Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

sturg33 said:
Slimy people going down is a good thing.

But there has been no publicly released evidence of collusion. I thought Woodward's comments were interesting - he said he tried very hard for 2 years to find evidence of it for his book, and found nothing.

If nsacpi wants to hide behind the obstruction card in order to get his wish fulfilled - who knows, maybe he'll be happy. But to me this is akin to someone getting in trouble for resisting arrest when said person didn't commit a crime.
Click to expand...

resisting arrest is a crime...and abuse of power an impeachable one
 
sturg33 said:
But I was promised collusion
Click to expand...

it's there if you would stop averting your gaze...adoptions meeting...Trump publicly promising a good deal on sanctions...changing the Ukraine platform plank...inviting Kilimnic to Chicago to watch...publicly urging the Russians on in their hacking activities...much of it happened broad daylight

you seriously think the Manafartov profer was about Podesta or Vin Weber?
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
it's there if you would stop averting your gaze...adoptions meeting...Trump publicly promising a good deal on sanctions...changing the Ukraine platform plank...inviting Kilimnic to Chicago to watch...publicly urging the Russians on in their hacking activities...much of it happened broad daylight

you seriously think the Manafartov profer was about Podesta or Vin Weber?
Click to expand...

You said 2 years, right?
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/trump-legal-team-lawyers.html

Trump's lawyers don't know if he has told them all the details regarding some of the key events he has been involved in.

"Mr. Dowd took Mr. Trump at his word he had done nothing wrong and never conducted a full internal investigation to determine the president's true legal exposure."

Sounds like some sort of malpractice to believe a client who lies constantly.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much the first thing a lawyer tells a client facing criminal charges is that they cant effectively lawyer for them unless they tell them the truth. I think Trump legitimately believes most of the lies he tells.
 
nsacpi said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/trump-legal-team-lawyers.html

Trump's lawyers don't know if he has told them all the details regarding some of the key events he has been involved in.

"Mr. Dowd took Mr. Trump at his word he had done nothing wrong and never conducted a full internal investigation to determine the president's true legal exposure."

Sounds like some sort of malpractice to believe a client who lies constantly.
Click to expand...

Last sentences of Woodward's book:

"But in the man and the presidency, Dowd had seen the tragic flaw. In the political back and forth, the evasions, the denials, the tweeting, the obscuring, the crying 'Fake News', the indignation, Trump had one overriding problem that Dowd knew but could not bring himself to say to the president, 'You're a f*cking liar.' "
 
cajunrevenge said:
Pretty much the first thing a lawyer tells a client facing criminal charges is that they cant effectively lawyer for them unless they tell them the truth. I think Trump legitimately believes most of the lies he tells.
Click to expand...

I've come to the conclusion that the lying is symptomatic of a deeper problem. We all have to deal with divergences between what the facts are and what we wish them to be. In Trump's case, I think the basic processing mechanism that allows us to distinguish between what is good information and what is bad information is broken. Broken or over-riden by his drive to wish things into reality. That's not the way the world works. But it is what determines truth for him. So how do you lawyer for someone for whom reality is a dreamworld not connected to facts in the way it is for the rest of us. I wouldn't be surprised that if he obsessively repeats "no collusion" to his lawyers in the same way he repeats it on twitter.
 
Last edited:
But this really isn't new information. From 2016 he was know to be a pathological liar. People on this very board said as much while professing their allegiance.

What troubles me is that allegiance. Why are people willing to follow him off of the cliff, knowing he is leading them - off the cliff.

" I think the basic processing mechanism that allows us to distinguish between

what is good information and what is bad information is broken. "


Is as close to a definition I have seen

or is it something else.
I don't want to hear "oh she was a terrible candidate"
That was two years ago. Yet, people are still ... Kavanaugh is a prime example

How do we fix that mechanism ?
 
Runnin said:
Last sentences of Woodward's book:

"But in the man and the presidency, Dowd had seen the tragic flaw. In the political back and forth, the evasions, the denials, the tweeting, the obscuring, the crying 'Fake News', the indignation, Trump had one overriding problem that Dowd knew but could not bring himself to say to the president, 'You're a f*cking liar.' "
Click to expand...

