Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."

"They're sending people that have a lot of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

This comes from the top.

"Their rapists.". If it's going to be quoted, it may as well be correct.

batgoat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Their rapists.". If it's going to be quoted, it may as well be correct.

You really overestimate that as improving the line.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Their rapists.". If it's going to be quoted, it may as well be correct.

No they're seems to be correct from context. Their rapists and some I assume are good people does not make sense. Some of their good people? Some Mexicans are good people.

They're rapists and some I assume are good people makes more sense as the immigrants are already established as the subject.

Listen to it. The tone was clearly the third in a list of things they're bringing.

Anyways, who cares. No one will change their minds.

TomOnBoard

pixelburp wrote: »

Looks like Trump's kinda getting his request of "tanks" at the 4th July parade; Bradleys (technically troop carriers I think? *looks at Manic Moran*) have been seen transported into DC last night. Whole thing sounds like it's going to be incredibly jingoistic, even by the metrics of 4th July. Trump has promised his speech would be non-partisan, but I doubt many are taking that at face value.

I know tanks at parades aren't an uncommon sight even in Wester Democracies (in fact it's debatable this whole avenue of Trumps desires stemmed from his presence at France's own Bastille Parade), but I can understand why military hardware rolling through a parade on US soil feels tonally jarring. Many would have grown up watching Red Square parades, the sight of tanks in a parade becoming emblematic of military or authoritarian rule. But given he thinks "bussing" was just a transport logistics problem, history isn't Trump's strong suit.

I've been at a few 4th July celebrations over the years, and they've always been non-partisan celebrations of the creation of the USA. It's a day to partaaaay! It's NOT a day for politics and associated division and strife. It is also not an overtly jingoistic day.

This one seems to have been hijacked by a narcissistic leader purely so that he can have people looking at, and lauding 'Great Leader Trump'! By definition therefore, he's going to alienate over half the people who would usually be there. PAthetic!

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Listen to it. The tone was clearly the third in a list of things they're bringing.

Anyways, who cares. No one will change their minds.

What difference does it make? Genuine question.

"They're rapists" - implies some of them are rapists
(bringing) "their rapists" - implies some of them are rapists

I really don't see how it has any discernible difference other than perhaps it could be argued that they might mean a different proportion of them are rapists... but that's really not any better and doesn't change what he's saying.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

What difference does it make? Genuine question.

Not much in isolation now but in 2015, "Trump said Mexicans are rapists." was everywhere.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Not much in isolation now but in 2015, "Trump said Mexicans are rapists." was everywhere.

I do agree that that rhetoric was taking it too far as it implied he was saying they were all rapists. However, I think considering he qualifies his statement with "And some, I assume, are good people", it does seem like he was saying the majority of the Mexicans coming into the US were bad people (with a subset of those being rapists), and a minority were good people. Either way, I don't think the distinction between "They're rapists" and "their rapists" really has any impact on what it is Trump was actually saying.

serfboard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump is holding a rally the Same day as mueller will be testifying before congress.

everlast75 wrote: »

If that is the case, he is failing to see the writing on the wall.

Viewing figures for his rallies are dropping, even on Fox.

MSNBC AND CNN don't cover them.

His tweets aren't even getting as much traction as they used to.

A rally isn't going to control *any* narrative, especially that day. Even on a slow news day its "more of the same old catchphrases" with not much heed being paid.

And given those facts, I expect Trump to pull a really outrageous claim from out of his ass to grab the narrative - something on the level of "Obama founded ISIS".

Igotadose

serfboard wrote: »

And given those facts, I expect Trump to pull a really outrageous claim from out of his ass to grab the narrative - something on the level of "Obama founded ISIS".

He'll have a big audience tomorrow for his speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Big-time reelection campaign opportunity for him.

everlast75

Igotadose wrote: »

He'll have a big audience tomorrow for his speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Big-time reelection campaign opportunity for him.

Maybe have some Trump drinking game. Everytime he says "no collusion", "fake news", "angry Democrats", "Hillary" or "believe me", you've to take a shot.

amandstu

Penn wrote: »

What difference does it make? Genuine question.

"They're rapists" - implies some of them are rapists
(bringing) "their rapists" - implies some of them are rapists

I really don't see how it has any discernible difference other than perhaps it could be argued that they might mean a different proportion of them are rapists... but that's really not any better and doesn't change what he's saying.

Since Trump believes everything he says ,it must have been confusing for him ("what did I just say? ,was it they're or was it their?).

