Cohen spills beans on Trump/Russia: Trump cancels on Putin

[_subgenius]

If you take something it's perceived as weakness and short-sighted. Instead, if something is gifted to you it demonstrates a superior to subordinate relationship. It demonstrates respect. Think of it along the lines of showing deference to the godfather, whether you're kissing his ring, or bringing a prize. It cements a relationshio, whereas taking from another don would be an insult.

In this case, the relationship is mutually beneficial and since Trump's primary interest is making money, he doesn't care how he's perceived by subordinates, only by people who're stronger than him in as far as he can pursue his primary goal.

This is why he cowtows to the Saudi Prince and to Putin. They both are stronger than him, and they're both furthering his primary interest which is about his debt, his real estate ventures, and letting others launder money through it and Deutsche Bank because it serves everyone's purpose.

eta: I should add this is why Comey and now Mueller are so dangerous to him. They're both experts in mafia-type investigations that involve money laundering and related crimes. Trump isn't doing anything new, he's just doing it on a bigger stage with bigger players. It's not going to go well for him or his family.

- Doc

eye on the ball please...where is the collusion in 2016 election?
Making money, wanting to make money, and perceived character flaws are not grounds for impeachment...or even a citation.

[_Gunnar]

eye on the ball please...where is the collusion in 2016 election?
Making money, wanting to make money, and perceived character flaws are not grounds for impeachment...or even a citation.

Then you admit he has severe character flaws?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, subgenius, can we agree in order for us to move forward in good faith the question of whether or not the Russians engaged in a large information managemet campaign to influence the 2016 Presidential election, and that they did, in fact, hack the DNC servers is now moot?

If we can agree to that then you might understand their motivations in context to my post above.

So, as I'm sure you're aware, the 'Russia investigation' began due to George Papadopolous, a member of the Trump campaign, drunkenly revealing to a foreign official that he was told by Russia that it had the hacked DNC emails.

This ought to be a full stop for you. Like. What? Why would a member of the Trump campaign know this? Maybe a friend of a friend told him, but thanks to him this pretty much opened up Pandora's Box. Out of this investigation the following facts were uncovered:

1) We know the Trump campaign actively sought to collude with Russia. Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort attended a meeting at Trump Tower with a lawyer representing Russia, who promised dirt on Hillary. Jr. then lied about the meeting, gave a different lie, and then told the truth when he learned the NYT had his incriminating emails. President Trump himself dictated the first of Jr.'s lies about the meeting. The Trump team lied about meetings with Russians.

2) General (Ret.) Flynn and Papadopolous have plead guilty to lying to federal prosecutors, in regards to contacts with Russian officials and representatives.

3) Russian agents have been indicted for hacking the DNC servers. During the election, Donald Trump publicly asked Russia to retrieve Hillary's deleted emails on live damned television (!), and the Mueller indictments show that Russian hackers began trying to hack the Clinton campaign that very evening.

4) Kushner and Gen.(Ret.) Flynn visited the Russian ambassador in an attempt to set up secret back channel communications with the Kremlin.

I mean, “F” man, what do you want? Do you need these people to be wearing GoPros during all of this, and then write a How To book about collusion? When did concrete proof become required for law enforcement to investigate? As I posted here and above (linked in the Vox article) you have more than enough information to be informed and draw a pretty good conclusion. More will come out, as it has, and we'll be able to see the picture as the puzzle pieces come together.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

eye on the ball please...where is the collusion in 2016 election?
Making money, wanting to make money, and perceived character flaws are not grounds for impeachment...or even a citation.

You're starting to become impaired by the fumes from your stamper ink. In a few ways.

[_canpakes]

I've given up assuming that the cheeto's simpleton supporters will turn on him when they realize they have been played ...

That will never happen. To do so would entail admitting two errors at once - that Trump isn't the man he claims to be and that they were used like simpletons.

Too many of these folks are far too insecure to admit that they're capable of error - just as Trump believes.

[_canpakes]

Does anyone still believe DJT is a Democrat in disguise telling consrervatives what they want to hear?

Being a RINO, in Trump's case, never meant that he also needed to be a Democrat. It just means that he need only have no actual commitment to anyone, or any principle save telling folks whatever he thinks they'll want to hear in exchange for their uncritical support. Once that's achieved, he really doesn't need to do anything of substance except to continue to blow smoke up the Base's collective ass.

The Base will buy it without asking for any real action or follow-up because their ego compels them to accept being made a fool of by Trump rather than admit that they were suckers for believing that he was something that he'll never be.

[_Chap]

I agree with Chap's OP, and whole heartedly with Res Ipsa that Doc's evaluation of it hit the nail right on the head. I also greatly enjoyed subgenius and Ajax's responses to it. It is always amusing to read the mental contortions they have to put themselves through to justify their hilarious, continuing, sycophantic worship of our embarrassingly ignorant, corrupt and idiotic President. It could be seen as brilliant satire, did they not expect to have their comments taken seriously!

I dropped by to see how this thread was going, and I am pleased to see that (after a slowish) start, it has attracted quite a few substantive and very thoughtful contributions from the people you name.

But you do point to one of the things about this board that could be better: discussions are much more worthwhile if you sometimes get a contribution from someone who presents as an opponent, but says something interesting that changes your mind, and from which you can learn.

It is, frankly, scary that the only defences of Trump mounted here are from people who make it clear that Trump could do, or be revealed to have done, pretty well anything (including Trump's own example of shooting someone dead on the street), and their support would not waver in the least.

This is not politics - which is about negotiation, compromise, and the building of support on the basis of common interests - it is a visceral loyalty akin to what we have seen on the MADboard from those who struggle to defend the CoJCoLDS come what may. That is not what I understood democracy, particularly the American kind, to be about either. The future looks dark and dangerous if this tendency continues.

[_ajax18]

It is, frankly, scary that the only defences of Trump mounted here are from people who make it clear that Trump could do, or be revealed to have done, pretty well anything (including Trump's own example of shooting someone dead on the street), and their support would not waver in the least.

I have no problem admitting this. I'll always be loyal to DJT.

This is not politics - which is about negotiation, compromise, and the building of support on the basis of common interests - it is a visceral loyalty akin to what we have seen on the MADboard from those who struggle to defend the CoJCoLDS come what may. That is not what I understood democracy, particularly the American kind, to be about either. The future looks dark and dangerous if this tendency continues.

Mitt Romney thought politics was about compromise, and building to support the basis of common interests. And where did it get him? Where did it get my interests as a conservative? Disenfranchised and irrelevant would be a good answer. It's as if people like John Kasich think supporting open borders, high taxes, a big welfare state, and crippling the military is going to win him Democratic votes. DJT got more Democrat crossover than Kasich would have ever gotten. Kasich would never have broken the blue wall. Not only are his policies bad for conservatives if they were implemented, they can't win the election either.

[_honorentheos]

There's something ironic in someone claiming they'll always be loyal to Trump in a thread about Cohen.

[_Chap]

It is, frankly, scary that the only defences of Trump mounted here are from people who make it clear that Trump could do, or be revealed to have done, pretty well anything (including Trump's own example of shooting someone dead on the street), and their support would not waver in the least.

I have no problem admitting this. I'll always be loyal to DJT.

Hmm. How does that square with these words, which I assume you have recited quite a few times:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

That Republic is defined by its Constitution, which Trump is sworn to uphold. What if he violates that oath? Which do you go with then, the Constitution or Trump?