Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Trump Presidency – 2016 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=92014)

RainMaker 07-12-2017 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexB (Post 3166345)
This was exa tly my thought too: why buck the esablished trend?


Some people are theorizing that the story was put out by Kushner (and those on his side in the WH) because it says White House advisers as the source. They also had 3 of them. That's not a tiny leak but a coordinated hit. And that Kushner would be one of the few people in the White House with direct knowledge of the meeting and what was in the e-mail.

The theory is it could be his way of either getting out in front of a story that's about to get worse. Or to take the heat off him by passing the buck to his brother-in-law.

Either way it appears someone in the White House has a beef with Junior or needed to throw him under the bus. This is going to be a fascinating story and part of history going forward. Especially if people start flipping.

Edward64 07-12-2017 04:53 AM

Trump Jr saying Trump not knowing about the meeting is suspicious and not believable. Sure, right ...

corbes 07-12-2017 05:39 AM

Quote:

On June 7, 2016 at 5:16, Donald Trump Jr. confirmed via email a meeting with Russian lawyer in which he was promised dirt on the Hillary Clinton.
Four hours later, at 9:13 that very night, then candidate Donald Trump took time out from a campaign victory speech to promise a “major Hillary speech” to be delivered “probably Monday of next week, before adding “and we are going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons."

Entirely coincidental, surely.

corbes 07-12-2017 05:42 AM

Another version of the timeline.

Quote:

June 7, 2016
The final primaries of the 2016 election season take place.
Goldstein emails Trump Jr. again asking him*to meet with "a Russian government attorney." Trump Jr. responds, agreeing to the meeting and stating he would most likely bring*Donald Trump's son-in-law and now-adviser Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign manager*Paul Manafort.
Separately, in a speech, Trump promises to deliver a "major speech" to reveal damaging information about Clinton*"probably"*June 13.
June 8, 2016
Trump Jr. confirms the meeting to be held in his office the following day.

June 9, 2016
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya meets with*Trump Jr.,*along with Kushner and Manafort, in Trump Jr.'s office in Trump Tower.
June 13, 2016
Trump acknowledges that he had promised a major speech about*Clinton, but instead said he would*discuss her failings in depth*another time.
"This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in these times of radical Islamic terrorism, she would be," Trump said. "There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that speech soon."
June 15, 2016
Democratic National Committee opposition research files are released by a hacker called Guccifer 2.0. The files are allegedly tied to Russian hackers.

QuikSand 07-12-2017 08:00 AM

But where is all this heading?

The already-split nature of Americans in their view of not only matters of opinion by matters of fact, coupled with the slow drop nature of this story coalescing, seems to make the path ahead clear.

Let's say that in some time - whether it's 3, 30, or 300 days from now - there is assembled basically incontrovertible evidence (to any neutral party) that the Trump campaign illegally conspired with a hostile foreign power, both its government and its agents, to unduly influence the American election.

As many of 40% of people will deny the fact, citing either "fake news" or some other foothold they have been offered in an effort to either redeem their previous choice (a strong psychological phenomenon) or to defend their general political views (and their "team"). On top of that, there will surely be another wave of incremental denials and obfuscations by the sympathetic players in the Trump/Fox/Hannity/Brietbart community who essentially trumpet something like (guessing here, but it's a good guess) Well, they didn't actually go in and alter the vote counts or anything, now THAT would have been wrong, but all they did was hack computers and schedule release of damaging private information at times and in ways to alter voter opinions... but the voters still had to go cast their ballots, so no harm no foul no shirt no shoes no problem. #MAGA

And there you have it. Smoking gun found. Votes for impeachment or whatever actual consequence the rabid left are seeking at that point still elusive. And the band plays on.

JPhillips 07-12-2017 08:07 AM

Quote:

The view in Kushner's orbit is that the brutal new revelations are more P.R. problems than legal problems. And if he makes progress with his Middle East peace efforts, perceptions would be very different.

Why stop there? If Jared cured cancer that would really change perceptions!

Easy Mac 07-12-2017 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand (Post 3166362)
But where is all this heading?

The already-split nature of Americans in their view of not only matters of opinion by matters of fact, coupled with the slow drop nature of this story coalescing, seems to make the path ahead clear.

Let's say that in some time - whether it's 3, 30, or 300 days from now - there is assembled basically incontrovertible evidence (to any neutral party) that the Trump campaign illegally conspired with a hostile foreign power, both its government and its agents, to unduly influence the American election.

