• 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!

Trump will keep list of White House visitors secret

Cardinal said:
Um...the news? Two White House staff on the NSC gave him the documents, he read them, left the White House, staged a giant televised spectacle announcing how shocked he was to find these documents, and that he was going to the White House at once to brief the President.

You really didn't know about this?
Click to expand...

Oh, I knew about the Nunes fiasco. However, you added a heck of big leap of assumptions and accusations. You insinuated he had met with Trump already because by inference he had not left the White House Grounds, and that would come out because of the visitor log, and some more convoluted steps in your theory and that he had pretended to return. I'm asking you to explain this particular gem --
Cardinal said:
It's very possible this was in reaction to Nunes. Eventually it would have been made public that Nunes had signed into the White House before he had pretended to return to brief Trump. And it would have been made public through...the visitor logs.
Click to expand...
-- which you have not explained, yet. Your claim in that quote, has not been reported in any news sources that I am aware. I just want you to tell me where you got that gem of a scoop, or is it just your imagination?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Oh, I knew about the Nunes fiasco. However, you added a heck of big leap of assumptions and accusations. You insinuated he had met with Trump already because by inference he had not left the White House Grounds, and that would come out because of the visitor log, and some more convoluted steps in your theory and that he had pretended to return. I'm asking you to explain this particular gem -- -- which you have not explained, yet. Your claim in that quote, has not been reported in any news sources that I am aware. I just want you to tell me where you got that gem of a scoop, or is it just your imagination?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're confused about, exactly.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not sure what you're confused about, exactly.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused. There's evidence in the record, both official and in the free press, that Nunes went to the White House and met with people that gave him classified information, then he went back to the House Office Building, and then to Capital Hill, met with his staff, met with the majority staff of the House Intel Committee, blew his top (supposedly, not official, but at least it's reported that he did), then he went to the White House (again) and met with Trump, then gave the famous idiotic ad hoc press conference. You claimed differently, to whit:
Cardinal said:
It's very possible this was in reaction to Nunes. Eventually it would have been made public that Nunes had signed into the White House before he had pretended to return to brief Trump. And it would have been made public through...the visitor logs.
Click to expand...

I asked "You know this... how exactly?" a number of times, to which you have yet to answer directly. At first, I was just wondering what I had missed in the reporting. Now, it appears from the posts that followed my question, that the claim in that post was potentially just anti-GOP hackery. I would hope not, so I ask again, "You know this... how exactly?"
 
Beaudreaux said:
I'm not confused. There's evidence in the record, both official and in the free press, that Nunes went to the White House and met with people that gave him classified information, then he went back to the House Office Building, and then to Capital Hill, met with his staff, met with the majority staff of the House Intel Committee, blew his top (supposedly, not official, but at least it's reported that he did), then he went to the White House (again) and met with Trump, then gave the famous idiotic ad hoc press conference. You claimed differently, to whit:

I asked "You know this... how exactly?" a number of times, to which you have yet to answer directly. At first, I was just wondering what I had missed in the reporting. Now, it appears from the posts that followed my question, that the claim in that post was potentially just anti-GOP hackery. I would hope not, so I ask again, "You know this... how exactly?"
Click to expand...

What is the "this" you're referring to? Highlight the part you're confused about. I have no idea what it is you have a problem with.
 
Cardinal said:
What is the "this" you're referring to? Highlight the part you're confused about. I have no idea what it is you have a problem with.
Click to expand...

Cardinal, I'm not confused at all because facts are not confusing. The post you made contains information that's not in the factual record, that I've seen, and I asked you politely if you can provide a source for the record. As for highlighting anything, I've already done so in the very first post where I asked you... "You know this... how exactly?"
 
Beaudreaux said:
Cardinal, I'm not confused at all because facts are not confusing. The post you made contains information that's not in the factual record, that I've seen, and I asked you politely if you can provide a source for the record. As for highlighting anything, I've already done so in the very first post where I asked you... "You know this... how exactly?"
Click to expand...

I meant literally highlight the part you don't understand. Literally select the part of my post you don't get and change it to a different color. That or rephrase your question.

Obviously you think I'm being partisan or evasive (or both), but I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Cardinal said:
I meant literally highlight the part you don't understand. Literally select the part of my post you don't get and change it to a different color. That or rephrase your question.

Obviously you think I'm being partisan or evasive (or both), but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I did that already, some in bold black with the primary part in bold red. Sorry, but I don't know how more obvious I could be.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I did that already, some in bold black with the primary part in bold red. Sorry, but I don't know how more obvious I could be.
Click to expand...

Alright, I found that post. It hasn't improved my understanding over what you're asking me. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.
 
Cardinal said:
Alright, I found that post. It hasn't improved my understanding over what you're asking me. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.
Click to expand...

Wow. I'll let the rest of the membership determine for themselves which posts are written in honest earnest discussion, and which ones aren't.
 
Cardinal said:
Alright, I found that post. It hasn't improved my understanding over what you're asking me. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.
Click to expand...

Can you prove what you said about Nunes pretending? I read the posts.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Wow. I'll let the rest of the membership determine for themselves which posts are written in honest earnest discussion, and which ones aren't.
Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating my intelligence. If I say I don't understand the question, I don't understand the ****ing question. Now if rephrasing your question in the off chance that I might understand it is just too beneath your dignity, then buzz off.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
And for 8 years the vile haters on the right constantly criticized the Obama Admin for not be 'open'. But now they will excuse and defend Trump even though he's 10x worse.
Click to expand...

Quite right, if you have nothing to hide, you do not have to hide so many things and be so secretive as this administration is.
 
Cardinal said:
This thread is about Trump. Thank you.
Click to expand...

