Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

peddlelies

Christy42 wrote: »

If a politician is found accepting a bribe this y still get in trouble for it.

No they don't. That's why most of them run for office in the first place. It's all influence peddling and lobbying.

What conspiracies about Clinton are you talking about? Half of the people she met with in office donated to the Clinton foundation per AP, ignoring the hundreds of millions from Qatar, Saudi, Russia etc.

Igotadose

peddlelies wrote: »

No they don't. That's why most of them run for office in the first place. It's all influence peddling and lobbying.

What conspiracies about Clinton are you talking about? Half of the people she met with in office donated to the Clinton foundation per AP, ignoring the hundreds of millions from Qatar, Saudi, Russia etc.

Yes they do. Abscam ring a bell?

And, The President of the United States soliciting foreign intelligence for personal benefit - you're o.k. with that? You'd vote for such a person? Because the others might do the same?

peddlelies

Igotadose wrote: »

Yes they do. Abscam ring a bell?

And, The President of the United States soliciting foreign intelligence for personal benefit - you're o.k. with that? You'd vote for such a person? Because the others might do the same?

I'm not OK with him saying it publicly like I stated. I'm just not naive enough to believe that it doesn't go on behind closed doors every major election cycle. See the DNC working with the Ukrainians as a recent example.

pixelburp

Again with the Clintons.

You'd think with 2 years of total control of both Houses of government, and a President who promised - during a live TV debate 'cos that's how far US political discourse has fallen - to open an investigation on his opponent, were there any true illegality the Republicans would have found it; or indeed Trump might have continued to yell "Lock her up".

"Drain the swamp" is a noble catchphrase on the face of it - it's no secret Washington DC is a swamp of lobbying and back-dealing - but by all accounts the Trump administration has not drained a cubic metre of that swamp - indeed thanks to DeVos and the like it has only became an even greater quagmire. The Trump family are running the government as their own little get-richer-quick scheme and being the worst of a bad bunch doesn't mean you shouldn't hate those bad apples any the less.

peddlelies

pixelburp wrote: »

"Drain the swamp" is a noble catchphrase on the face of it - it's no secret Washington DC is a swamp of lobbying and back-dealing - but by all accounts the Trump administration has not drained a cubic metre of that swamp

I haven't said otherwise.

Christy42

peddlelies wrote: »

I'm not OK with him saying it publicly like I stated. I'm just not naive enough to believe that it doesn't go on behind closed doors every major election cycle. See the DNC working with the Ukrainians as a recent example.

Irrelevant. Anyone who does this should get punished. We can start with the idiots willing to declare it out loud. What stage is this BTW since we are past denial and onto it isn't a big deal?

I am aware not all politicians are squeeky clean.

There are plenty arrested for fraud BTW. I am sure many get away with it. That is not an excuse for any that do get caught.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

"This is somebody that said, 'We have information on your opponent,'" Trump said. "'Oh, let me call the FBI.' Give me a break. Life doesn’t work that way."

But that is not remotely what is happening here. Trump is not simply not telling when he gets handed something, he is, and did so during the election campaign with his call to Russia, that foreign governments should actively seek to get their hands on intel about Trump opponents and that he will not only accept it but do nothing at all to hold them to account.

One is accepting that stuff happens, the other is being at the very core an reason for the thing happening.

For POTUS to come out with such a statement is simply appalling. How anyone can think that this is a man that is worried about the US, rather than just himself, is beyond me.

Exactly what does he actually have to say to make you understand that this man will happily sell out the US in order to get what he wants?

peddlelies

Christy42 wrote: »

I am aware not all politicians are squeeky clean.

I obviously agree in a perfect world they should all be thrown out, that includes anyone linked to the Trump administration engaging in such behaviour, the likes of Kushner would be an obvious reg flag. Once it's applied equally across the board I think the vast majority of people left and right politically wouldn't offer much resistance to such measures but unfortunately there's been terrible precedents set, many of them in recent memory.

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

For POTUS to come out with such a statement is simply appalling.

I said it was idiotic to make such a statement.

Exactly what does he actually have to say to make you understand that this man will happily sell out the US in order to get what he wants?

I'm not going to defend his character, although I will go as far to say he hasn't done anything that even remotely resembles an action of tyrannical nature to hold onto power. He fired Comey, but the SC finished their investigation and there was no underlying conspiracy to cover up.

In 2020, the likelihood is he's gonna lose and then we'll see what his reaction is.

FrostyJack

hill16bhoy wrote: »

.

Refusal to impeach = emboldening Trump.