As many of 40% of people will deny the fact, citing either "fake news" or some other foothold they have been offered in an effort to either redeem their previous choice (a strong psychological phenomenon) or to defend their general political views (and their "team"). On top of that, there will surely be another wave of incremental denials and obfuscations by the sympathetic players in the Trump/Fox/Hannity/Brietbart community who essentially trumpet something like (guessing here, but it's a good guess) Well, they didn't actually go in and alter the vote counts or anything, now THAT would have been wrong, but all they did was hack computers and schedule release of damaging private information at times and in ways to alter voter opinions... but the voters still had to go cast their ballots, so no harm no foul no shirt no shoes no problem. #MAGA

And there you have it. Smoking gun found. Votes for impeachment or whatever actual consequence the rabid left are seeking at that point still elusive. And the band plays on.


Don't read r/The_Donald then. Their take is that Obama and Clinton set up the meeting to

At least with Jon over here, he doesn't appear to believe any conspiracy is afoot from liberals or that this whole thing is overblown, just that it's better than the alternative. While I can think his views are dumb and dangerous (as I'm sure he thinks mine are), I think he would agree that those people from The_Donald are just as worthless as their equivalent's on the left.

JPhillips 07-12-2017 08:12 AM

Eventually this probably ends with the independent counsel and/or a Dem majority House in 2019. I agree that the GOP is very unlikely to ever turn on Trump in enough numbers to matter, but if indictments start flying around that will change the situation enough to make it difficult to predict.

Even if the President is indictment free, what happens if basically the entire campaign staff is facing trials and prison? Will enough GOP electeds look to save their own asses at that point or would most of them look at sunk costs and ride the ship to the bottom?

Ben E Lou 07-12-2017 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand (Post 3166362)
But where is all this heading?

The already-split nature of Americans in their view of not only matters of opinion by matters of fact, coupled with the slow drop nature of this story coalescing, seems to make the path ahead clear.

Let's say that in some time - whether it's 3, 30, or 300 days from now - there is assembled basically incontrovertible evidence (to any neutral party) that the Trump campaign illegally conspired with a hostile foreign power, both its government and its agents, to unduly influence the American election.

As many of 40% of people will deny the fact, citing either "fake news" or some other foothold they have been offered in an effort to either redeem their previous choice (a strong psychological phenomenon) or to defend their general political views (and their "team"). On top of that, there will surely be another wave of incremental denials and obfuscations by the sympathetic players in the Trump/Fox/Hannity/Brietbart community who essentially trumpet something like (guessing here, but it's a good guess) Well, they didn't actually go in and alter the vote counts or anything, now THAT would have been wrong, but all they did was hack computers and schedule release of damaging private information at times and in ways to alter voter opinions... but the voters still had to go cast their ballots, so no harm no foul no shirt no shoes no problem. #MAGA

And there you have it. Smoking gun found. Votes for impeachment or whatever actual consequence the rabid left are seeking at that point still elusive. And the band plays on.

:withstupid:

It sure appears that unless he dies or evidence turns up that could convict him of a felony, Trump is going to remain President until at least 1/20/20, and that the continued missteps, Twitter foolishnesses, etc. will continue to occur.

QuikSand 07-12-2017 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 3166365)
Even if the President is indictment free, what happens if basically the entire campaign staff is facing trials and prison? Will enough GOP electeds look to save their own asses at that point or would most of them look at sunk costs and ride the ship to the bottom?


I think there's the potential of a boiling frog situation here (pun welcome though not intended)... this isn't happening all at once, it's evolving over time, and by the time the case is ironclad we will have already sequentially warmed up to lack of disclosure, ethics violations, emoluments abuse, electoral conspiracy, widespread slander, and eventually treason. By the end of the sequence, there will be some sort of "violation fatigue" that sets in, comparable to the "outrage fatigue" that happened during the campaign, when the longstanding norms of previously disqualifying statements/revelations/events were discarded once we had a candidate suffering not one or two but scores and scores of them.

We are through the looking glass with all this.

Ben E Lou 07-12-2017 08:29 AM


QuikSand 07-12-2017 08:33 AM

...I am always safe knowing I can drop that reference and Ben will have my back.

Ben E Lou 07-12-2017 08:40 AM

Hehehe.



Ryche 07-12-2017 08:41 AM

Republicans should be terrified of the idea of a Democrat Congress and Trump presidency.

JPhillips 07-12-2017 08:41 AM

Because I'm golfing so much.

Ben E Lou 07-12-2017 08:42 AM

Dola:

What are the odds that a TV clip emerges from the last half hour that has someone blasting him for watching TV?

Ben E Lou 07-12-2017 08:43 AM

Effin' dolabusters. :rant:

PilotMan 07-12-2017 08:44 AM

You forgot your dola.

Butter 07-12-2017 08:48 AM

In response to Kickstand, anything that helps de-legitimize Trump and the current GOP to the American public is a net positive, AFAIC. Even if Trump remains in power.

Plus, I guess I am naive enough to believe there is still intrinsic value in finding the truth to a situation, regardless of consequences.

Groundhog 07-12-2017 08:50 AM



Who'da guessed this guy would end up being a weasel?

Ben E Lou 07-12-2017 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3166376)
You forgot your dola.

:p

digamma 07-12-2017 09:25 AM

Generally agree with the 'where is all this heading' line. The 2018 election is going to be absolutely brutal--a swing left results in an impeachment vote. It's a good time to be in political media, fake or not.

Thomkal 07-12-2017 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou (Post 3166370)
Hehehe.




that might be the biggest lie he's told during his Presidency.

JonInMiddleGA 07-12-2017 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butter (Post 3166377)
In response to Kickstand, anything that helps de-legitimize Trump and the current GOP to the American public is a net positive, AFAIC.


Yes, of course. God forbid we have a President that isn't spawned from the depths of Hell.

We've just endured the 2nd worst President in the history of the nation, I'm occasionally flabbergasted that there are people allowed to roam free that can't grasp that.

Oh well. Flabbergasted is a temporary condition.

Butter 07-12-2017 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 3166389)
Yes, of course. God forbid we have a President that isn't spawned from the depths of Hell.

We've just endured the 2nd worst President in the history of the nation, I'm occasionally flabbergasted that there are people allowed to roam free that can't grasp that.

Oh well. Flabbergasted is a temporary condition.


Instead of your posts, if you wanted to just post a video or audio of the adults in any Charlie Brown TV special, that would be fine.

Like this:


Thomkal 07-12-2017 12:31 PM

It appears Steve King (R) from Iowa has a way to pay for Trump's wall-money set aside for food stamps and Planned Parenthood:

Rep. Steve King: Build border wall with funds from food stamps, Planned Parenthood

JPhillips 07-12-2017 12:36 PM

Mexican food stamps and Mexican Planned Parenthood, right?

mckerney 07-12-2017 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou (Post 3166370)
Hehehe.






cuervo72 07-12-2017 01:42 PM

Speaking of boiling the frog:

Watch Al Franken, David Letterman Talk Climate in Web Series - Rolling Stone

albionmoonlight 07-12-2017 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 3166389)
Yes, of course. God forbid we have a President that isn't spawned from the depths of Hell.

We've just endured the 2nd worst President in the history of the nation, I'm occasionally flabbergasted that there are people allowed to roam free that can't grasp that.

Oh well. Flabbergasted is a temporary condition.


Your mileage obviously varies, but I already miss having a leader who looked at our enemies like this:


panerd 07-12-2017 01:59 PM

So who did you vote for?


larrymcg421 07-12-2017 04:02 PM

Can't speak for albion, but I voted for Obama over Hillary. He was definitely better than her. Good point!

BYU 14 07-12-2017 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3166394)
It appears Steve King (R) from Iowa has a way to pay for Trump's wall-money set aside for food stamps and Planned Parenthood:

Rep. Steve King: Build border wall with funds from food stamps, Planned Parenthood


Fucking brilliant, now we can have an expensive wall that still won't stop illegal immigration AND an increase in children born into poverty who won't have enough to eat.

JPhillips 07-12-2017 04:19 PM

Quote:

“I am sitting in the Oval Office with a pen in hand, waiting for our senators to give it to me,” Trump told Pat Robertson, the conservative Christian founder of Christian Broadcasting Network.

There's a pretty good chance that this is literally true.

molson 07-12-2017 04:20 PM

Less than two years ago:

Republicans Criticize Obama for Talking to Putin

PilotMan 07-12-2017 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 3166389)

We've just endured the 2nd worst President in the history of the nation, I'm occasionally flabbergasted that there are people allowed to roam free that can't grasp that.



You're right.

Lincoln was such a pompous, arrogant, asshole for what he turned this county into.

bronconick 07-12-2017 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3166394)
It appears Steve King (R) from Iowa has a way to pay for Trump's wall-money set aside for food stamps and Planned Parenthood:

Rep. Steve King: Build border wall with funds from food stamps, Planned Parenthood


Steve King is the ultimate Welfare Queen. He's never gotten a bill out of committee, much less passed into law. He gets elected and paid to say stupid shit and accomplish nothing.

JonInMiddleGA 07-12-2017 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan (Post 3166418)
You're right.

Lincoln was such a pompous, arrogant, asshole for what he turned this county into.


He's 3rd, at most. His damage was certainly more long-lasting -- led to the rise of an overreaching federal government -- but Carter was actually more inept. Obie made a good run at the title it but at some point there simply wasn't as much worth a damn left for him to damage.

Where FDR fits into the pecking order, honestly, I've never been able to quite figure out. If not for Lincoln then FDR couldn't have ushered in the welfare state in the first place, so I've flip-flopped the two for decades honestly

Drake 07-12-2017 05:25 PM

<-- Actually agree with Jon on his #1, at least in my lifetime.

