Is Trump Nuts?

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, April 8, 2017 11:05 PM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
I hope he screwz up sumthing big enuf to get axed asap.

---

Okay, stick a fork in it, this democracy's done.

Srsly. Consider for a moment what you are saying, Jo. You want the president to fail, ie, America to fail, so the left can seize power. And then we can have a little USSR again. TPP, like the EU. great.

And to clarify, so I'm not Putin WRDz into your mouth, I mean that Donald J Trump, the popularly elected President of the United States, (Hey, even I still can't say that with a straight face, but we have to get used to it) is a very pro-American candidate. And I accept that 59%. I think He might've lost to Sanders. But the democratic party ain't democratic anymore, and no law says they can't rig their primary. So, to want President Trump to fail is to want America to fail, because if you replace him with a leftie in this political climate, that means getting on board with the TPP, and WTO, and global corporate neo=imperialism. Which is it for America. That's what happens to the US. So, skipping Hillary Clinton, because frankly, I'd vote for Bashir al Assad before I would vote for Hillary, some deep state coup ousts the president with an impeachment (they never pass) and a series of threats, attempted assinations, or assassination, because that's what works, which is already a movement by the CIA (the real deep state) to install some puppet of the left, who will get on board with the corporatist trade treaties.

What do you think of Bernie? (I'm serious, I want to know.) Myself, i voted for Sanders, but I'm not about to support a CIA coup to install Sanders. I'm definitely supporting the idea of Trump is the legit president, and his supporters appear to be anything but deplorable. I'd like Sanders to run again, or support someone to run again, but my point is, whomever the CIA installs in going to answer to them, which means all the old Clinto-Bush-Obama nonsense comes back to the fore.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SECOND

Sunday, April 9, 2017 1:20 AM

How about the alternative where Congressional Republicans truly investigate Trump,
even looking into his tax returns and business conflicts of interest? His blind trust is not blind. If Trump is clean, then no problem. If Trump is dirty, which no one will ever know so long as the Republican controlled Congress takes it responsibilities so lightly, the Congressional Republicans remove Trump from office. Pence becomes President. There is no take over by the Democrats.
It is the Republicans that prove, or refuse to prove, Trump is clean.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
I hope he screwz up sumthing big enuf to get axed asap.

---

Okay, stick a fork in it, this democracy's done.

Srsly. Consider for a moment what you are saying, Jo. You want the president to fail, ie, America to fail, so the left can seize power. And then we can have a little USSR again. TPP, like the EU. great.

And to clarify, so I'm not Putin WRDz into your mouth, I mean that Donald J Trump, the popularly elected President of the United States, (Hey, even I still can't say that with a straight face, but we have to get used to it) is a very pro-American candidate. And I accept that 59%. I think He might've lost to Sanders. But the democratic party ain't democratic anymore, and no law says they can't rig their primary. So, to want President Trump to fail is to want America to fail, because if you replace him with a leftie in this political climate, that means getting on board with the TPP, and WTO, and global corporate neo=imperialism. Which is it for America. That's what happens to the US. So, skipping Hillary Clinton, because frankly, I'd vote for Bashir al Assad before I would vote for Hillary, some deep state coup ousts the president with an impeachment (they never pass) and a series of threats, attempted assinations, or assassination, because that's what works, which is already a movement by the CIA (the real deep state) to install some puppet of the left, who will get on board with the corporatist trade treaties.

What do you think of Bernie? (I'm serious, I want to know.) Myself, i voted for Sanders, but I'm not about to support a CIA coup to install Sanders. I'm definitely supporting the idea of Trump is the legit president, and his supporters appear to be anything but deplorable. I'd like Sanders to run again, or support someone to run again, but my point is, whomever the CIA installs in going to answer to them, which means all the old Clinto-Bush-Obama nonsense comes back to the fore.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, April 9, 2017 4:14 AM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
How about the alternative where Congressional Republicans truly investigate Trump,
even looking into his tax returns and business conflicts of interest? His blind trust is not blind. If Trump is clean, then no problem. If Trump is dirty, which no one will ever know so long as the Republican controlled Congress takes it responsibilities so lightly, the Congressional Republicans remove Trump from office. Pence becomes President. There is no take over by the Democrats.
It is the Republicans that prove, or refuse to prove, Trump is clean.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SECOND

Sunday, April 9, 2017 7:43 PM

Sorry to say, you are writing nonsense. This has nothing to do with what Hillary wants. In the USA's democracy, it is the Congressional Republicans' responsibility to prove Trump is clean. They aren't doing it. If the Constitution allowed, we could hold another national election to decide if Trump is guilty or not, but if the Congressional Republicans won't do their job of investigating Trump, it won't be done.

Republican Devin Nunes of California, in charge of one tiny part of investigating Trump, is now under investigation by the House Committee on Ethics because of public reports that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/devin-nunes-house-intelligence-
committee-russia.html

None of the other so-called "investigations" of Trump are proceeding in any way other than erratic whitewashes. I'm sure a Republican Congress and Republican voters don't want to know what crimes Trump might have committed. It makes them feel better to only pretend to investigate because they would feel really bad should they find a crime. This is where Hillary comes in -- she won't feel bad at all if Trump resigns like Nixon did. In August 9, 1974, Congressional Republicans and Democrats actually cared about the country more than about their political parties. Those days are gone.

