Shutdowns, military pullouts, and resignations: it’s Christmas and Trump thread 89

[TheClaws]

It’s chaos in Trump’s world, more so than usual, with #TrumpResign trending in Twitter after a number of key debacles: the pull-out of US troops from Syria, the resignation of General Jim Mattis, and the shutdown of the government over Christmas due to bipartisan disagreement over wall funding. (Those are just 3 issues.) The next few weeks will be rocky.

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3442038-But-When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal-Trump-thread-LXXXVIII

Justanotherlurker, it would be more useful – and more in the habit of these threads as you would know if you've really been reading them – to post rebuttals of individual stories and your sources for them.

Just wafting in occasionally and saying "Oooh, you've no idea what you're talking about" while waving your hands, doesn't move anyone.

All you've done recently is demonstrate you're so far sunk in your own hug box that you repeat its argot without stopping to think that the people you're talking to aren't in your inner circle.

It’s the defining feature of his presidency - chaos upon chaos so previous crises remain undealt with

I completely agree with this. It was commented on before 45 became president (I think by his biographer, Michael d'Antonio) that his modus operandi has always been to create a whirl of chaos around him.

I get a distinct impression that these threads do simply go to sources, all the time and without much comment; just "here is what Trump has just said/tweeted, make of it what you will" and "here is the text of the letter/indictment/sentencing comments" and "this is what happened in Iowa yesterday".

It's difficult to see how anyone on it can be judged to be intelligent, knowledgeable or otherwise, in those circumstances. Informed, certainly. Also difficult to see how rebuttal or even denial can be put forward about the President having said in a broadcast, or tweeted on his account, something which we can hear, or see, for ourselves that he did say or tweet.

Yes, I'm not quite sure which "the inevitable rebuttals" Justanotherlurker revers to are.

There's certainly a lot of rebuttal of the content of what 45 says.

So, the President is seen or heard to say something in a broadcast or tweet.

Then sources are added showing how 45 is telling untruths again. We do spend a certain amount of time discussing reliability of sources, probably more so in the early threads than recently.

revers to refers to

A lot of these threads are about the curation and draw upon many different sources in order to provide a record of what this Presidency means. This is, of course, a form of resistance because it is about knowledge gathering and sharing. Sometimes it is fast moving and there are multiple strands that run at once but I have noticed that often when someone picks up on a link to add a comment someone else will usually enter into a dialogue about it.

If you have an issue with any of the links or comments then jump right in and we can discuss it properly.

Is it that you think we have done Sanders a disservice?

It's difficult to see how anyone on it can be judged to be intelligent, knowledgeable or otherwise, in those circumstances. Informed, certainly

It's because there has been a lot pseudo intellectual comments wrapped around the articles that have since been proven to be absolute partisan bollocks, to deny this shows you are not treating these threads as anything more than a self fulfilling echo chamber.

If it were just posting the stupid shit Trump has tweeted or said instead of posting the most extreme partisan shit from any blue check twitterati shows its not really showing any understanding of what is wrong with american politics and why/or Trump should go or why he is in power in the first place, apart from the obvious (muh russia).

Look back over the old threads and the faux "in the know, this will be the end of trump" situations which has been based on nothing more than a want to believe over actual facts, pretending its based on emerging news or following the story is why on any other platform these types of threads would be called out for shilling, it has become that hysterical.

We do spend a certain amount of time discussing reliability of sources, probably more so in the early threads than recently.

No you don't, reliability discussions come about when it comes to publications who surprise you and don't confirm to your pre conceived mindset, those you have pointed out are trying to offer balance as the american public are walking up to partisan nature of the press, you flirted with the idea of MotherJones and CNN being partisan yet still C&P every little tweet from a blue tick journo from said news networks with a self congratulatory back slap.

I think you need to take a step away and look at these threads retrospectively, it's turning into a serious echo chamber with no objective thought on what is posted, there are many reasons to shit on Trump legitimately, the majority of posts on here are boarding on green ink complaining to the editor though.

Is it socks I see before me?

I suppose there's not much comment these days because we know eachother and have discussed many of these issues, before.
I have to say that I don't read many links these days about Russia, for example, because they tend to confirm what we already knew or suspected.

I'd be interested to know what are these unbiased sources. Fox? Breitbart? Russia Today?

pseudo intellectual

Yes.

it's turning into a serious echo chamber with no objective thought on what is posted, there are many reasons to shit on Trump legitimately

Well...

Contribute your reasons to shit on Trump legitimately.

Contribute your objective thoughts on links or comments that are posted.

Do you honestly think we care about what you or anyone lurking thinks of these threads?
The people who post are happy with how they run, and are happy to contribute.

If you want a thread according to your specs, start one.

We are not changing how we post or read the thread because someone didn't deem it good enough or intellectual enough.

Here is a biased clip on why Trump thinks he can't be impeached.

Idiot Trump Says He Can’t Be Impeached Because He Won A “Great Election”

Biased towards not lies.

the american public are walking up to partisan nature of the press

Doesn't seem likely, Justanotherlurker.

Aren't you a little behind the times?

The President declared the media to be "the enemy of the American People" nearly a year ago. And he hadn't exactly been shy of calling the press biased before that.

What is boarding/boarding on green ink? I’ve seen it twice but have no idea what it means.

Perhaps the poster doesn’t know either.

Is it socks I see before me?

Wow knee deep in the "everyone who disagrees is russian/tory/nazi/sock (delete as appropriate) territory" then.

No Sock here, I know I'm a contrarian arsehole but I do stick to my username and don't name change for these threads, a quick background check should sort that out.

I have to say that I don't read many links these days about Russia, for example, because they tend to confirm what we already knew or suspected.

They don't really confirm anything as its a muddy shitshow all around, especially considering the russian bots thing has highlighted they where also shown to be pushing pro bernie, blm and antifa stuff.

I'd be interested to know what are these unbiased sources. Fox? Breitbart? Russia Today?

Unironically calling me out as some right wing troll whilst lapping up ever CNN, mother jones article.

That is the faux superior "intelligence" I was alluding to.

It’d be helpful to point out what the hyperpartisan bollocks is justalurker. If you notice there are things that have been debunked but aren’t on the thread, why not post that on here?

Without specifics, it’s hard to ascertain whether you’ve got a point!

I think boadering is meant to be bordering and the green ink refers to the colour of the ink that the more divorced-from-reality people used to write letters to newspapers.

Actually I re-read the boarding comment and don’t know if it is meant to be bordering. Not averse to debunking afterall

Aren't you a little behind the times?

Not really, I work in one of the most "woke" liberal cities in the US.

The President declared the media to be "the enemy of the American People" nearly a year ago. And he hadn't exactly been shy of calling the press biased before that.

Because its true, the american press are on the extreme partisan axis, people are quick to point the finger at the likes of fox etc and ignore CNN etc. Its been called out world wide long before trump came to power but some have now decided to double down instead of address the situation at hand.

Both sides are guilty of bullshit and shit stirring, on these threads though its only one side doing it as is apparent in me being some right wing troll who gets me news from Fox/RT, I admit I was epically owned there though..

The real resistance that is happening is people criticizing the media in general and the IDPOL nature of it, Maddow triumphing that the CIA now has 3 women in charge and go through mental hoops of saying Trump is a misogynist despite appointing them, the obvious media hit show at Sanders, and realising that Trump, whilst a shit show is doing nothing presedentially that others haven't done. Apart from being a shit poster.

I'm not a trump fan, I only posted here as it's becoming a parody, the fact someone tried to call me out as only reading fox/rt etc does show that.

There's more than just a muddy shitshow all round wrt to Russia.

There's a lot of very specific shit, relating not just to political movements or unsuccessful political candidates (which is none-the-less worth taking note of), but the current actual President of the United States and his administration. The administration that's actually in power.

The US President's National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn; POTUS's former personal lawyer and adviser, Michael Cohen; and POTUS's former adviser George Papadopoulous have all pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI or to Congress about their contacts with Russian officials.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46609628
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/29/michael-cohen-plead-guilty-congress-lying-mueller-investigation
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45455050

This is about the people around the sitting US President, and these three are just those I could remember off the top of my head. Investigations are as we know ongoing. It's likely to get much more detailed, and potentially much more serious for the country. Maybe. Have to wait and see.

Oh dear.

So why do you keep making stuff up, Justanotherlurker?

Eg "someone tried to call me out as only reading fox/rt etc"

We can read the thread. Nobody said that about you.

NotJustAnotherLurker
Do you actually have anything to contribute regarding Trump? And any intelligible comments on American Politics?

There's more than just a muddy shitshow all round wrt to Russia

There certainly is, which is why you have ignored the side which also points to Russian bots being active in BLM and Pro Sanders shit, everyone was waiting with baited breath on Reddit doing an audit until they found out that ~90% of the bots where active amongst left leaning subs and not the shit shows that is pro trump.

I'm not saying there is no collusion with Russia, it's just a lot more murky than the one sided nature some on here still like to profess.

We can read the thread. Nobody said that about you.

I suppose we are not supposed to read between the lines with comments such as this then,

I'd be interested to know what are these unbiased sources. Fox? Breitbart? Russia Today?, even with a cheeky grin at the end.

So what should we be reading then, justanotherlurker?