Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Overheal

Annual GDP never hit 4%, hell it never got past 3.0%. That’s not what Trump promised; There were 4+% GDP quarters under Obama too. Besides, the GDP forecast has it slowing down even lower over the next few years. Tax cuts haven’t brought about the expected growth, in fact the treasury has had to borrow more than almost ever since the cuts were enacted - trump also promised to eliminate the debt. He also said trade wars were easy to win. He also has threatened/promised Turkey with ‘economic ruin’ or some derivation of that numerous times during his presidency and they still do whatever they want and Trump keeps reneging. Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall and he can’t even get Americans to pay for the wall. Just saying.

TomOnBoard

I suspect that he is itching to be called to testify.

According to the WaPo "Hill testified Monday that Bolton was furious over Giuliani’s politically motivated activities in Ukraine, two officials familiar with her testimony said. She recounted how Bolton likened the former New York mayor to a “hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up,” one of these people said, after Bolton learned about Giuliani’s Ukraine campaign."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trumps-former-top-russia-adviser-to-testify-in-house-impeachment-probe/2019/10/14/e6015c1c-ee34-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html#comments-wrapper

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

He also said trade wars were easy to win.

They are for China. Appears they agreed to nothing but America blinked due to complaints from our Great Patriotic Farmers (capitalization per Trump)

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

Annual GDP never hit 4%, hell it never got past 3.0%. That’s not what Trump promised; There were 4+% GDP quarters under Obama too. Besides, the GDP forecast has it slowing down even lower over the next few years. Tax cuts haven’t brought about the expected growth, in fact the treasury has had to borrow more than almost ever since the cuts were enacted - trump also promised to eliminate the debt. He also said trade wars were easy to win. He also has threatened/promised Turkey with ‘economic ruin’ or some derivation of that numerous times during his presidency and they still do whatever they want and Trump keeps reneging. Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall and he can’t even get Americans to pay for the wall. Just saying.

And the good old Dow Jones, that hugely significant indicator of performance according to Trump's many boasts, closed yesterday at more or less the level of January 2018.

one armed dwarf

I know the conversation has moved on from this, but my understanding of impartiality is to just not let your biases obstruct your pursuit of the truth. It's impossible to not have bias.. especially in these polarised times.

It just happens that for Trump and his supporters they almost always finds himself in conflict with 'the truth', which is why things appear so one-sided when you have a profligate liar as pres. So if your bias is going to blind you to the facts already mentioned (failure to reduce deficit, failure to produce sustainable GDP growth, multiple indictments against the Trump admin directly resulting from the Mueller report and then this Ukraine thing), then where is the failure in objectivity really? How are these facts being misrepresented?

Now to challenge my own confirmation bias, I've noticed constantly that Trump supporters keep pointing to record low unemployment among minorities and these summits he shows up to speak at. I'm wondering if the Trumpers here could point to what specific policies Trump has taken to improve opportunities for people here. I mean this question in good faith as well, not trying to catch anyone out. But preferably something more substantial in effect than Trump showing up to speak at a summit.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Dismissing sources because you think they are fake news/biased/whatever is not acceptable here. A post has been deleted.

Cody montana

Overheal wrote: »

Annual GDP never hit 4%, hell it never got past 3.0%. That’s not what Trump promised; There were 4+% GDP quarters under Obama too. Besides, the GDP forecast has it slowing down even lower over the next few years. Tax cuts haven’t brought about the expected growth, in fact the treasury has had to borrow more than almost ever since the cuts were enacted - trump also promised to eliminate the debt. He also said trade wars were easy to win. He also has threatened/promised Turkey with ‘economic ruin’ or some derivation of that numerous times during his presidency and they still do whatever they want and Trump keeps reneging. Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall and he can’t even get Americans to pay for the wall. Just saying.

Didn’t trump say he’d get 6%?

randomname2005

one armed dwarf wrote: »

I know the conversation has moved on from this, but my understanding of impartiality is to just not let your biases obstruct your pursuit of the truth. It's impossible to not have bias.. especially in these polarised times.

It just happens that for Trump and his supporters they almost always finds himself in conflict with 'the truth', which is why things appear so one-sided when you have a profligate liar as pres. So if your bias is going to blind you to the facts already mentioned (failure to reduce deficit, failure to produce sustainable GDP growth, multiple indictments against the Trump admin directly resulting from the Mueller report and this Ukraine thing), then where is the failure in objectivity really? How are these facts being misrepresented?

Now to challenge my own confirmation bias, I've noticed constantly that Trump supporters keep pointing to record low unemployment among minorities and these summits he shows up to speak at. I'm wondering if the Trumpers here could point to what specific policies Trump has taken to improve opportunities for people here. I mean this question in good faith as well, not trying to catch anyone out. But preferably something more substantial in effect than Trump showing up to speak at a summit.

