Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Missed this yesterday given the MSM spent much of the day lying about Trump calling the Danish PM nasty, but seems he signed an executive order wiping out $750m in federal student loan debt for disabled veterans:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164331482397204481


More great presidential actions from Donald J.

I sign stuff all the time. If this is something that he pushed for himself, then fair play to him. If he just wrote his name on something that crossed his desk, it's hardly a "great presidential action".

Das Reich

pixelburp wrote: »

Brazil is its own depressing political situation for sure, for the reasons revolving around the Amazon. Bolsonaro first sacked the head of their space agency for linking recent satellite imagery with climate change, while just this week IIRC he claimed the fires were caused by environmentalists ... somehow. As said only international pressure might arrest his criminal negligence, but even then I wouldn't be sure.

Yes very depressing, homicides down 25% compared with same period of last year, they could end the year with less 12.000 murdered people. Number of e unemployment is also reducing and the stock enchange is just going up. So depressing, all we need is remove him and replace with the corrupt left wing.

duploelabs

Das Reich wrote: »

Yes very depressing, homicides down 25% compared with same period of last year, they could end the year with less 12.000 murdered people. Number of e unemployment is also reducing and the stock enchange is just going up. So depressing, all we need is remove him and replace with the corrupt left wing.

Citation please

pixelburp

Das Reich wrote: »

Yes very depressing, homicides down 25% compared with same period of last year, they could end the year with less 12.000 murdered people. Number of e unemployment is also reducing and the stock enchange is just going up. So depressing, all we need is remove him and replace with the corrupt left wing.

Well I was talking about his impact on the environment, the Amazon and his vocal disdain for anything resembling preservation thereof, something that will further wreck our earth; all of which I suspect you know but hey ho, it's easier to snark than admit damage to something that is well estbablished. It's off topic either way , so we'll leave it at that.

Quin_Dub

Das Reich wrote: »

Yes very depressing, homicides down 25% compared with same period of last year, they could end the year with less 12.000 murdered people. Number of e unemployment is also reducing and the stock enchange is just going up. So depressing, all we need is remove him and replace with the corrupt left wing.

The homicide rate did drop significantly in 2018 vs 2017 - Before Bolsonaro

I can't find any data about the homicide rate for 2019 since Bolsonaro took over.

MadYaker

Gbear wrote: »

As far as I can discover, this EO does literally nothing, as the scheme has already been on the books for decades.

It's just pretending to be nice to veterans to nab some votes.

Not really. Disabled vets are entitled to student debt relief but for some reason there are a lot who haven’t availed of it. Trump is removing the need for them to apply for the debt relief. Only affects about 20,000 people or so. Seems an odd situation, if they’re entitled to debt relief you’d think they’d all be applying for it.

Based on this I’m guessing trump would be supportive of the likes of Bernie Sanders proposals to tackle student debt. It’s a huge problem in the US.

Cody montana

Das Reich wrote: »

Yes very depressing, homicides down 25% compared with same period of last year, they could end the year with less 12.000 murdered people. Number of e unemployment is also reducing and the stock enchange is just going up. So depressing, all we need is remove him and replace with the corrupt left wing.

And when did he become president?

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Missed this yesterday given the MSM spent much of the day lying about Trump calling the Danish PM nasty [word soup snip]

More great presidential actions from Donald J.

Once again, Pete, he called the PM "nasty".

He was angry at being called out on an absurd notion - and retaliated the only way he knows how : name calling.

You can perform whatever mental gymnastics you feel necessary to condone this in your head, but in the end it's simply a mark of the intellectual shallowness of Trump that you find yourself here, in contortions, trying to defend an imbecile.

Pa ElGrande

Trump and R.N.C. Raised $105 Million in 2nd Quarter, a Sign He Will Have Far More Money Than in 2016
July 2, 2019

Trump campaign officials said they received 725,000 individual donations online, with supporters giving an average of $48 — small-donor enthusiasm that was unprecedented in Republican politics, according to a committee official, who noted it was the first time the Republican National Committee attracted a larger share of donations under $200 than the Democratic National Committee.


source

Traditionally, the Republicans have had the image that they are the party of the rich and corporations, despite the fact that the bankers would not donate to Trump in 2016 and it all went to Hillary Clinton. Looks like Joe Biden is the Democrats preferred middle of the road candidate, that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are just too far out there for middle America, regardless of being Democrat or Republican voters. Thus far, it still appears that Trump will win the 2020 election.

