Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote: »

For what its worth I don't think I have even indicated my political leaning. I would have voted for Hilary in the last election, as I consider myself a centrist, and this is despite Hilary playing the woman card, which I despise. I used to consider myself left, until the left moves so far away from me, they are now a tiny dot on the horizon. So can we now stop with the wild insinuations and accusations?

"The left" didn't go anywhere, you just moved right because you don't like SJW. You must listen to the JRE too much. The fact that you said Hilary played the woman card exposes where you are now. You are conflating one spectrum of an ideology (extreme SJW) to the whole "Left" movement. As stated 1 million times already, I don't know anyone (on here or) in the real World who supports voting for people because they are women, a certain race or sexual identity etc or shutting down people like Ben Shapiro at college campus's. So who exactly are you rallying against? Yes the Left eats its own and has circular firing squads like this week with Biden and Booker, which is not ideal for getting elected, but the flip side is to always following the same script even when it is the most dishonest and amoral line to take, like the GOP/Trump sycophants do every news cycle.

The Democrats are still pro :environment, science, education, infrastructure, fiscal responsibility, equality. The GOP are for the opposite, so unless there is a 3rd party in the US you must support the GOP now with the endless lies and corruption all because some fools wear blue hair and throw milkshakes.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Actually I was half joking, you must not have endured(lucky you) much of the Conway.

But go on, link me to where people say they admire Trump. All I found about admiring Trump was a far right Brazilian politician and a UAE businessman. (obviously ignoring sarcasm)

He stands in stadiums where people chant his name every week.

aloyisious

Harping back to the decision by Don to call a halt to any retaliatory strike against Iran after the downing of the US UAV, I see Iran let the world know almost two days later that the UAV was accompanied by a larger manned aircraft with a crew of 30+ and the US did not initially mention that/has not denied it. The travelling height of the UAV at the time of its downing has been stressed by the Iranians several times.

I'm reading that to suggest the larger craft was an AWAC-type craft and that by the non-downing of it alongside the downing of the UAV, an implicit "we went so far and could have gone farther" message was sent by the Iranians to the US. Publications containing the silhouette-history of an AWAC would also list the approximate crew numbers for an AWAC.
If so, a correct understanding in the US of such a message could explain the cancelling of the strike order and Don's quote about casualty numbers on the Iranian side - message received and understood.

The above is only conjecture on my part.

Brian?

aloyisious wrote: »

Harping back to the decision by Don to call a halt to any retaliatory strike against Iran after the downing of the US UAV, I see Iran let the world know almost two days later that the UAV was accompanied by a larger manned aircraft with a crew of 30+ and the US did not initially mention that/has not denied it. The travelling height of the UAV at the time of its downing has been stressed by the Iranians several times.

I'm reading that to suggest the larger craft was an AWAC-type craft and that by the non-downing of it alongside the downing of the UAV, an implicit "we went so far and could have gone farther" message was sent by the Iranians to the US. Publications containing the silhouette-history of an AWAC would also list the approximate crew numbers for an AWAC.
If so, a correct understanding in the US of such a message could explain the cancelling of the strike order and Don's quote about casualty numbers on the Iranian side - message received and understood.

The above is only conjecture on my part.

What altitude was the drone flying at? It makes no sense for an AWAC to fly inside Iranian air space. They can cover 312,000km2 flying at 10,000m. They can happily spy on Iran from somewhere over Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

aloyisious

Brian? wrote: »

What altitude was the drone flying at? It makes no sense for an AWAC to fly inside Iranian air space. They can cover 312,000km2 flying at 10,000m. They can happily spy on Iran from somewhere over Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

The news item from Iran [Govt Rep] with the height-figure was on CNN. It mentioned a figure of several thousand above ground - A HIEGHT THAT SURPRISED ME - when the UAV was struck by the Iranian missile. Unfortunately I'm unsure how to get access to that particular short [several seconds] clip of CNN news [translated] of the Iranian minister mentioning the travelling height of the UAV without trawling through the CNN news podcasts for hours but the clip was in yesterdays broadcasts.


I'm minded that without the US confirming the presence of the other aircraft mentioned in the Iranian clip, there will actually be nothing to confirm or deny its presence or of its possible reason for being there.