Or something more than a trend that was started during the previous presidency.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh yes; a horrendous attempt to give Clinton some sense of trendiness that backfired immediately. Delivered with all the panache of ... well, how I'd probably do stand-up lol. I'm not sure anyone could have made the line sparkle, but her absence of timing or charisma wasn't a help. Every politician has a script, or at the very least a list of talking points, but a good politician can at least feign the ability to think on their feet or ad-lib.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt6riM2aDLk

It still amazes me that they thought she was a good candidate. You really couldn't give Trump more to work with if you'd tried.

Cody montana

Has the dam broken?

The Nal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It still amazes me that they thought she was a good candidate. You really couldn't give Trump more to work with if you'd tried.

She was/is dreadful and the assumption that she would just waltz into the White House based on her being a Clinton and a woman was very offputting.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One would have to very gullible to believe that and yes I've seen the bs articles these well trotted out remarks came from.



He said he was going to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, he did it.
He said he would make Governments pay more for protection, he did.
He said he'd build a new wall / a better wall, he has and he will.
He said he was going to withdraw from the Iran Deal, he did.
He said he would create more manufacturing jobs, he did.
He said he make unemployment hit record lows, it has.
He said Economic growth would rise above 4.0, it did.
He said there would be prison reform, there is.
Lots more accomplishments underway ....

Keep suggesting Trump's something he is not, won't make a blind bit of difference to the truth.

Last week amid the impeachment palava Trump hosted a Young Black Leaders summit and as ever it was barely picked up on by the mainstream media (other than a few who nitpicked a few seconds here and there so they could sneer) mostly because it didn't fit the left's narrative that Trump's a racist constantly dog whistling to his white supremacist base.

So for once maybe take a look at the lies of the left, and how their incessant agenda is clearly a dishonest one. Three years of pedaling a Russia-Trump conspiracy, which any journalist worth their salt knew was going to amount to nothing given what it was predicated upon.

Pretend as much as you like that the bias in CNN (and the rest) is not really all that much of an issue but it very much is. Nobody minds hosts on news networks giving their views, as Hannity or Geraldo etc does on the regular, but that is much different to what CNN do, which is position themselves as an 'objective' news source, when they know damn well they are anything but. BBC are not far off by the way, which is why some of their ex journalists have come out against them also and why they have been reprimanded for failing to be impartial.

As I said though, I don't expect you on here to agree with me as you agree with all the crap these networks put out. The way you all comment on stories is the same. The truth doesn't seem to matter at all and so I guess in one sense they do know their audience and are happy to appeal to that base who want Trump bashing and leftist viewpoints more than they want factual reporting.

He hasn't built the wall. He will is not a promise completed. He fixed a fence. He specified the materials for use in the wall in his campaign trail.

Healthcare will be so easy. I am not sure that a summit for young black leaders would count as a major accomplishment for any presidency?? Seems like low hanging fruit. But sure that is enough to allow him away with all his racist statements.

The economy has dropped. He got 4% very temporarily and it dropped off. Remember all the reports we got of the Dow hitting record highs? They seem to have disappeared.

Ah yes the investigation that led to the arrests of many Trump officials and workers and yet turned up nothing.

Penn

The Nal wrote: »

She was/is dreadful and the assumption that she would just waltz into the White House based on her being a Clinton and a woman was very offputting.

I still believe that almost any other Democrat other than Hillary would have beaten Trump. Male or female, centrist or far-left, old or young... wouldn't matter. They would have beaten Trump. Hillary had way too much stink on her, too much ammo for Trump to use against her, and how she got the nomination turned even Dems against her because they had tilted the whole thing in her favour.

Plus she doesn't know what balloons are.

everlast75

Cody montana wrote: »

Has the dam broken?

Hats off to the two ladies - walked right in through the front door and testified.

Showed more balls than a lot of the men so far

spacecoyote

everlast75 wrote: »

Hats off to the two ladies - walked right in through the front door and testified.

Showed more balls than a lot of the men so far

What's happening today?

everlast75

I think its Pompeo's second in command, Michael McKinley, today and Sondland thursday.

The rumours are that Michael McKinley resigned in protest.
Sondland looks like he will be a disaster too.

I don't see Pompeo getting out of this unscathed. He's up to his neck in it.

everlast75

The problem when you hire people of low ethical standards is, that when the going gets tough, like rats they start to eat each other..


https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc/status/1184045842984030208?s=20

everlast75

Any trump supporters left, should have a look at this..



https://twitter.com/rez512/status/1183817572271173634?s=19

gizmo

Penn wrote: »

I still believe that almost any other Democrat other than Hillary would have beaten Trump. Male or female, centrist or far-left, old or young... wouldn't matter. They would have beaten Trump. Hillary had way too much stink on her, too much ammo for Trump to use against her, and how she got the nomination turned even Dems against her because they had tilted the whole thing in her favour.

