Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75

Sad state of affairs that there aren't even any Trump supporters left here to jump in, proclaim "Fake News" and then disappear when challenged on the other 1435 items on the impeachment list...

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

He's dumped Fox... wow

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Trump TV here we come.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

He seems to have turned on Fox

What’s the play here

He often criticises Fox and some of their hosts too individually too. Conservative ones as well liberal ones.

Some recent examples....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163167660764532736
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1107345541724291072
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148016423735836674
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148068598289719296
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148068599111782401


Donald J has love for the One America News network though. Awfully right wing though, you wouldn't like it.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1159191398177890304

Outlaw Pete

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Damn!

This thread in a nutshell.

Disappointed because yet another attempt at ousting Trump has turned out to be nothing of note.

As I have said before on this thread:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

... almost none of you on here are interested in the truth, you all just want to see Trump taken down, anyway, anyhow.

Thanks for showing that, yet again, I'm right about you all and that none of the outrage expressed in here on the daily is genuine... there's an objective is all.

Always tomorrow though. Be up bright and early for another day of whinging about something Trump may have done or said that could be used as reasoning for why it is that he should be impeached!!!! :mad:

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This thread in a nutshell.

Disappointed because yet another attempt at ousting Trump has turned out to be nothing of note.

As I have said before on this thread:



Thanks for showing that, yet again, I'm right about you all and that none of the outrage expressed in here on the daily is genuine... there's an objective is all.

Always tomorrow though. Be up bright and early for another day of whinging about something Trump may have done or said that could be used as reasoning for why it is that he should be impeached!!!! :mad:

And right on queue....

TomOnBoard

I'm going to hold fire until LOD's programme later tonight before throwing my hands up in despair that last night's story about the co-signing of Trump loans by Russian Oligarchs was totally wrong.

I suspect that some detail was reported wrongly, or may have been reported too soon (thereby getting in the way of ongoing investigations), but that the big picture story was largely reported properly ( having regard to the repeated use of 'if true' and 'single source' in the report). If, however, LOD made no attempt to validate the source, and just reported what was basically an substantiated rumour or simply gossip, then it truly was a crap piece of reporting and LOD deserves to be called out for it.

I wait with great interest..

listermint

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm going to hold fire until LOD's programme later tonight before throwing my hands up in despair that last night's story about the co-signing of Trump loans by Russian Oligarchs was totally wrong.

I suspect that some detail was reported wrongly, or may have been reported too soon (thereby getting in the way of ongoing investigations), but that the big picture story was largely reported properly ( having regard to the repeated use of 'if true' and 'single source' in the report). If, however, LOD made no attempt to validate the source, and just reported what was basically an substantiated rumour or simply gossip, then it truly was a crap piece of reporting and LOD deserves to be called out for it.

I wait with great interest..

But wasn't this raised years ago out of some European source.... And passed over to the feds.

Itssoeasy

There seems to be some kind of confusion over a change in policy regarding children born overseas to serving members of the US military and the acting director is saying one thing and reporters saying it was confirmed to them by the relevant agency are saying that children born to US military overseas won't automatically be US citizens at birth. I'm assuming they are considered that because US military bases are considered US territory. It's a bit confused but hopefully it's not as surely trump wouldn't be that stupid.

BDI

Amazing man. A true American hero. The film on his life will be amazing. People from all over the world overlooking the corruption in their own country to look at him and hope with all their hearts something, anything can be found out about this great hero.
He will waltz through the next election.

Why?

Because anything questionable about him has been out there that long that it’s deemed bull by any open minded jury duty level brain in America.

They would have arrested him by now if he wasn’t 100 per cent legit. They have tried everything.

Will go down in history as one of the greats.

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This thread in a nutshell.

Disappointed because yet another attempt at ousting Trump has turned out to be nothing of note.

As I have said before on this thread:



Thanks for showing that, yet again, I'm right about you all and that none of the outrage expressed in here on the daily is genuine... there's an objective is all.

Always tomorrow though. Be up bright and early for another day of whinging about something Trump may have done or said that could be used as reasoning for why it is that he should be impeached!!!! :mad:

I'll be up. Bright and shiny, and hoping that the truth about Trump comes out tomorrow. And if not tomorrow, then the next day. Because anyone with half a brain can see what kind of a person he is. The truth is there. Much of it, we already know. It's not a case of if but when the rest of it comes out. Then The Donald is gone. Won't be long now.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1166800943272353792?s=19

Looks like a rare error on LOD's part!

Correction airing tonight.

Disappointing stuff.

Any word on what his correction is referring to in respect to what he said last night?

I initially thought it might be a lure to tempt out Don into a tweet with LOD planning to come back tonight with the full documentary evidence to blow Don out of the water, then that it might be evidence to be given in an upcoming court case [that he shouldn't have revealed] as it harmed a successful prosecution.

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

There seems to be some kind of confusion over a change in policy regarding children born overseas to serving members of the US military and the acting director is saying one thing and reporters saying it was confirmed to them by the relevant agency are saying that children born to US military overseas won't automatically be US citizens at birth. I'm assuming they are considered that because US military bases are considered US territory. It's a bit confused but hopefully it's not as surely trump wouldn't be that stupid.

I'm guessing from what in the following link that Don et al might be referring to naturalized US citizens who are now in US Govt service or in the US military serving abroad and their children who will not have a natural right to be recognized as US citizens just cos their parents are. I'm wondering if it is a cute hoor way of getting at/denying future-born children to people undergoing US citizenship application process, which seems to be covered in the rule schedule. There might be something in the rule change which affects personnel in long-term service abroad and their children in connection with NOT residing within the US proper [continental USA]. I had in mind people who are nominally seen as US citizens [people born in Puerto Rico] but with the rule change they might be hit as they are NOT within continental US Borders.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-administration-ending-automatic-citizenship-for-us-troops-children-born-abroad

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-admin-wants-to-limit-us-citizenship-for-kids-born-abroad-6

BDI

BDI wrote: »

Amazing man. A true American hero. The film on his life will be amazing. People from all over the world overlooking the corruption in their own country to look at him and hope with all their hearts something, anything can be found out about this great hero.
He will waltz through the next election.

Why?

Because anything questionable about him has been out there that long that it’s deemed bull by any open minded jury duty level brain in America.

They would have arrested him by now if he wasn’t 100 per cent legit. They have tried everything.

Will go down in history as one of the greats.

What makes him a great hero? He is a proven coward, liar and hypocrite. Just because the "jury duty level brain in America" deems it "bull" does not excuse his ****ty behaviour (past & present) or make him any way fit for the office he holds.

Outlaw Pete

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'll be up. Bright and shiny, and hoping that the truth about Trump comes out tomorrow. And if not tomorrow, then the next day. Because anyone with half a brain can see what kind of a person he is.

Nope, those with half a brain are seeing what they want to see:


https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1166560869490352128

The truth is there.

Yes, keep looking for that 'truth' you know is out there... somewhere.

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, those with half a brain are seeing what they want to see:


https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1166560869490352128

Oh look! That's Trump completely vindicated so. Never went bankrupt. Never dodged taxes. Never slept with prostitutes. Never lied. Doing a fantastic job as POTUS. Peace, unity and prosperity across the US and the world and. All hail the greatest person ever.

Get up the yard.

Outlaw Pete

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Oh look! That's Trump completely vindicated so.

You spoke about people with half a brain and so I posted a tweet from one. Don't strawman me.

Never went bankrupt. Never dodged taxes. Never slept with prostitutes. Never lied. Doing a fantastic job as POTUS. Peace, unity and prosperity across the US and the world and. All hail the greatest person ever.

Get up the yard.

More strawmanning. Never suggested he was the greatest man ever let alone that a tweet from Alyssa Milano vindicated him from all that he's been accused of (and it's a long list - you folks have been busy).

He is doing a fantastic job as POTUS though.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You spoke about people with half a brain and so I posted a tweet from one. Don't strawman me.



More strawmanning. Never suggested he was the greatest man ever let alone that a tweet from Alyssa Milano vindicated him from all that he's been accused of (and it's a long list - you folks have been busy).

He is doing a fantastic job as POTUS though.

What has he achieved as POTUS that adds up to him doing a fantastic job?

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

Any word on what his correction is referring to in respect to what he said last night?

I initially thought it might be a lure to tempt out Don into a tweet with LOD planning to come back tonight with the full documentary evidence to blow Don out of the water, then that it might be evidence to be given in an upcoming court case [that he shouldn't have revealed] as it harmed a successful prosecution.

LOD retracted the story and issued an apology on his show tonight.

“Tonight, we are retracting the story. We don’t know whether the information is inaccurate. But the fact is, we do know it wasn’t ready for broadcast. And for that, I apologize.”

So, basically a fcuk-up by O'Donnell (by his own admission) by not following their own internal procedures and running with a story that ought not have been aired, due to its thin sourcing.

StringerBell

Stupid mistake from LOD, really poor.

Gives them ammo now to deflect, enjoy it lads (Pete and whoever is still left) ye have to work with very little for long enough. Due a little break I suppose.

pixelburp

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You spoke about people with half a brain and so I posted a tweet from one. Don't strawman me.