Dytalus

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Once again, Pete, he called the PM "nasty".

He was angry at being called out on an absurd notion - and retaliated the only way he knows how : name calling.

You can perform whatever mental gymnastics you feel necessary to condone this in your head, but in the end it's simply a mark of the intellectual shallowness of Trump that you find yourself here, in contortions, trying to defend an imbecile.

To be entirely fair, no he didn't.

"I thought that the prime minister's statement that it was absurd, that it was an absurd idea was nasty," he said.

URL="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49423968"]Source[/URL

It's pretty clear he meant the statement was nasty. Or rather, that is what he said. He didn't call the Danish PM nasty. What is of note is that this is not the first time this 'nasty' debacle has shown up under his presidency. And it's always directed towards women. Or, if he remembers to be candid about it, the things they say.

• He called Hillary Clinton a "nasty woman" in their third presidential debate, 2016.
  https://twitter.com/THR/status/788931584028139521
• Senator Kamala Harris was "probably very nasty" during Barr's hearing.
  https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1123746143660380161
• Meghan Markle
• Mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulín Cruz, "must be very nasty to Trump" (why does he refer to himself in the third person so often? Weird).
  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/914087234869047296
• And, of course, Nancy Pelosi is a "nasty, vindictive" woman.
  https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1136824676334919683

So yes, he didn't specifically call the Danish PM 'nasty' so much as she said 'nasty' things to him - using his words. But let's not let the technicality of it distract from the fact that he uses the term explicitly with respect to women who stand up to him. He may not have said she herself was nasty, but I think it pretty likely that he thought it.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, can you quote where that happened, Tom. Thanks.

Seems you have misread my post.......

The point of citing the charter was not to imply that the user had attacked me, as you have mistakenly inferred, but to point out the irony (as I said) that here was a user on Boards suggesting there is no distinction between the two things, attacking a comment and attacking the person who made it, when in fact the rules of Boards make a clear distinction between those two things.

Getting back to the difference of opinion between the Danish PM and Don, how does one get past the fact that the words complained about were from specific thinking persons, and presumably not used ad hoc or in jest? Don stated the words complained of were NASTY. There has to have been a thought in Don's mind that the PM was being nasty to him as the words were directed towards his suggestion of buying Greenland and a reflection on him. Maybe by this time, we're dancing on the heads of pins about this particular inter-country matter and it's becoming another distraction.

26000 Elephants

Dytalus wrote: »

To be entirely fair, no he didn't.

Yes he did. You can try and "specific" all you like - His intention was to call her "nasty" - as he has done on many occasions previously to people who expose his ignorance.

So yes, he didn't specifically call the Danish PM 'nasty' so much as she said 'nasty' things to him - using his words.

Again, I will leave the mental gymnastics to others.

abff

I know I may be guilty of falling foul of confirmation bias, but I listened to all those clips and, to me, Trump comes across as a spoiled, petulant brat just about every time he opens his mouth.

serfboard

Dytalus wrote: »

What is of note is that this is not the first time this 'nasty' debacle has shown up under his presidency. And it's always directed towards women.

Yep, deliberate use of that word directed at his female targets, just as he deliberately uses the word infested towards his black targets.

spacecoyote

And to likely pile more pressure on the US to bail US industries out further, China have announced another round of tariffs to kick in from September 1st, with more to kick in from December:

https://www.ft.com/content/37f5900e-c5a1-11e9-a8e9-296ca66511c9

Those fiscal conservatives will obviously be up in arms about any further impact to the deficit :rolleyes:

Dytalus

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Yes he did. You can try and "specific" all you like - His intention was to call her "nasty" - as he has done on many occasions previously to people who expose his ignorance.

Again, I will leave the mental gymnastics to others.

I don't disagree what his intentions were. I disagree with misquoting him and using the incorrect quote as evidence. You don't need to say "he called her nasty", you just need to say "he thinks she's nasty". It's not mental gymnastics to use the actual quote, and I believe it strengthens the argument.

