Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

SeamusFX

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Here we go again with Fox News.

Then maybe you should stop watching Fox and eating up their propaganda! Fox is a serious problem and pointing out something as pathetic as Fox is not infantile, buying their lies is!

As far as Ivanka, she initially swore under oath, but later rescinded her story, because she didn’t want to lose her alimony. Yes, Katie Johnson is a pseudonym and she had to drop her case due to death threats from Trump supporters. So because people saw Broadrick distressed, that’s enough evidence for you. I never said Clinton or Kennedy were saints, but at least they didn’t/don’t talk like degenerates.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The evidence is in your posts, the hysteria is that of the hard left. Are you seriously suggesting that demonizing all conservatives is not hard left?

I am a moderate centrist Democrat, pro business and conservative on most economic issues, liberal on most social issues. I am like the majority of Americans, and my posts reflect that.

Sadly the hard left now regard centrist moderate Democrats as the enemy. Luckily for now at least the hard left is still a small minority, so there is hope for 2020.

What is the "hard left"?

You've been very quick to throw around labels without any attempt whatsoever to back them up.

Was Eisenhower "hard left"?

Remember, he had a marginal tax rate of 91 per cent.

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

No sorry, that's a complete cop out. There needs to be a line in the sand if you want decent discussion here. If you said the US engaged in terrible war behavior over the decades I'd agree but he's talking about a political party and labeling them a terrorist organisation not the US as a whole. It's radical hyper partisan nonsense, one look at his posting history will tell you that.

What's wrong with that post?

Anybody who still supports Trump after all his horrible racist shlt has a big racism problem.

Same as anybody who supports Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has one too.

hill16bhoy

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What's wrong with that post?

Anybody who still supports Trump after all his horrible racist shlt has a big racism problem.

Same as anybody who supports Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has one too.

I'd imagine he's less racist than your standard 70-year-old American white man.

If I ask you to explain why he's racist, you're just going to bring up some story about some black guys in NY 30-40 years ago.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Hi folks. Please take a deep breath and read the charter. There are a lot of posts in the past two pages that don't pass muster. We've got:

1. Several people personalising the debate, playing the man, not the ball
2. People making wild claims such as the Republican party is a terrorist organisation, anyone who supports Trump is a racist
3. Some poor taste attempts at humour that don't belong here

High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban. Threads (and posts) that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be deleted without warning. For the lighter side of Politics we have the Politics Cafere.

everlast75

I completely disagreed with the assessment in here from those who said Barr performed well before Congress, specifically on the grounds of a few reckless comments, the "spying" one being an example.

To me, that was a Nunes type move below the office of the AG and a foghorn as opposed to a dog whistle for the conspiracy theorists.

And Trump's base grabbed the ball and are running with it.

Everyday is a new low. When is something going to be done about it?

https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1116835558964244480?s=19

Brian?

everlast75 wrote: »

I completely disagreed with the assessment in here from those who said Barr performed well before Congress, specifically on the grounds of a few reckless comments, the "spying" one being an example.

To me, that was a Nunes type move below the office of the AG and a foghorn as opposed to a dog whistle for the conspiracy theorists.

And Trump's base grabbed the ball and are running with it.

Everyday is a new low. When is something going to be done about it?

https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1116835558964244480?s=19

Is anyone surprised at the depths the GOP will go to now? It’s funny how often the Democratic Party are painted as insane identity driven libtards, while this kind of disgusting slander is swallowed whole.

SeamusFX

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Mod Note

Hi folks. Please take a deep breath and read the charter. There are a lot of posts in the past two pages that don't pass muster. We've got:

1. Several people personalising the debate, playing the man, not the ball
2. People making wild claims such as the Republican party is a terrorist organisation, anyone who supports Trump is a racist
3. Some poor taste attempts at humour that don't belong here

I agree with most of your points, but there are also people making wild claims if you don’t support Trump you’re automatically a leftist liberal or socialist, I guess George Bush, John Kasich, Colin Powell and George Conway are all liberals. Now I agree all Trump supporters, but I also think a lot of them are. I’m not talking about terrible things he did years ago, but the many racist remarks he’s stated in the past few years.

Igotadose

AOC has been mentioned on Fox more than 3 *thousand* times in 6 weeks. 500 times/week.

She gets reelected in 2020 then runs for the Senate next. Can easily see it happening and her winning. Fox'll be in meltdown. 6 years from now, she's eligible to run for President but will miss the 2024 so she can run in 2028.

