• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump "No Answer" on Russian Associations during 01/11/2017 Press Conference

jmotivator said:
LOL!! You guys are making yourselves look like idiots and clowns. A detailed press conference that went into detail explaining how Trump will extricate himself from Trump enterprises and maintain a separation to avoid conflict -- including the announcement that all proceeds from foreign dignitaries staying at Trump hotels and resorts will be transferred directly to the US general fund at the US treasury -- along with answering questions about the wall, repealing Obamacare, and all the questions about the CNN/Buzzfeed report and your folks pretend it wasn't productive.

If you are going to lie you should avoid lying to people who know the truth, Cardinal.
Click to expand...

That part of the press conference was absolute horse****, from saying he would leave the business in his kids' hands, which absolutely isn't a blind trust, to making outrageous straw men arguments about what his critics on the emoluments clause is claiming. The spokeswoman on the handling of the conflicts of interest (can't remember her name) claimed that that the criticism was that any emoluments violations would apply to fair market value trades, when in fact the argument is the opposite of that. The criticism is that the violations would apply to above market value deals. Duh!
 
MaggieD said:
Sorry, but calling that press conference a flop is either disingenuous or blindly partisan. So which do you suppose?

One of the top law firms in the country, if not the world, spends darned near thirty minutes patiently walking through everything Trump has done to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. A flop. He provides dossiers to the press corps outlining what he's done. A flop. He conducts himself most professionally answering every question thrown at him. A flop. He explains how Mexico is going to pay for the wall. A flop. He talks about bringing six of the world's premier IT people together to focus on why, for the love of God, the United States should be getting hacked and make recommendations to harden our computers. A flop. He tells the press he's bringing Mayo Clinic and other premier hospitals together to help address VA care. A flop.

People are well entitled to a "flop" opinion. I, on the other hand, am well entitled to disrespect it.

Without needing a safe space or unicorn.
Click to expand...

Are you going to take every single disparaging word I ever say about Trump personally, as you have been today and other days?

I'm not a partisan. Well, that isn't true. I'm a lifelong Republican. I've voted for every single GOP candidate for President since 1980, which is why I didn't vote for Trump. If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I would have done it at some point in my life.

As to your claims I'm being disingenuous, you saw his presser as a wonderful thing. Probably a "beautiful" thing. I saw it as a flop. And I would suspect many other people did as well. You know, just like some people liked Obama's pressers and some people didn't. Some people liked Bush's pressers, and some people didn't.

To be honest, your whining and carrying on when I say anything negative about Trump is quite tiresome. You may not want to read my posts anymore if they are going to upset you this much. I will compliment the man when he deserves it (as I have repeatedly about his cabinet picks), and criticize the man when he deserves it. That's what debate boards are for.
 
MaggieD said:
Yeah, you're probably right. Not dishonest. I GUESS.
Click to expand...

You're too kind, Maggie, you spoil me! :) i thought this press conference wasn't that bad, myself. I respect that Trump acknowledge that he thinks Russians were involved in the hacks.
 
jimbo said:
And that's not a bad thing. Trump basically ignores the press unless it suits his purpose and communicates directly with the people via Twitter. So instead of the press getting pre prepared statements to filter and regurgitate as their propaganda, they are forced to cover actual news. Which they have no idea how to do. That's got to hurt.
Click to expand...

Most people don't get or make their daily communication through Twitter.
 
jmotivator said:
You guys are making yourselves look like idiots and clowns.
Click to expand...

Why are you calling fellow posters idiots and clowns, jmotivator?

Debate Politics has much higher standards than trump uses on twittergate .
 
AlbqOwl said:
You must not have caught his press conference this morning in which he clearly and calmly stated that he had no business dealings of ANY kind in Russia, no loans, no debts, no association whatsoever. He believes Russia has hacked us as we have them. He doesn't know what Putin thinks about him or if better relationships can be accomplished with Russia. He does see it is a profitable opportunity for the USA for him to try.
Click to expand...
I think your statement here is an accurate portrayal of what he said earlier concerning his business ties, but he completely blew-off the later question when asked if his campaign or surrogates had approached Putin.

He sidestepped it completely, and abruptly ended the conference.

It's in the transcript, if you're interested:

NYT: Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video
 
Chomsky said:
Look - I'll give the guy a 50% here, and that's the best I can muster.

He refused to go on the record as to his campaign not approaching Putin, didn't use a blind trust, conflated CNN's coverage of the two-page intel addendum with Buzzfeed's document - and the beat on CNN - not allowing a CNN rebuttal to his claims. He played the "I'm under audit" B.S. to still hide his tax-returns, belittled BBC, and insisted the people want his SC judge because he won the election.

That's off the top of my head.

Now he did give some details as you claim, but even his details are always filled with emotive and hyperbolic hucksterisms ("beautiful", "fantastic"). He speaks to us as if we're impressionable naive children, that are dismissively beyond his lofty comprehension.
Click to expand...