The problem with misquoting him is it gives an easy target to dismiss our calling out his sexism, and prevents Trump supporters from having to face up to the very obvious fact that he considers women who oppose him 'nasty'. It's a derogatory, dismissive statement, and I want them (in this thread and beyond) to publicly own up to thinking it's okay. I know I'm expecting too much of a great deal of Cult45 in expecting them actually address his sexist comments of 'nasty women'. They're probably just going to show some DOW numbers or go on about some new "But Obama" or "But Hillary" cycle. But if you give them the avenue of "well akshully he didn't call her nasty" it just feeds into their victim complex and, more crucially, sounds valid to outsiders looking in.

"Well, they're right that it isn't what he said....maybe they have a point that everyone's unfair to Trump." Most of the world isn't engaged in politics like people on a Politics board would be. Don't let them catch a glimpse of Cult45's excuses being remotely correct, because if they see that it's a slippery slope to disregarding a lot of criticisms. You see it happen all the time.

I agree entirely he meant "She's nasty". As I showed, he's said it directly many times before. But it isn't what he said. He's an awful enough individual we don't need to start misquoting him to point it out. It's like calling out dog whistling - for the people who don't know what dog whistling is and are new to a conversation, they might not understand why you've called someone racist/sexist/bigoted. Start at the beginning, explain why what they said was wrong, and you might sway someone.

Never his supporters, they'll excuse him time and again. But the neutrals and independents. That is, after all, what will win the election.

abff wrote: »

I know I may be guilty of falling foul of confirmation bias, but I listened to all those clips and, to me, Trump comes across as a spoiled, petulant brat just about every time he opens his mouth.

He is a petulant, spoiled brat. He doesn't just 'come across' as one.

If it was the occasional time, then maybe you could excuse it and use 'comes across as' or say it's only certain topics that set him off. But literally everytime someone goes against him he reacts in an exceedingly childish way and almost always throws insults.

He is a spoiled brat, and he is petulant. No need to be coy about saying it.

serfboard wrote: »

Yep, deliberate use of that word directed at his female targets, just as he deliberately uses the word infested towards his black targets.

He's pretty blatant about it, and the refusal of the media to call him out on it to his face when he says it (rather than an hour later in a headline) infuriates me.

not_quite_last

But when it comes to Trump now, can anyone be neutral?

Back in 2016, when few knew who he really was, maybe you could claim to be neutral.
Now, with everything he's done, I don't think you can be. He's shown the world who he is and you either support that or you don't.

Dytalus

not_quite_last wrote: »

But when it comes to Trump now, can anyone be neutral?

Back in 2016, when few knew who he really was, maybe you could claim to be neutral.
Now, with everything he's done, I don't think you can be. He's shown the world who he is and you either support that or you don't.

They shouldn't be, no. Not with how extreme his presidency has been in ruining America's position on the world stage.. But American politics is royally messed up. They have a very serious problem with "they're all as bad as each other" fueled apathy. Millions of them just don't care, or write off complaints against one side as partisan politics no matter how much weight of evidence there is behind them. Their whole country is infected with a unique brand of political apathy, while simultaneously also being enormously politically divided, leading to a firmly neutral group in the middle who...just don't care enough to pay attention.

An awful lot of Americans haven't been impacted by Trump's policies in any massively noticeable way (because they're not minorities or immigrants mostly). So "he can't be that bad".

not_quite_last

Dytalus wrote: »

They shouldn't be, no. Not with how extreme his presidency has been in ruining America's position on the world stage.. But American politics is royally messed up. They have a very serious problem with "they're all as bad as each other" fueled apathy. Millions of them just don't care, or write off complaints against one side as partisan politics no matter how much weight of evidence there is behind them. Their whole country is infected with a unique brand of political apathy, while simultaneously also being enormously politically divided, leading to a firmly neutral group in the middle who...just don't care enough to pay attention.

An awful lot of Americans haven't been impacted by Trump's policies in any massively noticeable way (because they're not minorities or immigrants mostly). So "he can't be that bad".

His policies haven't affected them, I understand that part, but you can't avoid the sh*** he comes out with because it's everywhere in the media.

Can you really say to yourself - if you're american - he calls himself the son of God so he can't be that bad?

Dytalus

not_quite_last wrote: »

His policies haven't affected them, I understand that part, but you can't avoid the sh*** he comes out with because it's everywhere in the media.

Can you really say to yourself - if you're american - he calls himself the son of God so he can't be that bad?

Never underestimate the ability of human beings to ignore things. They have to see it, surely. He's everywhere.

