Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Billy86

So hold on, are you saying the mother is "playing politics" by speaking out about her dead son too?

Kermit.de.frog

Billy86 wrote: »

So hold on, are you saying the mother is "playing politics" by speaking out about her dead son too?

The Democrats.

Just because Trump is a moron does not mean they should be let a way with this type of politiking either.

All this stuff should remain private. Simple. Many other ways to get at Trump.

B0jangles

Billy86 wrote: »

So hold on, are you saying the mother is "playing politics" by speaking out about her dead son too?

The widow is as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/23/myeshia-johnson-niger-soldier-widow-trump-phone-call

Billy86

But my point is fhe family are speaking puclicly on it too, so surely then they are politicising it also and should keep quiet?

Billy86

B0jangles wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

So hold on, are you saying the mother is "playing politics" by speaking out about her dead son too?

The widow is as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/23/myeshia-johnson-niger-soldier-widow-trump-phone-call

Not to mention the other families that have also come out since.

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To be fair to Trump, it's a difficult call for anyone to have to make.


Also let's be honest here - the Democrats are playing politics with this soldier's death, make no mistake about it. They can do gutter politics when they need to. The young woman is being used and will be discarded just as quickly.

So.... what you're saying is, the Republicans can also do 'gutter politics' when they need to, too?

How about you lay off the asinine widow-shaming. Absolutely disgraceful.

Leroy42

People deal with difficult calls everyday. Calls or made by other POTUS, generals, commanding officers all the time without creating this level of blowback, and certainly not ending up calling the families liars.

Would you accept the, reported, poor level of call from a doctor, or first responder?

As POTUS, Trump is now tasked with making life and death decisions about the citizens. Yet he finds making a phone call to hard? Give me a break.

This is a 70 year old man we are talking about. Not some freshman. Are you really trying to say, that despite being surrounded by the likes of Kelly and other professionals, we should

Kermit.de.frog

Overheal wrote: »

So.... what you're saying is, the Republicans can also do 'gutter politics' when they need to, too?

Whataboutery. Of course Republicans are well use to the gutter.


It's the Democrats doing it at the moment.

B0jangles

Billy86 wrote: »

But my point is fhe family are speaking puclicly on it too, so surely then they are politicising it also and should keep quiet?

Oh I agree with you, I think it's shameful to turn this on the democrats - this entire awful situation could have been ended if Trump hadn't started calling everyone involved liars.

All he had to do was make a condolence call with some semblance of sympathy and respect.

Even if he couldn't manage that, he could have ended this by admitting that he might have spoken badly on the phone because of how overwhelmingly sad it was.

Even if he couldn't admit even that tiny bit of imperfection, he could have held off on calling everyone liars.

The entire situation was started by, and is still ongoing purely because of Trump's incompetence in even the most basic parts of the job and inability to admit to personal failure at any level

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Whataboutery. Of course Republicans are well use to the gutter.


It's the Democrats doing it at the moment.

That's not how you spun it.

Either way, widows of fallen military personnel have clear and inalienable rights to speak their piece, be left alone, or get politically involved, as they wish. It is entirely their prerogative. It's vapid to tar a political party over their free speech.

everlast75

Trump is a disgrace - pure and simple. I can literally give you dozens of examples.

People calling him a disgrace, for being a disgrace, is not playing politics. It is simply stating a fact.

He made a balls of a call - was (intentionally or otherwise) hurtful.

A congresswoman was disgusted by it and said so.

He denied it, called her a liar and said he had tapes to prove it.

He didn't.

The lady then said the congresswoman was right. He then called her a liar.

Ffs some people are so blind to what the issue is here. If anyone is guilty of making this a political issue and blowing this out of proportion it's Trump by virtue of his stubbornness and lack of any sort of class or decorum.

Kermit.de.frog

Overheal wrote: »

It's vapid to tar a political party over their free speech.

It was the Congresswoman who came out first, not the widow.

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It was the Congresswoman who came out first, not the widow.

And? Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that Mrs. Johnson did not give the congresswoman consent to speak about details of the call that she shared with the congresswoman on speaker-phone? It seems again the widow's prerogative to allow her elected representative to break the news, while she processed her grief.

Billy86

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

It's vapid to tar a political party over their free speech.

It was the Congresswoman who came out first, not the widow.

And given how quickly and vocally both the mother and widow came out to defend her following Trump and Kelly's lies, it's pretty clear she probably had their blessing or may have even been asked to voice how upset they were. In other words, their elected representative (who I believe was with them in the car in the way to the funeral) represented them.

And then other families came out themselves and reported similar carry on fron trucks p over their dead children. Were they and the Johnsons politicising the issue and should they have kept quiet too?

Meanwhile Trump's reaction was to call them liars, and try to insinuate Obama never got in touch with John Kelly after his own son died. Obama hosted them at a breakfast with other families where they say with the Obama family at the same table, a lot more than a phone call.

Itssoeasy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It was the Congresswoman who came out first, not the widow.

It was but the widow and mother have both backed up what she said, and despite the Trump administration trying to paint this as the congresswoman listening into a call not meant for her, she wasn't spying in an call. She is a long time friend of the solders family and was there to support the family.

B0jangles

Overheal wrote: »

And? Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that Mrs. Johnson did not give the congresswoman consent to speak about details of the call that she shared with the congresswoman on speaker-phone?

I simply cannot think of any reason why the other people who heard the call, those people being the dead man's mother and his wife, might not have felt emotionally strong enough to publically comment on Trump's behaviour at that time.





Sarcasm aside, if he hadn't started calling people liars they probably wouldn't have felt that they had to make a public statement of any kind. I very much doubt they wanted to.

PopePalpatine

robinph wrote: »

His main purpose in those calls is to be shouted/ screamed/ cried at and just take it. It's a simple task, just listen and take the abuse from the upset next of kin... then say nothing about it at all, ever.

Now, now, you can't expect the ego of The Most Alpha President Ever to take that!

Overheal

B0jangles wrote: »

I simply cannot think of any reason why the other people who heard the call, those people being the dead man's mother and his wife, might not have felt emotionally strong enough to publically comment on Trump's behaviour at that time.

Certainly never would have considered asking a friend of the family who happens to be a congresswoman well versed in public discourse to handle that!

Really Interested

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Democrats.

Just because Trump is a moron does not mean they should be let a way with this type of politiking either.

All this stuff should remain private. Simple. Many other ways to get at Trump.

Ask yourself who made this issue a very public one. Go back 7 days ago, when Trump was asked a question about the 4 men killed in Niger and look at his answer.

Really Interested

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It was the Congresswoman who came out first, not the widow.

It was Trump who first spoke about these call, in answer to a question about the deaths in Niger he responded by saying other presidents did not contact the families. In response to that claim a congresswoman said yes Trump made a call and upset the family, thereafter Trump has mad the issue worse and worse, but all hos own making.

Itssoeasy

Really Interested wrote: »

Ask yourself who made this issue a very public one. Go back 7 days ago, when Trump was asked a question about the 4 men killed in Niger and look at his answer.

Yeah, if trump had answered the question from the reporter, which I think was why hadn't there been any comment twelve days after the deaths from the president. He could have said that it was a private matter and he wouldn't be commenting in public on it, and that would have been fine(or at least for Donald Trump) but no Donald had to try and praise himself and knock his predecessors in one go.


when George W Bush is looking far better than you at engaging with families of a fallen solder then you know you've ballsed it up.

Tony EH

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Also let's be honest here - the Democrats are Trump was playing politics with this soldier's death, make no mistake about it.

I agree completely.

ThisRegard

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Also let's be honest here - the Democrats are playing politics with this soldier's death, make no mistake about it. They can do gutter politics when they need to. The young woman is being used and will be discarded just as quickly.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

All this stuff should remain private. Simple. Many other ways to get at Trump.

