies for him and less getting stuff done. I think that's a win.

I guess the question is who would do it. I think someone like Biden might be the best choice. At this point I don't think he is a serious candidate for 2020, so it's a freeroll for him, however he is high-profile enough that Trump just can't ignore him. If it's unsuccessful, then that's no great loss, but if he actually gains enough momentum that it looks like he can win, I assume Dems could live with President Biden. But most importantly it keeps Trump busy with innocuous rallies.
03-16-2017 , 01:02 AM
LOL no mention of income?! Wow, really impressive work. The ways they come up with to be stupid are actually profound.

Last edited by AllTheCheese; 03-16-2017 at 01:03 AM. Reason: Also, lol at not choosing the same year for all parties.
03-16-2017 , 01:02 AM
Like this literally plays into the hands of people that will use this to mislead people and create a certain narrative about true patriot and taxpayer Trump!
03-16-2017 , 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCheese
LOL no mention of income?! Wow, really impressive work. The ways they come up with to be stupid are actually profound.
It's your typical Fox low level bull.
03-16-2017 , 01:05 AM
Biden wouldn't have to do rallies and could just withdraw later anyway. Just make a speech here and there, don't have to do much at all.

There is one big problem with the strategy though; it creates an enemy that trump desperately wants. I also wouldn't call the rallies a meaningless thing for trump, they are one of the big reasons he got elected.
03-16-2017 , 01:07 AM
Married Trump campaign chair caught in motel room with underage boy.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/03/15...-underage-boy/

Shortey, a human man, Made National News in 2012 When He Proposed a Bill Banning Human Fetuses From Being Used in Food.
03-16-2017 , 01:29 AM
Interesting thread from Guardian journalist that has been going around for months now talking to Trump voters.
03-16-2017 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eurodp
Interesting thread from Guardian journalist that has been going around for months now talking to Trump voters.
For the bazillionth time - while the rust belt voters who put Trump over the top might be his spiritual base, they are just a sliver of his support.

Trump's base is the army of generally well-off, suburban, retired, easily-manipulated FNC-addicted olds who will never vote Democrat for the rest of their lives.
03-16-2017 , 01:33 AM
It sure seems like this is more than just incidental contact between Stone and Guccifer.


https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/842104283768205312
03-16-2017 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
Why should we get involved in affairs that are none of our business?

Why should we defend a country or possibly get into a war with russia over a country that doesn't impact america at all?

(I'm all aboard the **** Putin train btw, but this mindset that america should police the world or fight everyone's battles is absurd)

anyway, trump now blaming NYT for a jan 20th article (how does he remember the date, it's almost like someone told him to say that) for his wiretap claims, ofc everyone knows it's the breitbart article that was ran that day but whatever.
Including Montenegro in NATO protects it from fascist aggression - Russia. that's why NATO was established in the first place - to protect a bunch of small, democratic-minded countries from the Soviet Union. Stopping there spread of communism (then) and fascism (now) is a benefit to the U.S. If you're strictly looking for utility reasons - it creates and protects new trade partners.

But another reason to allow Montenegro into NATO in order to protect it from Russia is, that it's the right thing to do.

edit: I see you were being sarcastic....so never mind.
03-16-2017 , 01:36 AM
I think the Trump presidency, qua historical event, needs a special name. I propose "the firehose," or, if you prefer the German, Feuerwehrschlauch (have to admit, I thought it would be Feuerhose).

Why firehose? First, following developments is like drinking from a firehose. It's not a full-time job, assuming you read fast, but it's close. Second, the Trump administration, if in intent if not deed, brings to mind the firehoses trained on civil rights activists in the 50s and 60s. Third, the White House leaks in a stream that more or less approximates water from a firehose. Finally, let's just say the Cheeto is fond of strong, steady streams, or so go the leaks.

Sure, we can call it the Trump administration or whatever, but the firehose seems more appropriate name for the broader historical phenomenon.
03-16-2017 , 01:43 AM
The Trump Peesidency.
03-16-2017 , 01:44 AM
There've been whispers of "If you knew what we knew" from some House reps... but nothing seems to come of it.

In "Smrt ppl gonna smrt":



https://twitter.com/FiveRights/statu...73618490609665
03-16-2017 , 01:44 AM
Montenegro in the grand scheme is basically what Mediterranean Ave is to Monopoly. In isolation it's not a big deal, but do you want to risk leaving it for an interested opponent? What value would it represent to them? Could inaction be more costly?

FTR I'm not advocating for or against NATO inclusion for Montenegro, right now I don't even know for sure what our own commitment to NATO is let alone the cost/benefit of this option. This is clouded by other factors like the financial commitments of other member nations coming up short--a rare case of Trump making a correct observation.
03-16-2017 , 01:46 AM
Right, because being in Hawaii means you can't possibly know what happened on 9/11. Why, they didn't even have electricity yet. They didn't find out about 9/11 until 9/11/02.

Nice logic dip****.
03-16-2017 , 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsjefe
There've been whispers of "If you knew what we knew" from some House reps... but nothing seems to come of it.

In "Smrt ppl gonna smrt":



https://twitter.com/FiveRights/statu...73618490609665
Not for nothing, but that map is literally insane when you consider HC won by 2.9 million votes.
03-16-2017 , 01:48 AM
UK, France, Germany and Italy as parties to the 1878 Treaty of Berlin should really be defending the independence of Montenegro to block the Russian plan to combine all these states into Greater Bulgaria.
03-16-2017 , 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Including Montenegro in NATO protects it from fascist aggression - Russia. that's why NATO was established in the first place - to protect a bunch of small, democratic-minded countries from the Soviet Union. Stopping there spread of communism (then) and fascism (now) is a benefit to the U.S. If you're strictly looking for utility reasons - it creates and protects new trade partners.

But another reason to allow Montenegro into NATO in order to protect it from Russia is, that it's the right thing to do.

edit: I see you were being sarcastic....so never mind.
Okay, serious talk.
There's one thing with that democracy part--majority of Montenegro people don't want to join NATO.

The gov't is currently a total mess. I dont' think they're even democratic. (turkey isn't and they're in NATO btw).

Putin has been screwing with them though.

"the right thing to do" was the argument for going into Iraq and we only made it worse.

Still, it doesn't do much for us, they aren't a EU country, and as previously stated, they're not gonna pull their weight in the alliance of people not pulling their weight (one ****ing thing trump is right on, but I suspect his statement is for entirely different reasons)

If this is pure **** Putin okay, but the other arguments are rather weak.

      
m