President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

...And Justice

InTheTrees wrote: »

It actually did.

Bush had the same plans for social security as trump and failed to pass any reforms.

He also had the same useless plan for healthcare reform (tax free savings accounts for the poor!) that also failed as badly as trump moronic "plan".

What else? Oh yes tax reform. Just like trumps plan: take from the poor and give to the rich and it failed as well.

What notable legislation did George w bush actually pass?

If it hadn't been for 9/11 he would never have won a second term.

There's a lot of "hoping for impeachment" in here and absolute rage that this man is president. People are going to have to accept that it's happened.

Water John

A doctors note should be easy. Hasn't he that brain surgeon, Ben Carson, in the Cabinet?
Or did he not make it? Brain getting fuzzy at this stage and not yet 100 days.

listermint

...And Justice wrote: »

There's a lot of "hoping for impeachment" in here and absolute rage that this man is president. People are going to have to accept that it's happened.

You seem to equate to accepting this man is president with not questioning his decisions


I suggest you to move to Turkey....

Because the US or Ireland may not suit that delicate position of questioning those in political power....

Billy86

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Continue to show the Trump supporter's obsession with identity politics?


I'm sure you have a point, why don't you get to it?

Well to be fair, Hank doesn't support Trump - he dropped all support for him entirely when Trump signed an EO allowing gay people to be discriminated against by federal contractors.

...And Justice

listermint wrote: »

You seem to equate to accepting this man is president with not questioning his decisions


I suggest you to move to Turkey....

Because the US or Ireland may not suit that delicate position of questioning those in political power....

I rest my case.

Billy86

...And Justice wrote: »

I rest my case.

So just to be clear, your case is that absolutely nobody should question the actions of the president, everyone should just shut up and accept anything and everything he wishes to do?

InTheTrees

...And Justice wrote: »

There's a lot of "hoping for impeachment" in here and absolute rage that this man is president. People are going to have to accept that it's happened.

Utter nonsense.

I don't quite understand what you think politics is.

If people hadn't taken to the street obamacare would have been replaced. It was the massive outpouring of public opinion that scared republican congressmen, up for election next year, into not voting for it.

Twenty five million people continue to have healthcare because they didn't just cave in to trump and his corruption.

Christy42

...And Justice wrote: »

I rest my case.

Right well this argument came across well. Apparently questioning an elected official is against democracy. Someone should tell the Republicans who spent 8 years battling everything Obama did.

Water John

But questioning a judges decision is OK.
Cripes, I had this all wrong. This democracy thing is very strange.

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

Right well this argument came across well. Apparently questioning an elected official is against democracy. Someone should tell the Republicans who spent 8 years battling everything Obama did.

Just cut straight to the source and tell the guy who called for a revolution in the US in 2012 because he thought Obama was re-elected despite lose the popular vote (it turned out Obama won the popular vote by 5mn).

...And Justice

Christy42 wrote: »

Right well this argument came across well. Apparently questioning an elected official is against democracy. Someone should tell the Republicans who spent 8 years battling everything Obama did.

I rest my case because my posts have shown that most of this forum get completely animated when explanations a handed out about trump and previous presidents, it doesn't "fit" their world view.

I'm out, you can squabble by yourselves.

Really Interested

...And Justice wrote: »

I rest my case because my posts have shown that most of this forum get completely animated when explanations a handed out about trump and previous presidents, it doesn't "fit" their world view.

I'm out, you can squabble by yourselves.

The flounce of the defeated!

...And Justice

Really Interested wrote: »

The flounce of the defeated!

Not at all, there is a weird belief that "somehow" Donald will be impeached ? it won't happen. Other people are divided and hurt. It's time to suck it up.

Really Interested

...And Justice wrote: »

Not at all, there is a weird belief that "somehow" Donald will be impeached ? it won't happen. Other people are divided and hurt. It's time to suck it up.

Well I won money betting he would win, I then put the winnings on he would be impeached. Unless you are a time traveling monkey you can not say for certain what the future hold for DT.

I find it funny that a you say people should suck it up, how long did it take Trump to suck it up that Obama was a legitimate president of the USA. It's ok to have different opinions it's what many countries are built on.

Billy86

...And Justice wrote: »

Not at all, there is a weird belief that "somehow" Donald will be impeached ? it won't happen. Other people are divided and hurt. It's time to suck it up.

