patrick.net

* No evidence of collusion with Russia will ever be produced, because there isn't any. - This is a safe prediction. The MSM has been trying to make a Russia-Trump connection stick for 6 months straight based purely on "anonymous sources" or "a meeting with a trusted source", and have failed every single time to prove any connection between Trump and Russia. It's reached tabloid levels of ridiculousness now.

* Comey's own sworn testimony that he was never pressured will be used against him and the whole Comey thing will be dropped. - Probably going to be true. Comey is just another distraction that Trump could have avoided by dismissing him back in January.

* The media will continue fabricating a new anti-Trump story every couple of days for the rest of Trump's presidency. - Certainly going to be true, but to their own detriment. The MSM has become a laughing stock, and truth be told, even leftist democrats are beginning to see how unreliable and fictitious their reporting has been for 6 months.

More and more of the public will come to the realization that the press really is on a witch hunt, motivated by intergalactic levels of coastal elite butt-hurt - True.

Trump will turn out to be nearly as bad as Obama in serving the plutocracy. - Sadly will be true but not because of Trump but because of establishment politicians. Republican and Democrat politicians are the problem, not the solution to the problem.

And yet Trump will in fact accomplish some of the things he promised, such as actual enforcement of immigration law and replacement of Obamacare - Already happening.

I'll add a few of my own to keep with the spirit of this thread.

- Democrats will lose more senate seats in 2018. I predict at least 2 certainly, but possible 3.
- Trump will swing one more seat on SCOTUS conservative (more than likely Ginsberg's seat).
- Trump will be re-elected.
- The Democrat challenger to Trump in 2020 will be minority or female, and will lose the electoral college, and popular vote.

Trump and Stone are on a mission to return to Lobbying the way it used to be before Stone was ran out of town on a pole.
Before owners of private businesses went to congress to lobby their congressman to dole out favors that benefited the home town by creating more jobs.
These lobbyists efforts were measurable in jobs created.
Where as after Stone, the Oligarchs used the Lobby framework Stone created, to lobby for legislation that kills jobs in other areas that compete with huge multinational conglomerates, that then win and were awarded jobs, that went over seas. While a rider on that legislation created hundreds if not thousands of $100K Government jobs maned by Affirmative action rejects that loathe America values and the American people. To make sure nobody undermines the Globalist deals that were cut in secrecy.

The "plutocracy" is a bad word that the people work against American voter's interests labeled all of the job creators. While they cater to and service Trillionare NGO's on the other side of the planet.

Tim Aurora says

Are you talking about campaign or just Trump.

Trump himself.

Tenpoundbass says

We're getting a twofer, not only will see the demise of the Democrat party but also an end to the fake war on races. The Democrats will be flat on their asses with no options.

They will be outclassed by Republican resist, and disrupt. While we shove our picks right down their pathetic blue faces.

Democrats are underestimating just how badly groups like ANTIFA or BLM have reflected upon them. They see those groups as "clubs" out to bludgeon supposed racist conservatives. But the truth is these groups are double edged swords and they have hurt the leftist movement badly especially in fly over states and in working class white america.

I don't think the majority of Democrats even support ANTIFA or BLM, but they do not dare publicly reject them and tacitly enjoy their disruptions of conservative leaning speakers, or meetings.

The Elizabeth Warren/Schumer/Clinton side of the DNC will never unite with the Keith Ellison/Bernie Sanders side of the DNC. This fracture, mostly caused by Clinton, will hurt the party for decades.

Goran_K says

Democrats are underestimating just how badly groups like ANTIFA or BLM have reflected upon them. They see those groups as "clubs" out to bludgeon supposed racist conservatives. But the truth is these groups are double edged swords and they have hurt the leftist movement badly especially in fly over states and in working class white america.

This is some serious hard core truth. Even long time Democrats from Democrat families are abandoning the party over its deliberate swing towards violence, speech suppression, and racially motivated politics. Even non-whites can see the toxicity of racial politics, how it turns people against each other and makes us less safe. But the DNC leadership is too busy #resisting to bother to look beyond their elite bubbles and notice that their faithful crowd is dwindling sharply. Before long, it'll be smaller than the mosh pit at a Kenny Loggins concert.

* No evidence of collusion with Russia will ever be produced, because there isn't any.
-We'll know better by the time it's done. In the end, it might be like the Benghazi hearings. Trump will not be found guilty, but half of the country will be convince he is guilty.

* Comey's own sworn testimony that he was never pressured will be used against him and the whole Comey thing will be dropped.
-Comey's sworn testimony doesn't contradict the memo. This thankfully will come out sooner rather than later.

* The media will continue fabricating a new anti-Trump story every couple of days for the rest of Trump's presidency.
-The blinding pace of the stories will slow, but the controversy will be there. Trump encourages it, so it will not go away.

* More and more of the public will come to the realization that the press really is on a witch hunt, motivated by intergalactic levels of coastal elite butt-hurt.
-I'm betting that there will be more polarization as people choose sides. Trump will never gain wide popularity.

* Trump will turn out to be nearly as bad as Obama in serving the plutocracy.
-Was there ever any doubt?

* And yet Trump will in fact accomplish some of the things he promised, such as actual enforcement of immigration law and replacement of Obamacare.
-He will not accomplish much. He will blame many others. He did potentially stop the TPP and will cut back on immigration (both the desirable and undesirable type), and he will deport a lot. His supporters will be happy for that. They will also be happy for his slowing social change. Infrastructure will go nowhere. Health care will still be a mess - it will be worse than when he took office. Deregulation and some tax cuts will spur economic growth a little, but the debt will grow faster. On his defining issue (MAGA), he will be seen as a failure.

jazz music says

because the GOP agenda is so great, right? Dream on.

No, because the Democrat party has literally gone insane trying to satisfy the trans community, riling up hate against white people, and calling anyone who disagrees with them Nazis. The Republicans aren't saints, but they look relatively sane compared to what the Democrat party has become (I no longer identify with either party).

As for "dreaming on", he doesn't need to dream, Democrats did abandon the Democrat party in droves in 2016. Here's a cool infographic that illustrates that point.

Below are all the Obama counties that flipped to GOP in 2016.

What do you think the Democrat parties identity politics game against white people (70% of the population of the US) will do in 2018, 2020?

jazz music says

because the GOP agenda is so great, right? Dream on.

Too many are confusing the Nationalist wave with GOPe Policies. You should know by now that Ryan and McConnell and Graham and McCain preferred Corporate Clinton as President, and take every opportunity to stab Trump in the back when they think they can get away with it.

McCain himself hawked the Golden Shower Dirty Dossier, paying for a copy.

"A week is a lifetime politically, and three months is an eternity."

I respect all the predictions on this thread, though long range predictions are necessarily opinions.

AF, I do adore you, but I wanted to let you know I updated a previous comment with more links to reported facts.

Goran_K says

groups like ANTIFA or BLM

had a huge effect on the opinions of US law enforcement in particular, and probably many voters. ANTIFA and BLM play on confirmation bias and drive polarization. For example, most of the threats against Jewish community centers turned out to be false flag hoaxes (an Israeli American Jewish teenager made most of the calls, an anti-Trump communist made some, a Jewish guy in buffalo spray painted swastikas on his own house, a black guy from NJ spray painted swastikas on cars in Philadelphia) but the base remain trapped in their echo chambers. Around here, I continue to see white people bicycling earnestly in "BLACK LIVES MATTER" t-shirts, signaling "virtuous" pretenses and partisan ignorance.

Most Americans remain trapped in major partisan frames, and many suffer from chronic MSM distortions. They don't even read alternative media that cite the same MSM programs broadcasting contradictory narratives on different days. Some appear to be willingly misled, like cult members, or hostages with Stockholm Syndrome.

Goran_K says

gone insane trying to satisfy the

The major party politicians try to prolong divisions and wars because they gain power from those. It's like the war in southeast Asia: it was a "chronicle of error," but it kept going, because it generated a geyser of power in DC. Gore Vidal said that "the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people.” He added that the reason there was essentially no difference between the two parties was because both got their money from the same sources. In any war, the battlefield suffers most. We have a deeply divided and polarized electorate, in a time of (and partly because of) MSM propaganda, manufacturing consent and manufacturing division.

Patrick says

motivated by

MIC bloodlust for war in Syria and spreading Islam, which pleases the Petrodollar clients and produces more mass surveillance. When Muslims do what Islam says, killing the disbelievers and striking terror into the enemies of Allah, NATO MSM audiences consent willingly to mass surveillance and increased military spending. Nevermind the military spending and Petrodollar-driven hijrah are causing most of the terrorism, deluded audiences become like hostages with Stockholm Sydrome, taking on the perspective of their captors and submitting to more of the same.

Tim Aurora says

Are you talking about campaign or just Trump. The campaign will definitely be indicted (Flynn, Stone etc)

Good. The more cheap Russian whores are smoked out the better.

rando says

I would like more facts and less speculation.

MSM are echo chambers though. I've lost count how many times I've seen scary headlines about something Donald Trump said supposedly, only to find paraphrases, and when I see the actual recording on YouTube, it doesn't reflect what the headlines said. The distortions are obvious to anyone who cares enough about evidence-based decisionmaking to track down the facts, but most people don't care about that, they just want partisan talking points. So, the more time gets wasted on these issues, the more media can spin what they want to spin, keeping their audiences transfixed and on the edge of their seats, have to sit through the ads in order not to miss the next terrifying distortion.

"I've lost count how many times I've seen scary headlines about something Donald Trump said supposedly, only to find paraphrases, and when I see the actual recording on YouTube, it doesn't reflect what the headlines said."

I can think only of the grabbing comments during the campaign. You have countless others? Examples?

joeyjojojunior says

You have countless others?

Yes. For example, when candidate Trump said he could eliminate the national debt at a discount by doing essentially what Warren Buffett and others have pointed out (monetizing it), MSM headlines screamed that he planned to refuse unconstitutionally to pay the public debt. Personally, I don't even support monetization, which would be inflationary and destabilizing, but he said what he said, and MSM said something completely different.

If you "can only think of" some locker room talk, then that shows you aren't paying attention to policy.

Notwithstanding that one doesn't equal countless, I'm not sure you are accurately characterizing what happened. Trump initially said that he would continue to borrow knowing that he could make a deal with the US's creditors if the shit hit the fan in the future and make them take a haircut on what is owed. He then clarified his remarks and walked them back to what you posted.

"If you "can only think of" some locker room talk, then that shows you aren't paying attention to policy."

I'm paying attention--that's why I asked if you could elaborate on your claim. Which is does not appear that you can. As usual.

joeyjojojunior says

As usual.

If you want to slide in the direction of ad hominem, I think the record is very clear as to which of us posts verifiable facts and which of us is merely a partisan troll. I've sided with and against candidates from at least four different parties, depending on evidence. I add source links after commenting. Time limits how many links I find and post in the context of a discussion, but I have seen countless examples and could keep adding more if I thought you were sincere. Instead, you tend merely to troll, so I'll stop now and leave you to your usual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2017/05/18/more-fake-news-about-trump-and-russia/

https://www.lifezette.com/popzette/rosie-odonnell-spreads-fake-news-trump/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/04/17/glenn-greenwald-frustrated-twitter-keeps-retweeting-fake-news-about-trump-n2314309

Great Summary. I also think that this is the case and going forward most of the Americans will realize the same.

Patrick says

* No evidence of collusion with Russia will ever be produced, because there isn't any.

* Comey's own sworn testimony that he was never pressured will be used against him and the whole Comey thing will be dropped.