FFS, it was Trump who started this **** storm by saying he called family of dead soldiers, initially said no other president done such a great deed that he just did. Guess what, none of it was true.

Nobody would have cared or known anything about it had the delusional fool not opened his mouth.

Manic Moran

So the conversation on the news has also turned a bit on tax reform. Thank christ. Maybe we can actually get back to talking about governing the country. Three points immediately come out.

1) The repeal of the estate tax. This is being viewed as a benefit to the rich. I don't see any other way of interpreting it, though I have to admit, that 40% is a tad high. But I do wonder what it is about Republicans that they are so willing to open themselves up for such easy criticism.
2) The lowering of the corporate tax. All sides agree that US corporation tax needs to come down, though there is obviously some disagreement as to how much. The latest figures I've seen seem to be along the lines that it's low enough that we will lose revenue, but not necessarily so low that it will stop the desire to go with foreign tax havens. Needs work.
3) The abolishing of the credit for state taxes. This one is being decried by Democrats as being a negative on many middle classes, particularly in states like California and NYC, which are high tax states. And also, of course, States they are quite strong in. It is true, my tax bill will almost certainly go up as a result. On the other hand, I think the Republicans are right about it. The reason that Californians will pay more in tax is that their State legislature has placed high taxes upon them.

To give an example, let's say two folks in Kansas and California earn the same. As it currently stands, California's guy pays more to California than Kansas's guy pays to Kansas. California's guy, however, pays less to the Federal Government than Kansas' guy does, because you can basically subtract the california taxes from the federal taxes when coming up with the final bill. In theory, California could tax high enough that almost all the citizen's tax money goes to California, and little goes to the Feds. Under the proposed Federal revision, everyone in similar circumstances will pay the same amount to the Feds. If a State wants to tax their own citizens more highly to provide for their greater State services, that's up to them, but it means that their citizens will have a higher total tax bill at the end of the year.

That works for me.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

So the conversation on the news has also turned a bit on tax reform. Thank christ. Maybe we can actually get back to talking about governing the country. Three points immediately come out.

1) The repeal of the estate tax. This is being viewed as a benefit to the rich. I don't see any other way of interpreting it, though I have to admit, that 40% is a tad high. But I do wonder what it is about Republicans that they are so willing to open themselves up for such easy criticism.

Have seen various analyses of this. It's a benefit for a very small set of the population. I've seen as few as '40 individuals will benefit from this, but the benefits are huge.' Currently the limit is high-millions, eliminating it is a baldfaced giveaway.

2) The lowering of the corporate tax. All sides agree that US corporation tax needs to come down, though there is obviously some disagreement as to how much. The latest figures I've seen seem to be along the lines that it's low enough that we will lose revenue, but not necessarily so low that it will stop the desire to go with foreign tax havens. Needs work.

None of the corporations pay this rate they all shelter and deduct and get goodies (Boeing, anyone?) to prevent it. I *do* like the idea of moving money back from overseas, but there may be other ways to do this. Of course, any talk of tax reform really is a deflection; the US or any other western country don't have revenue problems. They have spending problems. Spend less and you won't have to change taxes

3) The abolishing of the credit for state taxes. This one is being decried by Democrats as being a negative on many middle classes, particularly in states like California and NYC, which are high tax states. And also, of course, States they are quite strong in. It is true, my tax bill will almost certainly go up as a result. On the other hand, I think the Republicans are right about it. The reason that Californians will pay more in tax is that their State legislature has placed high taxes upon them.

To give an example, let's say two folks in Kansas and California earn the same. As it currently stands, California's guy pays more to California than Kansas's guy pays to Kansas. California's guy, however, pays less to the Federal Government than Kansas' guy does, because you can basically subtract the california taxes from the federal taxes when coming up with the final bill. In theory, California could tax high enough that almost all the citizen's tax money goes to California, and little goes to the Feds. Under the proposed Federal revision, everyone in similar circumstances will pay the same amount to the Feds. If a State wants to tax their own citizens more highly to provide for their greater State services, that's up to them, but it means that their citizens will have a higher total tax bill at the end of the year.

That works for me.

That's overly simplistic. Most of the high-tax states contribute way more to the tax coffers than the low-tax ones. That's a common complaint in a high tax state - they contribute $1 to the government and get back 10 cents, where a low tax one it's the reverse. Of course, Trump likes this because it's polarizing and causes conflict, all things he thrives on.

There are very few states without a state income tax So, everyone outside Texas, Washington, Florida, Tennessee, Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota will pay more taxes. Also, Trumpy's talking about ending the mortgage interest deduction, yet another benefit that I believe people won't want to lose, I know I wouldn't.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

So the conversation on the news has also turned a bit on tax reform. Thank christ. Maybe we can actually get back to talking about governing the country. Three points immediately come out.

1) The repeal of the estate tax. This is being viewed as a benefit to the rich. I don't see any other way of interpreting it, though I have to admit, that 40% is a tad high. But I do wonder what it is about Republicans that they are so willing to open themselves up for such easy criticism.
2) The lowering of the corporate tax. All sides agree that US corporation tax needs to come down, though there is obviously some disagreement as to how much. The latest figures I've seen seem to be along the lines that it's low enough that we will lose revenue, but not necessarily so low that it will stop the desire to go with foreign tax havens. Needs work.
3) The abolishing of the credit for state taxes. This one is being decried by Democrats as being a negative on many middle classes, particularly in states like California and NYC, which are high tax states. And also, of course, States they are quite strong in. It is true, my tax bill will almost certainly go up as a result. On the other hand, I think the Republicans are right about it. The reason that Californians will pay more in tax is that their State legislature has placed high taxes upon them.

To give an example, let's say two folks in Kansas and California earn the same. As it currently stands, California's guy pays more to California than Kansas's guy pays to Kansas. California's guy, however, pays less to the Federal Government than Kansas' guy does, because you can basically subtract the california taxes from the federal taxes when coming up with the final bill. In theory, California could tax high enough that almost all the citizen's tax money goes to California, and little goes to the Feds. Under the proposed Federal revision, everyone in similar circumstances will pay the same amount to the Feds. If a State wants to tax their own citizens more highly to provide for their greater State services, that's up to them, but it means that their citizens will have a higher total tax bill at the end of the year.

That works for me.

So the party of small government all of a sudden what the Fed to be in charge of the tax policy of individual states? Because that is exactly what this amounts to.

1) To save themselves and their donors money in tax. Simple as that.
2) All sides agree? Unlike in Ireland, there are few companies that choose not to operate in the US due to the tax rate. It is such a big and important market you will offices there if you want to trade. Lowering the tax rate will achieve what exactly? Yes it will bring some funds back in, but where will those funds go? And this big tax cut is being paid for by the middle and lower class. This is a return to trickle down economics with is proven doesn't work and it took Bill Clinton to save you from it the last time.
3) The offset is based on the principle, going back to 1913, that you shouldn't pay tax on tax already paid. In effect citizens of states would end up paying tax twice. This is totally against the spirit (I don't know the in's/out's of the legislation) if not the actual tax code. The theory is that every person pays the same total tax and just the split is determined by the state. Trump and the GOP is deeming that the state should have no say in the split.

The party of small government!

Finally, what is the economic basis for the payback on this? US at at near full employment, massive reduction in immigration, so it hard to see there the massive upturn will come from to pay for the massive shortfall in taxes that this will bring.

ricero

Disgusting lies from this widow today. Disgusting how far the liberal media will go to condem the donald

Overheal

ricero wrote: »

Disgusting lies from this widow today. Disgusting how far the liberal media will go to condem the donald

Oh? What lies? Do divulge.

Timberrrrrrrr

ricero wrote: »

Disgusting lies from this widow today. Disgusting how far the liberal media will go to condem the donald

You have proof that it's the widow lying (no evidence of previous lies as far as I know) ?

You have proof it's not the orange one who has been lying (many many MANY instances of him lying since he was elected)?

alchemist33

ricero wrote: »

Disgusting lies from this widow today. Disgusting how far the liberal media will go to condem the donald

The media couldn't go far enough to take this man down. He's made a joke of his office and if he has his way he'll make a joke of his country.

ricero

Overheal wrote: »

Oh? What lies? Do divulge.

I do not for one second believe that the donald forgot her husbands name. Pure lies in my opinion

Leroy42

ricero wrote: »

I do not for one second believe that the donald forgot her husbands name. Pure lies in my opinion

You do understand that that is just your opinion, its not fact. So you think the woman is lying. Why? Because you believe she is? Kinda circular isn't it

WinnyThePoo

ricero wrote: »

I do not for one second believe that the donald forgot her husbands name. Pure lies in my opinion

Good man. The Cult of personality is still alive and well. Trump who cannot stop lying is the one be trusted. Hilarious stuff.

ricero

The widow has gone through a traumatic experiance and is probably not thinking straight. To me it screams of a cash grab and more anti trump propoganda for the liberal media.

There is no way trump made that phonecall without knowing her husbands name, all in my opinion of course

Itssoeasy

ricero wrote: »

Disgusting lies from this widow today. Disgusting how far the liberal media will go to condem the donald

Really ? So a widow who's husband died defending the USA is the disgusting ? The "liberal media" as you call them is simply reporting the stupidity of Donald Trump from his tweets. They aren't making this **** up.

WinnyThePoo

ricero wrote: »

The widow has gone through a traumatic experiance and is probaly not thinking straight. To me it screams of a cash grab and more anti trump propoganda for the liberal media.

There is no way trump made that phonecall without knowing her husbands name, all in my opinion of course

What do you mean by cash grab?.

How on earth is this propaganda?

Leroy42

ricero wrote: »

The widow has gone through a traumatic experiance and is probaly not thinking straight. To me it screams of a cash grab and more anti trump propoganda for the liberal media.

There is no way trump made that phonecall without knowing her husbands name, all in my opinion of course

Probably - so you don't know
There is no way - Except that SHS admitted that he said your guy "Just because he said your guy doesn't mean he didn't know his name". So his official spokesperson goes against your assertion. She probably a liberal media plant I suppose

All in your opinion - That fine. But we have now 5 different sources all backing Rp Wilson. Herself (obvs) the wife, the mother in law, SHS and Kelly. And on the other side we have Trump. Why are you looking to defend him? I cannot understand the motivation for anybody to back a liar.

You do know that just becoming the POTUS does not make one infallible. He is still just a man.

Really Interested

ricero wrote: »

I do not for one second believe that the donald forgot her husbands name. Pure lies in my opinion

So you accept that Donald Trump has in public called a pregnant grieving war widow a liar?

Second question you think there is no issue with The Commander in chief accusing war widows of lies during the week of her dead husbands funeral.

Really Interested

ricero wrote: »

The widow has gone through a traumatic experiance and is probably not thinking straight. To me it screams of a cash grab and more anti trump propoganda for the liberal media.

There is no way trump made that phonecall without knowing her husbands name, all in my opinion of course

Your opinion is like Trumps that of a odious nasty little man. To say such things about a pregnant grieving war widow, to protect the ego of Trump is just sick.

Overheal

ricero wrote: »

The widow has gone through a traumatic experiance and is probably not thinking straight. To me it screams of a cash grab and more anti trump propoganda for the liberal media.

There is no way trump made that phonecall without knowing her husbands name, all in my opinion of course

She's been through a tragic experience, certainly, but you make it sound like she's undergone some sort of head trauma and that she is unable to recall a simple facet of the conversation, like her husband's name not being used appropriately. Even his WH Press Secretary confirmed that he used the phrase, "Your Guy."

I don't get this "Cash Grab" comment, either. Do you mean to say whenever Trump called in to Fox and Friends that Fox News was paying him for his time? Not everyone who shows up on television is paid to do so. It generally works in the opposite way in fact, with people interested in shilling for their books or their movies paying the producers of a television show for the interview spot.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/arielle-ford/tv-interviews-should-you-_b_823451.html

In other words you seem to have decided you know a few things that, you really do not.

Mc Cain with a thinly veiled swipe at Trump - Rich people dodging the draft. Looking forward to his response. No doubt it'll be an intelligent one, being the smart articulate guy he is.

ricero

Really Interested wrote: »

Your opinion is like Trumps that of a odious nasty little man. To say such things about a pregnant grieving war widow, to protect the ego of Trump is just sick.

Each to their own. I just think the women is lying and jumping on the trump liberal media witch hunt and making a few bob on the side

Really Interested

ricero wrote: »

Each to their own. I just think the women is lying and jumping on the trump liberal media witch hunt and making a few bob on the side

Do you think Trump is right to act as he is as against a grieving pregnant war widow, right or wrong, do you think this is how the president of the US should act. Because I think its scummy and anyone who follows his lead is the same.

eagle eye

RoboKlopp wrote:

Mc Cain with a thinly veiled swipe at Trump - Rich people dodging the draft. Looking forward to his response. No doubt it'll be an intelligent one, being the smart articulate guy he is.

I'm starting to feel like I'm actually in Trump's corner but I just cannot let these things go.

The man is intelligent. He was never a nice guy but he certainly is smart. He identified how to get elected and succeeded. He appealed to the stupid by acting like one of them.

He has a much grander plan than most people think imo. I think what he is attempting to do is leave himself in a position at he end of his term where he can turn on the Republican movement and start a new party.

I believe that everything he is doing right now is to have people believe that he is getting no support from either side.

The fake news comments appeal to those who want the wall. The fight with McCain appeals to those who are anti-establishment and he is telling everybody that the reason he can't get things done is because the Republicans won't back him. The constant berating of Obama's medicare is to make people believe that the Democrats are hopeless, the constant referrals to Hilary's emails are to show that they are untrustworthy.

The man started his campaign for four years time the minute he set foot in the oval office.

You can call the man a lot of things but stupid he certainly is not.

Professor Moriarty

ricero wrote: »

Each to their own. I just think the women is lying and jumping on the trump liberal media witch hunt and making a few bob on the side

OK. So a pregnant grieving widow, who buried her husband a couple of weeks ago, conspired with his mother and a politician to lie about a phone call from POTUS which she received days after his death.

Isn't it strange the places our minds take us to?

Itssoeasy

ricero wrote: »

Each to their own. I just think the women is lying and jumping on the trump liberal media witch hunt and making a few bob on the side

if you actually believe that this woman is lying then....

ricero

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know you are probably trolling this forum and shouldn't bite but if you actually believe that this woman is lying than excuse the french but you're a ****ing sorry excuse for a human.

Honestly with all this fake news and anti trump propoganda i think this woman could well be lying.

Dont know what to believe anymore in regards to the donald

Really Interested

ricero wrote: »

Honestly with all this fake news and anti trump propoganda i think this woman could well be lying.

Dont know what to believe anymore in regards to the donald

Even if she is, do you think a decent man would call a grieving pregnant widow out on Twitter with her husband not even cold. Think that through. Because if you do think Trump has the high moral ground that is something you need to think about.

ricero

Really Interested wrote: »

Even if she is, do you think a decent man would call a grieving pregnant widow out on Twitter with her husband not even cold. Think that through. Because if you do think Trump has the high moral ground that is something you need to think about.

Never said that the donald has taken the moral high ground. Just giving my two cents on the matter.

The whole story reeks of fake news

Kermit.de.frog

Really Interested wrote: »

Even if she is, do you think a decent man would call a grieving pregnant widow out on Twitter with her husband not even cold. Think that through. Because if you do think Trump has the high moral ground that is something you need to think about.

But everyone knows Trump is in fact a comedian, an entertainer, masquerading as a President.


It's all an elaborate act. On one level it is quite funny to be fair.