Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more discussion of what merits a ban please. Back on topic.

DreamsBurnDown

SeamusFX wrote: »

Then maybe you should stop watching Fox and eating up their propaganda!

As I said to another poster, that's an infantile response, just as infantile as calling all Trump voters "racists, sexists and homophobes". It is quite possible to hold opinions based on an independent mind, and not influenced by propaganda. This topic has been done to death but my belief is that Trump is a sexual predator who is probably capable of rape, just like Bill Clinton, would you hear that on Fox?

FrostyJack

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Here we go again with Fox News I accept the point that Trump has been accused of rape however.

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

As I said to another poster, that's an infantile response, just as infantile as calling all Trump voters "racists, sexists and homophobes". It is quite possible to hold opinions based on an independent mind, and not influenced by propaganda. This topic has been done to death but my belief is that Trump is a sexual predator who is probably capable of rape, just like Bill Clinton, would you hear that on Fox?

By your own admission you did not know or pretend to not know about Trump's rape claims. It was pointed out to you so you have no choice now to say Trump may have been guilty, this was not your stance before you started posting here, so since it was in the news throughout the campaign and highlighted again during the likes of the Kavanagh hearings, you either blissfully ignored it or watched only Fox or right wing news, which bury this information. Since most of your other talking points are straight from Fox News it doesn't take the Worlds greatest detective to see what is going on here. Since the original thread of Trump presidency there have been plenty of people with low post counts, saying " I hate Trump but...Clinton/Obama".

Not all Trump supporters are racists etc, but the majority of racists, homophobes etc are Trump supporters. Some people were conned into voting for him, that he was great business man and not a politician, turns out he is a terrible businessman and a great politician (in the negative sense). So to continue to support him and consider voting for him after all he has said, done and has been revealed about his business practices, conduct and threat to democracy, it doesn't paint them in a great light. I personally know plenty of Trump supporters that moved from Ireland to the US and they all support him for ridiculous reasons like liberals taking their guns or Trump tells it like it is and so on, when pointed out these thoughts have no place in reality they bury their head in the sand.

DreamsBurnDown

FrostyJack wrote: »

By your own admission you did not know or pretend to not know about Trump's rape claims. It was pointed out to you so you have no choice now to say Trump may have been guilty, this was not your stance before you started posting here, so since it was in the news throughout the campaign and highlighted again during the likes of the Kavanagh hearings, you either blissfully ignored it or watched only Fox or right wing news, which bury this information. Since most of your other talking points are straight from Fox News it doesn't take the Worlds greatest detective to see what is going on here. Since the original thread of Trump presidency there have been plenty of people with low post counts, saying " I hate Trump but...Clinton/Obama".

A very paranoid post and sadly reflective of the "progressive" line of reasoning which may well see Trump reelected. If you don't mind I'll outline my own views rather than have you tell me what my views are. The arrogance displayed in your post is exactly what got Trump elected. Which talking points are from Fox News? Try and be specific and factual rather than emotional. I voted for Obama twice, so kindly point out what negative things I've said about Obama? Clinton imo shouldn't be allowed near the Democratic platform or convention given his toxicity, it's time the DNC cut their ties with him.

Try and debate without getting judgmental and emotional, it reflects badly on you. My original point regarding sexual conduct which started this specific dialog still stands, the American public at this stage are largely immune from sex scandals, and why wouldn't they? After having a president who had sex in the oval office with an employee half his age, something any senior manager or CEO would be fired for, why would they be shocked at anything at this stage?

The issue with the Me Too movement is consistency. You either default to believing all accusers or you seek evidence before believing. If you believe Christine Blasey Ford for example, why would you not believe Juanita Broadrick? It sounds to me like you suffer from confirmation bias, you believe all accusations as long as they are against "them" and bury your head in the sand if they are about "us". As I said, infantile.

everlast75

I don't know about other posters, but i didn't know much about the specifics of the Bill Clinton situation until I listened to the "Slow Burn" podcast by slate magazine.
I would recommend everyone have a listen. Its brilliant. (As is their pod on Nixon btw)

There are definitely issues re Clinton. There are also definitely issues about Trump.

