Where are all the Trump haters??

[just-want-peace]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the massive decline of "anti-Trump" posts since the "REPORT" came out????? Still a lot of blather on TV, but------!!
Might be just an anomaly of the I-NET maybe?!?! (Yeah, right!)

 

[Revmitchell]

I was wondering that myself

 

[HankD]

Reconnoiter time?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the massive decline of "anti-Trump" posts since the "REPORT" came out?????

I'm eating a late 10-minute lunch at my desk and decided to check in. Since some foolish people have mislabelled me a "Trump hater," I'm guessing you are talking about people like me, who have steadfastly called attention to the faults of Donald Trump as a candidate and President.

The reason I haven't participated is that:
(1) I am in the busiest two weeks of my work year, working about 90 hours a week, and I simply don't have time to make thoughtful posts, nor appropriately respond to ridiculous attacks.
(2) Your assertion is false. The Mueller Report has not "come out," except to a very few people in the Justice Department and possibly the White House. All we have is Barr's letter which likely contains one error of fact (we know there is a sealed indictment of Julian Assange, as well as at least one other case demanding release of information from a government-owned firm, which may also have sealed indictments), and some interestingly-worded sentences that seem to point to a bigger story. I'm waiting until the Mueller Report is actually released to some degree before I say that much about it since I doubt anyone on Baptistboard has read it.

That being said, I think it is very good news that Mueller did not find evidence that the President and his campaign (although, perhaps not the transition nor the Presidency) knowlingly collude with "the Russian government" (although many of the allegations involved the campaign colluding with Russian oligarchs like Konstantin Kilimnik, who are closely connected with Putin, but not official government representatives).

I think it is also good news that the Mueller investigation took off the table at least one issue that the Russians could use as leverage against President Trump, the fact that Candidate Trump was actively involved in business negotiations with Russians oligarchs and the Russian government for a Trump Tower - Moscow, at the same time Candidate Trump was loudly, boldly and frequently lying that he had no business interests in Russia. Since that bold and despicable lie is now publicly revealed, they cannot hold that over him.

We'll eventually see what Mueller found and didn't find. Then we'll be in a position to discuss it.

 

[Reformed1689]

(although, perhaps not the transition nor the Presidency)

Oh here we go.

I think it is also good news that the Mueller investigation took off the table at least one issue that the Russians could use as leverage against President Trump, the fact that Candidate Trump was actively involved in business negotiations with Russians oligarchs and the Russian government for a Trump Tower - Moscow, at the same time Candidate Trump was loudly, boldly and frequently lying that he had no business interests in Russia.

Actually check your timeline. If I'm not mistaken, at the time he claimed it he in fact did NOT have any business deals in Russia.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Actually check your timeline. If I'm not mistaken, at the time he claimed it he in fact did NOT have any business deals in Russia.

A signed letter of intent is a "business deal."

Of course you could try to wrangle about the exact meaning of "deal" (the way Bill Clinton wrangled about the exact meaning of "is"), but we all know that the intent of his words was to conceal that he had been actively negotiating and signed a letter of intent with Russian oligarchs. If you can't concede that, then there is no point having a discussion.

 

[Reformed1689]

A signed letter of intent is a "business deal."

Of course you could try to wrangle about the exact meaning of "deal" (the way Bill Clinton wrangled about the exact meaning of "is"), but we all know that the intent of his words was to conceal that he had been actively negotiating and signed a letter of intent with Russian oligarchs. If you can't concede that, then there is no point having a discussion.

A nonbinding letter is not a deal. It is nothing more than an agreement to talk and it was dated 2015. Trump's statements came in 2017. You have to do better than that.

 

[Baptist Believer]

A nonbinding letter is not a deal. It is nothing more than an agreement to talk ...

It is an agreement (a deal that set parameters of licensing, the name of the property, the components of the project in terms of scope and specs, development standards, operating standards, plan review, property management, termination rights, licensing transfer rights, deposits, and restrictions on property use, expense deposits, refusal of brokers, identification of the Principal, a non-disturbance agreement, confidentiality, recourse in the event of bad acts ("bad boy acts"), the currency in which the transactions will be conducted, terms of taxes and laws.) While it is true that it is a non-binding agreement in case the project cannot go forward for some reason, it is certainly a "deal" by any normal definition.

...and it was dated 2015. Trump's statements came in 2017.

You are simply incorrect. President Trump declared himself a presidential candidate in May 2015 and the letter of intent is dated October 28, 2015, the date of the third Republican debate in Miami. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani finally admitted that "Trump's efforts to complete a business deal in Russia waned only after American's cast ballots in the presidential election."

Here's an incomplete list of statement on the subject.

1. July 26, 2016: "I mean, I have nothing to do with Russia. I don't have any jobs in Russia. I'm all over the world but we're not involved in Russia," Trump tells CBS4.

2. July 26, 2016: "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump tweets.

3. Oct. 6, 2016: During the second presidential debate, Hillary Clinton says Russia is trying to help elect Trump, "maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow." Trump calls this assessment "so ridiculous," adding, "I know nothing about Russia ... I don't deal there."

4. Oct. 24, 2016: "I have nothing to do with Russia folks, I'll give you a written statement," Trump says at a campaign rally.

5. Jan. 11, 2017: Trump tells reporters that he has "no deals that could happen in Russia because we've stayed away," adding that he could "make deals in Russia very easily" but "I just don't want to because I think that would be a conflict."

6. Jan. 11, 2017: "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!," Trump tweets.

7. Feb. 7, 2017: Trump tweets, "I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy."

8. May 11, 2017: Trump tells NBC News that he has "nothing to do with Russia," other than the fact that he "sold a house to a very wealthy Russian many years ago" and hosted the Miss Universe pageant there once. Brendan Morrow

You have to do better than that.

