Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Trump would 'take' foreign information on rival in 2020 election


Donald Trump has said he would accept damaging information on his opponent during the 2020 election campaign, even if it came from a foreign government.

In an interview with broadcaster ABC News, the president denied this would count as meddling in an election.

"They have information - I think I'd take it," he said.

Asked if he thought his son should have called the FBI when he received one such email in 2016, he said: "Give me a break, life doesn't work that way."

However, the president later said he would "maybe" contact the FBI if he were offered information and he "thought there was something wrong".



What did President Trump say?

"You might want to listen, there's nothing wrong with listening," he told the US broadcaster.

"If somebody called from a country... [and said] 'we have information on your opponent' - I think I'd want to hear it."


Mr Trump dismissed concerns that this would amount to electoral interference by a foreign power.

He added: "It's not an interference, they have information, I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong I'd go, maybe, to the FBI - if I thought there was something wrong.

"But when somebody comes up with oppo [opposition] research, right... if you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called: oppo, research."

---

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48618273





/jarmo

Biggest buffoon in american history.

[jarmo]

He defended himself later by saying he meets foreign governments all the time. He pointed out how he just recently met the Prince of Whales.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48622001




/jarmo

[pilferk]

Sarah Sanders is leaving the administration at the end of June.

[tim_m]

Good riddance to bad trash.

[pilferk]

Good riddance to bad trash.

I'm not sure I'll believe it til she denies it.

[tim_m]

Good riddance to bad trash.

I'm not sure I'll believe it til she denies it.

LOL i see what you did there. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

[jarmo]

So who else is happy that we didn't go to war with Iran the other day?

Time for Trump to fire Bolton. 

Would he be in this situation if he wasn't so obsessed with trying to be a better president than Obama was? In other words, trying to undo everything Obama did because he can do everything better (in his own mind)?


The same guy who just started his campaign for re-election but in reality he's been campaigning since he took office. He still goes on about Hillary Clinton, the person who got more votes than him, but who isn't even running in 2020. 




/jarmo

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

[jarmo]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Deals can always be made better. But the way he handles things, it sure seems like it's mostly an ego thing for the author of the Art of the Deal!

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

Yeah, it must still sting. Someone got more votes then him. Someone was more popular with the voters. Ironic that the guy who has all these conspiracy theories about the election actually wins because of the way the system is set up. 


Meanwhile he's cocked & loaded. Not locked & loaded.....



/jarmo

[tim_m]

Are we seriously still gonna go on about giving back Iran its money back as part of the nuclear deal. 

[pilferk]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

There were no cash payments. Another Trump lie.

We released Iranian funds, that had been frozen, with the average interest earned during the time they were frozen tacked on. We tackled this subject months ago.

And, by the by, if you object to that provision of the deal, you must fucking HATE the way Trump deals with the Saudis on a regular basis.

But, back on topic:

What, specifically, did you object to when it comes to the Iran deal? Why was it horrible?

Why is no deal better than the deal we had?

[PermissionToLand]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

Yes, as a way to appease the slave states by treating empty land as equal to human voters. I suppose the three-fifths compromise was also acceptable because "it was the way we did it since 1788"?

And instead of improving the existing deal, it's better to back out and provoke war? It seems pretty clear the Trump admin is not interested in making a better deal.

[jarmo]

Trump has a history of backing out of deals that were made before his reign. A few examples:

Paris climate agreement
TPP  (Trans-Pacific Partnership)
UNESCO
UNHRC

Not forgetting NAFTA, which he then renamed.....



/jarmo

[tim_m]

Trump has a history of backing out of deals that were made before his reign. A few examples:

Paris climate agreement
TPP  (Trans-Pacific Partnership)
UNESCO
UNHRC

Not forgetting NAFTA, which he then renamed.....



/jarmo

He simple can't handle that he isn't even 1/10th the man Obama is.

[tim_m]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

There were no cash payments. Another Trump lie.

We released Iranian funds, that had been frozen, with the average interest earned during the time they were frozen tacked on. We tackled this subject months ago.

And, by the by, if you object to that provision of the deal, you must fucking HATE the way Trump deals with the Saudis on a regular basis.

But, back on topic:

What, specifically, did you object to when it comes to the Iran deal? Why was it horrible?

Why is no deal better than the deal we had?

You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

[pilferk]

You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.

[pilferk]

"Chuck, if the Democrats would just give me everything I want...I'd stop torturing children! It's the Democrats fault these kids are being mistreated!!"

- paraphrased Trump

[Dr. Blutarsky]

You know they can't tell you because they can't come up with anything but the Republican talking points that are false.

Typically when I ask a Republican voter who says the "Iran deal was terrible" these questions I get silence and blank looks.  Because their response is, really, "Because Trump(and Fox News) says so". And they can't, obviously, just SAY that.

I've asked the good Senator these exact same questions, during an earlier discussion on the same topic, and got silence.

I don't expect any different this time. But maybe he'll surprise me.

Some reasons why it was terrible -

No constraints on developing ballistic missiles that they could inevitably use to launch any nuclear weapons that they could develop after 13 - 15 years into the deal. 

Issues with verification, inspectors would  have to wait up to 24 days for access to sites suspected of developing nukes.

Nothing in it regarding Iran funding terrorist organizations.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The way Obama handled Iran in my opinion was horrible. Was a lot more to getting out of that deal than out of spite.  A better deal (hopefully) can be made and you can be sure there will be no more cash payments made to Iran.

Ill grant you that the Orlando speech had too much Hillary references in it and in general a retread.  Trump needs to move on from that and the 'Make America Great Again' slogan.  Needs to run on what he has accomplished so far while offering an updated agenda for the next term that resonates. I know its early, but if he has a campaign manager in place at this point that person really needs to up their game.

Yes, Hillary did receive more of the popular vote, but Trump received more electoral votes than Hillary and that is what matters as that is the way we have elected Presidents since 1788. 

Yes, as a way to appease the slave states by treating empty land as equal to human voters. I suppose the three-fifths compromise was also acceptable because "it was the way we did it since 1788"?

And instead of improving the existing deal, it's better to back out and provoke war? It seems pretty clear the Trump admin is not interested in making a better deal.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Was about not having New York and Massachusetts always getting to pick who wins a presidential election.  And that logic still is good today. Should  the top 3 population centers of the US get to pick for everyone?

It is Iran who isn't interested in making a more fair deal at this point.