More strawmanning. Never suggested he was the greatest man ever let alone that a tweet from Alyssa Milano vindicated him from all that he's been accused of (and it's a long list - you folks have been busy).

He is doing a fantastic job as POTUS though.

So question, do you agree with the recent decisions to relax various environmental and preservation laws? Do you agree with their decision to petition the SC to try and change the interpretation of Title VII, thus allowing discrimination against gays?

Honest question, because by your own words you say he's doing a good job, so just wondering if you count these "nuts and bolts" decisions as good. IMO these are the moments and decisions that have demonstrable effect on the people, not showy "walls" and braggadocio.

one armed dwarf

It's a massive misstep and a blow to their journalistic integrity, but it's kind of laughable and predictable that it's being used now to paint every objection against this administration as a desperate witch hunt. As if the man's own words and actions aren't enough to incriminate his character and his judgement. His pissy tantrum over being rejected over Greenland, his blaming of Obama for Crimea's annexation (!). Not to mention the market's reaction to this trade war and the red flags pointing at a recession next year. These are things that should be litigated at length and not just passed over for each minor triumph he achieves or to wring hands over some irrelevant semantic issue (like what does it truly mean to call someone 'nasty'?)

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

'No puppet, you're the puppet'
That said, I'd advise caution with this one as it's only just one source so far

Ahem...... I seem..... Ahem.... To have something caught in my throat........

FreudianSlippers

BDI wrote: »

Amazing man. A true American hero. The film on his life will be amazing. People from all over the world overlooking the corruption in their own country to look at him and hope with all their hearts something, anything can be found out about this great hero.
He will waltz through the next election.

Why?

Because anything questionable about him has been out there that long that it’s deemed bull by any open minded jury duty level brain in America.

They would have arrested him by now if he wasn’t 100 per cent legit. They have tried everything.

Will go down in history as one of the greats.

A sitting President cannot be arrested for crimes committed whilst in office as per OLC opinion; it's arguable whether they can be indicted for crimes committed before they were President but the general consensus seems to be that the answer is no.

StringerBell

pixelburp wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You spoke about people with half a brain and so I posted a tweet from one. Don't strawman me.



More strawmanning. Never suggested he was the greatest man ever let alone that a tweet from Alyssa Milano vindicated him from all that he's been accused of (and it's a long list - you folks have been busy).

He is doing a fantastic job as POTUS though.

So question, do you agree with the recent decisions to relax various environmental and preservation laws? Do you agree with their decision to petition the SC to try and change the interpretation of Title VII, thus allowing discrimination against gays?

Honest question, because by your own words you say he's doing a good job, so just wondering if you count these "nuts and bolts" decisions as good. IMO these are the moments and decisions that have demonstrable effect on the people, not showy "walls" and braggadocio.

Course he agrees with them, anybody who tells you someone is doing a fantastic job clearly agrees with the overwhelming majority of that person's actions. They don't need to spell it out, it isn't some get out of jail card not to stand over everything individually to parse matters.

walshb

BDI wrote: »

Will go down in history as one of the greats.

So will Ed Sheerhan, so what's your point?

Itssoeasy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

BDI wrote: »

Amazing man. A true American hero. The film on his life will be amazing. People from all over the world overlooking the corruption in their own country to look at him and hope with all their hearts something, anything can be found out about this great hero.
He will waltz through the next election.

Why?

Because anything questionable about him has been out there that long that it’s deemed bull by any open minded jury duty level brain in America.

They would have arrested him by now if he wasn’t 100 per cent legit. They have tried everything.

Will go down in history as one of the greats.

A sitting President cannot be arrested for crimes committed whilst in office as per OLC opinion; it's arguable whether they can be indicted for crimes committed before they were President but the general consensus seems to be that the answer is no.

So are you saying a president once they leave office they are off the hook for the crimes they may have committed in office ?

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So are you saying a president once they leave office they are off the hook for the crimes they may have committed in office ?

Depends on the crimes and the statute of limitations

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm guessing from what in the following link that Don et al might be referring to naturalized US citizens who are now in US Govt service or in the US military serving abroad and their children who will not have a natural right to be recognized as US citizens just cos their parents are. I'm wondering if it is a cute hoor way of getting at/denying future-born children to people undergoing US citizenship application process, which seems to be covered in the rule schedule. There might be something in the rule change which affects personnel in long-term service abroad and their children in connection with NOT residing within the US proper [continental USA]. I had in mind people who are nominally seen as US citizens [people born in Puerto Rico] but with the rule change they might be hit as they are NOT within continental US Borders.