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Nixon
Trump would agree.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
How about the alternative where Congressional Republicans truly investigate Trump,
even looking into his tax returns and business conflicts of interest? His blind trust is not blind. If Trump is clean, then no problem. If Trump is dirty, which no one will ever know so long as the Republican controlled Congress takes it responsibilities so lightly, the Congressional Republicans remove Trump from office. Pence becomes President. There is no take over by the Democrats.
It is the Republicans that prove, or refuse to prove, Trump is clean.

---

Hillary loves that plan. Any plan where the DNC decides who is president instead of the voters is a terrible plan, and not democracy. It's probably treason. Speaking of treason, that's what you impeach someone for. Sure, there are technicalities, but that's the plea bargain after you step down form treason. Nixon resigned. (The treason was invading Cambodia.) Ron Paul and Larry Craig voted to impeach Clinton from treason in Yugosalvia, (using the US UN peacekeeping contingent to arm Al Qaeda in an offensive to exterminate an ethinc minority in Bosnia (100,000 herzogovinians) Monica Lewinsky case was a setup by Clinton ally Newt Gingrich (To silence Linda Tripp about Vince Foster.) Thing is, I think you know all this, and you're just jumping on a partisan bandwagon like an operative. Because hte whingathon is not the resistance, but if you guys overthrow the govt. you will find that there is a resistance. And it's not because people love Trump. BTW, Pence has said he would not accept that. I assume that means he'd step down. President Paul Ryan is what you'd get. And a CIA deep state coup. And WWIII. Because Russia. And we'll invite them in to help stop that. And that's not treason, that's patriotism.

Still not completely happy with Trump, but much more unhappy with this idea that because the SJWs don't like that they lost an election we should throw democracy out with the bathwater.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SECOND

Sunday, April 9, 2017 7:45 PM

Libel in a world without truth
https://qz.com/935534/a-strategic-guide-to-navigating-the-law-like-don
ald-trump/

Trump’s claims about Obama constitute accusing a sitting US president of a crime. LawNewz noted that legal experts say Obama “has a strong case for a libel lawsuit.”

Technically speaking, it’s true that Obama may have a case. But technically doesn’t mean realistically, at least not when it comes to Donald Trump. Outrageous claims are his specialty, and Trump is the master of staying legally circumspect while appearing to be publicly reckless.

Libel is defined as a written published statement that is false and injurious to the reputation of another. To prove libel against a public figure, the statement has to have been made with both “reckless disregard for the truth” and “actual malice.”

Richard Painter, former ethics counsel to US president George W. Bush, told LawNewz that “an accusation of illegal wiretapping… would likely be criminal if a government official ordered it. Accusing someone of a crime is actionable as libel.” Painter noted that the “actual malice” standard is clearly met in this situation, and that Obama could sue Trump for his defamatory words.

To defeat such a suit, Trump would have to show he didn’t act maliciously and didn’t know what he said was false.

Any ambiguity surrounding Trump’s beliefs or intentions is crucial from a legal perspective. The president makes outrageous statements regularly, and takes them back whenever it’s clever. Being bombastic is standard practice for Trump, which makes it difficult to show he acted disingenuously, or with malice, in any particular instance. Playing loose with facts and attribution—and liberally accusing publishers of peddling “fake news”—likewise makes it easy to argue that he didn’t know what was said was untrue.

Herein lies one part of Trump’s legal genius: If everything you say is outrageous, then really nothing is. What’s a reckless disregard for the truth when we can’t agree on what truth is anyway?

There’s proof that this approach actually works for Trump in the context of defamation. In January, before he assumed the presidency, Trump defeated a libel claim filed in New York state court by Cheryl Jacobus, who he said in a tweet turned “hostile” after he denied her a job that she “begged” for. The judge wrote of Trump:

His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as ‘loser’ or ‘total loser’ or ‘totally biased loser,’ ‘dummy’ or ‘dope’ or ‘dumb,’ ‘zero/no credibility,’ ‘crazy’ or ‘wacko’ and ‘disaster,’ all deflecting serious consideration…Indeed, to some, truth itself has been lost in the cacophony of online and Twitter verbiage to such a degree that it seems to roll of the national consciousness like water off a duck’s back.

In other words, Trump’s tweets—both substantively and in terms of volume—make it difficult to take him seriously, which works in his favor.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

THGRRI

Sunday, April 9, 2017 8:39 PM

A post worth repeating. The problem is that dreamtove tows the Trump/Putin line. He'll claim he doesn't but the totality of his posts shows otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Sorry to say, you are writing nonsense. This has nothing to do with what Hillary wants. In the USA's democracy, it is the Congressional Republicans' responsibility to prove Trump is clean. They aren't doing it. If the Constitution allowed, we could hold another national election to decide if Trump is guilty or not, but if the Congressional Republicans won't do their job of investigating Trump, it won't be done.

Republican Devin Nunes of California, in charge of one tiny part of investigating Trump, is now under investigation by the House Committee on Ethics because of public reports that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/devin-nunes-house-intelligence-
committee-russia.html

None of the other so-called "investigations" of Trump are proceeding in any way other than erratic whitewashes. I'm sure a Republican Congress and Republican voters don't want to know what crimes Trump might have committed. It makes them feel better to only pretend to investigate because they would feel really bad should they find a crime. This is where Hillary comes in -- she won't feel bad at all if Trump resigns like Nixon did. In August 9, 1974, Congressional Republicans and Democrats actually cared about the country more than about their political parties. Those days are gone.

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." - Nixon
Trump would agree.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME