Trump senior aide Manafort resigns after being pushed aside

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DelMarvel

You just proved my point.
So to reiterate:

Trump never said he wanted to leave NATO.
Trump never said he wanted to kill families of terrorists
Trump never said he wanted Japan and Korea to get nukes
Trump never said he wanted to let Russia have Crimea

Trumps words from a dozen sources.

NATO-"You know, there's nothing wrong with saying that a concept was good, but now it's obsolete or now it's outmoded.
Now, it can be trimmed up and it can be, uh, it can be reconfigured and you can call it NATO, but it's going to be changed. I mean this thing was -- was done many decades ago. And there's nothing wrong with saying it's obsolete. But it is obsolete."

Japan - "wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons?" ""Maybe they would be better off -- including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

Families ""The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

Crimea ""I'm going to take a look at it," he said. "But you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that"

Granted Trump is confused on most of these subjects not knowing NATO has a counter mission for decades, that the US spends only 500 million on NATO, that the only nation to activate the alliance defense clause has been the US after 911 sending all of NATO into Afghanistan. He also seems to think Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are trying to get nukes when they are not because as part of are defense deals they do not need them. And of course we all know Trump has no clue what is going on in Ukraine or Crimea, not knowing Russia was already in Ukraine and flip flopping all over on the entire subject.

Now maybe somebody can sit him down and explain things to him.

Discussed above... you points were conclusions you have drawn which is fair enough. I am just pointing out that I disagree with your conclusions and prefer to look at the actual word and the context in which those words were spoken.

Example on the nukes for Japan...

Japan - "wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons?" ""Maybe they would be better off -- including with nukes, yes, including with nukes."

He's answering a specific (and leading) question and does not give a definitive answer, rather just a 'maybe'. I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.

"You have so many countries already -- China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia -- you have so many countries right now that have them," Trump said in a Milwaukee, Wisconsin town hall televised by CNN. "Now, wouldn't you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?"

Trump said that the United States spends too much money protecting countries like Japan and Saudi Arabia, but "we can't afford to do it anymore."

CNN moderator Anderson Cooper pointed out that it's been U.S. policy for decades to prevent Japan from getting a nuclear weapon. Trump responded, "Maybe it's going to have to be time to change, because so many people -- you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it."

LINK.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Thanks you for continuing to post links that prove my point. Saves me some time.
Appreciate it.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.

He wants to be president but he doesn't have a "clear answer" about the fundamentals of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy for the last half century because he doesn't have "access to any intelligence briefings"?

That doesn't seem to be stopping him from running his mouth anyway.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: DelMarvel

Thanks you for continuing to post links that prove my point. Saves me some time.
Appreciate it.

Any thinking person can read the quotes and decide for themselves whose point is proved.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: UKTruth
I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.

He wants to be president but he doesn't have a "clear answer" about the fundamentals of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy for the last half century because he doesn't have "access to any intelligence briefings"?

That doesn't seem to be stopping him from running his mouth anyway.

Running his mouth is a fair criticism.
I'm just not going to agree with concrete conclusions on positions he has allegedly taken where there are no such conclusions to be drawn.
He should have batted off the question with a simple "i'd like to do more with NATO to fight terrorism".

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: DelMarvel

Thanks you for continuing to post links that prove my point. Saves me some time.
Appreciate it.

Any thinking person can read the quotes and decide for themselves whose point is proved.

No, any person who wants to draw conclusions to suit their own views will often do so.
Those looking objectively will try and understand context and then word the conclusions that CAN be drawn appropriately.

a reply to: amicktd

Looks like despite how icky it is... that it was all legal. Manafort doesn't necessarily have that going for him.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: amicktd

Looks like despite how icky it is... that it was all legal. Manafort doesn't necessarily have that going for him.

What about this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 'ickiness' get very icky.

a reply to: UKTruth

All still looks legal. I don't like it but the legality of it won't change with Trump, clearly. Both candidates are sleaze, no caveats.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

All still looks legal. I don't like it but the legality of it won't change with Trump, clearly. Both candidates are sleaze, no caveats.

I think it might be illegal to take cash as SOS to help overthrow a foreign govt.
Might be wrong though.

a reply to: UKTruth

Loopholes. Washington goes for anything that puts cash in the pocket.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Loopholes. Washington goes for anything that puts cash in the pocket.

No argument there.

Manafort is under investigation by the FBI and Justice department. I suspect this is the real reason he resigned. The hypocrisy would've been stunning if he continued in his role after the way they went after Hillary. Trump couldn't afford the optics.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: UKTruth
I watched that interview and my take was that he didn't really have a clear answer he wanted to give, which is understandable considering he had no access to any intelligence briefings at the time.

He shouldn't have opened his gub then. As for Crimea, he could speculate, but he didn't need to since that region voted overwhelmingly to be part of Russia...96.77% being the given figure.
As for NATO being no account and reconfigured, how do you do that, make the planes go underwater and the subs fly?
That was a nonsense statement anyway...unless it was meant to be consolative to the likes of Putin, and that Trump wasn't so happy that NATO had gone beyond it's boundaries, which it has. Trump though probably didn't realise the latter,

That's not relevant. I am just pointing out the that conclusions offered are really just opinions. As for NATO, they did actually announce changes not long after his discussion. He was right, the organisation does need to change and happily took his advice and the advice of leading politicians who concurred with Trump shortly after he spoke about NATO.

It's more than relevant since any criticism of NATO was highlighted 14 years ago in the UK parliament in the area of compatibility..aka more money should flow to the US, apart from that 'biggy' NATO importantly, has had terrorism tactics since 1980, why do you think so many troops have been in Afghanistan since 9/11 for instance, as well as a big shakeup in 2012 in intelligence sharing? Anyway, Trump made that remark in March of this year, and any new change would be as usual in a summit meeting, and there was a minor one in July in Warsaw, with Trump hooting on that a couple of days ago, so you want to change history, as well as happy to make assumptions on other stuff Trump said but didn't mean..according to yourself. That's a cheat sheet, not like something out of the past that Henry Ford might have said, according to someone else. Trumps remarks were recorded, and also he tweeted on them as being to his credit, years after important changes were made on the very subject he referred to.

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: amicktd


If we're speculating, I'd say he's running to Make America Great Again!

Hope and change ! Hope and change!

Are there any other options at this point? If so, enlighten me!

Gary Johnson.

That or do what my American girlfriends thinking of doing and saying # it and moving lol

Well Gary Johnson as of now has no chance in beating Trump or Hillary. My main point is to keep Hillary out of office, so Trump is my best vote to beat Hillary. If I vote for Johnson, then I'm voting against both Trump and Hillary. I have no intentions on moving out of my country.

And thats why US politics is broken.

You vote for the lessee evil not the most qualified.

originally posted by: Vdogg
Manafort is under investigation by the FBI and Justice department. I suspect this is the real reason he resigned. The hypocrisy would've been stunning if he continued in his role after the way they went after Hillary. Trump couldn't afford the optics.

www.cnn.com...

...and now so is the Podesta Group...the lobbying group founded by Clinton's chairman John Podesta...I await his resignation...I also await CNN's article on this...

www.breitbart.com...
sputniknews.com...