We'll see what the findings are given the entire intelligence community is investigating his connections to Russia, with other nations also involved (most notably the UK). But can I ask what you think the reason Trump and so many of his campaign team, cabinet, etc repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to and contact with Russia was, both before and after the election?

Valord

Billy86 wrote: »

We'll see what the findings are given the entire intelligence community is investigating his connections to Russia, with other nations also involved (most notably the UK). But can I ask what you think the reason Trump and so many of his campaign team, cabinet, etc repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to and contact with Russia was, both before and after the election?

The question there is whether, even if concrete evidence of associates surfaces, does it bite Trump himself? If Carter Page, for example, was found to have explicitly and illegally gotten help from foreign agents, does any of that splash onto Trump himself or is it just Page who falls on his own sword? Would Trump just be a modern day Ulysses S. Grant where he is only criticised for surrounding himself with corruption rather than being involved in it himself?

Seems to me that the idea of impeachment comes largely down to popularity. Opposition parties will take any "gotcha" they can as an excuse to do it while the controlling party will take any excuse not to. As long as Trump maintains his 85-90% approval ratings with Republicans (which I wouldn't expect to drop dramatically even in the event of proof of illegal activity), the Republican House and Senate will try as hard as possible to hand-wave or spin any offenses.

The only way I could see it happening would be if Democrats and left-leaning independents take back the House in 2018, which isn't unthinkable, even if it is difficult. However, if they don't also take back the Senate (a much more difficult proposition given the seats up for grabs in 2018), then an impeachment would only be symbolic, like it was for Clinton, and wouldn't force Trump out.

It seems to me that the only real chances of getting rid of Trump before 2020 are that he either voluntarily steps down, or he falls ill and dies. The first isn't out of the realm of possibility in my opinion. I don't think it's likely, but it wouldn't be the most shocking thing in the world if he got sick of doing a job he doesn't really understand or engage with and the constant barrage of hate he receives as a politician. The second seems maybe a little more likely, given that he's the oldest ever president and he appears to be obese or at least very overweight. Considering that the presidency is usually a high-stress job that tends to age people quite quickly, it's entirely possible something happens to him in the next 4 years to prevent him serving any longer.

...And Justice

Billy86 wrote: »

We'll see what the findings are given the entire intelligence community is investigating his connections to Russia, with other nations also involved (most notably the UK). But can I ask what you think the reason Trump and so many of his campaign team, cabinet, etc repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to and contact with Russia was, both before and after the election?

More waffle, what has any previous US president had to do overthrowing governments and interfering in international affairs? Everything. Donald Trump is disliked by the media and that has formed a universal opinion about him.

I think the last 3 presidents were "Dicks" but public opinion is formed by the media. If you say "we love this guy" well that's pressed by the media.

I don't think that trump is going to be any different than his predecessor, wars are capital etc...economics of the US is that all manufacturers are in China, so all that's left to sell its arms and munitions. More war just like the president before him.

People get caught up in the media rubbish, I have never understood why? The stats are the same on the war front.

Valord

...And Justice wrote: »

More waffle, what has any previous US president had to do overthrowing governments and interfering in international affairs? Everything. Donald Trump is disliked by the media and that has formed a universal opinion about him.

I think the last 3 presidents were "Dicks" but public opinion is formed by the media. If you say "we love this guy" well that's pressed by the media.

If opinion is so closely shaped by the media, and the media hate him so much, he wouldn't have won. One of these two things is incorrect. I'd posit it's the notion that "the media hates Trump". I don't believe they do, at least if you mean 24 hour cable news media. Leaving aside Fox, who clearly are on his team, the other networks were still happy to enjoy the money he made for them. I think they're generally pretty indifferent to him, but will be happy to show people arguing about him to gain attention.

If CNN's goal was to damage Trump, they wouldn't have Jeffrey Lord on their payroll and wouldn't have given Kellyanne and Stephen Miller so much air time. Their goal is sensationalism, nothing more or less.

Water John

If CNN's goal in sensationalism, then they must be pay Donald, as he is delivering in spades.

Billy86

...And Justice wrote: »

More waffle, what has any previous US president had to do overthrowing governments and interfering in international affairs? Everything. Donald Trump is disliked by the media and that has formed a universal opinion about him.

I think the last 3 presidents were "Dicks" but public opinion is formed by the media. If you say "we love this guy" well that's pressed by the media.

I don't think that trump is going to be any different than his predecessor, wars are capital etc...economics of the US is that all manufacturers are in China, so all that's left to sell its arms and munitions. More war just like the president before him.

People get caught up in the media rubbish, I have never understood why? The stats are the same on the war front.

Not waffle. Fact. My comment had nothing to do with Trump being a dick, and it had nothing to do with media coverage of him. It had nothing to do with wars, it had nothing to do with economics. It basically had nothing to do with the answer you gave.

So I'll ask again. Why do you think Trump and so many members of his campaign and appointees have repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to, and contacts with Russia (both before and after the election), only to be caught out completely after the fact? You do know that is why Jeff Sessions for one example, the US Attorney General, had to remove himself from said investigation, right?

Saying "waffle" and then trying to answer a completely different question doesn't do anything but make you appear unable to give an answer.

Hank Scorpio

Look at context fs, Sessions was asked directly about what CNN were insinuating. His meetings were public knowledge and were formal. They went after it the day after Trump his congress speech which was well received even in the liberal media. It's a nothingburger.

Flynn you have a right to question that, he wants to testify, but I believe not for the reasons you think.

aloyisious

A few questions here. I'd like to know what U.S. citizen debaters here think about Don and his apparent opinion on the first 100 day of the presidency achievements; that maybe it's unreachable, seeing as how they are the most affected by the results of Don's actions and Admin results to date.... is this failure inherent to Don's nature or just something other US presidents have also never come close to achieving? EDIT: I'm assuming (presumably correctly) that Don is the person who set his targets for the first 100 day of his presidency.

I'm also looking at what CNN is saying about the Govt (the federal services) closing down due to lack of funding. Is that a fake story or something that is possible? I know that there have been times in the past when US media has raised this "fear" during previous administrations. Will this be a defeat for Don, or will his party have to accede ground to the democrats to ensure there is money for the federal payrolls and funding of services for the citizen?

Jeff Sessions and his remark about the judge in Hawaii: a judge on a small island V the president, as against Jeff not going to the S.C. to overturn the judge if he genuinely thinks the judge was overstepping his authority; is the failure to appeal a sign that Jeff knows the judge has no case to answer and a telling comment on Jeff and Don? I have listened to the media reporting on Jeff's "getting the story straight" statements after questions on his remarks about the judge's decision and powers.

There's also Jeff's thoughts on the power of the federal judiciary V that of his position as the president's federal legal top person; are Jeff's comments reflecting what he thinks the power and status of the individual states within the union actually are (or - in his opinion) should be.

...And Justice

Billy86 wrote: »

Not waffle. Fact. My comment had nothing to do with Trump being a dick, and it had nothing to do with media coverage of him. It had nothing to do with wars, it had nothing to do with economics. It basically had nothing to do with the answer you gave.

So I'll ask again. Why do you think Trump and so many members of his campaign and appointees have repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to, and contacts with Russia (both before and after the election), only to be caught out completely after the fact? You do know that is why Jeff Sessions for one example, the US Attorney General, had to remove himself from said investigation, right?

Saying "waffle" and then trying to answer a completely different question doesn't do anything but make you appear unable to give an answer.

I'll answer yours if you answer mine..... why have the last 6 presidents including Donald Trump done exactly what Saudi Arabia and Israel wanted? Don't mind Russia issue, you're not looking past media bias.

Answer to this comment is $100 petroleum dollar's.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Look at context fs, Sessions was asked directly about what CNN were insinuating. His meetings were public knowledge and were formal. They went after it the day after Trump his congress speech which was well received even in the liberal media. It's a nothingburger.

Flynn you have a right to question that, he wants to testify, but I believe not for the reasons you think.

Full context for those that have not seen it:

Billy86

...And Justice wrote: »

I'll answer yours if you answer mine..... why have the last 6 presidents including Donald Trump done exactly what Saudi Arabia and Israel wanted? Don't mind Russia issue, you're not looking past media bias.

Answer to this comment is $100 petroleum dollar's.

Yes, the Saudis and Israel have had their interests looked after for a long time, and often for economic, cynical and even nefarious reasons. I never said otherwise, because this never had anything to do with the comment I made that you tried to write off as 'waffle'. My initial comment was all to do with Russia in response to your comments about him being impeached or not (which have everything to do with Russia and pretty much nothing to do with Israel or Saudi as far as I am aware), so "never mind Russia" and bringing this up out of the blue just comes over as an attempt to change subject.

So now that I have answered, why do you think Trump and so many members of his campaign and appointees have repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to, and contacts with Russia (both before and after the election), only to be caught out completely after the fact?

InTheTrees

Well if the last hopeless attempt at Obamacare repeal wasn't enough of a humiliation, trump and the house republicans are going to try again.

Only because they can't introduce their tax reform bill before obamacare is repealed because they need the money freed up by taking healthcare away from the poor to give to the 1% in tax breaks.

And meanwhile trumps first 100 days are almost up and he's achieved? Nothing really. He's repealed a lot of regulations by executive order but that's it.

The humiliations keep growing, and its actually possible trump might notice this one, the first hundred days are an important milestone for all presidents.

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

Full context for those that have not seen it:

What are you missing?

It was common knowledge and public record he met with the ambassador in his role as a senator.

The guy asking the question was talking about campaign surrogates meeting informally with Russian operatives. Is it really that hard to grasp?

Obama's administration set up the meeting ffs.

Go after Flynn all you want, but this crap about Sessions was put out there the DAY AFTER Trump's speech to discredit how well it was received, smell the roses etc.

...And Justice

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, the Saudis and Israel have had their interests looked after for a long time, and often for economic, cynical and even nefarious reasons. I never said otherwise, because this never had anything to do with the comment I made that you tried to write off as 'waffle'. My initial comment was all to do with Russia in response to your comments about him being impeached or not (which have everything to do with Russia and pretty much nothing to do with Israel or Saudi as far as I am aware), so "never mind Russia" and bringing this up out of the blue just comes over as an attempt to change subject.

So now that I have answered, why do you think Trump and so many members of his campaign and appointees have repeatedly and adamantly lied about their connections to, and contacts with Russia (both before and after the election), only to be caught out completely after the fact?

Because every president is up to his oxters in every war and media war that has been waged for him or against him. The Russian ties are nothing new, look at the previous presidents spies being cought selling US secrets. One that comes to mind is the Russian shuttle "Buran" that was sold on the black market of intelligence by US spies to Russia.

Its a copy of the US shuttle. Look the point is I see all the bluster being thrown out to trump and as far as I'm concerned, its a media war between the democrats and the republicans. I don't believe that he has the "power" to hot the button. It's a capitalist society based upon the greenback.

Yeah ties to Russia, big deal, fixed t election? Doubt it.

InTheTrees

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It was common knowledge and public record he met with the ambassador in his role as a senator.

That's the trump administration spin isn't it?

You're omitting to say that he didn't just meet the Russians "as a senator", it was a member of the intelligence committee.

Except the intelligence committee weren't consulted, or invited or given a report afterwards. They knew nothing about it.

He was a senator but he was also on the trump transition team.

And then he forgot to mention any of it in his confirmation. Just plain forgot. Absent minded presumably. And then when he was called out on it he claimed he never mentioned the election to the Russian. Never said a word about it. So he's gone to meet the Russian ambassador and he's on the transition team and the subject of the election is never brought up? Seriously?

Just one more member of the trump administration meeting with Russian operatives and then...forgetting all about it. And then lying about it. Its the lying that's making these people look so sleazy and corrupt.

Billy86

...And Justice wrote: »

Because every president is up to his oxters in every war and media war that has been waged for him or against him. The Russian ties are nothing new, look at the previous presidents spies being cought selling US secrets. One that comes to mind is the Russian shuttle "Buran" that was sold on the black market of intelligence by US spies to Russia.

Its a copy of the US shuttle. Look the point is I see all the bluster being thrown out to trump and as far as I'm concerned, its a media war between the democrats and the republicans. I don't believe that he has the "power" to hot the button. It's a capitalist society based upon the greenback.

Yeah ties to Russia, big deal, fixed t election? Doubt it.

Well at least you openly admit he colluded with Russia. That by the way is what he is being investigated for, and if found guilty it would lead to an impeachment. One could argue his greatest misstep in this whole affair has been his man-on-a-mission attempts at alienating his own intelligence committee from the get go.

I don't recall any American politician colluding with a foreign power to swing an American election though, and that is also what appears to have very possibly taken place here. Even Nixon's controversy was all domestic in the US, and he had to jump ship before the trigger was pulled on impeachment. Trump might get the same opportunity if it comes to it, but the fact it basically amounts to treason would not make that a certainty (and Republicans wanting to save face with a strong reaction if they knew it was a foregone conclusion would hurt the chances of that even more).

If it were simply a 'media war between democrats and republicans' there would not be 43% of Republicans also calling for an investigation and 50%% concerned over his cabinet picks' relations to Russia, so I'm afraid that one doesn't really hold up.