If they don't impeach he will claim there was nothing on him, just a witchhunt and claim victory, shoring up his base. If they do impeach or start proceedings like they should, it would air more dirty laundry on him which can only hurt him. Nixon wasn't impeached remember.

peddlelies

FrostyJack wrote: »

If they don't impeach he will claim there was nothing on him, just a witchhunt and claim victory, shoring up his base. If they do impeach or start proceedings like they should, it would air more dirty laundry on him which can only hurt him. Nixon wasn't impeached remember.

He won't be impeached over the Mueller report. Trump nor anyone connected to his campaign conspired with Russia in their election interference campaign. For two years that was the allegation cited daily on cable news and online. Public won't support it either. Democrats with their hearings are saving face, that's it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446382-poll-majority-oppose-trump-impeachment-but-most-democrats-support-it

"Sixty-eight percent of respondents said Democrats in Congress should accept Mueller’s finding that there was no criminal conspiracy and 65 percent said Democrats should accept Attorney General William Barr’s conclusion that the president did not obstruct justice.

Sixty-three percent of respondents said the investigations into Trump are hurting the country. While 58 percent said it’s time for Congress to turn the page on the Russia investigations."

Manic Moran

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Have a source for that?

Discussions with multiple people.

According to the Toronto Star yesterday, Trudeau's approval level is 34%. Which is, I think, worse than Trump right now.

He's had a pretty horrible year.

From a couple months ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-politics/canadas-golden-boy-trudeau-sinks-in-polls-as-scandal-takes-toll-idUSKCN1RL269

polls suggest the 47-year-old politician with the broad smile and a penchant for colorful socks could become the first prime minister to lose power after a single majority mandate since the 1930s.

Trudeau is mired in a relentless scandal over alleged interference in a corporate corruption case that has led to the resignations of two Cabinet members, his top advisor and the head of the federal civil service.

That opened the door to testimony to the parliamentary justice committee from one of the resigned cabinet members, which did not do him any favours.

This then snowballed into issues regarding his credentials on feminism and first nations people.

Bottom line, unless something changes reasonably radically, Trudeau will not be PM after October.Hence he is not likely to be talking to Warren about anything. Keep an eye on 338Canada. (Canadian version of 538)

Christy42

peddlelies wrote: »

I obviously agree in a perfect world they should all be thrown out, that includes anyone linked to the Trump administration engaging in such behaviour, the likes of Kushner would be an obvious reg flag. Once it's applied equally across the board I think the vast majority of people left and right politically wouldn't offer much resistance to such measures but unfortunately there's been terrible precedents set, many of them in recent memory.

Should we stop prosecuting for theft? How many people get away with it. My own place has been robbed with no one getting caught. Surely I should be let go if I pay it forward?

This is just not how any of it works. You can't simply let all corruption go because we have been bad at prosecuting before. The republicans are free to level their complaints if they feel others should be prosecuted as well but at this point they can't reasonably argue he should not lose his job for this.

This argument is a ridiculous attempt to justify any and all corruption by Trump at this point.

Walter Bishop

Yes impeachment almost certainly can't work, but if they won't impeach just because they may hurt their election chances what is the point of having an impeachment process at all?

Of course you need politicians who put the country before themselves for that to make sense, and such politicians seem to be rarer than hens teeth these days.

peddlelies

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Yes impeachment almost certainly can't work, but if they won't impeach just because they may hurt their election chances what is the point of having an impeachment process at all?

Of course you need politicians who put the country before themselves for that to make sense, and such politicians seem to be rarer than hens teeth these days.

You need some level of bi-partisan support and a high crime, there's neither. Even a Trump devout like Lindsey Graham would have supported impeachment if it showed the campaign were in cahoots with Russian intelligence.

peddlelies

Christy42 wrote: »

This is just not how any of it works. You can't simply let all corruption go because we have been bad at prosecuting before. The republicans are free to level their complaints if they feel others should be prosecuted as well but at this point they can't reasonably argue he should not lose his job for this.

This argument is a ridiculous attempt to justify any and all corruption by Trump at this point.

It's exactly how it works in US Politics. Democrat administration has their own appointed AG and justice department, same for Republicans. The FBI did unprecedented things in 2016 which severely hurt their standing. It's an entirely broken system. It's not comparable to your house being robbed.

Dog Man Star

His admin also did two really stupid things in the last few weeks. First, Minuchin blocked the black political activist Harriet Tubman's portrait from appearing on the $20 note, as planned since 2016. And then last week they stopped the LGBT flag being flown on US Embassies during pride week.

These are such trivial, stupid actions to take in the run up to an election, but anyone with any sense seems to have been fired or left voluntarily. But these incidences can easily be referred to in the debates as clear examples of racism and homophobia, easy wins for the Democrat candidate.