Does what he comes out with have to make sense?I thought that was what his supporters liked about him, blowing smoke up our arses ,watch the man weave etc etc.

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

Looks like Trump's kinda getting his request of "tanks" at the 4th July parade; Bradleys (technically troop carriers I think? *looks at Manic Moran*) have been seen transported into DC last night. Whole thing sounds like it's going to be incredibly jingoistic, even by the metrics of 4th July. Trump has promised his speech would be non-partisan, but I doubt many are taking that at face value.

I know tanks at parades aren't an uncommon sight even in Wester Democracies (in fact it's debatable this whole avenue of Trumps desires stemmed from his presence at France's own Bastille Parade), but I can understand why military hardware rolling through a parade on US soil feels tonally jarring. Many would have grown up watching Red Square parades, the sight of tanks in a parade becoming emblematic of military or authoritarian rule. But given he thinks "bussing" was just a transport logistics problem, history isn't Trump's strong suit.

Photos indicate a small selection, I see a couple of tanks, bradleys, a recovery vehicle and the like, but not in huge numbers. It is also claimed that in order to prevent damage to the infrastructure, they will be static, and not actually part of the parade.

The infrastructure excuse is total BS, they won't damage it, but few people realise it (It's a problem we have with parade organizers as a whole, who think that because a tank is heavy, it is going to damage something. They don't realise they are far less damaging than a truck or car). It seems likely to me, and this is just my guess, that it's the DoD's response to the concerns about politicization of the event. It's not as if the presence of the military is entirely out of place in an event centered about the independence of the country which saw the creation of the US military to achieve it, but they're not happy with the rhetoric around it.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Igotadose wrote: »

He'll have a big audience tomorrow for his speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Big-time reelection campaign opportunity for him.

Maybe have some Trump drinking game. Everytime he says "no collusion", "fake news", "angry Democrats", "Hillary" or "believe me", you've to take a shot.

The trouble is that his rhetoric already wrecks my head! I don't want my liver damaged as well. ..

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Photos indicate a small selection, I see a couple of tanks, bradleys, a recovery vehicle and the like, but not in huge numbers. It is also claimed that in order to prevent damage to the infrastructure, they will be static, and not actually part of the parade.

The infrastructure excuse is total BS, they won't damage it, but few people realise it (It's a problem we have with parade organizers as a whole, who think that because a tank is heavy, it is going to damage something. They don't realise they are far less damaging than a truck or car). It seems likely to me, and this is just my guess, that it's the DoD's response to the concerns about politicization of the event. It's not as if the presence of the military is entirely out of place in an event centered about the independence of the country which saw the creation of the US military to achieve it, but they're not happy with the rhetoric around it.

Has anything like this happened in recent history in the US?

IIRC, I read that Nixon tried to organise some sort of similar event at a time when his popularity was quite low. The public weren't buying it however.

duploelabs

serfboard wrote: »

And given those facts, I expect Trump to pull a really outrageous claim from out of his ass to grab the narrative - something on the level of "Obama founded ISIS".

My money's on something along the lines of "Russia if you're listening...."

everlast75

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The trouble is that his rhetoric already wrecks my head! I don't want my liver damaged as well. ..

Being drunk is probably the best way to watch it.....

I know what you mean though. I literally cannot listen to him anymore. His limited vocabulary, his nonsensical ramblings, and of course his lying..

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Being drunk is probably the best way to watch it.....

I know what you mean though. I literally cannot listen to him anymore. His limited vocabulary, his nonsensical ramblings, and of course his lying..

You're the third biggest poster in this thread.
The biggest on the last one by 2x the person in 2nd.
Almost 2x in the one before that: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057895017

Why do you put yourself through this, in all honesty? You outstrip everyone here in post count, yet you say you literally cannot listen to him anymore. This could be eight years waking up thinking about what to post to people you don't even know. Is a person you hate actually your main hobby?

everlast75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're the third biggest poster in this thread.
The biggest on the last one by 2x the person in 2nd.
Almost 2x in the one before that: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057895017

Why do you put yourself through this, in all honesty? You outstrip everyone here in post count, yet you say you literally cannot listen to him anymore. This could be eight years waking up thinking about what to post to people you don't even know. Is a person you hate actually your main hobby?

Quit the psycho-analysing. It's not your strength.

For your information, I manage to glean plenty of information without listening to a murmur out of is vacant head. I tend to watch what he does, not what he says - as what tumbles out of his mouth is invariably a lie.

If you've a problem with my posting, if it bothers you so much why don't you take a sip of your own medicine and click "ignore".