Go, Fox, Go!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-fox-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-news-twitter-a8868036.html

is_that_so

Igotadose wrote: »

AOC has been mentioned on Fox more than 3 *thousand* times in 6 weeks. 500 times/week.

She gets reelected in 2020 then runs for the Senate next. Can easily see it happening and her winning. Fox'll be in meltdown. 6 years from now, she's eligible to run for President but will miss the 2024 so she can run in 2028.

Go, Fox, Go!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-fox-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-news-twitter-a8868036.html

But would people actually vote for her in the Presidential? Her "future" presidency has the potential to make the current deficit look like small change.

everlast75

Frankly, I would vote for an inanimate carbon rod than re-elect this narcissistic, ignorant, lazy bully.

is_that_so

everlast75 wrote: »

Frankly, I would vote for an inanimate carbon rod than re-elect this narcissistic, ignorant, lazy bully.

I'd say there are a lot who would do the same but it always makes sense not to end up with buyer's remorse when using the AB method of voting.

everlast75

is_that_so wrote: »

I'd say there are a lot who would do the same but it always makes sense not to end up with buyer's remorse when using the AB method of voting.

Buyers' remorse < another 4 years of a dumpster fire administration

Danzy

Aoc rates quite poorly in national polls. She isn't nationally popular.

is_that_so

everlast75 wrote: »

Buyers' remorse < another 4 years of a dumpster fire administration

Not long term, it just reinforces the notion that all politicians are bad and invites even worse options to try their luck. Think most voters like to feel they have someone to vote for, not just a substitute for what they dislike.

PhlegmyMoses

Danzy wrote: »

Aoc rates quite poorly in national polls. She isn't nationally popular.

Why would she be? Fox News is doing an amazing job turning her into the devil. The best thing that that country could do that will have a major impact for generations, is reenact the fairness doctrine.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Trump floats idea of moving illegals to sanctuary cities
The Democrat response shows the racists they really are
Nobody hates integration in their areas as much as rich liberals

Trump has a Machiavellian brilliant mind


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/12/trump-may-send-illegal-immigrants-to-sanctuary-cities/amp/

PhlegmyMoses

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Trump floats idea of moving illegals to sanctuary cities
The Democrat response shows the racists they really are
Nobody hates integration in their areas as much as rich liberals

Trump has a Machiavellian brilliant mind


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/12/trump-may-send-illegal-immigrants-to-sanctuary-cities/amp/

This makes no sense. Why would he be releasing illegal immigrants into anywhere in the US? They deport any illegal immigrant that is caught right? And if he does release them, then they are free to move anywhere in the US. Unless he is putting up walls and border control around every state and city? If illegals are such a big problem, he is creating a massive risk for all other states. This is close to the stupidest **** I have ever heard lol

everlast75

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This makes no sense. Why would he be releasing illegal immigrants into anywhere in the US? They deport any illegal immigrant that is caught right? And if he does release them, then they are free to move anywhere in the US. Unless he is putting up walls and border control around every state and city? If illegals are such a big problem, he is creating a massive risk for all other states. This is close to the stupidest **** I have ever heard lol

Yep!

So ****ing stupid that the white house, an hour before sent his tweet, denied the reporting.

The left hand doesn't know what the tiny right hand is doing.

ancapailldorcha

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Trump floats idea of moving illegals to sanctuary cities
The Democrat response shows the racists they really are
Nobody hates integration in their areas as much as rich liberals

Trump has a Machiavellian brilliant mind


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/12/trump-may-send-illegal-immigrants-to-sanctuary-cities/amp/

Mod: If you post like this again, you're getting a ban.

rossie1977

peddlelies wrote: »

Your opinion. Ronald Reagan is historically well regarded.

Every administration has scandals, especially those over 8 years.

Reagan is well regarded by Republicans.

Obama administration had zero indictments, convictions and nobody sent to prison in 8 years. Clinton administration has 2 people indicted, one convicted and that one person sent to prison in 8 years. Nixon, Reagan and Bush Jr terms saw a combined 118 indictments, 87 criminal convictions and 32 people sent to prison.

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

and george bush won easily in 1988 too and he was linked to iran contra.
reagan was a great president and since him the quality has been very low until trump arrived.
so much in common.

Bush sr had little overall influence then.

Reagan was a great president for the rich sure just like Thatcher was a great PM if you were rich. Both were responsible for the beginning of the end of the middle class in their respective countries. Reagan's tax cuts began the process of syphoning all the wealth to the top 0.1% while Thatcher let everywhere north of Birmingham rot.

is_that_so wrote: »

But would people actually vote for her in the Presidential? Her "future" presidency has the potential to make the current deficit look like small change.

