U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Maple Leaf]

59 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

“while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

 

 

Apparently, Meuller found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  But he does not exonerate Trump in the matter of obstruction of justice, and is leaving that decision to the AG.

 

As I stated in a post a couple of days ago, the Republicans will take this is a victory for Trump.

[JackLadd]

You just knew the fix was in here. No collusion my erse.

[Francis Albert]

Oh dear. Collapse of many stout parties. Mueller fails to deliver!

[Sharpie]

I wouldn't be hosting the Trump celebration party just yet. If I heard it correctly the U.S.D.O.J have a policy of not proceeding with a criminal  charge if they are not sure of a guilty verdict, as opposed to the normal reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been commited. The obstruction statment of no evidence of guilt but also no exoneration could provide sufficient evidence to proceed with Impeachment, which  of course would probably be voted down in the Senate.

Despite all his protests and hoax talk, Trump is nowhere close to being out of trouble, the non Federal charges relating to his business etc . all have to be concluded, probably in Court. It takes a poor judge of character for a person to revel in the so far released findings. Donald Trump is a man lac king in integrity, has besmirched the dignity of the office of President, and if no other way will suffer being the subject of tales of his mayhem throughout history, not much of a legacy.

[JackLadd]

None of it makes sense to me that he can conclude no collusion evidence when we know about the meeting, the timed hack releases, the shared polling data with Russians and multiple other Russia contacts. We even had Putin admit he directed his fsb to help Trump. Something stinks here.

[Justin Z]

If they couldn’t nail Reagan for Iran Contra, and they couldn't nail Bill Clinton for Whitewater, and they couldn’t nail W for manufacturing evidence of WMDs, did anyone honestly think that they were going to nail Trump over a few meetings his underlings had and some Facebook ads?

 

Of course, all the decent people of the world wanted to hope beyond hope. But decent people don't run things.

 

A broken system is not ever going to fix itself.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Justin Z

[Sidelight]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Oh dear. Collapse of many stout parties. Mueller fails to deliver!

I thought Schiff had solid evidence for criminal collusion?

Perhaps I heard incorrectly.

We will see what this week brings but it seems that the charade was really fixated on a 2016 election reversal.

Schiff, his cohorts the disgracefully biased media completely discredited.

An inability to separate political bias from objective reality and they bought it.

The American writer still in denial.

 

[doctor jambo]

12 hours ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

“while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

 

You could say the same about any number of presidents/ candidates .

BUsh/Nixon/ both Clintons, any number of Kennedys.

Trump is not unique.
Really successful people operate in a world we do not, treading a line- shady deals, pressure, bribery and tax shenanigans.

There is nothing unique in this.

The US needs to suck it up, and their electorate will remove or keep him- and that is the truth of the matter.

[Francis Albert]

Still time for the Democrats to move from dreaming of impeachment and jailing Trump to contemplating the real reasons they lost in 2016 and avoiding making them again.

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Still time for the Democrats to move from dreaming of impeachment and jailing Trump to contemplating the real reasons they lost in 2016 and avoiding making them again.

 

I agree in principle with that, but Trump needs to change his message too.  He won on simple points like MAGA, Lock Her Up, and Build the Wall.  He can't just repeat those and expect to win again.  Trump might run on his achievements, mainly the economy, but if the US enters a recession in the next 18 months, as is possible, then that card can't be played.  If the economy is off the table, then Trump's achievements make a very short list.

 

Most of all, the Dems needs to select a candidate who will capture the attention of the electorate.  Of the umpteen people who've thrown their hat into the ring, no-one stands out to me.  Trump will have the advantage of all incumbents, name recognition.

 

He might even have the help of the Russians, again!

[Watt-Zeefuik]

The top line isn't all that surprising, and Democrats as a whole largely expected this result after the way the last six months have gone. What Democrats are not prepared to do, quite rightly, is take AG Barr's word on how the report should be interpreted, given that his predecessor was fired for not suppressing the Mueller probe sufficiently and Barr was explicitly picked to be Trump's loyalist in the matter but still have enough credentials to clear the Senate.

 

Obstruction of justice was the purpose of the probe initially. Trump has once again gotten enough of the media and his legion of drooling racist morons that comprise about 1/3 of the country to believe that NO COLLUSION actually answers the focus of the probe. Yes, a lot of us hoped he'd find collusion, but the fact that Mueller didn't doesn't mean this is over. It's wasn't even the only active criminal investigation into the Trump Org.

 

Meanwhile I see Francis once again thinks he knows "the real reasons" Trump won but won't bother putting them to words, lest he have to confront reality. Democrats are, quite uncharacteristically, actually doing a pretty decent job of addressing the core problems that converged in 2016. I'm quite alarmed at how sensible my party is being for once.

[Sharpie]

17 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

The top line isn't all that surprising, and Democrats as a whole largely expected this result after the way the last six months have gone. What Democrats are not prepared to do, quite rightly, is take AG Barr's word on how the report should be interpreted, given that his predecessor was fired for not suppressing the Mueller probe sufficiently and Barr was explicitly picked to be Trump's loyalist in the matter but still have enough credentials to clear the Senate.

 

Obstruction of justice was the purpose of the probe initially. Trump has once again gotten enough of the media and his legion of drooling racist morons that comprise about 1/3 of the country to believe that NO COLLUSION actually answers the focus of the probe. Yes, a lot of us hoped he'd find collusion, but the fact that Mueller didn't doesn't mean this is over. It's wasn't even the only active criminal investigation into the Trump Org.

 

Meanwhile I see Francis once again thinks he knows "the real reasons" Trump won but won't bother putting them to words, lest he have to confront reality. Democrats are, quite uncharacteristically, actually doing a pretty decent job of addressing the core problems that converged in 2016. I'm quite alarmed at how sensible my party is being for once.

 

Symantyics play a big part in Barrs summary. It says at one point, Mueller found that there was insufficient evidence to justify criminal action. I have made the point before but think it is relevant, it does not say there was no evidcence, my reading is that Barr is dependent on the policy that says no criminal proceedings unless a conviction is assured. Mueller a long experienced law enforcement person, knows that in our western system of justice that can never be guaranteed. What always has to be kept in mind is that Barr is Trumps appointee. His value to Trump were his contrary opinions on the Special Counsel appointment, and his writings on how action could not be taken against a sitting President. Unless someone at sometime leaks the full report we are all stating strictly our own opinions on the report, and admiitedly mine is heavily weighed against Trump as I think he is mentally troubled, lacks integrity, and lives a life in which he perceives people who have ultimate power, dictators, mob bosses and the like, are what he wants to be.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

42 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

Symantyics play a big part in Barrs summary. It says at one point, Mueller found that there was insufficient evidence to justify criminal action. I have made the point before but think it is relevant, it does not say there was no evidcence, my reading is that Barr is dependent on the policy that says no criminal proceedings unless a conviction is assured. Mueller a long experienced law enforcement person, knows that in our western system of justice that can never be guaranteed. What always has to be kept in mind is that Barr is Trumps appointee. His value to Trump were his contrary opinions on the Special Counsel appointment, and his writings on how action could not be taken against a sitting President. Unless someone at sometime leaks the full report we are all stating strictly our own opinions on the report, and admiitedly mine is heavily weighed against Trump as I think he is mentally troubled, lacks integrity, and lives a life in which he perceives people who have ultimate power, dictators, mob bosses and the like, are what he wants to be.

 

It's longstanding Justice Department policy that the President cannot be indicted while sitting in office because of the conflict with the oversight of the executive and the pardon power, and that impeachment by Congress is the proper means for redress of criminal activity in office. That's not codified anywhere in the Constitution or legislation and could be changed within the Justice Department, something that Mueller was, in the OSC creation statute, given the possibility of challenging, but given that Mueller is a Justice company man through and through, he basically would have had to have found almost a literal smoking gun in order to challenge that policy.

 

This is one reason it's exceptionally important for Congress to see the full report, including supporting materials. Impeachment isn't limited to felonies -- it's a political process, and the only Constitutional guidance is the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors,:" whatever that means. Again, we're barely two decades from a President getting impeached for answering a question a little too cutely about getting oral sex from an intern in a completely unrelated inquiry.

 

What Congress has to decide is whether Trump's behavior in office goes sufficiently beyond well-established norms to the point that, for the integrity of the government, he needs to be removed from office. A fair amount of the country (including me) thinks the answer to that question is unequivocally, "yes." The question is whether 20 Republican Senators can be made to agree.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Ugly American

[Maple Leaf]

39 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

It's longstanding Justice Department policy that the President cannot be indicted while sitting in office because of the conflict with the oversight of the executive and the pardon power, and that impeachment by Congress is the proper means for redress of criminal activity in office. That's not codified anywhere in the Constitution or legislation and could be changed within the Justice Department, something that Mueller was, in the OSC creation statute, given the possibility of challenging, but given that Mueller is a Justice company man through and through, he basically would have had to have found almost a literal smoking gun in order to challenge that policy.

 

This is one reason it's exceptionally important for Congress to see the full report, including supporting materials. Impeachment isn't limited to felonies -- it's a political process, and the only Constitutional guidance is the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors,:" whatever that means. Again, we're barely two decades from a President getting impeached for answering a question a little too cutely about getting oral sex from an intern in a completely unrelated inquiry.

 

What Congress has to decide is whether Trump's behavior in office goes sufficiently beyond well-established norms to the point that, for the integrity of the government, he needs to be removed from office. A fair amount of the country (including me) thinks the answer to that question is unequivocally, "yes." The question is whether 20 Republican Senators can be made to agree.

 

And we all know the answer to that question.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

And we all know the answer to that question.

 

A fair number of folks I read regularly are pointing to the beginning of Nixon's congressional hearings, noting that the GOP was pretty dug in against removal at that time, but the mess revealed in the hearings made his position untenable. That was a different era but in many ways Trump is the endpoint of a shift in the GOP that started with Nixon and his band of goons. (Rupert Murdoch's media empire was partially built by ex-Nixon staffers who thought their old boss was treated unfairly by the US media.)

 

The Congressional hearings are just getting started and it's a fair bet that Mueller and possibly Barr will be called to testify at some point.

[Sharpie]

Most recent release states that Mueller stated he could not come to a conclusion on obstruction.  See for me that leaves a lot possibly unsaid, e.g I cannot come to a definite conclusion in the time now allotted.

[ri Alban]

He'll be on Rikers Island as soon as his term is up.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

On 09/10/2018 at 15:43, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Avenatti would be a disaster. He also accidentally helped the Republicans get Kavanaugh through thanks to his antics. No thanks.

 

Bumping this for absolutely no reason

[Watt-Zeefuik]

12 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Bumping this for absolutely no reason

 

A good take proven right if there ever was one

[JackLadd]

Trump is a mob boss who doesn't leave a trail behind him. Cohen basically confirmed that.

[Sharpie]

I watched Trump with the Israeli Prime Minister today. Trump went on at great length about an attack today on an Israeli house where some children were injured. I have no complaint with him condemning those who carry out such an attack, cowards to fire a rocket and run, but I couldn't help but compare his high emotions today, with his calm short reaction to fifty innocent people brutally murdered in Christchurch. Death and injury caused to innocent persons is a crime against humanity regardles of race color or creed.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Bumping this for absolutely no reason

 

2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

A good take proven right if there ever was one

 

I was originally impressed by Avenatti, thinking him to be the ideal street fighter to take on Trump.  Didn't expect him to be a sleazeball crook, allegedly of course.