According to former deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh, Trump’s ability to carry out his plans seemed questionable, hindered largely by a lack of skills—including reading comprehension.

“Here, arguably, was the central issue of the Trump presidency, informing every aspect of Trumpian policy and leadership: He didn’t process information in any conventional sense,” Wolff wrote. “He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-literate.”

In interviews, Trump stated that he doesn’t feel the need to read much. His reason was that he can make decisions correctly “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability,” The Washington Post reported.
 
For most of us, we read for information. Sometimes that information collides with our preconceptions. We all have our own ways of dealing with those collisions. Imagine being someone whose preconceptions are so strong as to virtually rule out accommodating information that is not consistent with those preconceptions. What is the point of reading for someone like that.

And then pile on top of that the impulsiveness, lack of respect for institutions, norms and contraints that have evolved over a long period of time. The end result is a train wreck.

There is a second part to this, which I think will ultimately be of greater interest to historians. Which is what his base makes of all this and the feedback loop between base and man.
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
But this really isn't new information. From 2016 he was know to be a pathological liar. People on this very board said as much while professing their allegiance.

What troubles me is that allegiance. Why are people willing to follow him off of the cliff, knowing he is leading them - off the cliff.

" I think the basic processing mechanism that allows us to distinguish between

what is good information and what is bad information is broken. "


Is as close to a definition I have seen

or is it something else.
I don't want to hear "oh she was a terrible candidate"
That was two years ago. Yet, people are still ... Kavanaugh is a prime example

How do we fix that mechanism ?
Click to expand...



When was that mechanism ever not broken? I talk a lot about manufactured consent which is the government using fake news/information to change the outcomes of elections/policies. One government agent wrote Op-Eds to all major newspapers in the US falsely attributing a kid murdering his family with an axe to reefer madness and the whole country bought it hook line and sinker. Many believe we let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into WW2 and if not for that we would have bombed the empire state building and blamed it on Germany. The Gulf of Tonkin incident. Pretty sure Lincoln lied to keep the North from making peace with the South. The whole Iraq War.


Generally speaking the solution is what we have. The Internet. We have 100000 sources to get information from. We saw manufactured consent fail with the Syrian chemical attacks.



With the Trump people they lock themselves up in an echo chamber and refuse anything outside of that. I have relatives that are hardcore Trump supporters and they listen and watch fox news almost every waking moment. Even when I visit its either fox news on TV or playing on the radio. Try and talk to them and anything I bring up they just say "where did you get that, the internet?. If I cant link to a fox news report they wont even give it a thought. Heck, they cant even admit they were wrong about Jeff Sessions who I tried telling them was an evil jackass. Now they think he is an evil jackass but they say no one could possibly have known Sessions would be such a bad AG. No one.......
 
nsacpi said:
There is a second part to this, which I think will ultimately be of greater interest to historians. Which is what his base makes of all this and the feedback loop between base and man.
Click to expand...

I have been asking since
January 2017 who voted for this guy?
Not always to be snarky but --- who voted for this guy -- what were you thinking

Seems more critical thought is put into who is the O Line coach at an SEC school or pitching coach for the Braves than who carries the nuclear brief case.
Or who is the face of our people on the international stage.
He picked a fight and alienated Canada fer chrise sakes


Like you said nsacpi this has evolved over a long period of time

edit:
and like Cajun said - " it has always been thus "
which is true.

I remember the day of first reports of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I was with a relative that was gung ho to administer retribution. (Fire and Fury was the phrase Hawk found so enamoring )
He is today, much like Cajun's family member, that if it doesn't come from Fox he wont believe it.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/trump-legal-team-lawyers.html

Trump's lawyers don't know if he has told them all the details regarding some of the key events he has been involved in.

"Mr. Dowd took Mr. Trump at his word he had done nothing wrong and never conducted a full internal investigation to determine the president's true legal exposure."

Sounds like some sort of malpractice to believe a client who lies constantly.
Click to expand...

I think this is going to end up being a very salient point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top