The stench of DNC interference appears to be rearing its head again unfortunately. Shortly after Warren's debate response at the LGBT debate began to get picked up, a bunch of Sanders supporters looked into the person who asked the question. While it was made clear at the time that the guy asking the question was the Chair of the Board of the organisation co-hosting the event with the DNC, what wasn't shared was the fact that the guy has also donated significantly (in terms of individual contributions) to not only her senate primary and general election campaigns but also her now closed PAC, the Elizabeth Warren Action Fund.

At a certain point, it goes beyond the mere appearance of impropriety...

mcmoustache

gizmo wrote: »

The stench of DNC interference appears to be rearing its head again unfortunately. Shortly after Warren's debate response at the LGBT debate began to get picked up, a bunch of Sanders supporters looked into the person who asked the question. While it was made clear at the time that the guy asking the question was the Chair of the Board of the organisation co-hosting the event with the DNC, what wasn't shared was the fact that the guy has also donated significantly (in terms of individual contributions) to not only her senate primary and general election campaigns but also her now closed PAC, the Elizabeth Warren Action Fund.

At a certain point, it goes beyond the mere appearance of impropriety...

Would it be common for DNC people to donate to Dem candidates?

rossie1977

20Cent wrote: »

Hilary must be one of the most investigated politicians ever and they never got anything on her.
Anyone else would have had fake stories made up about them as well.

People still don't see the games being played by Republicans. Regardless who the Dems nominee is they will be torn to pieces by the media and the Republican spin machine. By the time the election comes around people will hate whoever the Dems nominate.

Obama was cleanest politican in US history to run for President and got so much s**t saying he was a socialist/communist, he was not American, he was Muslim terrorist etc etc. US was losing 800,000 jobs a month so people weren't as willing to be taken in by the propoganda.

Water John

I would strongly disagree with Bolton's hawkish policies but that is a different issue to acting improperly. Don't conflate the two.

It's the advantage of a spread of Democratic candidates ATM. GOP cannot focus on negative against one person, yet.

mcmoustache

Sure just look at the Biden stuff now. His actions on ukraine had bipartisan and international support yet now they're trying to turn it into a conspiracy.

gizmo

mcmoustache wrote: »

Would it be common for DNC people to donate to Dem candidates?

But of course.

What should not be common, however, is someone in their position to be allowed to ask a question at that kind of debate.

mcmoustache

Their interests or donations should be disclosed alright. That being said, this seems fairly minor.

pixelburp

Is it really that surprising that these debates' questions are asked by shills, plants and supporters? Like, this isn't even that uncommon on this side of the Atlantic, where our politics is marked more sober and civil. Definitely a stink of manufactured outrage and affecting shock from those whipping up that questioner as some kind of controversy; I guess it means Warren-as-candidate is beginning to be taken seriously.

Overheal

Please do not dump memes here.

duploelabs

mcmoustache wrote: »

Sure just look at the Biden stuff now. His actions on ukraine had bipartisan and international support yet now they're trying to turn it into a conspiracy.

It all has a bang of Roger Stone off it, what's he up to these days?

gizmo

mcmoustache wrote: »

Their interests or donations should be disclosed alright. That being said, this seems fairly minor.

Yes and no.

When it comes to her stance on LGBT issues, Warren has been almost wholly consistent since she first began her race for the Senate. Back in 2012 when Obama's views on same-sex marriage were still in the "evolutionary" stage she responded to his position by saying "I want to see the president evolve because I believe that is right; marriage equality is morally right". That's a clear-cut, unequivocal stance that is extremely hard to attack - especially when it is contrary to the one expressed by your President.

Now look at her response in the debate. It was made with the same level of confidence seen in the quote above but also delivered with that kind of "folksy charm & charisma" that pixelburp mentioned earlier in the thread. It was good. It was so good, it almost sounded scripted to some. So people start looking into it and what do they find? The details of the person who asked it.

Now, look at it like this; best case scenario, the motivation behind the question was utterly benign and Warren's answer was great. The only problem is that, as I mentioned above, there's now an appearance of impropriety and that can be used as a vector for partisan attack. It doesn't matter how relevant it is, it's feeding into the negative discourse around her candidacy and her actual message gets lost in the melee. You can already see the articles online from the likes of Fox, Washington Times and other less reputable outfits doing this.

Both this and, of course, the worst case scenario I alluded to in my original post, could be avoided if the DNC exercised a little bit of cop on when running these types of events. As of right now she appears to be a strong enough candidate on her own without the leadership getting involved in the same manner they did back in 2016 when their machinations left us with Clinton as their candidate.

The Nal

duploelabs wrote: »

It all has a bang of Roger Stone off it, what's he up to these days?

Trial starts in a few weeks.