[Sharpie]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

 

I was originally impressed by Avenatti, thinking him to be the ideal street fighter to take on Trump.  Didn't expect him to be a sleazeball crook, allegedly of course.

 

Are these posts related to Avenatti being arrested for trying to extort twenty million dollars from Nike. Appeared in Federal Court in New York this afternoon.

Edited March 25, 2019 by bobsharp

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

Are these posts related to Avenatti being arrested for trying to extort twenty million dollars from Nike. Appeared in Federal Court in New York this afternoon.

 

Yes.

[Sidelight]

Hannity: MSM has lied to you for years.

 

[Bindy Badgy]

Of course, Hannity never lies...

 

[Maple Leaf]

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Hannity is the LAST media person I would ask if I was looking for a balanced opinion.

 

He deserves some respect, however, as he likely is the one setting US policy on most matters.

[Justin Z]

22 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

He won on simple points like MAGA, Lock Her Up, and Build the Wall.  He can't just repeat those and expect to win again.  Trump might run on his achievements, mainly the economy, but if the US enters a recession in the next 18 months, as is possible, then that card can't be played.  If the economy is off the table, then Trump's achievements make a very short list.

 

He won in large by promising to do a mixture of things he had no intention of ever doing, things he was incapable of doing, and things prohibited by the physical laws of the universe. If he isn't capable of doing anything else, which unless he actually listens to his advisors, he's not, then yes, it'll come down to other stuff the office of the President has little influence on, like gas prices.

[Bindy Badgy]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Hannity is the LAST media person I would ask if I was looking for a balanced opinion.

 

He deserves some respect, however, as he likely is the one setting US policy on most matters.

 

It's a toss-up between him and Tucker Carlson.

 

What they put out isn't news or opinion. It's propaganda.

[Sidelight]

2 hours ago, Stokesy said:

 

It's a toss-up between him and Tucker Carlson.

 

What they put out isn't news or opinion. It's propaganda.

The irony, you cannot be serious.

 

Before our eyes, the left promoting MSM are being punctured for their dishonest and disgraceful reporting on Trump, Russia, Collusion, Kavanaugh etc. They should be holding their heads in shame.

 

And what about the viewers who couldn’t or wouldn’t see through the lies of these pretend news outlets. And continue to promulgate nonsense. The time has come for those duped to look in the mirror and resign themselves to the fact that they were taken for fools.  They allowed the rotten media to continue to produce lie after lie. They enjoyed it, amplified it and nurtured it.

 

Trump’s total vindication of charges that he colluded criminally with Russia in an effort to win office has brought hotly and sharply into focus the treacherous and ugly corruption existing between the authorities, now discredited politicians and the MSM.

 

And you call out Hannity and Carlson who nailed it.

Edited March 26, 2019 by alfajambo

[southcap]

35 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

The irony, you cannot be serious.

 

Before our eyes, the left promoting MSM are being punctured for their dishonest and disgraceful reporting on Trump, Russia, Collusion, Kavanaugh etc. They should be holding their heads in shame.

 

And what about the viewers who couldn’t or wouldn’t see through the lies of these pretend news outlets. And continue to promulgate nonsense. The time has come for those duped to look in the mirror and resign themselves to the fact that they were taken for fools.  They allowed the rotten media to continue to produce lie after lie. They enjoyed it, amplified it and nurtured it.

 

Trump’s total vindication of charges that he colluded criminally with Russia in an effort to win office has brought hotly and sharply into focus the treacherous and ugly corruption existing between the authorities, now discredited politicians and the MSM.

 

And you call out Hannity and Carlson who nailed it.

You are too far gone to even argue with.

 

****. That.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, alfajambo said:

 

 

Trump’s total vindication of charges that he colluded criminally with Russia in an effort to win office has brought hotly and sharply into focus the treacherous and ugly corruption existing between the authorities, now discredited politicians and the MSM.

 

 

 

Let's step back a bit.