* The media will continue fabricating a new anti-Trump story every couple of days for the rest of Trump's presidency.

* More and more of the public will come to the realization that the press really is on a witch hunt, motivated by intergalactic levels of coastal elite butt-hurt.

* Trump will turn out to be nearly as bad as Obama in serving the plutocracy.

* And yet Trump will in fact accomplish some of the things he promised, such as actual enforcement of immigration law and replacement of Obamacare.

Of course I could be wrong, but those are my expectations at the moment.

"If you want to slide in the direction of ad hominem"

No that was you with this post: "If you "can only think of" some locker room talk, then that shows you aren't paying attention to policy."

I think the record of who is a troll is clear as well. So, please go.

Something tells me anything the Democrats thinks they've got Trump gave it to them, to lead up a great reveal.
Feeding the Democrats their own excavation tools to help drain the swamp. Pick up that shovel and DIG deep.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2017/05/18/more-fake-news-about-trump-and-russia/

https://www.lifezette.com/popzette/rosie-odonnell-spreads-fake-news-trump/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/04/17/glenn-greenwald-frustrated-twitter-keeps-retweeting-fake-news-about-trump-n2314309

Patrick--I'm assuming this was in response to my post? The first link uses "fake news" in the headline as click bait, but doesn't dispute anything that the MSM was reporting. It corroborates it. The 2nd is Rosie O'Donnell. Does anyone think she is MSM? And the third is twitter users repeating fake news--I think it's safe to say that conservatives do this a LOT more than Dems.

joeyjojojunior says

Trump initially said that he would continue to borrow knowing that he could make a deal with the US's creditors if the shit hit the fan in the future and make them take a haircut on what is owed.

Yep, and that doesn't mean monetizing. Everyone who buys a treasury bond knows that we are borrowing in a currency that we control. They know that they have inflation risk, but they buy anyway. Arguing that we should buy while people give us a low rate, and knowing that we cannot get ourselves into trouble the way that Greece or so many other countries have done (borrowing in someone else's currency). But nobody in the US has suggested that we just stop paying people what we promised (in dollars). Trump often says something and tries to redefine it later. It's a joke.

YesYNot says

Yep, and that doesn't mean monetizing.

Nope, shucks, y'all go back and watch what he said actually, and compare it to the headlines. The "joke" is that MSM keep distorting what he said originally, and when he reiterates what he said originally, they accuse him of dissembling.

Sometimes he does change positions, expressly, for example during the campaign he refined his initial suggestion of a Muslim ban to allow for dual citizens etc and thus make it Constitutional. Alas that proposal got lost due to VP Pence, they switched to territories, and now they're litigating (absurdly) the narrow question of whether the President's statements are admissible (duh) instead of litigating the real issue, the President has the authority to defend the Constitution and the republic against people who advocate a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our Constitution and government.

"Nope, shucks, y'all go back and watch what he said actually, and compare it to the headlines. The "joke" is that MSM keep distorting what he said originally, and when he reiterates what he said originally, they accuse him of dissembling."

Which time? He said one thing, was called on it, then backtracked. You're pretending he never said the first bit and that the MSM are making it up.

"the President has the authority to defend the Constitution and the republic against people who advocate a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our Constitution and government."

And if he proposed a ban on people who advocate a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our Constitution and government--he would have no problem in the courts. Unfortunately, he didn't.

joeyjojojunior says

And if he proposed a ban on people who advocate a totalitarian doctrine that commands the violent overthrow of our Constitution and government--he would have no problem in the courts. Unfortunately, he didn't.

He did propose one, pre-Pence, but then compromised with Pence. Neither Executive Order reflected what candidate Donald Trump had proposed during his solo campaign.

BTW, here's a NY Times op-ed on the topic, pre-Pence; note the tediously repetitive virtue signaling contrasting with the legal conclusion.