TomOnBoard

Brian? wrote: »

What altitude was the drone flying at? It makes no sense for an AWAC to fly inside Iranian air space. They can cover 312,000km2 flying at 10,000m. They can happily spy on Iran from somewhere over Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

The drone could operate at altitude up 18,000 m +. I haven't read any reports of the actual altitude when it was taken out. The Iranians claim that the accompanying crewed aircraft was a P-8 rather than an AWACS. The P-8 is a maritime surveillance aircraft that can operate as low as 60m above the ocean.

A plausible rationale for a 2-aircraft operation could be that the drone was only placed into UAE service very recently and the operation of the two aircraft in tandem would allow a wall of surveil!ance assets to be used , with the P-8 crew being able to conduct ocean surface and submarine surveillance, while at the same time being able to control the much higher altitude drone that can see beyond the curvature of the earth if it chooses.

aloyisious

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The drone could operate at altitude up 18,000 m +. I haven't read any reports of the actual altitude when it was taken out. The Iranians claim that the accompanying crewed aircraft was a P-8 rather than an AWACS.

I had a memory of the claimed height being around 10,000 for the drone but thought "wow, that's high for a successful downing by a missile, let alone being a useful height for military hardware on a surveillance mission". That [plus the P-8] then leads on to another completely different topic [hardware capability and purpose] beyond the "Don" issue. Ta for the P-8 info BTW, interesting read on its capabilities.

TomOnBoard

For anyone interested in reading the Iranian perspective on some of this Persian Gulf stuff, this is the Republican Guard controlled website, Iran Front Page News:

https://ifpnews.com/

And for the non-Saudi perspective, good old Al Jazeera hasn't gone away...

https://www.aljazeera.com/

Outlaw Pete

pixelburp wrote: »

He has evangelical pastors rationalising his noted infidility as part of god's plan, so we're past satire.

Look, I have criticized Trump on this and so if and when he does something worthy of condemnation, I'll be there along with everything else, but the reason things have not stuck, to the degree that the lefties would like, is because they generally had no damn basis in fact. It's mostly (so far at least) been about taking something he has said out of context or misinterpreting what he has said.

...whatever the gaff, he has walked away. 100 other politicians would be disgraced, and that's not a partisan, hyperbolic thing to say.

Sure you're admitting it yourself when you refer to these things as "gaffs". A gaff should not resort to someone losing their job. I simple don't see anything that he has done which should resulted in the hounding that he has had to endure.

We don't know if this latest accusation is true or not ..... but normal people - even normal celebrities or politicians - do not face a succession of public sexual assault accusations. It's not about finding something "to stick"

Yes, but these aren't normal times. We are now living in an age where accusations of sexual assault have been weaponized. Look at the Kavanaugh situation for heaven sake. The full weight of the DNC was put behind sketchy allegations, many of which were false.

So, is this latest allegation true?

Well, who can say for sure,,l but I'd suggest her claims be taken with a large bag of salt myself given she appears to be slightly unhinged, to say the least. Her latest book a surefire indicator of that.............

jochenstacker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sure you're admitting it yourself when you refer to these things as "gaffs". A gaff should not resort to someone losing their job. I simple don't see anything that he has done which should resulted in the hounding that he has had to endure.

Absolutely every single thing Trump has done, from "lock her up" to "murderers and drug dealers" to "sh*thole countries", redefining spousal assault and a thousand ignorant, hateful and idiotic things he's said and done, he absolutely deserves every tiny bit of sh*t thrown at him.
If you behave like an utter arsehole, you should not complain when people treat you as such and go out of their way to trip you up.

TomOnBoard

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, but these aren't normal times. We are now living in an age where accusations of sexual assault have been weaponized. Look at the Kavanaugh situation for heaven sake. The full weight of the DNC was put behind sketchy allegations, many of which were false.

So, is this latest allegation true?

Well, who can say for sure,,l but I'd suggest her claims be taken with a large bag of salt myself given she appears to be slightly unhinged, to say the least. Her latest book a surefire indicator of that.............

What a horribly misogynist perspective...

Firstly, when a person says that "The full weight of the DNC was put behind sketchy allegations, many of which were false", it surely lets the mask slip! By definition, if many were false, some of them were true! So, how can a poster be satisfied that Kavanaugh, against whom some true allegations of sexual assault were made (by your own admissison) is now a Supreme Court Justice? Were you satisfied that his victim(s) have been pilloried and defiled by Kavanaugh's supporters in the process?