Trump's base doesn't need these stupid stunts to vote for Trump.

Unless he brings Bannon back in, he hasn't a hope of being re-elected, not a chance.

Dog Man Star

Manic Moran wrote: »

Discussions with multiple people.

According to the Toronto Star yesterday, Trudeau's approval level is 34%. Which is, I think, worse than Trump right now.

He's had a pretty horrible year.

From a couple months ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-politics/canadas-golden-boy-trudeau-sinks-in-polls-as-scandal-takes-toll-idUSKCN1RL269

polls suggest the 47-year-old politician with the broad smile and a penchant for colorful socks could become the first prime minister to lose power after a single majority mandate since the 1930s.

Trudeau is mired in a relentless scandal over alleged interference in a corporate corruption case that has led to the resignations of two Cabinet members, his top advisor and the head of the federal civil service.

That opened the door to testimony to the parliamentary justice committee from one of the resigned cabinet members, which did not do him any favours.

This then snowballed into issues regarding his credentials on feminism and first nations people.

Bottom line, unless something changes reasonably radically, Trudeau will not be PM after October.Hence he is not likely to be talking to Warren about anything. Keep an eye on 338Canada. (Canadian version of 538)

Ok well whoever the next Canadian PM is will be happier to talk to next Dem president rather than Trump.

Talk about missing the point.

Is this some kind of gaslighting? Trashing Trudeau in a thread about Trump? Almost certainly.

Manic Moran

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Ok well whoever the next Canadian PM is will be happier to talk to next Dem president rather than Trump.

Talk about missing the point.

Is this some kind of gaslighting? Trashing Trudeau in a thread about Trump? Almost certainly.

I didn't bring Trudeau up, you did. Neither am I trashing him: I suspect you'll be hard pressed to find a mention from me about him or his government on this board at all before now. Not that this is unusual on Boards, it's not as if there's a Trudeau election thread on here, nobody's talking about him. Stating that he is in political difficulty is not exactly trashing.

Your statement about Trudeau meeting Warren indicated that you were unaware of the current situation of Canadian politics. I have made sure you are now aware. I shall now return to my previous position of generally not bringing up Trudeau, Merkel, May, Johnson, Putin, or anyone else unless it happens to be relevant to comments made by others.

FrostyJack

peddlelies wrote:

He won't be impeached over the Mueller report. Trump nor anyone connected to his campaign conspired with Russia in their election interference campaign. For two years that was the allegation cited daily on cable news and online. Public won't support it either. Democrats with their hearings are saving face, that's it.

Did you even read the report? His family and associates had meetings with Russians all over the World with the plans to co-operate. 5 hrs after Trumps infamous "Russia if you are listening" speech, the spearfishing attacks commenced, coincidence? The day of the cat grabbing tape was released the emails start to be released by Russia to soften the blow. The report showed they could not prove by the letter of the law they committed conspiracy but the were will to accept Russian help. All that aside the obstruction of justice claims layed out in the report are more than enough grounds for impeachment and will the tapes released of Trumps liars threating witnesses last week he should be in jail, directly in jail, do not pass go.

BonnieSituation

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Ok well whoever the next Canadian PM is will be happier to talk to next Dem president rather than Trump.

Talk about missing the point.

Is this some kind of gaslighting? Trashing Trudeau in a thread about Trump? Almost certainly.

In no way was Manic Moran trashing Trudeau, and I would not be the biggest fan of some of what MM posts at the best of times. He's pretty much saying it as it is. Trudeau is having a chronically awful year.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Discussions with multiple people.

According to the Toronto Star yesterday, Trudeau's approval level is 34%. Which is, I think, worse than Trump right now.

He's had a pretty horrible year.

From a couple months ago.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-politics/canadas-golden-boy-trudeau-sinks-in-polls-as-scandal-takes-toll-idUSKCN1RL269

polls suggest the 47-year-old politician with the broad smile and a penchant for colorful socks could become the first prime minister to lose power after a single majority mandate since the 1930s.

Trudeau is mired in a relentless scandal over alleged interference in a corporate corruption case that has led to the resignations of two Cabinet members, his top advisor and the head of the federal civil service.

That opened the door to testimony to the parliamentary justice committee from one of the resigned cabinet members, which did not do him any favours.

This then snowballed into issues regarding his credentials on feminism and first nations people.

