Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

jooksavage

mcmoustache wrote: »

Today's tweeting has been a bit more unhinged than usual and that's saying something.

Demanding that Jeff Sessions end the investigation is the first time that he has publicly done so. We know he tried to get Sessions to do this before and that Mueller has been investigating those events already but this is the first time that he did so in front of the world.

How is he getting any work done today? And why the hell is he still haranguing Sessions? Does he know what recuse means?!

Leroy42

Why is he so against Manafort facing trial?

It makes no sense. They trial has nothing to do with Trump or his much talked about Russia thing. It centers around tax evasion and other crimes.

Is Trump, and therefore his supporters, really siding with a potential tax fraudster over the US of A?

As Trump is quick to tell everyone, he had almost nothing to do with Manafort, had only a very small job on the campaign (despite of course meeting with Russians to obtain illegally sourced information), but how do one reconcile Trump stance that Manafort had nothing whatsoever to do with any Russian collusion (because it doesn't exist) and his going out of his way to try to get the trial stopped?

MAGA by letting those that don't pay their taxes off?

looksee

notobtuse wrote: »

I completely understand that and thank you for the comment.  Discussion of Trump is ugly here by both parties, also.  As the debate in this topic centers on Trump and US politics, isn’t it beneficial to get a perspective from someone in the US... and particularly a Trump supporter to round out the debate?  A recent poll puts Trump’s approval rating here at 48% so I’d say I represent a large swath of the US opinion regarding Trump.  I understand I probably will change zero attitudes here, but I think it is important posters see things and get a perspective they otherwise might not get on a regular basis? 

Perhaps Boards can do a Now You’re Talking To A Trump Supporter.  Wouldn’t that be a hoot?  Good thing I'd be thousands of miles away with a ocean between us.  :)

But you are not really offering a perspective, just finding ways of supporting Trump regardless of what he does. We can judge him on what we see directly - not the 'false news' that he goes on about, not someone else's malicious interpretation - his own words and actions which he shares frequently and in detail. If you ignore all the commentary and opinions, and just base judgment on what he himself says, he is unhinged, lying, immature, petulant, and dangerous. There is no need for a perspective, its all clearly laid out for us by the man himself.

Why you support him is what the rest of us will never understand, maybe an ama would be a good idea.

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

Today's tweeting has been a bit more unhinged than usual and that's saying something.

Demanding that Jeff Sessions end the investigation is the first time that he has publicly done so. We know he tried to get Sessions to do this before and that Mueller has been investigating those events already but this is the first time that he did so in front of the world.

Yep. Genuinely the walls must be closing in.

We have the change in strategy from "no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

Trump denied asking Comey to lay off Flynn in the investigation and then fired him, admitting to Russians the day after that he did so to take the pressure off, not to mention the interview in which he said he fired Comey because of Russia.

Now we have him calling on his AG publicly and for the first time (who has recused himself btw, so any request is idiotic) to shut down the investigation.

If the way anyone acts is an indication of their guilt, it is written all over his face.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is he so against Manafort facing trial?

It makes no sense. They trial has nothing to do with Trump or his much talked about Russia thing. It centers around tax evasion and other crimes.

Is Trump, and therefore his supporters, really siding with a potential tax fraudster over the US of A?

As Trump is quick to tell everyone, he had almost nothing to do with Manafort, had only a very small job on the campaign (despite of course meeting with Russians to obtain illegally sourced information), but how do one reconcile Trump stance that Manafort had nothing whatsoever to do with any Russian collusion (because it doesn't exist) and his going out of his way to try to get the trial stopped?

MAGA by letting those that don't pay their taxes off?

It is curious. Perhaps as this is the first Special Counsel trial he doesn't want it to succeed.

We already know that the name Trump cannot be uttered in that trial, so he can't be worried about that.

However, if the Trial leads to a point where the fact Manafort works for Trump for free becomes relevant, perhaps there is something there.

Of course, there is the possibility that Manafort may flip (depending on how the evidence goes). Now, you can only flip if you give up something of value. We do know Manafort was at that Trump Tower meeting. What if he could verify what Cohen is saying, that Trump knew about it?

jooksavage

Manaforts trial is going to go on a for a while. Trump will give himself a stroke if he's yipped up like this every day. With everything we've heard Mueller is looking into, it would seem quire possible (maybe even likely) that Kushner and Don Jr. will eventually be indicted too... Looking forward to that rant.

Penn

Leroy42 wrote: »

It makes no sense. They trial has nothing to do with Trump or his much talked about Russia thing. It centers around tax evasion and other crimes.

That's the point. Trump links Manafort's trial to Russia, but unless something in the trial actually comes out linking Trump to it, regardless of whether Manafort is found guilty or not, Trump will use it to go "See! There was no collusion by me!"