And now, your judgement of her as unhinged and therefore not credible, based on the cover of a book alone, qualifies you to rubbish yet another possible victim of yet another sexual deviant, who has become POTUS?

Trump would be proud of such mind-bending attempts at rationalisation by one of his followers.

Yuck!

FrostyJack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, I have criticized Trump on this and so if and when he does something worthy of condemnation, I'll be there along with everything else, but the reason things have not stuck, to the degree that the lefties would like, is because they generally had no damn basis in fact. It's mostly (so far at least) been about taking something he has said out of context or misinterpreting what he has said.

Here's a quick list of things he has done that there are facts about but you probably never read up on or ignored as fake news. I am not going to flood they with links but they are all easy to google. Trump University, The Central Park 5, the obstruction outlined in the Mueller report, the wanting for Russia to interfere in the election outlined in same report, going on National tv and saying he would do again, placing people who have no business in the positions in his cabinet as they are either no where near qualified or put in solely to bring the department down or profit from it (Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Energy), 11,000 plus verifiable lies, people in concentration camps at the border, separating children from parents, golfing all the time on tax payers money, enriching himself and family with said tax payers money at his resorts, attacks on free press and free speech. That is just off the top of my head, there are tons of stuff which at 100% verifiable yet as we need tax and bank records like sell property for inflated prices to cover money laundering and illegal gain. Anything specific you can find I will gladly help you anyone else to break out of the bubble.

Edit here is an old link that might save you time:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/opinion/trump-administration-corruption-conflicts.html

jochenstacker

Basically Trump ran a campaign and runs his administration based on spite, divisiveness and hyper partisanship.
He simply reaps what he sows. He wanted it, he got it.
So I don't know why people complain he is somehow the victim in all this.
He is the architect of his own downfall and I'm sure he'll go to his grave as the poor, downtrodden victim.
Well, at least if he doesn't learn from his mistakes, he gets to suffer from them.

FrostyJack

jochenstacker wrote: »

Basically Trump ran a campaign and runs his administration based on spite, divisiveness and hyper partisanship.
He simply reaps what he sows. He wanted it, he got it.
So I don't know why people complain he is somehow the victim in all this.
He is the architect of his own downfall and I'm sure he'll go to his grave as the poor, downtrodden victim.
Well, at least if he doesn't learn from his mistakes, he gets to suffer from them.

The real problem that Trump has exposed is what will come after him (if there is an after him), someone who doesn't tweet like a child or talk nonsense at press conferences, could easily gather support from outside his base. If people still support him over everything, imagine someone actually intelligent what they could get away with. If he is ousted in 2020 or 2024 and economy crashes, the next president will be lambasted until the next GOP offering comes along and start if all again. Remove all safe guards, ramp up the debt, start a few wars and then blame the Democrat again for not having an amazing economy. Rinse and repeat.

Stallingrad

[quote="jochenstacker;110500807" he'll go to his grave as the poor, downtrodden victim.[/quote]

Will anyone bother attending to witness it? Wonder how many of these 'friends' he keeps talking about will be there?

FrostyJack

Stallingrad wrote: »

Will anyone bother attending to witness it? Wonder how many of these 'friends' he keeps talking about will be there?

Will they bother to lower the flag at the Whitehouse? A flag with USS McCann across it would be a nice touch, he does love the military.

Igotadose

Saw this online: “Iran’s ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region,”

Not surprising the US military isn't as good as it's paid to be; amazing amounts of money spent, with mediocre results. The drone in question supposedly costs $130 million, probably shot down with a $50,000 missile

Timberrrrrrrr

Igotadose wrote: »

Saw this online: “Iran’s ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region,”

Not surprising the US military isn't as good as it's paid to be; amazing amounts of money spent, with mediocre results. The drone in question supposedly costs $130 million, probably shot down with a $50,000 missile

Also, Iran has probably been preparing for this scenario for a long time now, tjey could have missile batteries dotted all around the country along with god knows what other defensive positions.

Mass movements and construction would be noticed but if they have took the long slow road to shore up defences then the US could be making a huge mistake trying to bully them.

Igotadose

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Also, Iran has probably been preparing for this scenario for a long time now, tjey could have missile batteries dotted all around the country along with god knows what other defensive positions.

