Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Harika

brickster69 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1016627917915348993

Looks like Tusk has got involved on twitter. Never knew the EU was a member of NATO

Where does he state that?

robinph

How do you win a trade war?

All you can do is piss off anyone that trades with you and they stop trading with you. That's not a win, well maybe for the people that get the new trade and were not involved in the "war" in the first place.

brickster69

Harika wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1016627917915348993

Looks like Tusk has got involved on twitter. Never knew the EU was a member of NATO

Where does he state that?

"  We spend on defense much more than Russia and as much as China "

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

" We spend on defense much more than Russia and as much as China "

So you agree he never claimed the EU was a member of Nato

spacecoyote

brickster69 wrote: »

"  We spend on defense much more than Russia and as much as China "

You're just being pedantic there. You know full well he means the combined spending of the EU member states

brickster69

VinLieger wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

"  We spend on defense much more than Russia and as much as China "

So you agree he never claimed the EU was a member of Nato

Yes, but he is insinuating EU involvement by using the word " we " which is wrong. Just my opinion, but i would think he is best served keeping out of things, as it clearly is not an EU matter.

VinLieger

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, but he is insinuating EU involvement by using the word " we " which is wrong. Just my opinion, but i would think he is best served keeping out of things, as it clearly is not an EU matter.

No he's not. And American spending on NATO is far more a relevant matter to the EU than say crime in London or other European cities is to the US president wouldn't you say?

brickster69

Of course, because it means certain EU countries are going to have to pay their way more in the future. Which is right surely ?

Leroy42

brickster69 wrote: »

Of course, because it means certain EU countries are going to have to pay their way more in the future. Which is right surely ?

Well it depends really. Lets say the European countries fail to agree, does America pull out of Nato? What then for their strategic reach? Part of the NATO deal is that the US gets to have troops in many areas of the world, and the ability to use those areas.

Being in NATO also gives US some additional might in terms of trying to do things, like the Iraq war. Is Trump really saying he is going to drop out of that?

Will they loose the security cooperation?

What about the costs of refugees etc? Germany, for example, spends money on foreign aid budgets, preferring to try to deal with the people locally rather than have a military conflict.

Trump may well be right in that the current set up no longer fits with the world, but as usual he is using the crudest and most bombastic headlines to try to make his point to the uniformed.

The first question that the US needs to ask itself is what value it places on NATO. Without that it is very hard to gauge whether the US is paying too little of to much.

everlast75

Well isn't this interesting!!!!


https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1016642192616706050?s=19

VinLieger

everlast75 wrote: »

Well isn't this interesting!!!!


https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1016642192616706050?s=19

If Dems got caught doing the same the republicans would burn washington to the ground

everlast75

VinLieger wrote: »

If Dems got caught doing the same the republicans would burn washington to the ground

Enough of a story worth investigating. May require a couple of months.

Maybe 4 plus months..

Plus, when you factor in that Trump was loaned money from Kennedy's son while he was in a particular bank, there's plenty to look into

brickster69

Going to be interesting 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1016729137409486853

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

Well isn't this interesting!!!!


https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1016642192616706050?s=19

https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1016718247981408257

The "Journo" who was the source for this has done a big walk so at the moment despite what the resistance grifters will tell you is not true. Although obviously the story is viral now so what can you do?

That dude really should delete his tweet (13k retweets) for now.

Leroy42

Well, it can still be true, it is just not verified.

Now, as to whether the person should the delete the tweet, seems a bit rich that we are now asking people to have everything fact checked and signed off before they post to twitter when POTUS never does any such thing.

Isn't it simply an extension of the world he wants to live in?

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, it can still be true, it is just not verified.

Now, as to whether the person should the delete the tweet, seems a bit rich that we are now asking people to have everything fact checked and signed off before they post to twitter when POTUS never does any such thing.

Isn't it simply an extension of the world he wants to live in?

I dunno tbh. On paper a retraction tweet should be fine, but judging from the re tweets nobody reads or spreads the re tweet. This is a huge issue with social media I don't have a solution for right now. I admire him for the speedy correction to be fair, but if nobody sees it....

Trump is an abomination of a president, but that doesn't mean guys like the above should become grifters like Mensch and those alleged fraudster twins that are cleaning up in the Trump era.

Manic Moran

spacecoyote wrote: »

In line with that, he tried to block a pregnant teenage immigrant from getting an abortion, and was supposedly pi$$ed that his colleagues over-ruled him and allowed it.

