All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

Trump happy to fight a regular Democrat, not those socialists!

[Tero]

Twitter comments focus on sick and demented ideas.

[Sean Hayden]

What does it feel like to you guys? I swear it's like we are witnessing the takedown of an old crime family. The problem is that it's impossible to imagine Trump heading up a successful crime family. So maybe we need to extend the definition of "family".

You know, like we extended the definition of personhood.

"The Corporate Family" -- hey, persons have families.

[Tero]

Trump needs some fig leaf but what? He can't just quit. He has to blame his downfall on Democrats and fake news.

[Joe]

It's not immoral do business in Russia - but that in itself does not address the specific context. It's immoral for a presidential candidate to consistently lie about doing business in Russia,

I would like to see the quotes of Trump's consistent lies which were about doing business in Russia.

You know, I sometimes feel you slip in here from another dimension or a parallel universe.

to make cooing noises to Putin from the public campaign platform while in active pursuance of that business,

Specific reference, please.

and for others to ignore the inevitable conflict of interests that arises.

Lack of foundation - you've not identified an actual conflict of interest. Neither of the above items are that.

Trump was aware of the possible conflict even as you seek to play the matter down.

It's fallacious to generalise from the particular, and equally to particularise from the general. A fallacy is an error in reasoning - in this case, an error in moral reasoning.

I'm not generalizing from the particular. I'm deducing from the general.

Indeed, I didn't suggest you were generalizing from the particular but that you had particularised from the general when you asked us to infer, that; as there is generally nothing illegal about doing business in Russia then Trump's particular business activity in Russia cannot submit to the charge of a conflict of interests because it was not illegal.

Premise 1 - There is nothing wrong or illegal with seeking out and contemplating a deal to build a building in Russia. Premise 2 -- Any deal that was considered, moreover, was, in fact, off the table in early 2016 at the latest and never proceeded past a letter of intent (which is not a binding contract - it's a letter expressing interest in doing a deal). Conclusion - Therefore, not only does it not constitute a conflict of interest, it doesn't constant wrongful conduct.

P1 - a fair premise.

P2 - a bold assertion, an arbitrary condition, and a conclusion. Factually inaccurate in its incompleteness. Mueller shows negotiations on a possible Moscow Trump Tower proceeding on multiple fronts during the campaign and after, with contacts between members of the Trump campaign, transition, and administration, business associates, and family members, with Russian actors attempting to reach out to the First Lady about land dealings as late as July 2018.

P3 - This isn't reason, this is a moral justification issued by fiat that rests on an act of wrong doing not being wrong if one attempts it but ultimately fails to execute it successfully. If this were a moral principle to take seriously then we'd have to consider that attempting to murder someone is not an act of wrong doing - only succeeding is wrong. Or, in light of what we know from the Mueller report, we'd have to consider that ordering someone to undertake an act of wrong doing is not wrong if that order is ignored.

Now, if there is some issue of bribery, payoffs, or other schemes in relation to the letter of intent or contemplated deal, that could, of course, constitute some sort of wrong or crime. However, at present the allegation doesn't go beyond "trump's organization was contemplating a deal to build a building in Russia. The deal never went through. It's no longer on the table."

So, where is the conflict of interest in that?

Erm, that's your characterisation - you support it. Personally I don't think a conflict of interests rests on criminal wrong doing, but I can understand why you might.

Let's acknowledge that during the campaign Trump denied that he any business dealings in Russia - "I have no deals in Russia ... I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we have stayed away ... We could make deals in Russia very easily if we wanted to, I just don't want to because I think that would be a conflict...". It's interesting that you dismiss even the possibility of a conflict of interests before casting about for comment on that asserted impossibility. Nonetheless, I'll frame my response as a sceptical challenge: Was Trump's constant campaign advocacy of Putin as a fine example of modern political manhood and his declared eagerness to 'get along' with Russia intended to lubricate his business interests or were those entreaties normal campaign policy proposals made prospectively on behalf of the American people? Do you think a conflict arises if a specific US foreign policy, or change in policy, benefits Trump and/or his businesses financially?

It's interesting to see that Trump considered his Russian commercial interests a conflict, where our friend doesn't.

After all, even if talks ended with his election, the potential to make a deal after Trump's time in office remains, and his foreign policy decisions could influence its likelihood.

It's perfectly legitimate to examine such potential influences when considering a candidate's fitness for office. Suggestions to the contrary seem naive.

[Sean Hayden]

The whole thing's a fucking mess.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Spewing ignorant crap with dubious implications clearly runs in the family.

'Lara Trump: Merkel admitting migrants "one of the worst things that ever happened to Germany"'

President Trump's daughter-in-law Lara Trump remarked Thursday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow migrants into the country was "one of the worst things that ever happened to Germany."

“When there was a march across Europe by a million people who wanted to get into Western Europe, Angela Merkel let them in,” Fox Business host Stuart Varney said during an interview with Lara Trump, an adviser on President Trump's reelection campaign, on the network.

“It was the downfall of Germany, it was one of the worst things that ever happened to Germany,” Trump responded. “This president knows that, he’s trying to prevent that from happening here.”

[Hermit]

Now even a Fox News' commentator gets into the act.

[Forty Two]

O.k., establish your alleged conflict of interest. What shady characters? And, how was the President involved with them, specifically? (is exploring a real estate deal in Moscow which never went through constitute a conflict of interest due to involvement with shady characters from political enemies?)

I would think that this a job for the US Congress to decide based on the Mueller Report.
...since I don't have access to the unredacted report, I can only speculate.

But we have a saying: "If it smells of fish, it must be herring"

Do you have any suspicion what the conflict of interest might be?

Or, you just plain have no idea?

[Brian Peacock]

Now even a Fox News' commentator gets into the act.

Heaven forfend. Someone in the right-leaning media taking a clear moral stance on the obstructive action of the President. Whoddathunkit? Surely this is a sign of The End Of Days?

[Tero]

Trump claps for himself at NRA

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/P_Lepinkainen/statu ... 8264981504

[Seabass]

Oh my! Another Republican lawmaker has got Trump Derangement Syndrome!

Iowa's Longest-Serving Republican Switches to Democratic Party, Citing Trump

Rep. Andy McKean, Iowa’s longest-serving Republican lawmaker, left his party on Tuesday to join the Democrats, and cited President Donald Trump as a factor in his decision.

“With the 2020 presidential election looming on the horizon, I feel, as a Republican, that I need to be able to support the standard bearer of our party,” McKean told reporters at the Iowa Capitol during a news conference on Tuesday. “Unfortunately, that’s something I’m unable to do.”

McKean named several behaviors by Trump that he said were “unacceptable.”

“He sets, in my opinion, a poor example for the nation and particularly for our children by personally insulting, often in a crude and juvenile fashion, those who disagree with him, being a bully at a time when we are attempting to discourage bullying, his frequent disregard for the truth and his willingness to ridicule or marginalize people for their appearance, ethnicity or disability,” he said.

He added: “I believe that his actions have coarsened political discourse, have resulted in unprecedented divisiveness, and have created an atmosphere that is a breeding ground for hateful rhetoric and actions. Some would excuse this behavior as telling it like it is and the new normal. If this is the new normal, I want no part of it.”

http://time.com/5577204/andy-mckean-iow ... rat-trump/

McKean said Trump is just one part of a bigger national trend of partisanship that made him feel out of place in the Republican caucus. McKean said when he joined the Iowa Statehouse 40 years ago, there were many moderates in the Republican Party. But now, he said, the ranks have thinned.

"I think the party has veered very sharply to the right," McKean said. "That concerns me."

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 549676002/

[Brian Peacock]

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 7#p1827177

[Tero]

No cost to Trump. Punish evil UN and suck up to NRA.