Many will. FDR walked 4 elections and AOC is running on similar platform to what he did in 1944.

US electorate really haven't a leg to stand on re: deficit going forward given there was zero complaints from Republican supporters when Trump increased deficit and overall debt.

aloyisious

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

Trump floats idea of moving illegals to sanctuary cities
The Democrat response shows the racists they really are
Nobody hates integration in their areas as much as rich liberals

Trump has a Machiavellian brilliant mind


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/12/trump-may-send-illegal-immigrants-to-sanctuary-cities/amp/

Using taxpayers money to do so? Orwellian concept?

Igotadose

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Why would she be? Fox News is doing an amazing job turning her into the devil. The best thing that that country could do that will have a major impact for generations, is reenact the fairness doctrine.

Per my prediction, she's not eligible to run till 2028 - 9 years from now. After a reelection in 2020, then the senate in 2022 (Schumer will probably retire by then), and 6 years in the Senate to make her national mark, she'll be odds-on if she wants the job. A young person as President usually is a good choice insofar as they have the energy for the job, aren't golfing every weekend or tottering their way down staircases while being morbidly obese.

Yep, I'd say there's a pretty good chance of it.

is_that_so

rossie1977 wrote: »

Many will. FDR walked 4 elections and AOC is running on similar platform to what he did in 1944.

US electorate really haven't a leg to stand on re: deficit going forward given there was zero complaints from Republican supporters when Trump increased deficit and overall debt.

FDR had his New Deal to see him through and a war. She supports money printing and huge federal employment, never mind Medicare for All. Nothing wrong with believing in things like that but she will need to produce some costs and a bit of planning around them.

Leroy42

Like Trump did for his tax cuts?

MadYaker

Or moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem?

rossie1977

is_that_so wrote: »

FDR had his New Deal to see him through and a war. She supports money printing and huge federal employment, never mind Medicare for All. Nothing wrong with believing in things like that but she will need to produce some costs and a bit of planing around them.

Reagan, Bush Jr and Trump all increased military spending while massively cutting tax revenue yet they didn't explain in detail how they would pay, they just did it, all the while proposing nonsense like trickle down economics. As said the voters have shown they don't care how things are paid for as long as their guy is in office.

AOC has already said she plans to raise the top rate of tax back up to 70% where it was in the 1960s but still well below the 90% it was in the 50s under Eisenhower. Doing that and closing loopholes where giant corporations like Amazon pay zero tax despite earning $11.2 billion in profit in a single year would be a start

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The poster peddlelies was the only poster who mentioned the words "terrorist organisation" in relation to the Republican party.

I said the Republican party are a group which engage in political terrorism.

There's a subtle but important difference here.

No, that's not what you said.

The Republican party is not a political party, it is a political terrorist group

Own it.

is_that_so

rossie1977 wrote: »

Reagan, Bush Jr and Trump all increased military spending while massively cutting tax revenue yet they didn't explain in detail how they would pay, they just did it, all the while proposing nonsense like trickle down economics. As said the voters have shown they don't care how things are paid for as long as their guy is in office.

AOC has already said she plans to raise the top rate of tax back up to 70% where it was in the 1960s but still well below the 90% it was in the 50s under Eisenhower. Doing that and closing loopholes where giant corporations like Amazon pay zero tax despite earning $11.2 billion in profit in a single year would be a start

That's not the big cost of what she supports. 70% is a dubious policy anyway and not necessarily the silver bullet some imagine. Who's to say what she'll be when the time comes around or whether her party will even back her. The last thing they want is another politician who thinks it's their turn!

PhlegmyMoses

is_that_so wrote: »

That's not the big cost of what she supports. 70% is a dubious policy anyway and not necessarily the silver bullet some imagine. Who's to say what she'll be when the time comes around or whether her party will even back her. The last thing they want is another politician who thinks it's their turn!

You need to explain some of your statements like this in a but more detail. What are the figures that she is proposing and what are the figures you think that this will yield? You seem to be quite down on her policies but are quite vague in your reservations.

I am also hugely dubious about the scrutiny and doom mongering around what she proposes considering that there is no scrutiny at all for a party of fiscal responsibility that continues to raise their debt ceilings and **** the economy whenever they get into power. Scrutiny is absolutely a good thing, don't get me wrong, it just does not seem to be a level playing field