 

All of the American Intelligence groups, there are about 24 of them, concluded that the Russians interfered in the Presidential elections, to the detriment of Clinton and to the benefit of Trump.

 

Add to that the documented willingness of Trump Jr to meet with the Russians during the campaign because he thought he'd get some dirt on Clinton.

 

Add to that the meetings that Trump had with the Russians, once even in the Oval Office, where no other Americans were in the room.

 

Add to that the obsequiousness with how Trump always acts around Putin, or talks about him.

 

That's a lot of smoke and many people concluded that where there's smoke there's fire.  They were wrong; there was no fire or, at least, Mueller didn't find any.  News outlets slant the news according to their political biases.  That's true of Fox, CNN, and all the rest.  That's their nature.  To characterise that as "treacherous and ugly corruption" is 'way over the top.

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, alfajambo said:

The irony, you cannot be serious.

 

Before our eyes, the left promoting MSM are being punctured for their dishonest and disgraceful reporting on Trump, Russia, Collusion, Kavanaugh etc. They should be holding their heads in shame.

 

And what about the viewers who couldn’t or wouldn’t see through the lies of these pretend news outlets. And continue to promulgate nonsense. The time has come for those duped to look in the mirror and resign themselves to the fact that they were taken for fools.  They allowed the rotten media to continue to produce lie after lie. They enjoyed it, amplified it and nurtured it.

 

Trump’s total vindication of charges that he colluded criminally with Russia in an effort to win office has brought hotly and sharply into focus the treacherous and ugly corruption existing between the authorities, now discredited politicians and the MSM.

 

And you call out Hannity and Carlson who nailed it.

 

Whatever you think of Hannity, it is extremely common knowledge -- something Hannity himself boasts about -- that Trump and Hannity talk privately on a regular basis about policy and political posturing. The notion that Hannity would be an unbiased journalist, generally laughable in the best of times, is simply self-evidently false at this point. He is effectively an unofficial Trump advisor at this point, and everyone, even those happy with the situation, knows it and admits it.

 

We don't have the full Mueller report right now. We have a very short executive summary summary provided by AG Barr and a number of unsolicited conclusions that he included. And as I mentioned before, Barr was specifically picked as a more loyal replacement for Sessions, whom Trump pushed out because he was not protective enough of the President on the Mueller investigation. 

 

None of this is innuendo or suggestion. These are facts that everyone, even Trump's most ardent cheerleaders, readily agree  to.

 

It also bears repeating yet again that even if Trump did not actually collude or engage in conspiracy with Russia, that is only about 10% of his legal/ethical troubles. Trump has been squawking, "NO COLLUSION!" for well over a year now in order to distract from the other charges against him.

 

This administration has thrown innocent children in cages, made babies represent themselves in court, and starved Puerto Rico, all in the name of a racist and hateful immigration policy. It is not anyone on the left, however sensible or not, that should hang its head in shame. It is the cheerleaders of this wretched and depraved administration whom must be condemned, forcefully, at all points. This, sadly, includes you, AJ.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, alfajambo said:

The irony, you cannot be serious.

 

Before our eyes, the left promoting MSM are being punctured for their dishonest and disgraceful reporting on Trump, Russia, Collusion, Kavanaugh etc. They should be holding their heads in shame.

 

And what about the viewers who couldn’t or wouldn’t see through the lies of these pretend news outlets. And continue to promulgate nonsense. The time has come for those duped to look in the mirror and resign themselves to the fact that they were taken for fools.  They allowed the rotten media to continue to produce lie after lie. They enjoyed it, amplified it and nurtured it.

 

Trump’s total vindication of charges that he colluded criminally with Russia in an effort to win office has brought hotly and sharply into focus the treacherous and ugly corruption existing between the authorities, now discredited politicians and the MSM.

 

And you call out Hannity and Carlson who nailed it.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

[Maple Leaf]

[JackLadd]

Jussie cleared. Obviously had to even the scales after clearing Dump of obvious crimes.