Patrick says

No evidence of collusion with Russia will ever be produced, because there isn't any.

Yup and it may uncover Podesta and Hilalry's Russian connections. methinks Trump knows soemthing and he wante dit to come out through the special prosecutor and not him. me also thinks the dems are desperately trying to cover some nasty stuff -survellience and Russian connections.

* Comey's own sworn testimony that he was never pressured will be used against him and the whole Comey thing will be dropped.

memo is not sworn testimony-it could be memory and now the senate wants to see all the memos-even from Hilalry-that should be fun.
* The media will continue fabricating a new anti-Trump story every couple of days for the rest of Trump's presidency.

Yeah but they are already looking like rabid dogs.
* More and more of the public will come to the realization that the press really is on a witch hunt, motivated by intergalactic levels of coastal elite butt-hurt.

Yup-Rosie O'Donnell screaming nyet on the streets is what the dems have come to.

* Trump will turn out to be nearly as bad as Obama in serving the plutocracy.

Well, I am ambvivalent on that one-lets see.

* And yet Trump will in fact accomplish some of the things he promised, such as actual enforcement of immigration law and replacement of Obamacare.

Which is why the dems are pushing the Russian stuff-to throw him off his game.

Of course I could be wrong, but those are my expectations at the moment.

Pretty clsoe to mine

joeyjojojunior says

Which time?

We had been discussing the debt example. Hey, here's an idea, provide some evidence that you're not merely a partisan troll: this time, you go dig up the link to what candidate Trump said originally. The "bizarre" WaPo distortion that I linked contained a link supposedly to it, but conveniently their own link didn't even work anymore, so you wouldn't find his original statement that way. I remember it though, and not liking the idea, and then seeing the absurd MSM distortion of it. Do some homework for once instead of asking everyone else to play fetch for you.

Patrick says

* No evidence of collusion with Russia will ever be produced, because there isn't any.

* Comey's own sworn testimony that he was never pressured will be used against him and the whole Comey thing will be dropped.

* The media will continue fabricating a new anti-Trump story every couple of days for the rest of Trump's presidency.

* More and more of the public will come to the realization that the press really is on a witch hunt, motivated by intergalactic levels of coastal elite butt-hurt.

* Trump will turn out to be nearly as bad as Obama in serving the plutocracy.

* And yet Trump will in fact accomplish some of the things he promised, such as actual enforcement of immigration law and replacement of Obamacare.

You left off the most important thing. He has already been in the Trenches, traveling to firms that are outsourcing jobs. If he only save 100,000 jobs, those people will love him.

I love his complete lack of political decorum. LOVE IT!

Sure-this took 5 seconds.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/16/closer-look-donald-trumps-comments-about-refinanci/

"He did propose one, pre-Pence"

I don't think so. He proposed a ban on Muslims.

joeyjojojunior says

Sure-this took 5 seconds.

A) That is not a link to what he said originally. It is a subsequent interview.
B) Most of that is about his record of what he did in the private sector. None of it says he would default on Treasury debt. Monetizing is a way of paying back at a discount, as many countries have done.

Again, I don't even support the idea, but your partisan distortions put me in the odd position of defending him. That was one of the Democrats' biggest problems throughout the campaign, and it backfired terribly: Democrats and their partisan MSM kept distorting candidate Trump, and ended up campaigning against a fiction that existed only in their own echo chamber. Outside the echo chambers, people saw a campaign between two partisan patronage networks, each reciting its own fictions.

Instead of claiming credit for finding a link to something other than what he said originally, go back and find what he said originally.

"A) That is not a link to what he said originally. It is a subsequent interview."

Nope--it lists both his original statement and his follow-up walking back.

It's even got a link to the video of it.

joeyjojojunior says

Sure-this took 5 seconds.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/16/closer-look-donald-trumps-comments-about-refinanci/

This is accurate. Its also a poor negotiating tactic to admit publicly.

joeyjojojunior says

--it lists both his original statement and his follow-up walking back.