That is false, though, Chomsky. While he refused to answer the question when CNN asked, the same question was asked immediately after by another source and he did say No, his staff had no communication with Russia.

Likewise, the specifics of that claim have since been debunked. The claim came from the report released by Buzzfeed that said that Trump's lawyer met the Russians in Prague, that has since been proven false. His lawyer has proof that he was in LA visiting USC with his son, and USC has corroborated AND it has been shown that a man with the same name, from a different country, visited Prague but the idiot who collected the Oppo info never bothered to verify if the Cohen who visited Prague was the same Cohen... and it wasn't.

Given that reality, and the 4chan claim, it's safe to say the entire report is trash... and in fact the report was only mentioned to Trump as a source of DISinformation for him to look out for.

CNN lied and ran a story they didn't try to corroborate, Buzzfeed lied AND ran information they tried but were unable to corroborate. It is that simple. Everything beyond that is wishful thinking by the opposition.
 
Objective Voice said:
I have to say I am stunned! :shock:

When asked and then further pressed at the end of his national press conference, President-elect Donald J. Trump refused to answer the direct question as to whether or not he or anyone directly connected to him or if anyone from his campaign had any association with Russian intelligence. Trump went on a long rant (once again) about how Russia, China, Japan, Mexico and all other nations would respect America once he became President, but on the question of Russian intelligence associations itself, he outright refused to answer the question even when further pressed after his press conference but before leaving the conference area.

No "no comment", no "I don't know, but I'll look into it"...nothing. He just walked off the stage and refused to answer.

To me, that rebuff/non-answer is more disturbing than the contents of any domestic intelligence report whether compiled by our federal intelligence agencies or some private investigative/consulting firm.
Click to expand...

Earlier he tweeted that he had no associations with Russia.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump · 7h7 hours ago

Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!
Click to expand...

So the idea that he has not denied Russian associations is false.
 
LowDown said:
Earlier he tweeted that he had no associations with Russia.



So the idea that he has not denied Russian associations is false.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Trump has associations with Russia, or not?
If he does, do you have any problem with his lies on the issue?
If so, what should be done about his lies?
 
LowDown said:
Earlier he tweeted that he had no associations with Russia.



So the idea that he has not denied Russian associations is false.
Click to expand...

He probably didn't have any association with Russia. But Tweeting it isn't the same thing as addressing it in a press conference when asked. That's what pressers are for. Twitter is a one way communication.
 
Cardinal said:
That part of the press conference was absolute horse****, from saying he would leave the business in his kids' hands, which absolutely isn't a blind trust, to making outrageous straw men arguments about what his critics on the emoluments clause is claiming. The spokeswoman on the handling of the conflicts of interest (can't remember her name) claimed that that the criticism was that any emoluments violations would apply to fair market value trades, when in fact the argument is the opposite of that. The criticism is that the violations would apply to above market value deals. Duh!
Click to expand...

More proof you didn't watch the effing press conference. Dude, just admit you didn't watch it, you are looking like an idiot.

Trump's lawyer's presentation was specifically on the legal reasons why a blind trust in not legally necessary and the steps being taken to separate Donald Trump from the business anyway. Nowhere did she present the detailed arrangement as a blind trust. :roll:
 
NIMBY said:
Why are you calling fellow posters idiots and clowns, jmotivator?

Debate Politics has much higher standards than trump uses on twittergate .
Click to expand...

I am saying that they are making themselves look like idiots and clowns by falsely claiming to have watched a press conference that their words clearly show they did not. Only an idiot would try to argue the contents of a press conference they didn't watch with people who did watch the press conference. The only people they seem to have a hope of fooling is themselves.
 
jmotivator said:
I am saying that they are making themselves look like idiots and clowns by falsely claiming to have watched a press conference that their words clearly show they did not. Only an idiot would try to argue the contents of a press conference they didn't watch with people who did watch the press conference. The only people they seem to have a hope of fooling is themselves.
Click to expand...

An argument which would only make sense if one were to actually understand what was watched.
 
jmotivator said:
More proof you didn't watch the effing press conference. Dude, just admit you didn't watch it, you are looking like an idiot.

Trump's lawyer's presentation was specifically on the legal reasons why a blind trust in not legally necessary and the steps being taken to separate Donald Trump from the business anyway. Nowhere did she present the detailed arrangement as a blind trust. :roll:
Click to expand...

I did see it, and thank you for pointing out the other horse**** strawman, because people who are informed on the topic are already aware that the blind trust isn't legally required, only that it practically immunizes him against possible violations (and accusations of violations) of the emoluments clause. If Trump followed anything but Reddit or Twitter he'd know that already.
 
tres borrachos said:
Are you going to take every single disparaging word I ever say about Trump personally, as you have been today and other days?

I'm not a partisan. Well, that isn't true. I'm a lifelong Republican. I've voted for every single GOP candidate for President since 1980, which is why I didn't vote for Trump. If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I would have done it at some point in my life.