[Sidelight]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

Whatever you think of Hannity, it is extremely common knowledge -- something Hannity himself boasts about -- that Trump and Hannity talk privately on a regular basis about policy and political posturing. The notion that Hannity would be an unbiased journalist, generally laughable in the best of times, is simply self-evidently false at this point. He is effectively an unofficial Trump advisor at this point, and everyone, even those happy with the situation, knows it and admits it.

 

We don't have the full Mueller report right now. We have a very short executive summary summary provided by AG Barr and a number of unsolicited conclusions that he included. And as I mentioned before, Barr was specifically picked as a more loyal replacement for Sessions, whom Trump pushed out because he was not protective enough of the President on the Mueller investigation. 

 

None of this is innuendo or suggestion. These are facts that everyone, even Trump's most ardent cheerleaders, readily agree  to.

 

It also bears repeating yet again that even if Trump did not actually collude or engage in conspiracy with Russia, that is only about 10% of his legal/ethical troubles. Trump has been squawking, "NO COLLUSION!" for well over a year now in order to distract from the other charges against him.

 

This administration has thrown innocent children in cages, made babies represent themselves in court, and starved Puerto Rico, all in the name of a racist and hateful immigration policy. It is not anyone on the left, however sensible or not, that should hang its head in shame. It is the cheerleaders of this wretched and depraved administration whom must be condemned, forcefully, at all points. This, sadly, includes you, AJ.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

I stand by my comment made.

However, I understand that hypocrisy and corruption exist most probably wherever one cares to look and therefore I don’t necessarily disagree with any of your comments made.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

A bit off topic, but having had so much success running against Pelosi in Congressional races last year, the GOP has decided that they're going to make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a freshman rep from NYC, the bête noire of campaigns like the special election in NC-09 (where the Republican candidate got caught red-handed paying someone to do election fraud).

 

This is her today. I have no idea why they're picking fights with her other than that she's the Scary Urban Ethnic Lady and somehow that's going to work.

 

 

This is not the Democratic party of 15 years ago. (Thank goodness)

[Sidelight]

Schiff false narrative on Trump challenged.

 

 

 

 

[Sharpie]

I watched the Trump rally in Michigan. A cacophony of lies, exaggerations, the I am a hard man clenched fist. He also stated he is highly intelligent, went to the best schools and colleges, despite that glorious educational background and intellect he has forc ed his places of education to never divulge his grades, marks or school records of any sort.

I have to admit he did tell an absolute truth, he was discussing the Dems green policies. He went on about wind generated power and conclude by saying I know a lot about wind, he should because he is full of it.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

I watched the Trump rally in Michigan.

 

The rally took place a couple of miles from where I work. Suffice to say, I left work at 1.30pm yesterday so I could avoid the craziness. I didn't watch the rally as I can't cope with the incessant lying, narcissism and cruelty, but it seems like it went pretty much as expected.

[Sharpie]

As a lower leaving certificate fifteen year old leaving school, joining the work force, I do consider the validity of my criticising the policies and statemeNts of a genius who attended the best schools and colleges and rose to be President of the United States.   But I do just ponder at times.

 

Donald Trump in his campaign for President ran on a platform of building a border wall to reduce illegal immigration. He stated firmly that Mexico would pay for the Wall. On being elected he discussed this with the Mexican President who equally firmly told him to forget it, not quite in those words.

 

Later in his Presidency it was again stated thAt the Wall would be built, and because of trade, tariffs etc. Mexico would again pay for the Wall if indirectly so.

 

In his most recent statement about illegal immigration, the President stated that if Mexico do not do what he says he will close the Border and cut off trade with Mexico. Now I have stated my educational background as opposed to that obtained by a man who states he has superior intellect, but would that statement  if carried out not again defer any Mexican payment, and instead again put the financial consequences in the laps of the American people.