Of course, if he's found guilty and Trump doesn't look likely to pardon him, Manafort could probably give him up in order to strike a deal, so Trump is defending Manafort in his tweets to try and show him support so he at the very least won't turn on Trump during the trial. Then Trump can claim Manafort is only lying in order to get a deal after being found guilty.

And therein lies the two sides of Trump; actually quite clever and devious in how he frames things, but also, as subtle as a wrecking ball swatting a fly.

notobtuse

looksee wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I completely understand that and thank you for the comment.  Discussion of Trump is ugly here by both parties, also.  As the debate in this topic centers on Trump and US politics, isn’t it beneficial to get a perspective from someone in the US... and particularly a Trump supporter to round out the debate?  A recent poll puts Trump’s approval rating here at 48% so I’d say I represent a large swath of the US opinion regarding Trump.  I understand I probably will change zero attitudes here, but I think it is important posters see things and get a perspective they otherwise might not get on a regular basis? 

Perhaps Boards can do a Now You’re Talking To A Trump Supporter.  Wouldn’t that be a hoot?  Good thing I'd be thousands of miles away with a ocean between us.  :)

But you are not really offering a perspective, just finding ways of supporting Trump regardless of what he does. We can judge him on what we see directly - not the 'false news' that he goes on about, not someone else's malicious interpretation - his own words and actions which he shares frequently and in detail. If you ignore all the commentary and opinions, and just base judgment on what he himself says, he is unhinged, lying, immature, petulant, and dangerous. There is no need for a perspective, its all clearly laid out for us by the man himself.

Why you support him is what the rest of us will never understand, maybe an ama would be a good idea.

I disagree with your statement.  I read dozens of political news articles every day.  From Right, Left and Center media sources.  I provide source information when asked… and none of them come from Trump.  If you notice I also post an occasional comment when I don’t agree with what Trump does.  There is absolutely no need for me to post things that I dislike about Trump here, because there already is zillions of it from other posters.  I post the things about Trump I agree with.  Or is there some rule on boards that I am required to be unbiased in my opinion and comments?  And I do provide other perspectives... It just seems the majority of people on the other side of the pond have closed minds when it comes to Trump.

Dog Man Star

Things are accelerating now with Robert Mueller's investigation.

If Nixon is an indication, we can expect some demented behaviour in the final months.

Trump is too spineless to actually act decisively, so will be mouthing off as much as possible on Twitter. He's scared ****less at this point. Just three press conferences in July, the walls are closing in fast.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time" is not enough now.

Dog Man Star

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagree with your statement.  I read dozens of political news articles every day.  From Right, Left and Center media sources.  I provide source information when asked… and none of them come from Trump.  If you notice I also post an occasional comment when I don’t agree with what Trump does.  There is absolutely no need for me to post things that I dislike about Trump here, because there already is zillions of it from other posters.  I post the things about Trump I agree with.  Or is there some rule on boards that I am required to be unbiased in my opinion and comments?  And I do provide other perspectives... It just seems the majority of people on the other side of the pond have closed minds when it comes to Trump.

Spare us this nonsense and go back to Reddit. This is a politics forum that expects individuals to express personal opinions on truth. Go back to Reddit.

Stallingrad

notobtuse wrote: »

It just seems the majority of people on the other side of the pond have closed minds when it comes to Trump.

I take it your not going to answer my question about reconciling the man's qualities as a person with your support of him?

notobtuse

Dog Man Star wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I disagree with your statement.  I read dozens of political news articles every day.  From Right, Left and Center media sources.  I provide source information when asked… and none of them come from Trump.  If you notice I also post an occasional comment when I don’t agree with what Trump does.  There is absolutely no need for me to post things that I dislike about Trump here, because there already is zillions of it from other posters.  I post the things about Trump I agree with.  Or is there some rule on boards that I am required to be unbiased in my opinion and comments?  And I do provide other perspectives... It just seems the majority of people on the other side of the pond have closed minds when it comes to Trump.

Spare us this nonsense and go back to Reddit. This is a politics forum that expects individuals to express personal opinions on truth. Go back to Reddit.

What's Reddit?

notobtuse

Stallingrad wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It just seems the majority of people on the other side of the pond have closed minds when it comes to Trump.

I take it your not going to answer my question about reconciling the man's qualities as a person with your support of him?

I will.  It's not a yes or no question.  But basically I separate bluster and actions.  Actions mean much more and I agree with much of the actions he has taken so far.  Yes, I could do with less bluster.  And I disagree with some of your takes on him, and some are right and I don't agree with.  But overall the scale of the pros and cons tip to the pro side for me.