So you are acting like Trump is trying do something that has not been done before. It's common practice!
The Obama administration did the very same thing.............
So why do you want to ignore the obvious? Politics maybe? The Trump administration is following tradition.
 
CREW STATEMENT ON WHITE HOUSE REFUSAL TO RELEASE VISITOR LOGS - CREW

Washington, D.C.—In response to the White House’s decision to break six years of tradition and refuse to release White House visitor logs, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director Noah Bookbinder released the following statement:

“It’s disappointing that the man who promised to ‘drain the swamp’ just took a massive step away from transparency by refusing to release the White House visitor logs that the American people have grown accustomed to accessing over the last six years and that provide indispensable information about who is seeking to influence the president. The Obama administration agreed to release the visitor logs in response to our lawsuits, and despite the Trump administration’s worry over ‘grave national security risks and concerns,’ only positives for the American people came out of them. This week, we sued the Trump administration to make sure they would continue to release the logs. It looks like we’ll see them in court.”
Click to expand...

I'll be following this with curiosity.
 
Cardinal said:
CREW STATEMENT ON WHITE HOUSE REFUSAL TO RELEASE VISITOR LOGS - CREW
I'll be following this with curiosity.
Click to expand...
At issue is whether the White House visitor logs legally belong to the White House or to the US Secret Service. If visitor-log records belong to the White House, then they are not subject to Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests. If visitor-log records belong to the Secret Service, then they are indeed subject to FOI requests. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in 2013 that the records are legally controlled by the White House. With that litigation result in mind, numerous watchdog organizations such as CREW, the National Security Archive, and the Knight First Amendment Institute (at Columbia University) are suing DHS (parent of the Secret Service) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for FOI access to the White House visitor-logs. The plaintiffs will also be seeking FOI access to the visitor-log at Mar-a-Lago (Trumps self-proclaimed Winter White House) and any other pertinent locations such as the Trump Towers in NYC and NJ if they serve to function as alternate Trump White House locations.

What the Trump administration is engaged in here is barring the public from knowing which activists, lobbyists, political donors, conflict-of-interest entities, etc. have intimate White House access to the POTUS. Trump himself aggravated this situation with his refusal to release his tax returns, and his refusal to establish a true blind trust to manage his business empire. These multifaceted elements of concealment serve to set the proverbial table for cloaked high-level-insider corruption.
 
ecofarm said:
Do big donors, lobbyists and special interests really need to physically go to the White House to have influence? I think they know how to use email. I hear Bill has one in his basement.

It went from disclosing "most" to not bothering. I'm sure someone is keeping a list.
Click to expand...
And when that list gets leaked, Pres. Trump had better hope no Russian names are on it.
 
NIMBY said:
I'm sure all of our Veterans enjoyed trump saying "My Military" with his past history.

Or trump's daily politicizing of the use of "his military" while lying about Obama.

Trump thinks he's found a way to improve his job approval ratings by dropping bombs and tweeting kju .
Click to expand...

That's exactly it! He figures if he can't raise his approval numbers through his domestic policies or drastically improve things on the diplomatic front, he can at least appear strong militarily. And what better way to display strength on an international scale than by dropping a couple of bombs or conducting a raid or two on soft targets on foreign soil?

Yeman - botched raid.

Syria - bombed barely functional air port that wasn't taken out of commission; became functional again within a few days.

Afghanistan - used biggest non-nuclear bomb on ISIS underground training site. Only killed 36 ISIS members using a weapon with a 2-mile kill radius.

If you can't have your legacy portray how you made America great again by improving the economy and people's lives ('cause the economy was already clicking along rather well before he took office), you can at least try to do it by becoming a military President.

WINNING? I don't think so. Of course, it's still early. We're still less than 100 days into Trump's presidency, but my goodness! I've never known a President take office and cause most of his own problems in under 100 days before my life!
 
tres borrachos said:
It's a party of paranoia now more than anything else. Those scary Mexicans and those nasty Muslims - oh noes! They're wrecking our lives and taking our jobs! And that terrible President Obama, he's gonna take our guns!

I'm very disappointed in my party. I am still hoping that the GOP puts a decent man like John Kasich up against Trump. I don't agree with everything he believes in, but at least he isn't a paranoid, foul mouthed, immature dimwit or someone who obsesses about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. And he wouldn't have trolls like Steve Bannon and Steve Miller whispering in his ears.
Click to expand...

Gov. Kasich was my guy. Had he made it to the top of the GOP ticket, he wouldn't gotten my vote.
 
Objective Voice said:
That's exactly it! He figures if he can't raise his approval numbers through his domestic policies or drastically improve things on the diplomatic front, he can at least appear strong militarily. And what better way to display strength on an international scale than by dropping a couple of bombs or conducting a raid or two on soft targets on foreign soil?

Yeman - botched raid.

Syria - bombed barely functional air port that wasn't taken out of commission; became functional again within a few days.

Afghanistan - used biggest non-nuclear bomb on ISIS underground training site. Only killed 36 ISIS members using a weapon with a 2-mile kill radius.

If you can't have your legacy portray how you made America great again by improving the economy and people's lives ('cause the economy was already clicking along rather well before he took office), you can at least try to do it by becoming a military President.

WINNING? I don't think so. Of course, it's still early. We're still less than 100 days into Trump's presidency, but my goodness! I've never known a President take office and cause most of his own problems in under 100 days before my life!
Click to expand...

Update: Just read on WorldNews the body count is climbing. It's now up to 94 ISIS members confirmed dead. That's more in line with the kill count I expected from such a massive weapon of such destructive force. (Source: https://article.wn.com/view/2017/04/15/Mother_of_all_bombs_death_toll_rises_to_94_Afghan_authoritie/)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom