The Kremlin Candidate

[Seshmeister]

Tonight's BBC documentary on Trump and Russia was interesting.
Worth a watch...does a good job of concentrating on what is known, and what is likely to be true, what is plausible and what is BS. Includes access to the main people including Trump.

[Nickdfresh]

Trump LIES about meeting Putin!

Tape shows Trump contradicting himself (again) on Putin meeting

Yahoo News Michael Isikoff
Chief Investigative Correspondent
Yahoo NewsJanuary 17, 2017

President-elect Donald Trump told a radio interviewer in October 2015 that he had met Vladimir Putin “one time … a long time ago” and that he “got along with him great” — a statement that conflicts with his later denials during the campaign that he had ever met or spoken with the Russian president.

The newly surfaced audiotape, uncovered by a political opposition-research group, could fuel new questions about the precise nature of Trump’s past relations with the Russian president — a subject about which he has made multiple contradictory comments. It was released just hours after Putin, speaking from Moscow, denounced officials in the Obama administration as “worse than prostitutes” for circulating “nonsense” personal allegations about Trump that were allegedly collected by Russian intelligence.
...

[Seshmeister]

I watched part of a Celebrity Apprentice last night from 2013.

The boardroom started in very Trumplike manner. He asked each of the contestants what they thought of his new private plane that took them to the task. This went on for a while even though totally irrelevant.

At one point he said 'With a plane like that you can have sex with any woman in the world you want.'

67 married and on TV and he said that - Putin catching him in a honeytrap seems likely.

[FORD]

Or a piss trap, as the case may be....

[Nickdfresh]

I wonder how many guys his wife bangs in her "separate NYC life"...

[Terry]

Tonight's BBC documentary on Trump and Russia was interesting.
Worth a watch...does a good job of concentrating on what is known, and what is likely to be true, what is plausible and what is BS. Includes access to the main people including Trump.

Seeing Roger Stone in the documentary talking about the lack of credibility the CIA has was laughable: it isn't even to say that claiming the CIA has lied would be an untruthful comment to make, but in terms of credibility Roger Stone really isn't the person to be making that claim if it is to be taken seriously.

I'd have to imagine that Trump, as he claimed in his press conference last week, would have been smart enough not to engage in any activities while in Russia during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant that would potentially provide blackmail material. Even putting the specific claims of the dossier regarding Trump watching Moscow hookers peeing on a bed Barack and Michelle Obama had previously slept on in the Ritz Carlton Hotel to one side (hey, I suppose if Hillary was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor then nothing is outside the realm of possibility in terms of elite deviance), I would really have to imagine if Trump was into whatever he was into he would restrict those activities to one of his properties in the United States. Just in terms of being able to control the environment and ensure that he wouldn't be recorded.

Some of the documentary was interesting, some of it was a bit too much in the style of "infotainment" and some of it clearly had the thinnest of gruel in terms of documented sources passing as a conjectured 'likelihood': when you've got characters like Roger Stone as interview sources, it automatically knocks down the credibility factor for me. A shame, really, because it is a legitimate line of inquiry to wonder exactly what ties Trump has with Russia even strictly regarding who he has been in business with over there (a subject touched briefly within the programme) and leaving the more salacious claims of personal behavior to one side.

Then again, isn't that sadly the focus more than a few have about all of this? That Trump might have some sort of fetish involving prostitutes peeing (on him, each other, a bed, wherever)?

Also, wouldn't it be more satisfying for Trump to piss on Obama's bed himself? Or is it that when you're that rich it is more satisfying to pay someone else to do it, because you get that additional humiliation of having someone else engage in such an activity for money at your behest?

[DONNIEP]

Pornhub has the best Lesbian Piss Porn, or so I've heard.

I know it's off topic but I wonder what plans Trump has for the redecorating of the White House.

[Seshmeister]

Seeing Roger Stone in the documentary talking about the lack of credibility the CIA has was laughable: it isn't even to say that claiming the CIA has lied would be an untruthful comment to make, but in terms of credibility Roger Stone really isn't the person to be making that claim if it is to be taken seriously.

I'd have to imagine that Trump, as he claimed in his press conference last week, would have been smart enough not to engage in any activities while in Russia during the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant that would potentially provide blackmail material. Even putting the specific claims of the dossier regarding Trump watching Moscow hookers peeing on a bed Barack and Michelle Obama had previously slept on in the Ritz Carlton Hotel to one side (hey, I suppose if Hillary was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor then nothing is outside the realm of possibility in terms of elite deviance), I would really have to imagine if Trump was into whatever he was into he would restrict those activities to one of his properties in the United States. Just in terms of being able to control the environment and ensure that he wouldn't be recorded.

Some of the documentary was interesting, some of it was a bit too much in the style of "infotainment" and some of it clearly had the thinnest of gruel in terms of documented sources passing as a conjectured 'likelihood': when you've got characters like Roger Stone as interview sources, it automatically knocks down the credibility factor for me. A shame, really, because it is a legitimate line of inquiry to wonder exactly what ties Trump has with Russia even strictly regarding who he has been in business with over there (a subject touched briefly within the programme) and leaving the more salacious claims of personal behavior to one side.

I think that some of the dossier is true, some is half true and some isn't.

The Roger Stone and other scenes were the BBC falling over itself to be non biased. It should have just had a caption that said - 'This man's back is covered in a giant tattoo of Richard Nixon. We are not joking!'

The Trump links with really really dodgy people over the years is key for me apart from Roger Stone, Felix Satar as pointed out in this doc plus the vile mob consiglieri Roy Cohn.

Google that fucker - he couldn't be a character in the Godfather because it would seem too over the top...

[Terry]

I think that some of the dossier is true, some is half true and some isn't.

The Roger Stone and other scenes were the BBC falling over itself to be non biased. It should have just had a caption that said - 'This man's back is covered in a giant tattoo of Richard Nixon. We are not joking!'

The Trump links with really really dodgy people over the years is key for me apart from Roger Stone, Felix Satar as pointed out in this doc plus the vile mob consiglieri Roy Cohn.

Google that fucker - he couldn't be a character in the Godfather because it would seem too over the top...

Although I suppose it is in a way commendable for a journalist to be 'non-biased' (if such a position really exists - or is even worthwhile to pursue being as such - is a larger issue), it still boils down to credibility of the sources. The whole idea of objective journalism, as opposed to straight-up reporting of the news (i.e. who, what, where and when without the why) is a bit silly to me, because at that point if all you as a journalist are is a mere conduit for uninvestigated varying viewpoints (as opposed to what is now known as a dirty phrase in Trumpain circles: 'fact checking'), than you're really just a valve letting information pass through you indiscriminately. Thus you deserve no credit for getting a story right or wrong if you're not providing a fact-based context with subsequent conclusions in your journalistic endeavors.

Roger Stone is slightly more credible than Alex Jones (no coincidence that they enjoyed one another's company at the most recent Republican Convention), yet surely the BBC didn't - and shouldn't - include HIS thoughts on the matter without at the very least explaining his background. The same applies to Stone. My point being that the way Roger Stone was presented, which is to say without (as you pointed out) the disclosure that he has a giant tattoo of Nixon on his back and is a self-proclaimed dirty trickster and self-avowed liar going back at least 4 decades, was as if he were a respected and credible political consultant. All of which kind of blunted the effect of the documentary for me. It would have been more interesting to have the dossier which was held up in front of the camera actually examined closely, although I'm unsure as to the libel laws in the United Kingdom.

To be sure, Trump freely associates with a lot of unsavory people. For all the years he was active in New York real estate, in addition to elements of the New Jersey mob when he was involved in the casino business in THAT state, having to deal with Teamsters in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s one would expect this sort of thing to a degree. I'm not being cynical when I say that probably was literally just part of doing that type of business in those areas during that time, and undoubtedly not just restricted to Trump in terms of developers. Considering that history, within that context his dealings with Felix Satar in 2013 are understandable. Lamentable now that Trump is our President, but understandable. From Cohn to Satar to Putin, Trump clearly has a use for and an admiration of men who have the gumption to do what they want however they want because their ends always justify the means: that assertion defines Donald Trump to a T, as it were.

All of which is secondary to the now-established fact that Donald Trump likes watching hookers pee on things.

[Seshmeister]

The thing that could actually drive you insane is that there is a ton of conspiracy going on here.

For once there is massive amounts of lies, gangsters, murders even, the mafia, colorful eccentric moustache twirling crooks - the exact fucking thing Alex Jones and the other 1000 online conspiracy sites have wanted for so long. It's real. It's not a situation where you need to pretend to be a metallurgist or have a PhD in Structural Engineering and cover it by having a calm female voice make shit up.

No this is real, it is an actual conspiracy. You have a grandfather building a business selling horsemeat and prostitutes, followed by his son who grabbed millions from the US government subsidies followed by his son Donald who is up to his ears in mobsters and crooks.

And what do they do now they actually finally have something to go after? Nothing. Alex Jones is all over them like a masturbating rash, his ego and business inflated by a few crumbs from their table.

Fuck those people...

[Terry]

The thing that could actually drive you insane is that there is a ton of conspiracy going on here.

For once there is massive amounts of lies, gangsters, murders even, the mafia, colorful eccentric moustache twirling crooks - the exact fucking thing Alex Jones and the other 1000 online conspiracy sites have wanted for so long. It's real. It's not a situation where you need to pretend to be a metallurgist or have a PhD in Structural Engineering and cover it by having a calm female voice make shit up.

No this is real, it is an actual conspiracy. You have a grandfather building a business selling horsemeat and prostitutes, followed by his son who grabbed millions from the US government subsidies followed by his son Donald who is up to his ears in mobsters and crooks.

And what do they do now they actually finally have something to go after? Nothing. Alex Jones is all over them like a masturbating rash, his ego and business inflated by a few crumbs from their table.

Fuck those people...

I can't quite sift through everything that has happened yet regarding Trump, Putin, WikiLeaks, the hacking of the DNC and the subsequent release of the DNC e-mails...

It's all just too weird that Trump made his statements in the early summer urging Russia to look for Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and publish them, and the timing of the release of some of the emails (an hour after Trump's taped conversation with Billy Bush was made public) by WikiLeaks, and the timing of FBI director Comey's public disclosures (the last one on the eve of the election). Although apparently WikiLeaks had the emails as early as February of 2016. And now the Trump dossier and the disclosure of that on the eve of his inauguration, even though the contents of that were apparently known by US intelligence agencies as early as the summer of 2016, and the speculation that the compilation of the dossier began in 2015 initially on the part of anti-Trump Republicans via an American research firm and was then taken over by Democrats in the summer of 2016 and the research was then continued via a British research firm.

And everything above is just a very superficial summation. And so much of it has gaps in terms of exactly who was able to ferret out specific information, who the recipients of that information were, the timeline of the transfer of the information from one party to another...and on and on.

It's all just...weird. Too weird for me to dismiss the chronology of it as some multi-layered series of coincidences or some bizarre synergy of events. Yet I can't seem to grasp whatever the unifying theory behind all of it might be re: who hacked what and for what ultimate purpose, and were the ultimate beneficiaries of the leaks politically not directly involved with any of it and just plain lucky to reap the rewards of timing that was outside of their immediate control? Is it a given that had none of the Comey disclosures or WikiLeaks of the DNC emails (which are surmised by the US intelligence community to have been provided to WikiLeaks by persons with direct ties to the Kremlin) happened Hillary Clinton would have necessarily won? When I look at the counties of the states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) that secured Trump's victory for him, I wonder how many Trump voters there really gave a shit about any of that or would have voted for Clinton in absence of that stuff.

I dunno. I can't seem to put the pieces together.

[Von Halen]

When I look at the counties of the states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) that secured Trump's victory for him, I wonder how many Trump voters there really gave a shit about any of that or would have voted for Clinton in absence of that stuff.

I live in what has been traditionally one of the bluest Counties in Michigan. Blue voting, blue collar, STRONG Union presence. I can tell you with 100% certainty, Trump had this County locked up LONG before any of the stuff you listed in your post. The Dems, the pollsters, and all the other people with their heads buried in the sand, simply didn't want to, or couldn't, believe Donald Trump was going to win this election. They miscalculated. They underestimated. They believed their own hype. Now they have to live with their ignorance for at least 4 years.

[vandeleur]

We get it people wanted change , we had that here. And to some extent I understand that.
But change to what ? Change for change sake ?

It seems the less transparent the policy or statement the more we as the people find it appealing.
It's as if "I will make it better , how , because I will " would hold water in any other part of our life.

We live in interesting times , long may it continue

[Terry]

I live in what has been traditionally one of the bluest Counties in Michigan. Blue voting, blue collar, STRONG Union presence. I can tell you with 100% certainty, Trump had this County locked up LONG before any of the stuff you listed in your post. The Dems, the pollsters, and all the other people with their heads buried in the sand, simply didn't want to, or couldn't, believe Donald Trump was going to win this election. They miscalculated. They underestimated. They believed their own hype. Now they have to live with their ignorance for at least 4 years.

I tend to think you are right about...well, pretty much everything you said in that reply.

And to your credit you were posting about the massive amount of Trump support you had witnessed on the ground in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania well before I had even heard many mainstream media outlets talking about it. I was dismissive about the amount of Trump signs you were seeing as an accurate indicator of his strength.

And even outside of Democratic pollster/media hubris (hey, I couldn't imagine Trump winning the election - even just IMAGINE it, mind you - until the last couple of weeks...and even THEN I was more along the lines of thinking Trump would lose but it could be much closer than the polls indicate) about this particular election cycle, the Democratic Party failed to see the reckoning headed their way which was the result of decades embracing policies and strategies that failed to help the working class in meaningful ways. This loss was a long time coming.

So I'm unsure if the whole WikiLeaks/DNC leaked emails/Comey cauldron was as decisive as many in the Democratic Leadership (what is left of it at the moment: if Dems are pinning their hopes on Corey Booker. Kirsten Gillibrand, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer going forward...not so good) claim it to be. My general feeling is that the Democratic Party need to articulate a vision for the working class of this country that relies on something beyond the forced largesse of corporations to put food on the table, and stop waiting around hoping the demographics of America will eventually give them perpetual control of the government. In other words, get a set of principles that aren't easily cast aside in the service of political expediency, stiffen the spine of the leadership and be prepared to take a stand and fight for their beliefs.

[jacksmar]

lots of aching vaginas................