Yes, but his arguments as to why are important. It was nothing to do with whether or not abortion was a good thing, it was a procedural matter.

He was happy enough to let the abortion go forward, but he wanted it to be done in a manner which did not require government intervention. This is his original order:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Jane-Doe-Order.pdf

From: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/appeals_court_says_pregnant_immigrant_teen_may_be_released_to_sponsor_enabl

A federal appeals court has found a way to allow an abortion for a pregnant teen immigrant who is in the country illegally without ordering the government to take her from federal custody to an abortion provider.

In a 2-1 decision, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday set an Oct. 31 deadline for a sponsor to be found for the 17-year-old girl and for the government to release her to the sponsor’s custody. By government agreement, when the girl is released to the sponsor, she can obtain an abortion, according to the order (PDF) released late Friday afternoon.

The blistering dissent was on the idea that there was some obligation on the government to immediately provide an abortion service to an illegal immigrant.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4116489/Garza-20171024.pdf

From http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dc_circuit_reinstates_order_requiring_government_to_allow_teen_immigrant_to

Kavanaugh said the en banc majority “has badly erred in this case.” The majority decision, he wrote, “is ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision

Of course, in today's environment, nobody cares about the fine details. Unlike another dissenting judge, Henderson, who did not find a due process right to an elective abortion at all, Kavanaugh expressly recognised the right. This is why conservatives say he didn't go far enough in his opinion. However, the difference between "Kavanaugh refused to allow the abortion" and "Kavanaugh refused to allow the abortion in this manner" is apparently far too complex for many people to understand.

Danzy

He was vetted and examined previously by the Senate, in great depth, there was no problem there.

Nor will there be an issue with his being appointed to the S.C.

everlast75

Rjd2 wrote: »

I dunno tbh. On paper a retraction tweet should be fine, but judging from the re tweets nobody reads or spreads the re tweet. This is a huge issue with social media I don't have a solution for right now. I admire him for the speedy correction to be fair, but if nobody sees it....

Trump is an abomination of a president, but that doesn't mean guys like the above should become grifters like Mensch and those alleged fraudster twins that are cleaning up in the Trump era.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1016760254456057861?s=19

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1016760254456057861?s=19

Seth is a grifter and deserves the same amount of contempt as guys like Charlie Kirk and Cernovich receive on the right. Of course he would interpret it that way as his followers need their fix of outrage and the vast amount are not going to fact check. There is no admission in that video whatsoever.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/sharing-seth-abramson-not-once-not-ever.html

FFS even a left wing organisation like Slate have called him out for it.

It may be true, but until a proper journalist maybe Jake Tapper confirm it I will ignore all these grifters who are more interested in retweets rather than fairness and facts.

everlast75

Rjd2 wrote: »

Seth is a grifter and deserves the same amount of contempt as guys like Charlie Kirk and Cernovich receive on the right. Of course he would interpret it that way as his followers need their fix of outrage and the vast amount are not going to fact check. There is no admission in that video whatsoever.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/sharing-seth-abramson-not-once-not-ever.html

FFS even a left wing organisation like Slate have called him out for it.

It may be true, but until a proper journalist maybe Jake Tapper confirm it I will ignore all these grifters who are more interested in retweets rather than fairness and facts.

Tbh I've only began following him on twitter recently and haven't spotted anything dodgy. In fact, there were 2 occasions his earlier dtories were ridiculed by the press and then later confirmed.

That being said, I'll approach with caution. However, his tweet notwithstanding, there is more I believe to follow with the nomination

Water John

DT's answer to the minors separated from their parents, is to tell illegals not to come. I suggest he takes that reply to the judge who is demanding the children be reunited with their parents.

Rjd2

everlast75 wrote: »

Tbh I've only began following him on twitter recently and haven't spotted anything dodgy. In fact, there were 2 occasions his earlier dtories were ridiculed by the press and then later confirmed.

That being said, I'll approach with caution. However, his tweet notwithstanding, there is more I believe to follow with the nomination

That's fair enough. I don't trust him but will keep an open mind on this story, one way or another it will come out as Trump simply does not know how to stop them coming out.:)

mcmoustache

Rjd2 wrote: »

That's fair enough. I don't trust him but will keep an open mind on this story, one way or another it will come out as Trump simply does not know how to stop them coming out.:)

Seth is just some guy with legal experience giving his opinion. He's in my feed but he's just some guy connecting dots that may or may not connect. He's a decent analyst but he's only got the same information that we do. He doesn't claim to have any inside information and he makes that quite clear but he's ultimately just a pundit.

