Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

mcmoustache

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well one good way to stop getting impeached, is to stop doing crimes, maybe?

His own just department has him as an unindicted co conspirator in the crime that landed Cohen in jail. The media didn't make Don or the justice department do that. His own actions did that.

The idea that it's all the media's fault is stupid as is the idea that this is all some conspiracy against him by everyone.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Overall though, the US is doing far better than it was under Obama.

Job growth, strength of the economy, border security .. America is booming.

First statement is obviously and deliberately untrue, to the point of violating the forum charter. By any reasonable metric, the partisan breakdown in US social and political life is leaving scars that will take a generation to heal. It is *not* better.

Jobs may be growing, but they are low paid, insecure jobs largely replacing wellnpaid ones.

The economy is not strong - the deficit has got so high in relation to GDP that recession is a certainty. It's a matter of how soon, and how severe. We will see how great your short term jobs are then.

Border security is exactly the same as it has always been - there has been no new infrastructure - and the only achievements have been to make the law meaner to the most vulnerable.

So, forgive me if I call bullsh1t on your claim.

Ihatewhahabies

"You mean the withdrawal where he didn't actually withdraw but ended up catching out the leader of ISIS as he thought they withdrew"

If that was the case I would be seriously impressed. But Al Baggy was in idlib as far as I understand it an Al Queda controlled territory...It sound much more like getting one's assets and their families out ...Trumps explanation of how he died was approaching the disgusting We came we saw he died..too elaborate to be the truth.

Watching geopolitics can make u deeply cynical

Do we get any truth from our media and politicians.

26000 Elephants

Ihatewhahabies wrote: »

But Al Baggy was in idlib as far as I understand it an Al Queda controlled territory...

It's funny how the US and Pompeo were excoriating in their condemnation of Assad for bombing "rebel held" territories in Idlib, just last month. These were supposed to be US supported rebels, while anyone in the area was calling them Al-Qaeda.

Outlaw Pete

DrumSteve wrote: »

Well one good way to stop getting impeached, is to stop doing crimes, maybe?

Crimes such as?

DrumSteve

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Crimes such as?

Other, more patient posters, have outlined all this already.

But, sure, the ones he's admitted to on camera to the world. I'm sure you've seen it.

Stallingrad

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Crimes such as?

Hey Pete, some bedtime reading for you.

https://www.amazon.com/Plaintiff-Chief-Portrait-Donald-Lawsuits/dp/1250201624

I can't understand how anyone can defend this man any more in light of all the evidence, it may sound like hyperbole but IMO it's up there with "I didn't like Hitlers gassing Jews policy, but..."

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nearly everyone I knew was shouting for Hillary as they hated Trump, where did this hate come out of? The media that's where, it was the popular position to support, gets you out of being called names.
I'm not trolling when I say this but the world is a lot better off he won not her, very few Irish people could see what she is, RTE make her out to be some kind of Queen of Angels, they even had her over here to cry about loosing, it was disgusting lobsided TV at it's worst.
RTE are still at it, must hate trump, must be pro this, must be woke.

I have no strong like or dislike for Hillary Clinton, but I was disappointed that she lost. I remember thinking that the lunatics have taken over the asylum when I heard that Trump won on the news that morning. I don't see how the world could be worse off with her over this current farce of an administration. Trump is a shambles of a man and a disaster as president. He has shown the world exactly what kind of dishonest and incompetent imbecile he is for years but people come on here and call people deranged for calling it like it is. Something his supporters claim he does.
How could Clinton possibly be any worse? She probably wouldn't bow down to Putin and the Saudis or Kim Jong Un. Would she be in pointless trade wars or shutting down the government to try and build stupid walls? Would she be running up the deficit. I doubt it.

aloyisious

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nearly everyone I knew was shouting for Hillary as they hated Trump, where did this hate come out of? The media that's where, it was the popular position to support, gets you out of being called names.
I'm not trolling when I say this but the world is a lot better off he won not her, very few Irish people could see what she is, RTE make her out to be some kind of Queen of Angels, they even had her over here to cry about loosing, it was disgusting lobsided TV at it's worst.
RTE are still at it, must hate trump, must be pro this, must be woke.

Hate is a strong word to use when talking about Don at the start of his presidency, dislike or distrust is more likely. At the moment though, it's more apt as he has driven the like-dislike variable so for up the scale it's getting hard to find anyone with equilibrium on both sides of the divide in the US who could bridge it.

As for HRC, I suspect the first female US president must have been a factor in the voting. We'll certainly never know how things would have gone in the US or around the world under HRC presidency decisions as that never became reality so, as the Mods keep advising us, the HRC comparisons aren't the thing being debated here so I'll skip past the nothingburger of her non-presidency.


We do know however, how things have gone under his presidency. The distrust between Don and other country leaders is discernible from their expressions at their face-to-face meeting, and his acknowledging it with his face slumping in dismay. Those people are better at masking their feelings about other leaders than the voter which might explain the hate you see on the voters faces. It is under his presidency and his decisions that the hate has grown and he must live with that result.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Crimes such as?

High ones.

mcmoustache

Impeachment enquiry vote has passed. Two Dems voted against while Amash voted in favour.

LuckyLloyd

US House passes vote in Trump impeachment process
http://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1031/1087684-us-house-impeachment-vote/

Overheal

Let’s all watch in stunned amazement as the WH continues to snub lawful subpoena

StringerBell

Should move things along quicker though in regard to the court proceedings when necessary.

Overheal

Oh for sure it will have effects on current litigation involving the President, particularly efforts to seal his tax returns which they’ve argued the Congress has no legislative reason to have. Totally gives them that, unequivocally.

Overheal

Republicans have the vapors over a dem rep who showed up to the hill on Halloween in a batgirl costume

https://www.mediaite.com/weird/rep-katie-porter-shows-up-to-congress-in-a-full-batgirl-costume/

everlast75

https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/1190125427114659841?s=19

There is never a dull day.

How can this not be related to the investigations?

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

There is never a dull day.

How can this not be related to the investigations?

One of the reasons so many New Yorkers have their 'permanent residence' in FL, is lack of state income tax in FL. Saying this as a New Yorker born and raised whose relatives did this. Florida spends a fair amount of effort verifying if its true but from my anecdotal experience, they're not too effective at it.

Mildly surprised Trump's taken this long to do so, maybe it's because he knows the Mazar's case, which is going after his NY State returns, couldn't happen again if he 'resided' in Florida.

He'll bluster his way through any questions about it when it comes up. "Lots of people do this" "NY's a dump anyway and Florida is great, I have the best living arrangements there," etc etc.

looksee

Rising sea levels are more likely to get him in Florida than NY. Justice.

Beechwoodspark

Just heard a clip of trump on the radio last night

He’s sounding more and more elderly/senile

FreudianSlippers

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just heard a clip of trump on the radio last night

He’s sounding more and more elderly/senile

It doesn't help him that he's exceptionally unintelligent. His "style" of just blustering and throwing out words only really works for him when he can keep it going long enough and quickly enough that people don't stop to listen to what he's actually saying. When he's not able to keep up that pace, one ends up actually hearing what he's saying and... well, it's not pretty.

everlast75

This is a statement from the White House.

What thorough nonsense.

https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT/status/1190013981634760704?s=19

FreudianSlippers

I've never seen such unprofessional or childish official statements from the White House until this "Presidency" - it's a shame to see the US in such a dire state; but it's clearly what Russia wanted and it's paying off brilliantly for them.

pixelburp

Constitution experts: so if we take Trump and his adjacents at their word, that this impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and - in Trump's own words - illegal, stands to reason it could be potentially challenged in court. So to the experts I ask if it can, in theory. Cos the obvious counter to it being illegal would be ... if it's illegal then it can be prosecuted in the courts.

FreudianSlippers

pixelburp wrote: »

Constitution experts: so if we take Trump and his adjacents at their word, that this impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and - in Trump's own words - illegal, stands to reason it could be potentially challenged in court. So to the experts I ask if it can, in theory. Cos the obvious counter to it being illegal would be ... if it's illegal then it can be prosecuted in the courts.

They already did challenge the inquiry and lost: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html

Now that the vote has passed, there is no question of the legality of the inquiry. To suggest otherwise is quasi-legal gaslighting.

Gbear

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They already did challenge the inquiry and lost: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html

Now that the vote has passed, there is no question of the legality of the inquiry. To suggest otherwise is quasi-legal gaslighting.

I wonder is there, or ought there be legal avenues for essentially slandering a co-equal branch is government.

You'd want to be very careful about introducing anything of the sort for private citizens (it would create an obvious danger of tyranny and fly in the face of the first amendment), but for government employees, this kind of bald faced lying which undermines the structure of democracy and the rule of law should be something legally actionable.

FreudianSlippers

Gbear wrote: »

I wonder is there, or ought there be legal avenues for essentially slandering a co-equal branch is government.

You'd want to be very careful about introducing anything of the sort for private citizens (it would create an obvious danger of tyranny and fly in the face of the first amendment), but for government employees, this kind of bald faced lying which undermines the structure of democracy and the rule of law should be something legally actionable.

Despite the GOP's absolute reverence to the Founding Fathers and their delusion that somehow these flawed men could envision all future events, even the Founders didn't envision this kind of mess between the branches of the Government. An unchecked Executive internally, a stacked Judiciary and a Legislative branch that seems to be absolutely corrupted by power is the trifecta that (obviously incorrectly) the Founders thought was remote.

They had an almost naive belief when viewed from modern lenses that the Judiciary would remain more concerned about the law and the Legislative Branch would enshrine the best interests of those they represent.

What the Executive is doing is not slander, it's treason.

26000 Elephants

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've never seen such unprofessional or childish official statements from the White House until this "Presidency" - it's a shame to see the US in such a dire state; but it's clearly what Russia wanted and it's paying off brilliantly for them.

It's a strange world we live in where the White House, with apparent immunity, can release a statement that is so objectively mendacious that it would not meet the standards set by an informal forum such as this one.

pixelburp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They already did challenge the inquiry and lost: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html

Now that the vote has passed, there is no question of the legality of the inquiry. To suggest otherwise is quasi-legal gaslighting.

Fair enough, that answers that. Though as we've seen with our own next door neighbour & the ceaseless chaos of Brexit, upholding the letter of the law does not immune (supreme court judges) from slander & dangerous hyperbole via the Ultras of Brexit/Trump. It's a beautiful contradiction really: scream "traitor" at those who might uphold the principles of a democratic state.

peddlelies

So if it goes to the senate and the Republicans vote along party lines then what, the 2020 election carries on as normal?