Bottom line, unless something changes reasonably radically, Trudeau will not be PM after October.Hence he is not likely to be talking to Warren about anything. Keep an eye on 338Canada. (Canadian version of 538)

He could go into coalition with the NDP based on the current seat projections. As unlikely and as unpalatable as that might be for some, having the PC return to power is anathema to NDP voters.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1139201933451976707?s=19

If there is any god, there will be a follow through on this recommendation

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1139201933451976707?s=19

If there is any god, there will be a follow through on this recommendation

There's a better chance of the Waterford hurlers winning an all Ireland any time soon than Kelly Anne Conway getting disciplined by the Trump White House.

aloyisious

There may be wriggle-room for Don, not unsurprisingly as the Pols decide on what's in the rules they pass. Google say's The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials, from engaging in some forms of political activity. It went into law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was most recently amended in 2012.

I don't know what, or whom, is included in the "certain designated high-level officials" section given exclusion from the act. Kelly-Anne has trashed Don in the past in public, that she was giving up on him but he and she seem to still have a working relationship.

Dog Man Star

BonnieSituation wrote: »

In no way was Manic Moran trashing Trudeau, and I would not be the biggest fan of some of what MM posts at the best of times. He's pretty much saying it as it is. Trudeau is having a chronically awful year.




He could go into coalition with the NDP based on the current seat projections. As unlikely and as unpalatable as that might be for some, having the PC return to power is anathema to NDP voters.

This has nothing to with Trump, just pure distraction. Amazed Moran has not been given a warning for this, he's done it over and over. Moran may be (inexplicably) in the US military, it gives him no right to distract, obfusticate or to mislead his hero Trump's behaviour. Trashing Trudeau here is an obvious attempt to distract and I am tired of it. He bases Canadian's opinion on Trudeau on a weekend in Toronto, a total nonsense. Why his nonsensical cultish views should be respected here is a mystery. I suppose criticising his employer is a no go in the US. He should be perma-banned from this forum for bias. Surely, an employee of Trump should be perma-banned from a Trump discussion thread?

BonnieSituation

Dog Man Star wrote: »

This has nothing to with Trump, just pure distraction. Amazed Moran has not been given a warning for this, he's done it over and over. Moran may be (inexplicably) in the US military, it gives him no right to distract, obfusticate or to mislead his hero Trump's behaviour. Trashing Trudeau here is an obvious attempt to distract and I am tired of it. He bases Canadian's opinion on Trudeau on a weekend in Toronto, a total nonsense. Why his nonsensical cultish views should be respected here is a mystery. I suppose criticising his employer is a no go in the US. He should be perma-banned from this forum for bias. Surely, an employee of Trump should be perma-banned from a Trump discussion thread?

He didn't trash Trudeau though.

Whatever about the comments being off-topic.

Dog Man Star

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He didn't trash Trudeau though.

Whatever about the comments being off-topic.

As an employee of Trump, should he be allowed to post here?

Of course, no. Absolutely not. He should be perma-banned immediately. He is 100% politically biased. His employment and remuneration is decided by Trump. He has NO BUSINESS here debating Trump's policies. He needs to be BANNED IMMEDIATELY

And if he is not, well maybe the Irish media will be curious to why Boards is publishing the views of Trump's employees, in a free forum discussing Trump. Don't have me make that step. Ban Moran today, call off all this.

Manic Moran

Dog Man Star wrote: »

As an employee of Trump, should he be allowed to post here?

Of course, no. Absolutely not. He should be perma-banned immediately. He is 100% politically biased. His employment and remuneration is decided by Trump. He has NO BUSINESS here debating Trump's policies. He needs to be BANNED IMMEDIATELY

Unsure if serious, but for the record, Trump is not in my chain of command, neither is he, nor has he ever been, my employer.

When in uniform, I work for Steve Sisolak.

ancapailldorcha

Dog Man Star wrote: »

As an employee of Trump, should he be allowed to post here?

Of course, no. Absolutely not. He should be perma-banned immediately. He is 100% politically biased. His employment and remuneration is decided by Trump. He has NO BUSINESS here debating Trump's policies. He needs to be BANNED IMMEDIATELY

And if he is not, well maybe the Irish media will be curious to why Boards is publishing the views of Trump's employees, in a free forum discussing Trump. Don't have me make that step. Ban Moran today, call off all this.

Bang out of order. Banned.

Itssoeasy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Dog Man Star wrote: »

As an employee of Trump, should he be allowed to post here?

Of course, no. Absolutely not. He should be perma-banned immediately. He is 100% politically biased. His employment and remuneration is decided by Trump. He has NO BUSINESS here debating Trump's policies. He needs to be BANNED IMMEDIATELY

Unsure if serious, but for the record, Trump is not in my chain of command, neither is he, nor has he ever been, my employer.

When in uniform, I work for Steve Sisolak.

Are you in the us army then ?