Rjd2

mcmoustache wrote: »

Seth is just some guy with legal experience giving his opinion. He's in my feed but he's just some guy connecting dots that may or may not connect. He's a decent analyst but he's only got the same information that we do. He doesn't claim to have any inside information and he makes that quite clear but he's ultimately just a pundit.

Ok fair enough, not going to turn into an fan soon, but aligning him with grifters (if I say what I really think of them I'd be banned from the internet.
like Charlie Kirk and the krassenstein brothers on reflection might be somewhat unfair on Seth.:)

I'l keep an open mind.:)

2 Scoops

Lisa Page not complying with congressional subpoena, rules for thee but not for me.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Lisa Page not complying with congressional subpoena, rules for thee but not for me.

According to her lawyer, they asked for details of the scope of the material she would be interviewed on, and the Committee declined. Her and her lawyer attended for 3 hours in an effort to find out but no, they weren't told. The statement said they wouldn't attend "at that time". Just putting that into context.

The idea btw that her and her fella are part of some deep state conspiracy to take down Trump is fairly laughable.

That said, she should attend in accordance with normal procedure.
If that means she gets the scope of required info before hand, then she should get that info.
If not, then she should attend and get it over with.

But let's be clear. It should be the same rules for both. I agree 100%. And that means that when the rules don't suit either party's position, they should still apply.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea btw that her and her fella are part of some deep state conspiracy to take down Trump is fairly laughable.

Strzok McCabe and Page were meeting together and discussed an "insurance plan" against Trump. Strzok said "We'll stop it" referring to Trump becoming President. Strzok isn't a random, he was the lead on both the Russian investigation and the Clinton case. If you wanted to write a conspiracy there's plenty of subject matter there.

Lets see what the IG report on the Russian investigation says and how it got started, Horrowitz seems like a good skin and found those text messages. The rebuke some use is the Comey letter, Horrowitz confirmed the Weiner laptop only came to congress and the public's light more than a month later because the NYPD pushed on the FBI's stonewalling.

I'm not saying Trump / Russia or whatever doesn't exist but it's clear to me those who started the investigation into Trump clearly hated him while at the same time had admiration for Clinton, that should never happen because people will question their intentions and the integrity of both investigations, imo rightly so. My opinion is that the Clinton case was a sham and public theatre, Trump's is real we only have to look at Manafort sitting in solitary confinement 23hrs a day to realize that.

Leroy42

So 2Scoops, will you believe a report that comes out from the IG about Strzok?

Because I fail to see why this is being given the level of attention it is when we already know that the election itself was meddled with by Russia and yeet none is calling for a re-run or anything. We have a congressional committee stating that it happened. The FBI & CIA both say it happened.

Why if there more concern about something that may have happened, rather than doing something about which everyone agrees did happen? So its ok for Russia to interfere, but for a US Citizen to try to interfere is unacceptable?

And its not a case of one of the other. This should be investigated, but in the same way that nothing has been proven with Trump collusion and thus we should forget about it, nothing has been proven here either so why the double standards.

Strzok isn't a random, he was the lead on both the Russian investigation and the Clinton case. Trump is the POTUS, the single most important and powerful position in the US, maybe the world! I think having a patsy in the WH should illigit a higher degree of worry.


If Strzok was up to something, and I have no idea if they were, they ultimately failed. Which means that even with an insider of the deep state working against Trump, Russia was able to overcome this to help him win.

Not sure why you brought up Manafort. He is solitary for a number of reasons. First, after he was afforded house arrest, he broke the rules of his probation and was thus sent to prison, as it totally normal. He is in solitary due to fears for his safety. Maybe Trump should look at violence in prisons rather than thinking it is some conspiracy.

everlast75

The idea that
1) having established that Russia did intefere in the 2016 election,
2) with a failure by Trump to criticize or substantively sanction Russia,
3) with elections in 4 month's time,
4) The US about turn in how it treats G7 members, which is in Russia's interests
5) that the US agreed to cease military exercises with South Korea as suggested by Russia

Trump has now agreed to meet Putin in private with no records taken of what will be said, and some people are still saying "nothing to see here folks", the next generation will look back and wonder how blind they were.