I think my major problem with Trump is his second wife has accused him of rape under oath. He also attacked Hillary for enabling Bill, while he cheated on ALL of his 3 wives.

You could argue that Trump was right to criticize Hillary during the campaign for allowing Bill to do what he did. But Bill wasn't running for President.

And thankfully, things have changed in terms of how victims are perceived now. Monica was treated appallingly back in the 90s. For all the **** that's talked about re the "me too" movement, some good has come of it.

But I do agree. Consistency is key when evaluating our politicians. To be otherwise gets us all nowhere. If Bill did what he is accused of, he should have been locked up. Trump likewise.

hill16bhoy

everlast75 wrote: »

And thankfully, things have changed in terms of how victims are perceived now. Monica was treated appallingly back in the 90s. For all the **** that's talked about re the "me too" movement, some good has come of it.

The way Christine Blasey Ford was treated by Republicans and the right wing media, the way the other complainants against Kavanaugh were simply dismissed, the way they've dismissed allegations against Trump, the Roy Moore senate candidacy, and the cover up of the Jeffrey Epstein child sex abuse ring, all prove the Republicans have learned absolutely nothing in this regard.

is_that_so

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

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

There is an assumption it will bring in a huge amount of money. Mostly it won't as those on it will seek out more aggressive avoidance but it sounds very good to promote and there are votes in it. It is also subject to arbitrary limits and if say $10 million is not bringing in enough who's to say it may not go down to $5m or even $1m?

The GND proposal itself has a huge price tag and there's a whole lot of aspirational ideas and commitments in there, some of which are just not realistic and there is very little how. That's not to say it should be junked and that it doesn't have a lot of good, practical underlying ideas but it needs to intersect with reality.

ancapailldorcha

everlast75 wrote: »

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

Mod: While not just this post, if people just want to spout petty insults, this isn't welcome on this forum. I don't know what happened over the past week but let's leave it here.

hill16bhoy

Here's the opening line of poster DreamsBurnDown's post in response to poster Frosty Jack.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

A very paranoid post and sadly reflective of the "progressive" line of reasoning which may well see Trump reelected.

As Con Houlihan used to say, now read on...

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

If you don't mind I'll outline my own views rather than have you tell me what my views are. The arrogance displayed in your post is exactly what got Trump elected. Which talking points are from Fox News? Try and be specific and factual rather than emotional. I voted for Obama twice, so kindly point out what negative things I've said about Obama? Clinton imo shouldn't be allowed near the Democratic platform or convention given his toxicity, it's time the DNC cut their ties with him.

Try and debate without getting judgmental and emotional, it reflects badly on you. My original point regarding sexual conduct which started this specific dialog still stands, the American public at this stage are largely immune from sex scandals, and why wouldn't they? After having a president who had sex in the oval office with an employee half his age, something any senior manager or CEO would be fired for, why would they be shocked at anything at this stage?

The issue with the Me Too movement is consistency. You either default to believing all accusers or you seek evidence before believing. If you believe Christine Blasey Ford for example, why would you not believe Juanita Broadrick? It sounds to me like you suffer from confirmation bias, you believe all accusations as long as they are against "them" and bury your head in the sand if they are about "us". As I said, infantile.

I'm not sure if other posters spotted the many delicious ironies and hypocrisies in this post, but I certainly did.

Manic Moran

OK, I had a proper and thorough look at my tax forms, my estimate was wrong. My effective Federal tax rate dropped by 1.3%, and whatever happened in California, my State tax rate dropped by 0.8%. Income for the year was almost identical.

Igotadose

Back to Trump: (per NYT article): “(The Trump Admin)has the record for White House staff turnover, for cabinet turnover and now for the highest turnover within a single department."

Over 50 senior officials departed since 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/16/us/politics/all-the-major-firings-and-resignations-in-trump-administration.html?module=inline

SeamusFX

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: While not just this post, if people just want to spout petty insults, this isn't welcome on this forum. I don't know what happened over the past week but let's leave it here.