They just don't pay attention. For a lot I can't blame them. When you're living paycheck to paycheck (like 80% of Americans apparently are), you have a great many other priorities than politics. It also contributes to why there's so little public disobedience and protesting - nobody can afford to take time off work to actually protest. "At will" laws are a disease.

Arguably the whole country is structured specifically to make civil disobedience too difficult to carry out. So if your choice is surviving or trying to make a difference....I don't blame people for choosing survival.

not_quite_last

Dytalus wrote: »

Never underestimate the ability of human beings to ignore things. They have to see it, surely. He's everywhere.

They just don't pay attention. For a lot I can't blame them. When you're living paycheck to paycheck (like 80% of Americans apparently are), you have a great many other priorities than politics. It also contributes to why there's so little public disobedience and protesting - nobody can afford to take time off work to actually protest. "At will" laws are a disease.

Arguably the whole country is structured specifically to make civil disobedience too difficult to carry out. So if your choice is surviving or trying to make a difference....I don't blame people for choosing survival.

That makes sense. Unfortunately.

Overheal

Trump team is absolutely livid, cursing etc. that A$AP Rocky hasn’t thanked them for his release from Sweden.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/ungrateful-motherfers-trump-supporters-who-tried-to-free-aap-rocky-are-furious-rapper-didnt-thank-trump/

To be clear, it wasn’t Rocky or his lawyers ever reaching out to the WH, it was Trump’s team trawling for wins with the black community when they came across a ‘media fixer’ who got the WH in touch with Rocky’s lawyer on the WH’s behalf. They wanted to help release Rocky on the condition he thanks them. Fast forward to his release, and within hours they’re reportedly blowing up the lawyers phone asking for the statement of gratitude, so the WH is pissy because they tried to use Rocky as a political pawn and he and his lawyers didn’t play along. Just goes to show it wasn’t a case of Trump wanting to do anything particularly good, just something he thought would be good for him.

duploelabs

One of the Koch brothers dies, that'll hurt the republicans

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49438682

pixelburp

duploelabs wrote: »

One of the Koch brothers dies, that'll hurt the republicans

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49438682

I know one shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but the Koch brothers' influence on Republican politics, and its inexorable movement towards a christian-conservative outlook, has been a net negative to American politics. As I said a few pages back it's a long distance removed from being the party of Lincoln or even Eisenhower, and Koch money - and money in general - has poisoned the political well. Maybe with their passing, there's a small chance of proper political reform.

greenfield21

spacecoyote wrote: »

And to likely pile more pressure on the US to bail US industries out further, China have announced another round of tariffs to kick in from September 1st, with more to kick in from December:

https://www.ft.com/content/37f5900e-c5a1-11e9-a8e9-296ca66511c9

Those fiscal conservatives will obviously be up in arms about any further impact to the deficit :rolleyes:

Yeah terrible putting US interests first. trade deficits increasing year after year. I think everyone knew eventually they had to face up to likes of Germany and china.

Dog Man Star

Trump is now threatening to cease all trade with China. China who is their largest trade partner at $636,000,000,000 a year.

"better off without them" he says.

Beyond parody.

The Senate needs to enact the 25th amendment to remove him as soon as possible.

StringerBell

It's not looking after America's interests, it's literally the only tool he can use without congressional approval so he uses it, to feel like a king/dictator, which is how he views himself.

EltonJohn69

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Trump is now threatening to cease all trade with China. China who is their largest trade partner at $636,000,000,000 a year.

"better off without them" he says.

Beyond parody.

The Senate needs to enact the 25th amendment to remove him as soon as possible.

He is quickly cracking up... I don’t he will be allowed run in 2020.... he seems noticeably more unstable.... as opposed to a stable genius...

StringerBell

Not really, better off letting him have to pull back again on his big talk and use it against him come election time. He literally writes the campaign ads against him all by himself.

The 25th is a pipe dream

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Trump is now threatening to cease all trade with China. China who is their largest trade partner at $636,000,000,000 a year.

"better off without them" he says.

Beyond parody.

The Senate needs to enact the 25th amendment to remove him as soon as possible.

Dog Man Star

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

He is quickly cracking up... I don’t he will be allowed run in 2020.... he seems noticeably more unstable.... as opposed to a stable genius...

I wonder if it is deliberate? To sabotage his campaign so as not to lose. Either way I don't care.

He will be arrested once he leaves the White House, as Mueller clearly stated.