There seems to be a lot of discussion and confustion on this one, and I'm waiting for the breathlessness to settle down and some intelligent analysis to chip in.

Apparently the policy change has been made to match up with long-standing State Dept policy. Since State Dept holds the 'registry', shall we say, and issues the passports, matching USCIS policy to State Dept's rules will prevent a case of someone falling through the cracks if someone in State decides to actually follow the written rules.

From https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update

Reason for the Policy Update
We are updating this policy because it conflicts with the definition of residence” in the INA and also with INA 322(d), which was enacted in 2008 after this policy was instituted, and refers to children who are residing abroad with members of the armed forces of the United States as “residing outside of the United States.” In addition, the previous guidance conflicts with Department of State guidance. Having conflicting policies can lead to inconsistent decisions on citizenship claims by USCIS and the Department of State and can cause confusion as to the date children of U.S. service members and government employees stationed abroad become U.S. citizens.

Secondly, the fine print seems to be that not many people are going to be affected anyway.

Who This Policy Update Affects
This policy may affect children residing outside the United States who were born outside the United States to:

Non-U.S. citizen parents and adopted by a U.S. citizen U.S. government employee or U.S. service member after their birth;
Non-U.S. citizen parents, such as a lawful permanent resident U.S. government employee or U.S. service member who naturalized only after the child’s birth; or
Two U.S. citizen government employee or U.S. service member parents who do not meet the residence or physical presence requirements to transmit citizenship to their child at birth (or one non-U.S. citizen parent and one U.S. citizen parent who does not meet these requirements).

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/08/29/new-immigration-policy-withholds-automatic-citizenship-for-some-children-of-troops-overseas/

The policy won’t affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said
[...]
“This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.”

Examples of that situation include:

A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or,
A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany.

It also does not say that they are not eligible, just they need to fill out a few more forms.

It seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup.

serfboard

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A sitting President cannot be arrested for crimes committed whilst in office as per OLC opinion; it's arguable whether they can be indicted for crimes committed before they were President but the general consensus seems to be that the answer is no.

While you are correct there is an issue there with the two bolded words.

Remember when W said that waterboarding wasn't torture? That was based on him finding a lawyer who would give that legal opinion and then trumpeting it when he found one.

There's an interesting article on it here, which features a character we have gotten to know very well since:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Furthermore, since this President delights in throwing previously held opinions and consensus out the window, maybe the same should be applied to him?

isohon

Manic Moran wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of discussion and confustion on this one, and I'm waiting for the breathlessness to settle down and some intelligent analysis to chip in.

Apparently the policy change has been made to match up with long-standing State Dept policy. Since State Dept holds the 'registry', shall we say, and issues the passports, matching USCIS policy to State Dept's rules will prevent a case of someone falling through the cracks if someone in State decides to actually follow the written rules.

From https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update

Reason for the Policy Update
We are updating this policy because it conflicts with the definition of residence” in the INA and also with INA 322(d), which was enacted in 2008 after this policy was instituted, and refers to children who are residing abroad with members of the armed forces of the United States as “residing outside of the United States.” In addition, the previous guidance conflicts with Department of State guidance. Having conflicting policies can lead to inconsistent decisions on citizenship claims by USCIS and the Department of State and can cause confusion as to the date children of U.S. service members and government employees stationed abroad become U.S. citizens.

Secondly, the fine print seems to be that not many people are going to be affected anyway.

Who This Policy Update Affects
This policy may affect children residing outside the United States who were born outside the United States to:

Non-U.S. citizen parents and adopted by a U.S. citizen U.S. government employee or U.S. service member after their birth;
Non-U.S. citizen parents, such as a lawful permanent resident U.S. government employee or U.S. service member who naturalized only after the child’s birth; or
Two U.S. citizen government employee or U.S. service member parents who do not meet the residence or physical presence requirements to transmit citizenship to their child at birth (or one non-U.S. citizen parent and one U.S. citizen parent who does not meet these requirements).

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/08/29/new-immigration-policy-withholds-automatic-citizenship-for-some-children-of-troops-overseas/

The policy won’t affect children born to U.S. citizens serving abroad. Those children are still entitled to automatic citizenship, officials said
[...]
“This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.”

Examples of that situation include:

A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or,
A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany.

It also does not say that they are not eligible, just they need to fill out a few more forms.

It seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Seems more like an incompetent administration messed up and caused needless concern by their ineptitude.

BDI

walshb wrote: »

So will Ed Sheerhan, so what's your point?

They both may not be the hip choice but they both get results.
Their achievements will speak for themselves in history.