I think you’re missing the point. I don’t see this as someone spouting petty insults, but making the point they are so disgusted with DT, they vote for anyone who runs against him. Just a fact and in no way a petty insult, unless you have a very strong bias.

everlast75

Igotadose wrote: »

Back to Trump: (per NYT article): “(The Trump Admin)has the record for White House staff turnover, for cabinet turnover and now for the highest turnover within a single department."

Over 50 senior officials departed since 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/16/us/politics/all-the-major-firings-and-resignations-in-trump-administration.html?module=inline

#OnlyTheBestPeople

Either decent and competent folk have enough of him or he only picks people not suitable.

Doesn't bode well whichever it is.

Sean.3516

I reckon Trump has been absolutely great on foreign affairs.

Eg. Killing ISIS terrorists,
Condeming Venezuela’s communist dictator Maduro,

His criticisms of the UN (which is a joke and should be disbanded) they pretend there is moral equivalencey between evil countries and moral ones and are terrible at preventing genocides. Ppl give put about NATO, at least NATO doesn’t mind shooting evil folks.

aloyisious

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

My original point regarding sexual conduct which started this specific dialog still stands, the American public at this stage are largely immune from sex scandals, and why wouldn't they? After having a president who had sex in the oval office with an employee half his age, something any senior manager or CEO would be fired for, why would they be shocked at anything at this stage?

The issue with the Me Too movement is consistency. You either default to believing all accusers or you seek evidence before believing. If you believe Christine Blasey Ford for example, why would you not believe Juanita Broadrick? It sounds to me like you suffer from confirmation bias, you believe all accusations as long as they are against "them" and bury your head in the sand if they are about "us".

I'll prefer if the same "acceptability" rule on personal conduct mentioned in both para's above was NOT to be applied to 2nd-turn candidate Trump by the US electorate but that they would demand that anyone with such conduct in personal conduct background be refused candidature instead of "well, Bill Clinton did it so, on that basis alone, Don Trump is equally as worthy a candidate and the voter should not hold him accountable for his actions". Following such a rule is a **** effort at consistency.

Background checks by the voter on the candidate don't seem to go beyond "is he/she Republican/Democrat" without considering if the candidate is a fit person for the job in the 1st place, instead of going along with the current practice which gave Mr Trump the candidature, a decision in his case made by Republican party hacks and persons with agendas which MAWA (the W can mean weak or worse - choice is yours). The voters must grow up and tell the hacks where to shove their choice long before voting day and prove that they are NOT inured to such behaviour, even if it means telling the hacks that they will vote for the other party's candidate while holding on to their own party membership because they hold the office in need of a higher standard of candidate than offered to them by their own party.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I reckon Trump has been absolutely great on foreign affairs.

Eg. Killing ISIS terrorists,
Condeming Venezuela’s communist dictator Maduro,

His criticisms of the UN (which is a joke and should be disbanded) they pretend there is moral equivalencey between evil countries and moral ones and are terrible at preventing genocides. Ppl give put about NATO, at least NATO doesn’t mind shooting evil folks.

The UN?

Where America constantly uses it's veto to stop any action or criticism against Israel as it murders innocent Palestinians, That UN? :rolleyes:

The UN doesnt need to be disbanded but the veto definitely needs to be taken away from all countries.

Sean.3516

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The UN?

Where America constantly uses it's veto to stop any action or criticism against Israel as it murders innocent Palestinians, That UN? :rolleyes:

The UN doesnt need to be disbanded but the veto definitely needs to be taken away from all countries.

The UN has facilitated the anti semitism of the arab states for decades.

Israel has never murdered anybody. That’s ridiculous. If the Palestinians layed down their arms in the morning there’d be peace. If Israel layed doen their arms in the morning, there’d be no more Israel.

The reason there’s an Arab Israeli conflict is because the Palestinian muslims have never been able to tolerate a jewish state next to them.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The UN has facilitated the anti semitism of the arab states for decades.

Israel has never murdered anybody. That’s ridiculous. If the Palestinians layed down their arms in the morning there’d be peace. If Israel layed doen their arms in the morning, there’d be no more Israel.

