Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

[phiwum]

Were they national security meetings with eventual President of the United States?

Added the highlighted, since Trump was not President on March 31, 2016.

 

[johnny karate]

Added the highlighted, since Trump was not President on March 31, 2016.

My bad, and my apologies to Bob.

I'll rephrase my question: Were the meetings you attended in which no one knew your name national security meetings with a candidate for President of the United States?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Added the highlighted, since Trump was not President on March 31, 2016.

Also, nation security meeting has a few different aspects. If you are meeting with the actual president, it actually impacts things. If you are just meeting with a candidate, you might as well be a bunch of schlubs talking international affairs at a bar.

 

[johnny karate]

It is march 31st, 2016. It is not accurate to call it a national security meeting with the president.

You're right. I apologize.

See rephrased question in my previous post.

 

[BobTheCoward]

My bad, and my apologies to Bob.

I'll rephrase my question: Were the meeting you attended in which no one knew your name national security meetings with a candidate for President of the United States?

Yes.

ETA: nearly everyone has.

 

[phiwum]

My bad, and my apologies to Bob.

I'll rephrase my question: Were the meeting you attended in which no one knew your name national security meetings with a candidate for President of the United States?

I think it's fair to call him the forerunner candidate among Republicans at that time. It's not a random meeting of minor bureaucrats, so your point really does stand, even if some details were overstated.

Paid or not, that particular meeting suggests that Papadopoulos was not an entirely minor part of the campaign. The only fact which gives one pause is that Trump is known for overstatement and conceivably exaggerated Papadopoulos's role in the campaign at that meeting.

But let's leave it to Mueller to sort it all out and not bother speculating ourselves.

 

[TofuFighter]

Added the highlighted, since Trump was not President on March 31, 2016.

There's no real reason to carry on this line of discussion.
It would be accurate to say "i met president Trump all the way back in 1995" (although that only would be as true as the things that President Trump says)

Point is, it's pointless pedantry, much like the "i've been in meetings where people didn't know me" comment.

Unless you're (no, not you) trying to tie that up with some assertion that Trump didn't know George Papadoupoulousness, you'd just either be making random statements, or deliberately misdirectional statements.

 

[phiwum]

There's no real reason to carry on this line of discussion.
It would be accurate to say "i met president Trump all the way back in 1995" (although that only would be as true as the things that President Trump says)

Point is, it's pointless pedantry, much like the "i've been in meetings where people didn't know me" comment.

Unless you're (no, not you) trying to tie that up with some assertion that Trump didn't know George Papadoupoulousness, you'd just either be making random statements, or deliberately misdirectional statements.

I can understand that some may find this pedantic, but if we said that Trump's colleagues at his college sometimes had "meetings with the President" since they studied together so many years ago, it would be misleading.

Similarly, the meeting of March 2016 was not with the President, but with the candidate.

 

[The Don]

Yes.

ETA: nearly everyone has.

Nearly everyone has been in a national security meeting a candidate for President of the United States?

 

[BobTheCoward]

.

Unless you're (no, not you) trying to tie that up with some assertion that Trump didn't know George Papadoupoulousness, you'd just either be making random statements, or deliberately misdirectional statements.

Or just focusing on the one interesting subject and line of discussion in the whole conversation. Focus is neither random nor misdirection.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Nearly everyone has been in a national security meeting a candidate for President of the United States?

The bar for meeting, national security, and candidate for president are extremely low for me.

 

[TofuFighter]

I can understand that some may find this pedantic, but if we said that Trump's colleagues at his college sometimes had "meetings with the President" since they studied together so many years ago, it would be misleading.

Similarly, the meeting of March 2016 was not with the President, but with the candidate.

I can appreciate that, but in context it's an absolutely irrelevant point.

We're all here talking about this particular instance, and in this instance I don't believe that there is any intent from anyone to make misleading statements about when they knew Trump and when he became president. Trump's inauguration was 9 months ago. There's no confusion on that point.

The fact is that George Papadopolous is not some nobody. He's a person who's been acknowledged by Trump and was in a meeting with Trump which Trump himself has styled as a National Security meeting.

Bob's comments are just a derail.

 

[varwoche]

Fixed it...

Or just focusing on the one interesting subject irrelevant diversion and line of discussion in the whole conversation. Focus is neither random nor misdirection.

Sheesh, give it a rest for once. Also check out my sig.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I can appreciate that, but in context it's an absolutely irrelevant point.

We're all here talking about this particular instance, and in this instance I don't believe that there is any intent from anyone to make misleading statements about when they knew Trump and when he became president. Trump's inauguration was 9 months ago. There's no confusion on that point.

The fact is that George Papadopolous is not some nobody. He's a person who's been acknowledged by Trump and was in a meeting with Trump which Trump himself has styled as a National Security meeting.

Bob's comments are just a derail.

The suggestion was that the gravity of the meeting would lead to all the parties being aware of eachother. Calling him the president extends more serious to the meeting. In march 2016 it was far less serious.

At least, some serious not identical to the president seriousness.

 

[phiwum]

Nearly everyone has been in a national security meeting a candidate for President of the United States?

Are you seriously saying that you haven't? Wow.

Friggin' loser.

I've been to three. And that's not counting LaRouche, since that was just visiting hours.

 

[phiwum]

I can appreciate that, but in context it's an absolutely irrelevant point.

We're all here talking about this particular instance, and in this instance I don't believe that there is any intent from anyone to make misleading statements about when they knew Trump and when he became president. Trump's inauguration was 9 months ago. There's no confusion on that point.

The fact is that George Papadopolous is not some nobody. He's a person who's been acknowledged by Trump and was in a meeting with Trump which Trump himself has styled as a National Security meeting.

Bob's comments are just a derail.

I won't speak for Bob, because he speaks enough. My own correction was admittedly a detail, nothing much, but graciously accepted by the OP.

Far as I can tell, Papadopoulos is somewhere between "nobody" and "insider", perhaps exclusive on the former and maybe inclusive on the latter. But we'll wait and see what develops.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So this would probably be a good time to ask how much power exactly does a President really have. Are Presidents really in that much power to make decisions, or are they more like puppets of a larger power featuring other "puppeteers" behind him making the real decisions?

 

[The Don]

Are you seriously saying that you haven't? Wow.

Friggin' loser.

I've been to three. And that's not counting LaRouche, since that was just visiting hours.

I wouldn't expect to, being neither a security expert nor a US citizen, but I do find it surprising that the majority of US citizens have.

Is this a recent thing, mass consulting on national security ? Are you compelled to attend ?

I can also understand why Daddy Don (ex-USN/USNR but resident in the UK for 50+ years) and Mrs Don (US citizen but UK resident for 25 years) haven't attended but AFAIK, none of her extended family back home have - or are you all sworn to secrecy.

Even assuming only adults attend, and a majority is just over 50%, that's still over 100 million people being consulted. The logistics along must be considerable. Perhaps this is why President Trump is said to be playing golf so much, thousands upon thousands of national security meetings with tens of millions of Americans.

 

[The Don]

The bar for meeting, national security, and candidate for president are extremely low for me.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I wouldn't expect to, being neither a security expert nor a US citizen, but I do find it surprising that the majority of US citizens have.

Is this a recent thing, mass consulting on national security ? Are you compelled to attend ?

I can also understand why Daddy Don (ex-USN/USNR but resident in the UK for 50+ years) and Mrs Don (US citizen but UK resident for 25 years) haven't attended but AFAIK, none of her extended family back home have - or are you all sworn to secrecy.

Even assuming only adults attend, and a majority is just over 50%, that's still over 100 million people being consulted. The logistics along must be considerable. Perhaps this is why President Trump is said to be playing golf so much, thousands upon thousands of national security meetings with tens of millions of Americans.

Millions of Americans have been candidates for president.