Penn

notobtuse wrote: »

What's Reddit?

So you're in America, and you've heard of boards.ie, an Irish forum predominantly with Irish users, but you've never heard of Reddit, one of the biggest and most popular websites in the world...?

C'mon...

Dohnjoe

notobtuse wrote: »

What's Reddit?

If you read dozens of political articles a day, you'd know

Leroy42

So Trump, using the official channel of twitter, has told the AG to shut down the investigation.

Will AG refuse a direct order from the POTUS?

Now the last time someone refused to drop an investigation that Trump didn't like was Comey, and he as fired pretty soon afterwards.

Of course, knowing Trump, he easily could have meant to say shouldn't. Guess we have to wait and see what he is told to say at a later point.

circadian

notobtuse wrote: »

What is the story here?  Somebody says a child died, but can't provide any proof?

If it did happen it's sad. But just another reason why you shouldn't drag your children across the boarder, when you know that they will be separated from you.   If it did happen fire the person who was supposed to be watching this child and be done with it.  Then BUILD THE WALL!

I guess because they crossed illegally then it's ok to administer potent psychotropic medications to children without consent? Look at the medications being forcefully administered, these have horrific side effects on adults. Christ knows what they'll do to children.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/31/trump-administration-must-seek-consent-before-giving-drugs-to-migrant-children-judge-rules/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.511bcf622774

As someone else said, this is not how a civilised society behaves, not even close.

Dog Man Star

notobtuse wrote: »

What's Reddit?

Trolling bull****ter. How is he still not banned here is a mystery.

borderlinemeath

notobtuse wrote: »

I said if it happened it was sad. But parents shouldn’t be bringing children into the US illegally. Perhaps Ireland can take them all in. Wouldn't that be the civilized thing to do? And I scoff at the selected outrage of these things, used to make Trump look bad in any way, shape or form, IMO. Do you or anyone here do what is necessary to curb modern day slavery throughout the world? I doubt it. If ya’ll would you’d have to give up such things as chocolate, electronic devices including cell phones, cannabis, rubber, most clothing, palm oil, knock-off handbags, diamonds, shrimp and pornography. But we don't talk about those things or curb our lifestyle because it would hurt us personally, IMO.

Selective outrage? Look no further than your dear leader. He jumps on every bandwagon going, the Thai football team trapped in a cave, Charlie Gard...you name it, if there's a populist cause he's all over it. But a dead child in an ICE dentention centre...hell no, that's the parents fault for daring to try and escape a war torn existence.


You are the epitome of what some Americans have become. They'll walk by somebody dying on the street because they don't have health insurance, they'll defend their right to carry a lethal weapon because goddammit it's their right, even though their toddler might find it in their bag and kill their sibling by accident. It's kill or be killed, but hey a populist cause is good for supporters to give "thoughts and prayers" right?

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Trump, using the official channel of twitter, has told the AG to shut down the investigation.

Will AG refuse a direct order from the POTUS?

Now the last time someone refused to drop an investigation that Trump didn't like was Comey, and he as fired pretty soon afterwards.

Of course, knowing Trump, he easily could have meant to say shouldn't. Guess we have to wait and see what he is told to say at a later point.

The DoD has stated that it does not view Twitter as a source for receiving instruction: If Trump wants the military to do something, he needs to say it/write it directly to the appropriate channel. (eg CJCS/SecDef). I assume the AG will have a similar point of view.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

The DoD has stated that it does not view Twitter as a source for receiving instruction: If Trump wants the military to do something, he needs to say it/write it directly to the appropriate channel. (eg CJCS/SecDef). I assume the AG will have a similar point of view.

They may not, but wasn't it deemed an official mode of communication and that all tweets must be saved? I think as well that Trump has lost the right to block people as the public have a write to be heard.

So whilst they may not deem it as official, it can certainly be take as being official.

ancapailldorcha

notobtuse wrote: »

What's Reddit?

Enough is enough. You are no longer welcome to post here and are henceforth permanently banned.

UsedToWait

notobtuse wrote: »

What's Reddit?

Clearly a wind up merchant.

Fair dues to those who bother to engage - though the feigned innocence and ignoring of the difficult questions is annoying, I do think we need Trumpists on this thread.

Some of the contributors' depth of knowledge of the issues and cogency of argument is excellent (as on the Brexit thread also).

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Will AG refuse a direct order from the POTUS

The AG can't shut it down. He's recused himself

everlast75

Story breaking that there is an internal memo in the White House that says Trump knew Flynn was under investigation by the FBI when he asked Comey to lay off him.

Their defence to the accusation was to say that Trump didn't know.