It's even got a link to the video of it.

Ah, I see what you did there. Your selective screen grab omitted most of what he said in the interview that you linked:

Quick: "I understand that you've done this in business deals, but are you suggesting we would negotiate with the U.S. credit in such a way?"

Trump: "No. I don't want to renegotiate the bonds. But I think you can do discounting, I think, you know, depending on where interest rates are, I think you can buy back. You can -- I'm not talking about with a renegotiation, but you can buy back at discounts, you can do things with discounts. … I would refinance debt. I think we should refinance longer-term debt."

Open market operations happen all the time, including via the Federal Reserve. That's been going on for more than a century, buying and selling Treasury bonds via open market operations. The Fed has a whole committee expressly for this purpose, the "open market committee." Printing money to buy bonds is called monetizing, and buying some bonds while selling others is a long established tool to manage the yield curve.

joeyjojojunior says

I think the record of who is a troll is clear as well. So, please go.

Yes, that would be you, our MSM-controlled hall monitor tasked with disrupting and casting aspersions upon truthful and thoughtful conversations at Patnet. Always asking for proof or examples that are readily available to anyone with an internet connection, only to discount it when faithfully presented. Building numerous straw men to justify insane logic, and accusing everyone else of doing the same. Faithfully championing the unceasing stream of blatantly false and highly spun propaganda that comes from the MSM.
These are your hallmarks.

Curious2 is a thoughtful and intelligent poster who has a decade of posting here under his belt. To have a trollish upstart confront him about being a troll is the epitome of ridiculousness.

Thanks, @Quigley, that was very kind of you.

I've also tracked down an earlier WaPo interview transcript, Bob Woodward (BW) interviewing Donald Trump (DT):

DT: ""I don’t mind taking care of Japan. But they have to help us out more, monetarily. We can’t protect the entire world. You look at our military budget, it’s massive compared to any other country. But what are we doing? We’re taking care of the military needs of all these countries. And these countries are much richer than us. We’re not a rich country. We’re a debtor nation. We’ve got to get rid of — I talked about bubble. We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.

DT: Well, I would say over a period of eight years. And I’ll tell you why... I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob. The big trade deals that we’re doing so badly on. With China, $505 billion this year in trade. We’re losing with everybody. And a lot of those deals — a lot of people say, how could the politicians be so stupid? It’s not that they’re stupid. It’s that they’re controlled by lobbyists and special interests who want those deals to be made."

So, describing a context in which we pay to protect trade partners with whom we run trade deficits, and we borrow money from them to finance protecting them, he said he could negotiate better deals. He didn't say default, nor anything of the sort. In another interview he said "discounts", referring to long established tools to monetize and manage the yield curve by refinancing. There is nothing "bizarre" nor "nonsensical" about what he said actually, but WaPo misled readers by using both of those words in headlines to distort what he said.

And, again, I don't even support monetizing the debt. Democrats could have argued persuasively that we should not monetize, but instead they chose to distort what the Republican nominee said and then to campaign against a strawman of their own imaginations. They sacrificed credibility and then failed to fool enough voters to win.

curious2 says

I've also tracked down an earlier WaPo interview transcript, Bob Woodward (BW) interviewing Donald Trump (DT):

I'm sure you could track down a lot of Trump interviews where he doesn't talk about renegotiating the US debt. Not sure how it relates to the topic at hand though.

And I'm not really interested in whether you support monetizing the debt. We're talking about how the MSM does or does not mischaracterize Trump's statements.

Quigley says

Always asking for proof or examples that are readily available to anyone with an internet connection, only to discount it when faithfully presented

lol--I ask because the Trump crowd continually makes factually incorrect statements, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and ask if they have any examples. Generally none are given, or if they are, they show something completely different than what was stated. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Yes, joeyjojojunior simply discounted the three links I presented, apparently without even reading them.

They are all very clear examples of how the press continually lies through omission and distortion.