Mass movements and construction would be noticed but if they have took the long slow road to shore up defences then the US could be making a huge mistake trying to bully them.

Apparently, the Iranians used their "Khordad 3" missile system, which is a mobile system, so very difficult to track should it come to that. And no doubt far less expensive than that drone.

https://www.janes.com/article/89422/global-hawk-shootdown-validates-iran-s-indigenous-sam-capabilities

Igotadose

Trump infamously said 'there were good people on both sides' in Charlottesville, claiming there were peaceful protesters who were rallying against removal of the Confederate statues. Well, that 'rally' was organized by the neo-nazi's, in fact, they applied for the permits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Permits_and_court_case

So, neo-nazi's, or those rallying *at their rally*, are good people? Or is Trump merely blathering what one of his clueless aides told him? That the ACLU supported the Neo-nazi's permit application was not because the ACLU is pro-Nazi; people have a right to protest, the ACLU supported the Skokie Nazi march years ago, so they're being consistent.

But, good people on the Neo-nazi side? Only Trump thinks so. They don't exist.

TomOnBoard

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Also, Iran has probably been preparing for this scenario for a long time now, tjey could have missile batteries dotted all around the country along with god knows what other defensive positions.

Mass movements and construction would be noticed but if they have took the long slow road to shore up defences then the US could be making a huge mistake trying to bully them.

The indications are it may have been a Buk SA-17 which is from the same family of Russian missiles that took down the Malaysian Jet over Ukraine. These are mobile, radar- guided units that were given by Russia to Iran.

Dog Man Star

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, I have criticized Trump on this and so if and when he does something worthy of condemnation, I'll be there along with everything else, but the reason things have not stuck, to the degree that the lefties would like, is because they generally had no damn basis in fact. It's mostly (so far at least) been about taking something he has said out of context or misinterpreting what he has said.



Sure you're admitting it yourself when you refer to these things as "gaffs". A gaff should not resort to someone losing their job. I simple don't see anything that he has done which should resulted in the hounding that he has had to endure.



Yes, but these aren't normal times. We are now living in an age where accusations of sexual assault have been weaponized. Look at the Kavanaugh situation for heaven sake. The full weight of the DNC was put behind sketchy allegations, many of which were false.

So, is this latest allegation true?

Well, who can say for sure,,l but I'd suggest her claims be taken with a large bag of salt myself given she appears to be slightly unhinged, to say the least. Her latest book a surefire indicator of that.............

Elizabeth Carroll is a very successful journalist, who lives in upstate New York. Are you suggesting that she invented this very detailed story to enhance her book sales? She does not need the money. So why has she told this story? To sell books? She invented this highly detailed story to sell her book? So she published the entire story to sell her book that has no more details other than those details free to view? And she said she laughed while Trump was raping her? And two of her friends corroborate her story? And it is still to sell her book? Even though she is a millionaire? And yet she still says she laughed as he raped her? Why would she say she laughed as he raped her? Doesn't this ruin her credibility? Yet she still says it?

Isn't it possible he did rape her? Isn't it possible the other 20 women are telling the truth? Do you not care?
Or maybe you, me and the world knows that Trump did rape her. And maybe you don't care. That's on your conscience.

pixelburp

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, who can say for sure,,l but I'd suggest her claims be taken with a large bag of salt myself given she appears to be slightly unhinged, to say the least. Her latest book a surefire indicator of that.............

Ah, the old "selling a book" argument. Without even looking at the details, the "a modest proposal" in the title reads like a clear wink towards Jonathan Swift's famous satire of the same name. So it's obviously meant as a triggering title, tongue in cheek. I guess mission accomplished?

As mentioned she's a successful columnist at Ele for 25 years, she scarcely needs the money or attention. That is NOT a ringing endorsement of her side of the story, only that she has nothing to gain from this, especially having seen how much the Reps eviscerated Blasey-Ford, whom I personally did believe.

Rape is a tricky crime to prove because by its very nature, it IS a private act so nearly always comes down to he-said, she-said. IIRC most convictions in the US are down to this. So coming down on one side or another does involve personal opinion and judgement on whose testimony is credible.