[Maple Leaf]

4 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

As a lower leaving certificate fifteen year old leaving school, joining the work force, I do consider the validity of my criticising the policies and statemeNts of a genius who attended the best schools and colleges and rose to be President of the United States.   But I do just ponder at times.

 

Donald Trump in his campaign for President ran on a platform of building a border wall to reduce illegal immigration. He stated firmly that Mexico would pay for the Wall. On being elected he discussed this with the Mexican President who equally firmly told him to forget it, not quite in those words.

 

Later in his Presidency it was again stated thAt the Wall would be built, and because of trade, tariffs etc. Mexico would again pay for the Wall if indirectly so.

 

In his most recent statement about illegal immigration, the President stated that if Mexico do not do what he says he will close the Border and cut off trade with Mexico. Now I have stated my educational background as opposed to that obtained by a man who states he has superior intellect, but would that statement  if carried out not again defer any Mexican payment, and instead again put the financial consequences in the laps of the American people.

 

Trump is floundering about the wall.  He also lies about it.

 

After the Mexicans laughed in his face, he said the new NAFTA would pay for it.  But the new NAFTA hasn't been ratified by any of the three countries involved, and might be years away from doing so.

 

He said new wall is going up "rapidly".  Lie!!  Not a single mile of new wall has been built during his presidency.

 

And now he says that he will close the border.  Oh yeah?  Mexico is America's third-largest trading partner.  The economic effect of closing the border would be hugely negative for both countries.  Hopefully the adults in the room (assuming there is one) will have a quiet word in his ear.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Trump is floundering about the wall.  He also lies about it.

 

After the Mexicans laughed in his face, he said the new NAFTA would pay for it.  But the new NAFTA hasn't been ratified by any of the three countries involved, and might be years away from doing so.

 

He said new wall is going up "rapidly".  Lie!!  Not a single mile of new wall has been built during his presidency.

 

And now he says that he will close the border.  Oh yeah?  Mexico is America's third-largest trading partner.  The economic effect of closing the border would be hugely negative for both countries.  Hopefully the adults in the room (assuming there is one) will have a quiet word in his ear.

 

The new NAFTA is also largely similar to the old NAFTA anyway.

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

The new NAFTA is also largely similar to the old NAFTA anyway.

 

Correct.  In Canada and Mexico, it's referred to as "tweaking".  To Trump, it's a wonderful new deal that greatly benefits American workers. 

 

Sure.  Whatever.

[Sidelight]

On 30/03/2019 at 19:33, Maple Leaf said:

 

Sure.  Whatever.

If you saw it from a satellite
With it's green and it's blue and white
The beauty of the curve of the earth
And it's oceans below
You might think it was paradise
If you didn't know - Jackson Browne

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Trump having more senior moments, getting a bit confused about where his own father was born.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/03/trump-claims-father-born-germany-false-fred-trump

[Notts1874]

I especially liked his speech to the NRCC? A couple of highlights were him claiming somebody would leak the speech to the media........while it was being shown on CSPAN. He then followed that up by saying the noise from wind turbines gives you cancer.

 

Some boy the Donald.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Notts1874 said:

I especially liked his speech to the NRCC? A couple of highlights were him claiming somebody would leak the speech to the media........while it was being shown on CSPAN. He then followed that up by saying the noise from wind turbines gives you cancer.

 

Some boy the Donald.

More chance Trump blowing hot air and giving you a disease.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Notts1874 said:

I especially liked his speech to the NRCC? A couple of highlights were him claiming somebody would leak the speech to the media........while it was being shown on CSPAN. He then followed that up by saying the noise from wind turbines gives you cancer.

 

Some boy the Donald.

 

He said "If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer, you tell me that one, okay?"

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-claims-wind-turbine-noise-causes-cancer-11683102

 

Who exactly are  'they'?

Hannity, Carlson, Jones, Bannon or some other nutjob whom it seem's have some influence with Trump.