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not much in isolation now but in 2015, "Trump said Mexicans are rapists." was everywhere.

I mean either way he is still talking about illegal Mexican immigrants whether or not he was saying their, they're.

Still not an acceptable thing to say without proof.

@Manic: France manage it and the damage but the issue is the rhetoric. It is being done entirely because Trump wants a military parade for himself it is all based on one mans ego and he is simply highjacking the US celebration to please himself.

TomOnBoard

Deleted User wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

Being drunk is probably the best way to watch it.....

I know what you mean though. I literally cannot listen to him anymore. His limited vocabulary, his nonsensical ramblings, and of course his lying..

You're the third biggest poster in this thread.
The biggest on the last one by 2x the person in 2nd.
Almost 2x in the one before that: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057895017

Why do you put yourself through this, in all honesty? You outstrip everyone here in post count, yet you say you literally cannot listen to him anymore. This could be eight years waking up thinking about what to post to people you don't even know. Is a person you hate actually your main hobby?

Wow! It looks like we're being watched... :P

StringerBell

And he's managed to climb down from his climb down and further prolonging this citizenship question on the census.

The concern being of course that Roberts seemed to leave a bit of wiggle room if they can come up with an adequate legal argument.

Still, the man is just so incredibly erratic surely those around him and in position to do something must be getting concerned.

Contradicted his own justice and commerce department within a day. How can you work for a guy like that and have any self respect

relax carry on

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=19

This is from a supposed world leader. How do you counter such stupidity?

20Cent

This 4th of July event with the tanks should be a laugh.
Tiny crowds expected and a mad speech by Trump.

Kermit.de.frog

20Cent wrote: »

This 4th of July event with the tanks should be a laugh.
Tiny crowds expected and a mad speech by Trump.

I don't think it's funny at all.

It's not the America the world knows. Leave stuff like this to third world basket case dictators.

There is no bottom to the debasement and humiliation this clown has brought on the US.

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Has anything like this happened in recent history in the US?

IIRC, I read that Nixon tried to organise some sort of similar event at a time when his popularity was quite low. The public weren't buying it however.

Not at the same scale. The last time there was a major military parade in DC was 1991 after the Iraq War, and M1 tanks seemed not to have been a particular problem as regards the infrastructure.



Federal tanks will sometimes appear in local parades near an Army base, or privately owned tanks are not uncommon, but I can't recall the last time there was an event at the national level involving the military after 1991.

I suppose it's good that America will see themselves the same way the rest of the world sees them.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not at the same scale. The last time there was a major military parade in DC was 1991 after the Iraq War, and M1 tanks seemed not to have been a particular problem as regards the infrastructure.



Federal tanks will sometimes appear in local parades near an Army base, or privately owned tanks are not uncommon, but I can't recall the last time there was an event at the national level involving the military after 1991.

Am I wrong, or did Trump talk about such a parade in his first year and the then advisors warned against it, and it was spun as a joke?

If so, it makes you wonder what else was passed off as a joke when in fact he was deadly serious

Quin_Dub

relax carry on wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146514575048790019?s=19

This is from a supposed world leader. How do you counter such stupidity?

He's on a bit of a roll on twitter lately , there's this peach.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146430380981067777

Glad he could help?? - Is he suggesting he influenced the courts decision?

Every time I read his tweets or hear him speak , a voice in my head just keeps repeating "Oh my God , this is the President of the USA?!?!"

pixelburp

Manic Moran wrote: »

[...] seems likely to me, and this is just my guess, that it's the DoD's response to the concerns about politicization of the event. It's not as if the presence of the military is entirely out of place in an event centered about the independence of the country which saw the creation of the US military to achieve it, but they're not happy with the rhetoric around it.

Oh it has been scaled down absolutely because it was being politicised; all the rhetoric has been wrong and disproportionately about Trump wanting his "Salute to America". As I said IMO, there's an extra element at play that military parades conjure up way too many images in the collective psyche of Americans. Speculation on my part completely but I can get how it'd make a lot of people very uncomfortable,

everlast75 wrote: »

Am I wrong, or did Trump talk about such a parade in his first year and the then advisors warned against it, and it was spun as a joke?

If so, it makes you wonder what else was passed off as a joke when in fact he was deadly serious

He attended Bastille Day, so assuming the first one I guess that would have been July '17. IIRC he was quite vocal about a military parade after returning and there WAS one planned for a while, yes. It was quietly mothballed after much "I want one of those!!" comments in public from Trump.