That said, I'm willing to give Carter a pass for his post-presidential career. I think he's a great man who was an ill fit for the job of President.

nilodor 07-12-2017 05:50 PM

I feel like by the end of his term this thread and the Onion thread will be indiscernible from one another.

RainMaker 07-12-2017 05:56 PM

Carter is weird because he gets trashed by the right for being liberal while they praise Reagan. Both were similar when it came to fiscal policy. Carter just took over during a shittier time.

Reagan was much better when it came to foreign policy of course.

RainMaker 07-12-2017 06:51 PM

Well this isn't good either.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politi...tes/index.html

chinaski 07-12-2017 07:00 PM

Why was Russian money-laundering case settled? House Dems want answers - Business Insider

Quote:

That attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, represents the family of Pyotr Katsyv — the former vice governor of the Moscow region whose son, Denis, owns the real-estate company Prevezon. The DOJ had been investigating whether Prevezon laundered millions of dollars into New York City real estate when the case was unexpectedly settled just two days before going to trial in May.
"Last summer, Donald Trump, Jr. met with a Kremlin-connected attorney in an attempt to obtain information 'that would incriminate Hillary,'" the Democrats wrote, citing the emails Trump Jr. published on Tuesday.
"Earlier this year, on May 12, 2017, the Department of Justice made an abrupt decision to settle a money laundering case being handled by that same attorney in the Southern District of New York. We write with some concern that the two events may be connected — and that the Department may have settled the case at a loss for the United States in order to obscure the underlying facts."


The US Attorney prosecuting the case (until he was fired for not talking to Trump).... Preet Bharara.

RainMaker 07-12-2017 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand (Post 3166362)
But where is all this heading?

The already-split nature of Americans in their view of not only matters of opinion by matters of fact, coupled with the slow drop nature of this story coalescing, seems to make the path ahead clear.

Let's say that in some time - whether it's 3, 30, or 300 days from now - there is assembled basically incontrovertible evidence (to any neutral party) that the Trump campaign illegally conspired with a hostile foreign power, both its government and its agents, to unduly influence the American election.

As many of 40% of people will deny the fact, citing either "fake news" or some other foothold they have been offered in an effort to either redeem their previous choice (a strong psychological phenomenon) or to defend their general political views (and their "team"). On top of that, there will surely be another wave of incremental denials and obfuscations by the sympathetic players in the Trump/Fox/Hannity/Brietbart community who essentially trumpet something like (guessing here, but it's a good guess) Well, they didn't actually go in and alter the vote counts or anything, now THAT would have been wrong, but all they did was hack computers and schedule release of damaging private information at times and in ways to alter voter opinions... but the voters still had to go cast their ballots, so no harm no foul no shirt no shoes no problem. #MAGA

And there you have it. Smoking gun found. Votes for impeachment or whatever actual consequence the rabid left are seeking at that point still elusive. And the band plays on.


Nothing will likely happen. Maybe the House flips, maybe a new President in 2020. I guess I could see a scenario where he just decides not to run anymore.

Like you said, 40% doesn't care. He found the right marks.

stevew 07-12-2017 08:31 PM

Those 40% that don't care control about 218 house seats. So even winning every single house district that Clinton carried and retaining all of the Trump/Democratic districts doesn't even give the Dems a majority in the house.

Thomkal 07-13-2017 09:11 AM

And so it begins:

Donald Trump impeachment: Democrat Brad Sherman files impeachment article against US President

albionmoonlight 07-13-2017 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 3166408)
So who did you vote for?


1992: Too young to vote, but debated as President George HW Bush at this debate thingy we had. I won, too :-)

1996: Sterotypical lazy college kid who didn't vote and barely paid attention, but supported President Clinton.

2000: President George W. Bush

2004: John Kerry

2008: President Obama (and over Clinton in the primary)

2012: President Obama

2016: Clinton (and over Sanders in the primary)

Don't know what the future holds, but I can't see myself voting GOP again in my lifetime. The changes required of that party are so fundamental that if there is another election in my lifetime where I vote for the conservative party, it will probably be because guys like Evan McMullin were able to create a new one.

Radii 07-13-2017 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 3166459)



Quote:

Rep. Sherman's bid is likely to fail since the House is currently controlled by the Republicans, and only one other Democrat - Texas Representative Al Green - has publicly said he supports impeachment.

I still wouldn't expect a "real" attempt at anything to happen until the Mueller investigation is complete. Even then, unless Dems take control of the house in 2018, I wouldn't expect it to succeed.

Thomkal 07-13-2017 10:08 AM

yeah I don't expect it to succeed till then either Radii. Just reporting it for posterity :)

JPhillips 07-13-2017 05:00 PM

As much as I dislike Cruz, at least that guy does the work to pass legislation he favors. All Rand Paul does is sit on the sideline bitching that nothing is ever pure enough. If I were a GOP Senator I'd go out of my way to fuck over that guy.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.