Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Trump (Part 7)

999 replies

claig · 21/12/2016 00:37

Even more Trump.

There may be 4 years of this.
Try to keep it lighthearted and not snide, please.
It's Christmas.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Lweji · 03/01/2017 16:35

Trump isn't as wealthy as many Russians, he could be bought.

Indeed he could actually be in serious debt. Many people have suggested that he is and he hasn't released his tax returns.

DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 16:35

OH btw, none of the appointees are serving generals.

claig · 03/01/2017 16:38

'Putin certainly influenced the election though.'

Trump says he didn't. It depends who you believe.

'Trump begged the Russians to hack the emails etc.'

We have been through that 100 times when you were "lurking". It was a joke that the BBC, true to form, took "literally"

'Trump isn't as wealthy as many Russians, he could be bought. '

Trump is not bought. If he was you can bet your boots that the entire world elite would have shown evidence of it instead of calling him a racist because they were desperate to stop him

'If Trump's backers are the FBI, police, army etc they will have been in breach their contacts, and the constitution.'

No they won't. Police and military can say who they support and Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sheriff David Clarke and lots of police, ICE and lots of serving military and ex-generals were all free to say they supported Trump and they did say so

OP posts:
Lweji · 03/01/2017 16:38

My guess is the opposition won't try to impeach Trump due to power politics etc. Trump will be in charge and will have power. I don't think anyone will be able to undermine him.

It's not the opposition. The Democrats don't have enough votes. But GOP may only be too happy to impeach him and let his VP in charge.
It's happened to previous presidents (one resigned, another scrapped through in the second chamber).

What would happen then? Would he involve the military?

claig · 03/01/2017 16:39

'OH btw, none of the appointees are serving generals'

Former generals, some retired, some sacked by Obama

OP posts:
Lweji · 03/01/2017 16:39

Trump says he didn't. It depends who you believe.

I'd go with the several security agencies. Rather than the well known con man.

claig · 03/01/2017 16:44

"Let's face it. Trump won mostly due to Hillary's and DNC's email hacking, fake news and Comey's statement in the last week before the election.
Now, who was responsible?"

Fake news had nothing to do with it, because most mainstream news was fake as were the polls and predictions that Trump had no path to 270

The Wikileaks definitely damaged Hillary but according to the polls she was still always ahead and the media hammered Trump in the biggest onslaught ever seen in the media over the Billy Bush tape and avoided Wikileaks as much as it could.

The Comey thing damaged Hillary but it was marginal because what he did helped Hillary right up until about the last week when he reopened and then said no evidence and switched again

There was no stopping Trump because it was part of the people's revolution

OP posts:
claig · 03/01/2017 16:46

'I'd go with the several security agencies. Rather than the well known con man.'

I'd go with the 45th President of the United States

OP posts:
DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 16:46

I believe the head of the CIA and FBI over Trump, who would of course claim that there was no involvement.

Ah so calling for the hacking was a joke, like saying to the 2nd ammendemtn people about Hillary?

Ah so anything that is actually controversial or can be used as evidence against him is a joke?

They are in breach of contracts if they have backed Trump with donations and activism because the law states that they cannot take part in partisan activity or:

"activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations."

What Active Duty Members Can and Cannot Do
Cannot - Participate in partisan political fundraising activities, rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator.

Cannot - Use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or require or solicit political contributions from others.

Cannot -Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. However, letters to the editor are allowed.

Cannot - Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.

Cannot - Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

Cannot - Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.

Cannot - Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee or candidate during a campaign, on an election day, or after an election day during the process of closing out a campaign.

Cannot - Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for any political cause or candidate.

Cannot - March or ride in a partisan political parade.

Cannot - Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a bumper sticker) on a private vehicle.

Cannot - Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

Cannot - Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls if the effort is organized by or associated with a partisan political party, cause, or candidate.

Cannot - Sell tickets for or otherwise actively promote partisan political dinners and similar fundraising events.

Cannot - Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed Forces, except as a member of a joint Armed Forces color guard at the opening ceremonies of the national conventions of the Republican, Democratic, or other political parties recognized by the Federal Elections Committee or as otherwise authorized by the Secretary concerned.

Cannot - Make a campaign contribution to, or receive or solicit (on one’s own behalf) a campaign contribution from, any other member of the Armed Forces on active duty.

Cannot - Any activity that may be reasonably viewed as directly or indirectly associating the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security (in the case of the Coast Guard) or any component of these Departments with a partisan political activity or is otherwise contrary to the spirit and intention of this Directive shall be avoided.

DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 16:47

"I'd go with the 45th President of the United States"

I'd believe the 44th, who was the one taking the security briefings, the one with integrity, who didn't ask for Russian involvement.

Lweji · 03/01/2017 16:48

That's not what the polls said.

Or events.

And most of what you'd say were fake news by MSM were Trump's words.

For all we know, Trump may be telling the truth when saying that he wasn't directly supported by Putin. Putin didn't have to make plans with Trump. It's obvious that having Trump as President suits him, though. For the implosion of the US.
Someone is laughing all the way and it's not the "people".

claig · 03/01/2017 16:49

'Oh and BTW, didn't he say he knew more than the countries generals during the election?

Why should he need them if he is so knowledgeable? '

Yes he said that and he said he was going to fire the foreign policy experts whom he called "these geniuses" who he said had got us into all these messes. He has now appointed his own generals, ones he likes because he can't do every job under the sun himself, although Trump fans expect that he would give it his best shot

OP posts:
Lweji · 03/01/2017 16:50

The generals who were involved in the previous wars and military actions?
That didn't go so well?

Ontopofthesunset · 03/01/2017 16:52

Well he hasn't been very good at doing the jobs he had before (multiple failed businesses, multiple law suits against him), so why should he suddenly be able to turn his hand to military strategy?

claig · 03/01/2017 16:55

'It's obvious that having Trump as President suits him, though. For the implosion of the US.'

There will be no "implosion of the US". That is Guardian Oxbridge team talk.

The US is going to boom, Trump said "America is back". Elites are in panic.

Some security analysts on Fox said that Putin wouldn't dare have interferd with the elections against Hillary because teh risk was too great as everyone expected Hillary to win and Putin couldn't guarantee that Trump would win and teh risk of revenge would be too great if Hillary won and found out.

Plus, other experts said that Putin doesn't know Trump whereas he knows Hillary and has dealt with her before, with Hillary it is the same old, same old, but Trump is unreadable. He talks friendly, but Putin doesn't know what Trump will do and of course may analysts say that the Shadow Government takes the real decisions anyway. Either way Putin could not guarantee a Trump win or if Trump was good for Russia in the end. Plus US intelligence would be able to find out if the election was being interfered with, they are not incompetent.

OP posts:
DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 16:57

Why would the elites panic about a booming USA? Surely those with money already will benefit. There is to be no transfer of wealth.

"Plus US intelligence would be able to find out if the election was being interfered with, they are not incompetent."

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html

they did.

claig · 03/01/2017 17:00

'But GOP may only be too happy to impeach him and let his VP in charge.
It's happened to previous presidents (one resigned, another scrapped through in the second chamber).

What would happen then? Would he involve the military?'

No, we are talking about power politics. Trump has powerful backers, not McMahon, and they wil protect him and Trump will have the keys to the cabinet and know where the skeletons are hidden. No GOP puppet up to their eyeballs in sleaze wil dare try to impeach Trump.

Past presidents have been impeached but now you are into Conspiracy 101 terrirtory about who brought them down and why and what they did to piss imporatnt people off. Trump has a job to do to "make America great again" and no one will mess with Trump.

OP posts:
claig · 03/01/2017 17:02

'Why would the elites panic about a booming USA? Surely those with money already will benefit. There is to be no transfer of wealth. '

I thought you said you knew what was going on in the world. Why are you asking me basic questions? This is 101 stuff.

OP posts:
DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 17:02

Who are Trump's backers?

If they are so powerful how are they not the elite establishment?

Inkanta · 03/01/2017 17:02

DARTH - I also have 3 children.

You are very full on - on this thread. Can you come down a bit.

DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 17:03

No this is a genuine question... If Trump is going to make the USA boom again how the the "elites" not benefit.

Surely the rich will just get richer? The political people that they fund will continue to get funding and the world will keep on turning.

I think you can't explain it, as with much of your theories.

DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 17:04

Inkanta, I'm full on maybe because I have slipped disc and am bed ridden and bored.

DarthPlagueis · 03/01/2017 17:04

Oh and please, don't ask me to stop posting when Claig gets free reign.

claig · 03/01/2017 17:05

"They are in breach of contracts if they have backed Trump with donations and activism because the law states that they cannot take part in partisan activity"

They didn't. They said they supported Trump. Sheriff David Clarke supported Trump, Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsed Trump and lots of ex-military supported Trump and I don't know if current military said they did or not

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread