Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Fr Tod Umptious

Wait till the mid terms.

If the Dems make gains then you might get some indication about the perception of the job Trump is doing in the eyes of the only people that matter.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

Why what? Three horrendous presidents, I'm not getting into anymore than that.

Ah okay.

You've convinced me with your detailed and informative reply, along with lengthy examples and analysis*






*Just kidding. Trump is worse than any of those you mentioned... by a looooonnnngg way

Blowfish

relax carry on wrote: »

Who in your mind was a worse president than Trump? And why?

In fairness, the US has had some pretty terrible presidents. The likes of Andrew Jackson creating what was effectively a genocide with the trail of tears, James Buchanan's racist pro slavery stances setting the stage for the civil war and Herbert Hoover exacerbating the great depression spring to mind. Trump may be a narcissistic, odious, gobshíte, but he hasn't quite reached their level just yet.

Igotadose

Blowfish wrote: »

In fairness, the US has had some pretty terrible presidents. The likes of Andrew Jackson creating what was effectively a genocide with the trail of tears, James Buchanan's racist pro slavery stances setting the stage for the civil war and Herbert Hoover exacerbating the great depression spring to mind. Trump may be a narcissistic, odious, gobshíte, but he hasn't quite reached their level just yet.

Just a matter of opportunity.

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

*Just kidding. Trump is worse than any of those you mentioned... by a looooonnnngg way

Yeah, your long and detailed explanation if the reasons is so impressive.

everlast75

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, your long and detailed explanation if the reasons is so impressive.

Check each and every one of my posts.


Fill your boots.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Firstly, let's distinguish between forgetting to salute one of your own troops and saluting an officer of a nuclear capable dictatorship.

Why?

I have posted chapter and verse, from regulations, with historical examples, of why it is entirely appropriate to return salutes from officers of the militaries of even the most despicable regimes you can think of. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

Having done that, the reason i thanked that post was because it made the same point i made a couple of posts earlier. It highlighted the sheer hypocrisy of Trump and his supporters in terms of their criticism of Obama. If they had kept their mouth shut i doubt there would have been as much of a uproar.

Which would have been fine, were I actually to have done so.

Finally, the problem with Trump is no one has any patience or good will for him anymore. He is, by all objective reasoning, a disgusting bully who cannot but lie through his teeth. I never particularly liked the guy before he ran for president but the way he conducted himself since has left me with zero doubt, and i mean zero, that on a personal level he is despicable. Now, as a result of that, if he does something wrong, it compounds how i feel about him. If it were someone i like, i would be less inclined to feel as strongly about the error.

You don't have to like the guy to strive for accuracy and even-handedness. There are many things wrong with him and his Presidency, all of which this thread is pretty enthusiastic at pointing out. That's fine. You don't see me defending him on much of it. When there is an error, though, I'll point it out, exactly what I did with the posts on saluting. No judging, not saying "Obama was terrible for bowing" or "Trump is a terrible Saudi sword dancer." Just "This is the international etiquette on returning saultes" and "this is what historically happened."

Do you see the difference? Since when have we decided that getting things wrong for a good cause is acceptable?

He has brought the office of the president to a depressingly low level which i hope will never be repeated. He has uttered such huge and disgusting lies on a daily basis. The idea that he or anyone else can think he is being treated unfairly (when you consider what that word means) simply blows my mind.

I have little problem with this paragraph.

So a tiered citizenry eh? All getting a bit fascist isn't it? How long before a person has to serve before he gets citizenship?

One year in peacetime. Immediately in wartime. https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service

It's not a unique concept. France, for example, has similar military fast-tracking.

(Yes, I know you're going for the Heinleinian reference, but question asked and answered...)

Is it a tiered citizen? Or is it trying to avoid a disadvantage a person is under simply because their spouse is serving the country?

eagle eye

everlast75 wrote:

Check each and every one of my posts.
Fill your boots.

I haven't the slightest inclination to do that.
I'm happy just to disagree with you. No need for anymore discussion.

Phonehead

eagle eye wrote: »

everlast75 wrote:

Check each and every one of my posts.
Fill your boots.

I haven't the slightest inclination to do that.
I'm happy just to disagree with you. No need for anymore discussion.

And here... And I thought this was a discussiin forum, apparently it's just a random statement section.

26000 Elephants

mattser wrote: »

The man is more eminently suited to his office than you are to give a psychiatric diagnosis, I'd wager.

Hmm, do I merely need to be "eminently suited" in order to give a psychiatric diagnosis? Surely some qualification would be better, no?

Water John

Not claiming anything for it but my qualification is BA in Social Science. It just seems relevant to a few posters. But from all my studies and learning, Trump has a personality, totally unsuited to the position of elected POTUS.
Its a personality that doesn't even make him a good CEO.
He has dangerous personality traits, his overiding need for adulation being one.
Neither George W or Barack had these type of issues, Nixon had some, but not anywhere to Trump's extent.

Just watching Nixon by Nixon and there's some stuff seriously striking a chord with today, especially the press stuff. What's not striking a chord though is the Cancer Act nor the setting up of the EPA.

20Cent

This business locking up immigrant kids and arresting their parents is horrific. Trump blaming the democratic party for it.

Itssoeasy

20Cent wrote: »

This business locking up immigrant kids and arresting their parents is horrific. Trump blaming the democratic party for it.

Even though the law he might be referring to was signed by a republican president but why would facts matter to trump.

Trump isn't the first president to have a campaign manager in jail. Nixons campaign manager was sent to jail after Nixon resigned which makes manafort different. Also, trump said manafort got a "bad sentence" which is wrong as he hasn't been charged with anything yet. He's in jail because he acted the bollocks trying to get witnesses to get their stories straight.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

He's in jail because he acted the bollocks trying to get witnesses to get their stories straight.

Nah! He's in jail 'coz Mueller hasn't turned him into a flipper yet. The foldering craic with the lads was stupid, and created the opportunity for Mueller to use the tactic of bail revocation.. Mueller just getting his Ducks in a row!

Itssoeasy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Nah! He's in jail 'coz Mueller hasn't turned him into a flipper yet. The foldering craic with the lads was stupid, and created the opportunity for Mueller to use the tactic of bail revocation.. Mueller just getting his Ducks in a row!

No mueller has nothing to do with Manafort's current sleeping arrangements.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No mueller has nothing to do with Manafort's current sleeping arrangements.

His prosecutors brought the charges!!

Itssoeasy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No mueller has nothing to do with Manafort's current sleeping arrangements.

His prosecutors brought the charges!!

Yes the initial charges were but manafort could have stayed out of jail if he hadn't acted the bollocks and disobeyed the court order to not tamper with other witnesses. He's in jail because of something he did that he had control over.

Havockk

Manic Moran wrote: »

(Yes, I know you're going for the Heinleinian reference, but question asked and answered...)

Is it a tiered citizen? Or is it trying to avoid a disadvantage a person is under simply because their spouse is serving the country?

Of course it is. It is the same issue I have against the introduction of the covenant in the North, why should a veteran get preferential treatment on the NHS?

If you were a conscript I'd have no problem, but you are ALL volunteers.

mattser

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Hmm, do I merely need to be "eminently suited" in order to give a psychiatric diagnosis? Surely some qualification would be better, no?

Maybe you can form a proper sentence from that gobbledygook collection of words.

Water John

Then Mattser, you're indicating that its you're own choice of words in the original post , is the problem.

mattser

Water John wrote: »

Then Mattser, you're indicating that its you're own choice of words in the original post , is the problem.

Another Shakespeare I see. And they say President Trump keeps putting his foot in it.

StringerBell

You actually can't get any better than someone correcting grammatical errors while simultaneously making them.

TomOnBoard

StringerBell wrote: »

You actually can't get any better than someone correcting grammatical errors while simultaneously making them.

Yeah, theirs grate dubble standerds happineng in Boards poasts all de time..

Leroy42

So it seems that it is pretty much confirmed that Trump has agreed to halt military exercises in the Korean peninsula as part of the move to get NK to denuke.

So POTUS, the greatest deal maker in the world, managed to get a tentative agreement on maybe something in the future and all he had to do was to agree with what NK wanted!

looksee

Its getting quite difficult to have a Politics Forum standard conversation about Trump. There are not too many ways you can discuss his level of ineptitude, dishonesty and total lack of diplomacy without resorting to exasperated sarcasm and one-liners.

And contrary to what I thought about a year ago, he is not going to go away any time soon. If the Mueller enquiry comes to the conclusions that might be anticipated, is it possible for the GOP to quash them?

PropJoe10

looksee wrote: »

Its getting quite difficult to have a Politics Forum standard conversation about Trump. There are not too many ways you can discuss his level of ineptitude, dishonesty and total lack of diplomacy without resorting to exasperated sarcasm and one-liners.

And contrary to what I thought about a year ago, he is not going to go away any time soon. If the Mueller enquiry comes to the conclusions that might be anticipated, is it possible for the GOP to quash them?

Well Giuliani said last night on CNN that he only anticipates Trump handing out pardons if he (Trump) feels there's been a miscarriage of justice in Mueller's findings.

You can see where this is going.

blackwave

PropJoe10 wrote: »

looksee wrote: »

Its getting quite difficult to have a Politics Forum standard conversation about Trump. There are not too many ways you can discuss his level of ineptitude, dishonesty and total lack of diplomacy without resorting to exasperated sarcasm and one-liners.

And contrary to what I thought about a year ago, he is not going to go away any time soon. If the Mueller enquiry comes to the conclusions that might be anticipated, is it possible for the GOP to quash them?

Well Giuliani said last night on CNN that he only anticipates Trump handing out pardons if he (Trump) feels there's been a miscarriage of justice in Mueller's findings.

You can see where this is going.

The only thing is that some of the charges against the conspirators such as Manafort are at a state level which means that The Donald can't give a pardon for them.

In other news I see Avenetti has offered any immigrant families that have been split up, free legal services. He is the perfect antidote to Trump.

26000 Elephants

mattser wrote: »

Maybe you can form a proper sentence from that gobbledygook collection of words.

All I do is hold up the mirror: the epiphany is all yours.

PropJoe10

blackwave wrote: »

The only thing is that some of the charges against the conspirators such as Manafort are at a state level which means that The Donald can't give a pardon for them.

In other news I see Avenetti has offered any immigrant families that have been split up, free legal services. He is the perfect antidote to Trump.

Thanks for that. I was under the impression that he could also pardon those.

Avenatti is a bit of a media hound but you get the feeling that Trump wouldn't be in nearly as much poop if he had Avenatti working for him.