If proven, even more in the "obstruction" column - quite damning in fact

Dog Man Star

Watching Giuliani recently, reminded me of his glory days. This clip of the Letterman show, following the days of the attacks on the World Trade Centre, shows how revered he was in New York during it's darkest days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEWz8F5sfpY

Like so many of Trump's inner circle, Giuliani is a bad joke among New York's citizens now.

What is it with Trump that enables great people to destroy themselves? Is it fear of crossing him or something more sinister?

I suppose at one point Trump was New York, but I cannot understand why those of great reputation will destroy it all now. Is it money? That would be the most likely reason.

Captain Obvious

circadian wrote: »

So alongside giving children drugs in ICE centres one has died due to negligence.

This is an absolute disgrace and those responsible should be hauled in front of the human rights court immediately.


https://www.ibtimes.com/child-dead-ice-detention-center-due-negligent-care-immigration-lawyer-2704521

Fanatic is the more accurate term.

notobtuse wrote: »

What is the story here? Somebody says a child died, but can't provide any proof?

If it did happen it's sad. But just another reason why you shouldn't drag your children across the boarder, when you know that they will be separated from you. If it did happen fire the person who was supposed to be watching this child and be done with it. Then BUILD THE WALL!

This is like blaming a parent if a pedophile abducts their child because they should have watched them closer. Whatever blame you want to put on the parent does not negate them blame on the people responsible for the child death.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sorry. This is correct, my error. It has, however, been enacted in Mountain View (Silicon Valley). As a result, Facebook's new HQ is prohibited from having a workplace cafeteria.

The idea is to force people to eat on the local economy, to help the restaurant businesses. The possibility that folks will eat packed lunched, or the fact that the cafeteria workers will not be employed, has yet to be debated in SF.

You should be careful about falling for fake news.


And the intention is to protect local businesses. Small business is something republicans use to protect.

Igotadose

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Watching Giuliani recently, reminded me of his glory days. This clip of the Letterman show, following the days of the attacks on the World Trade Centre, shows how revered he was in New York during it's darkest days:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEWz8F5sfpY

Like so many of Trump's inner circle, Giuliani is a bad joke among New York's citizens now.

What is it with Trump that enables great people to destroy themselves? Is it fear of crossing him or something more sinister?

I suppose at one point Trump was New York, but I cannot understand why those of great reputation will destroy it all now. Is it money? That would be the most likely reason.

I think Giuliani basically got old and gaga. By far not nearly as sharp as he was when 9/11 happened in 2001. His personal life's been in a shambles in the last few years as well, splitting with wife 3 (Judith Nathan) who caused a rift between him & his family. He even nearly got booed out of a Yankee's game a couple months back!

Having grown up in NYC from 1959 to 2003, I can safely tell you that Donald J. Trump *never* was NYC. He was a tabloid freak in the era of "Studio 54," whose salacious escapades were occasionally picked up by the tabloids. No one had any respect for that slime. Nothing he's done comes as a surprise, except for how dumb and lazy he's been shown to be since becoming POTUS. The racism/anti-immigration fervor/barely hidden anti-Semitism aren't new.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

So whilst they may not deem it as official, it can certainly be take as being official.

I think the DOJ takes them more seriously than that:

“The Court has asked, broadly, about the official status of the President’s tweets … asking the parties to ‘provide insight on … the President’s tweets and what they are, how official they are, are they statements of the White House and the President,’ ” Justice Department attorneys wrote Monday citing a Nov. 2 status conference hearing.

“In answer to the Court’s question, the government is treating the President’s statements to which plaintiffs point — whether by tweet, speech or interview — as official statements of the President of the United States,” the Justice Department responded.

BabyCheeses

Billy Mays wrote: »

Owning the libs

Stallingrad wrote: »

Racism. He has exposed the US for what it is, a deeply, deeply racist state. Those people will forgive him anything (infidelity, collusion, etc) as long as he puts dollars (or says he will) in their pockets, and promises to deal with immigrants (ie non whites).

Trump does not give a **** about the wall, but he knows the power of it as a symbol, so will fight for it to the end.

Those are reasons to support him but you can think he is useful while thinking he is a complete idiot.

notobtuse wrote: »

What is the story here? Somebody says a child died, but can't provide any proof?

If it did happen it's sad. But just another reason why you shouldn't drag your children across the boarder, when you know that they will be separated from you. If it did happen fire the person who was supposed to be watching this child and be done with it. Then BUILD THE WALL!

I see the user has been banned but we all know we'll hear the exact same points from the next one. We were first told that the children need to be separated to protect them from trafficking but the children also need to be harmed to act as a deterrent to parents. Doesn't this mean you support harming trafficked children? Their traffickers won't care if they are harmed.