Professor Moriarty

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Elizabeth Carroll is a very successful journalist, who lives in upstate New York. Are you suggesting that she invented this very detailed story to enhance her book sales? She does not need the money. So why has she told this story? To sell books? She invented this highly detailed story to sell her book? So she published the entire story to sell her book that has no more details other than those details free to view? And she said she laughed while Trump was raping her? And two of her friends corroborate her story? And it is still to sell her book? Even though she is a millionaire? And yet she still says she laughed as he raped her? Why would she say she laughed as he raped her? Doesn't this ruin her credibility? Yet she still says it?

Isn't it possible he did rape her? Isn't it possible the other 20 women are telling the truth? Do you not care?

No. The Donald's integrity is defended come what may. All of those women are liars. Mueller is a liar. The FBI are liars. The Justice Department are liars. Reporters are liars etcetera ad nauseam. Everyone who criticises The Donald is a liar. The Donald is never wrong because 'lefties' cannot be seen to be right.

Dog Man Star

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah, the old "selling a book" argument. Without even looking at the details, the "a modest proposal" in the title reads like a clear wink towards Jonathan Swift's famous satire of the same name. So it's obviously meant as a triggering title, tongue in cheek. I guess mission accomplished?

As mentioned she's a successful columnist at Ele for 25 years, she scarcely needs the money or attention. That is NOT a ringing endorsement of her side of the story, only that she has nothing to gain from this, especially having seen how much the Reps eviscerated Blasey-Ford, whom I personally did believe.

Rape is a tricky crime to prove because by its very nature, it IS a private act so nearly always comes down to he-said, she-said. IIRC most convictions in the US are down to this. So coming down on one side or another does involve personal opinion and judgement on whose testimony is credible.

You're absolutely right. The details on her rape is astonishing, we all know he did it. She is inviting nothing but trouble on herself, but eventually the dam breaks. Christine Blasey-Ford may feel that she achieved nothing, but she is wrong. She is a hero. None of this would have happened without her.

Can you imagine doing what Trump did? What level of depravity it takes to do that? To rip a woman's tights down and ram your cock in? Who does that? Imagine the level of violence and agrression to do that.

TomOnBoard

An interesting twist on this case is that Ms Carroll was wearing a garment called a coat dress on the day. Following the incident, at some point, she went home and simply put the coat dress into her wardrobe. She could never wear it again. The coat dress was never laundered- it remains in her wardrobe behind some raincoats to this day.

Interesting fact that! Science says that DNA has a half-life of 510 years! And, based on the pawing that he engaged in, including rushed penetration, I'm sure some DNA will have transferred onto the dress-coat! If I was the Donald, I'd be pretty antsy right about now!!

I saw the lady interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell last night. IMO, she's either a better actress than Meryl Streep, or she was raped! But sure, who am I to have an opinion? I fully believed Blasey-Ford also, which is why I can never excuse how the whole Kavanaugh thing was handled! Anyway, Carroll says she is not interested in pressing charges- and she can, because there's no Statute of Limitations on Rape in New York. She simply considers herself lucky to have escaped his horrible clutches!

Manic Moran

Global Hawk is more of a stategic surveillance asset focusing on land, the P-8 is a tactical one focusing on submarines. It is far more likely that both happened to be within reach of Iranian SAM sites at the same time without any particular knowledge or co-ordination between the two. Since the P8 is basically a 737 painted grey, shooting it down would hardly be a feat at any particular range.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Global Hawk is more of a stategic surveillance asset focusing on land, the P-8 is a tactical one focusing on submarines. It is far more likely that both happened to be within reach of Iranian SAM sites at the same time without any particular knowledge or co-ordination between the two. Since the P8 is basically a 737 painted grey, shooting it down would hardly be a feat at any particular range.

Just in passing, would there be an ETA for the US carrier battle group to arrive in the Persian Gulf area, seeing as the P-8 is working the area? I'm assuming that land-based port watchers will be out and about.

Water John

It is not up to Carroll as to whether the State of NY investigates. That is an issue for the prosecutors office, now that it is brought to their attention. I'm sure they may follow up and as you say, examine the dress.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

He stands in stadiums where people chant his name every week.

Do you or anyone else even get the joke? Maybe it was a bad joke, but please tell me at least you saw my attempt at humour here. I guess you have to know who Kellyanne Conway is.

Kimsang wrote: »

I am yet to see anyone say they admire Trump. (apart from maybe his family, his employees or Kelly-Anne Conway)

Also, getting your name chanted in stadiums doesn't necessarily mean you admire someone. Support and admiration are two different things.