You simply do not have a grasp of the facts. Try diversifying your news sources and fact check everything you hear from the President and his spokespeople.

 

[Reformed1689]

You are simply incorrect. President Trump declared himself a presidential candidate in May 2015 and the letter of intent is dated October 28, 2015, the date of the third Republican debate in Miami. Furthermore, Rudy Giuliani finally admitted that "Trump's efforts to complete a business deal in Russia waned only after American's cast ballots in the presidential election."

How did this prove I was incorrect? I think you need to revisit what I actually said. I said, at the time he claimed.

1. July 26, 2016: "I mean, I have nothing to do with Russia. I don't have any jobs in Russia. I'm all over the world but we're not involved in Russia," Trump tells CBS4.

You need to look at the full context of the quote.

2. July 26, 2016: "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump tweets.

Did he have an investment? If not, why include this?

3. Oct. 6, 2016: During the second presidential debate, Hillary Clinton says Russia is trying to help elect Trump, "maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow." Trump calls this assessment "so ridiculous," adding, "I know nothing about Russia ... I don't deal there."

4. Oct. 24, 2016: "I have nothing to do with Russia folks, I'll give you a written statement," Trump says at a campaign rally.

A year later. Do we know that talks were actively still going on in a serious manner? Was his business dealings with Russia or citizens in Russia? That is important as well.

5. Jan. 11, 2017: Trump tells reporters that he has "no deals that could happen in Russia because we've stayed away," adding that he could "make deals in Russia very easily" but "I just don't want to because I think that would be a conflict."

What's wrong with this statement?

6. Jan. 11, 2017: "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!," Trump tweets.

And what is wrong with this statement?

7. Feb. 7, 2017: Trump tweets, "I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy."

And what is wrong with this statement?

You simply do not have a grasp of the facts. Try diversifying your news sources and fact check everything you hear from the President and his spokespeople.

You don't even know what my sources are.

 

[HankD]

David, you can't win.

Except at the voting booth...

 

[just-want-peace]

Just heard Tucker C. talking about the virtual lack of coverage of the report on the fake news participants, so, in all likelihood the posters here just havent recieved their jacka$$ talking points yet!!

 

[kyredneck]

Just heard Tucker C. talking about the virtual lack of coverage of the report on the fake news participants, so, in all likelihood the posters here just havent recieved their jacka$$ talking points yet!!

Nancy's done given MSM their new marching orders, talk about healthcare, and that's exactly what CNN did today, all day long.

 

[Reynolds]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the massive decline of "anti-Trump" posts since the "REPORT" came out????? Still a lot of blather on TV, but------!!
Might be just an anomaly of the I-NET maybe?!?! (Yeah, right!)

It's been nice. Real nice! Hopefully they stay under their rocks.

 

[Baptist Believer]

How did this prove I was incorrect? I think you need to revisit what I actually said. I said, at the time he claimed.

You asserted that the "agreement to talk...was dated 2015. Trump's statements came in 2017," as if Trump tried to put together a deal before he made any denials, the deal fell through, and the denials began in 2017. That's factually incorrect on two basic points: (1) There were several denials before 2017, and (2) Rudy Giuliani admitted that Trump was trying to work out a deal all the way up to the election.

You need to look at the full context of the quote.

I did. "I have nothing to do with Russia" is a blanket statement, and it's false. Moreover, he claims here that he had never met Putin. The part about meeting Putin may be true, but it contradicts previous claims he has made about whether or not he had ever met Putin. In fact, the President is all over the place in regard to his statements about his connections to Russian.

Did he have an investment? If not, why include this?

Because it is part of an overall message of complete denial of any connections to Russia.

A year later. Do we know that talks were actively still going on in a serious manner?

Yes, although you have now inserted the qualifier, "a serious manner" into the discussion. If I made a claim that I was not having an affair with a woman who was not my wife, but then later tried to assert that numerous sexual trysts were not especially passionate (not done "in a serious manner"), you would rightly call me a liar. The fact that you now want to add that kind of qualifier reveals the weakness of your defense.

Was his business dealings with Russia or citizens in Russia? That is important as well.

That's a distinction without a difference, since Trump has been suspected of working with oligarchs that are closely aligned with Putin. If my company was performing work in New York state (which it does), and I made the claim that "I have nothing to do with New York," and then later tried to claim that I meant the official government of the State of New York, you would rightly call me a liar.

You don't even know what my sources are.

I certainly don't. However, I assume that you are being honest with me. And if you are being honest with me, then the fault has to lie with where you are getting your information.

If what I have presented here is not sufficient for you, then we are probably going to have to end if here since I really don't have time to spend on this.

 

[Reformed1689]

Rudy Giuliani admitted that Trump was trying to work out a deal all the way up to the election.

Trying to work out a deal is not the same thing as having a deal.

I did. "I have nothing to do with Russia" is a blanket statement, and it's false.

Not if the context is the Russian government which it most certainly was.

Because it is part of an overall message of complete denial of any connections to Russia.

In other words, you added it in for no reason except to give the appearance that it bolstered your position when it did not.

That's a distinction without a difference, since Trump has been suspected of working with oligarchs that are closely aligned with Putin.

Keyword is suspected. That is not the same thing as working with the government.

If my company was performing work in New York state (which it does), and I made the claim that "I have nothing to do with New York," and then later tried to claim that I meant the official government of the State of New York, you would rightly call me a liar.

No I wouldn't. If you gave the full context, as the statements from Trump most certainly did, I would not call you a liar.

And if you are being honest with me, then the fault has to lie with where you are getting your information.

No, the fault lies with your bias.

If what I have presented here is not sufficient for you, then we are probably going to have to end if here since I really don't have time to spend on this.

It isn't sufficient.