The reason there’s an Arab Israeli conflict is because the Palestinian muslims have never been able to tolerate a jewish state next to them.

Are you serious? The deliberate bombing of children on a beach? The execution of injured people? The deliberate targeting of unarmed men and even children by snipers? :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The UN has facilitated the anti semitism of the arab states for decades.

Israel has never murdered anybody. That’s ridiculous. If the Palestinians layed down their arms in the morning there’d be peace. If Israel layed doen their arms in the morning, there’d be no more Israel.

The reason there’s an Arab Israeli conflict is because the Palestinian muslims have never been able to tolerate a jewish state next to them.

that statement is complete crap and always has been. Both states are culpable for violence in this , israel is just a lot more well resourced and has all that german guilt money and american funding. The only solution for that conflict is for Israel to hand back the land it grabbed from palestine and mutual recognition and an agreement to a two state solution.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Let's not get off topic please. This thread is about the Trump presidency.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Let's not get off topic please. This thread is about the Trump presidency.

Off topic posts deleted.

DreamsBurnDown

aloyisious wrote: »

Background checks by the voter on the candidate don't seem to go beyond "is he/she Republican/Democrat" without considering if the candidate is a fit person for the job in the 1st place, instead of going along with the current practice which gave Mr Trump the candidature, a decision in his case made by Republican party hacks and persons with agendas which MAWA (the W can mean weak or worse - choice is yours). The voters must grow up and tell the hacks where to shove their choice long before voting day and prove that they are NOT inured to such behaviour, even if it means telling the hacks that they will vote for the other party's candidate while holding on to their own party membership because they hold the office in need of a higher standard of candidate than offered to them by their own party.

Except Trump wasn't the choice of party hacks, the GOP favorites for 2016 were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker in that order, with Kasich as a long shot. Trump at first was an unwelcome addition to the field, and regarded with suspicion as he was a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009, and even himself said he only switched parties when he first thought about running for president and realized Democrats would never select him (2012). In reality it demonstrates how weak the GOP field were in 2016, as he demolished the other 16 candidates one by one. But it was Republican voters who selected him in the primaries.

Midlife

everlast75 wrote: »

#OnlyTheBestPeople

Either decent and competent folk have enough of him or he only picks people not suitable.

Doesn't bode well whichever it is.

Read an interesting point on this the other day.

There are something like 20 vacancies at the top of homeland security. Yes, that's the department who are currently responding to what Trump is trying desparately to label a crisis.

Anyway, filling one of them means conformation by the Senate and it becomes more or less a political appointee answerable to the Senate.

Not filling them leaves Trump slotting in temporary appointees answerable only to him and with no other form of oversight really.

Trump much prefers it this way as he gets to run the braches of government like his traditional fifedom.

Obviously it's dictatorial in it's nature and wil terrify a lot of people because oversight is usually there for a reason.

But this way, Trump has a much easier time. His temporary appointees do exactly as he says or he fires them and puts someone else in who will.

amandstu

Midlife wrote: »

Read an interesting point on this the other day.

There are something like 20 vacancies at the top of homeland security. Yes, that's the department who are currently responding to what Trump is trying desparately to label a crisis.

Anyway, filling one of them means conformation by the Senate and it becomes more or less a political appointee answerable to the Senate.

Not filling them leaves Trump slotting in temporary appointees answerable only to him and with no other form of oversight really.

Trump much prefers it this way as he gets to run the braches of government like his traditional fifedom.

Obviously it's dictatorial in it's nature and wil terrify a lot of people because oversight is usually there for a reason.

But this way, Trump has a much easier time. His temporary appointees do exactly as he says or he fires them and puts someone else in who will.

That had occured to me too (you expressed it better and more fully than I could).

Can you suggest any counter measures?

TomOnBoard

Here we go! It's finally Mueller Time!

This is the week when those pieces of the Mueller team report that have not been blacked out, are finally released. So, expect all kinds of bat**** crazy articles and opinion pieces, together with outrageous ' Breaking News' reports to bombard us for the rest of the month.

And no, I dont mean succinct assessments of the Mueller report; I mean all the "Look! Over There!!!!! " deflection efforts designed to distract us from understanding the breadth and depth of the investigation and of what was actually found.

So, put on the laser focus goggles and concentrate on the collusion and obstruction questions that Mueller was asked to investigate, and just ignore the noise.

Midlife

amandstu wrote: »

That had occured to me too (you expressed it better and more fully than I could).

Can you suggest any counter measures?

Not elect a meglomaniac.

I'm not really joking there, that's the issue. It genuinley astonishes me that one of the most developed countries in the world elected a property developer/reality TV show star who's so obviously clueless with regard to politics and completly full of **** with regard to everything.

But there you have it.

It feel very Latin America in terms of electing the 'strongman' type and thinking he has all the answers.

Anyway, long term they'll suffer massivly for it, even those who clearly see what's going on.

I dunno whatit is. My theoory is that they're just not cynical enough as a nation. If Trump ran anywhere else, people would basically just laugh and say 'this guys so full of ****'.

Illinois Senate passes legislation demanding tax information to qualify for state’s 2020 presidential ballot

The Democrats seem to be planning on disenfranchising an entire state's Republicans by demanding tax records.

Of course I will be admonished by the usuals for pointing out what would have happened if a red state had passed legislation requiring all government emails from candidates from the past five years be presented. It would been insane for a state to target a candidate from the other party over something not illegal, yet here we are. You guys will absolutely love it and of course, you will call it a win for democracy etc.

Leroy42

If they were calling for it on the basis that it favoured one type of person over another then I would agree with you. It seems to me that they are looking for all candidates to produce tax information, regardless of the party they belong to.

Not sure how that can be considered disenfranchising anyone.

If, on the other hand, they demanded it to simply vote, then you would be justified. But asking people running for high office to have their tax affairs in order, and be able to prove that, would not seem an overly high bar.

Don't the US currently have a minimum age to run for POTUS, doesn't that really disenfranchise millions. And having to be born in the US, means that many naturalised immigrants are excluded.

Not sure it is a win for democracy. It would be a win for transparency alright. I know that I would like to know everything I could about the people that claim they know all the answers.

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Illinois Senate passes legislation demanding tax information to qualify for state’s 2020 presidential ballot

The Democrats seem to be planning on disenfranchising an entire state's Republicans by demanding tax records.

Of course I will be admonished by the usuals for pointing out what would have happened if a red state had passed legislation requiring all government emails from candidates from the past five years be presented. It would been insane for a state to target a candidate from the other party over something not illegal, yet here we are. You guys will absolutely love it and of course, you will call it a win for democracy etc.

There's a reason tax returns are released normally. It ensures there is no ulterior motives for tax legislation and discloses any issues a candidate may have in terms of debt which might make them susceptible to blackmail etc.

All members of the intelligence agencies do it and all presidents do it.

So, in general, it is a very good idea.

Two further points
1) when Cohen testified that Trump's dealings when it comes to his finances are dodgy at best, the public have a right to know what they may be electing in 2020.
2) releasing government emails? I think i know what you are getting at (but her emails). That being so, Ivanka and others would be on the hook. I'd be 100% okay with that. Would you?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they were calling for it on the basis that it favoured one type of person over another then I would agree with you. It seems to me that they are looking for all candidates to produce tax information, regardless of the party they belong to.

Not sure how that can be considered disenfranchising anyone.

If, on the other hand, they demanded it to simply vote, then you would be justified. But asking people running for high office to have their tax affairs in order, and be able to prove that, would not seem an overly high bar.

Don't the US currently have a minimum age to run for POTUS, doesn't that really disenfranchise millions. And having to be born in the US, means that many naturalised immigrants are excluded.

Not sure it is a win for democracy. It would be a win for transparency alright. I know that I would like to know everything I could about the people that claim they know all the answers.

The definition is "deprive (someone) of the right to vote." They are disenfranchised because in a national election, they can't have any meaningful vote if they can't vote for their party's nominee. In dictatorships where only one person is on the ballot paper, we'd all agree that it was disenfranchisement.

This is legislation specifically aimed at Trump. To pretend otherwise is just straight up dishonest in my opinion.