As to your claims I'm being disingenuous, you saw his presser as a wonderful thing. Probably a "beautiful" thing. I saw it as a flop. And I would suspect many other people did as well. You know, just like some people liked Obama's pressers and some people didn't. Some people liked Bush's pressers, and some people didn't.

To be honest, your whining and carrying on when I say anything negative about Trump is quite tiresome. You may not want to read my posts anymore if they are going to upset you this much. I will compliment the man when he deserves it (as I have repeatedly about his cabinet picks), and criticize the man when he deserves it. That's what debate boards are for.
Click to expand...

If I'm "whining and carrying on" about your negative Trump posts and it bothers you? I suggest you do the blocking. Your posts don't bother me in the least. That's what debate boards are for.
 
Absentglare said:
An argument which would only make sense if one were to actually understand what was watched.
Click to expand...

There is always a possibility that Cardinal watched the whole press conference including the lawyer's clear presentation on steps of avoiding conflict of interest without the need for a blind trust and just accidentally processed it as an MSNBC article from November... it's always a possibility... and always possible that others here watched the extensive Q&A session with reporters and maybe passed out intermittently, missing most of it... always possible... :roll:
 
MaggieD said:
If I'm "whining and carrying on" about your negative Trump posts and it bothers you? I suggest you do the blocking. Your posts don't bother me in the least. That's what debate boards are for.
Click to expand...

My posts do bother you, Maggie. You post about my posts to me, to other posters, and on and on. I understand that you don't like it when I don't compliment Trump all the time, but you should get used to it, I also complimented Obama when he deserved it and criticized him when he deserved it. I did the same for both Bushes, and Clinton, and Reagan too. That's what people who aren't partisan do. It's called being honest.

I have no need to block you. Your posts don't upset me, which is why for the most part I like them and agree with them. But you've been on a tear of outrage in this thread about me, and it's a bad reflection on you.
 
Chomsky said:
I think your statement here is an accurate portrayal of what he said earlier concerning his business ties, but he completely blew-off the later question when asked if his campaign or surrogates had approached Putin.

He sidestepped it completely, and abruptly ended the conference.

It's in the transcript, if you're interested:

NYT: Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video
Click to expand...

Chomsky, did anyone in your circle of influence have any negative contact with law enforcement in the last 18 months?
 
Cardinal said:
I did see it, and thank you for pointing out the other horse**** strawman, because people who are informed on the topic are already aware that the blind trust isn't legally required, only that it practically immunizes him against possible violations (and accusations of violations) of the emoluments clause. If Trump followed anything but Reddit or Twitter he'd know that already.
Click to expand...

No, you obviously didn't watch it because your characterization of what was said is directly opposite of what was presented. If you watched it how did you get it so wrong?
 
jmotivator said:
I am saying that they are making themselves look like idiots and clowns by falsely claiming to have watched a press conference that their words clearly show they did not. Only an idiot would try to argue the contents of a press conference they didn't watch with people who did watch the press conference. The only people they seem to have a hope of fooling is themselves.
Click to expand...

Oh, so we're idiots, clowns and liars, too? Nice.

I watched the entire presser as I was getting my nails done at 11:00 ET this morning. The salon had ABC on. They pre-empted The View. They had that young guy, Jonathan something or other, with the glasses, standing in front of the podium before Trump came out. Trump stood on the left side of the stage, between his daughter and one of his sons. She was wearing a white dress and they periodically whispered to each other. Shall I go on?
 
Thank you for stating that you are calling fellow posters idiots and clowns.

I would have expected more from you than this low level feed we see from trump's twittergate.

How long do you think it will take trump and his mouthpieces to tell us what he really meant ?

jmotivator said:
I am saying that they are making themselves look like idiots and clowns by falsely claiming to have watched a press conference that their words clearly show they did not. Only an idiot would try to argue the contents of a press conference they didn't watch with people who did watch the press conference. The only people they seem to have a hope of fooling is themselves.
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh, so we're idiots, clowns and liars, too? Nice.
Click to expand...

You are making comments on the contents of a press conference you obviously didn't watch as if you watched it and have an informed opinion. You don't. Anyone who took the time to watch the press conference can sniff that out in a second. "No questions and answers.. no content"?! Give me a break, Tres.

I watched the entire presser as I was getting my nails done at 11:00 ET this morning. The salon had ABC on. They pre-empted The View. They had that young guy, Jonathan something or other, with the glasses, standing in front of the podium before Trump came out. Trump stood on the left side of the stage, between his daughter and one of his sons. She was wearing a white dress and they periodically whispered to each other. Shall I go on?
Click to expand...


HAHAHAH!!! "I watched the whole press conference! Let me prove it to you by giving details of the press conference I could have derived from a photograph!" :roll: Are you sure your head wasn't stuck in a hair dryer the whole time?
 
NIMBY said:
Thank you for stating that you are calling fellow posters idiots and clowns.

I would have expected more from you than this low level feed we see from trump's twittergate.

How long do you think it will take trump and his mouthpieces to tell us what he really meant ?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should expect your other fellow posters to not lie so plainly and demonstrably with easily falsifiable claims and commentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom