Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

DeconSheridan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If a Dem gets into the WH next, they are going to have an easy ride

Apparently a sizeable chunk of people think it's perfectly acceptable for the US president to lie on a daily basis, make constant racist/hypocritical/bigoted comments, support pseudo-scientific and absurd conspiracies, write child-like letters to foreign heads of state, snub national intelligence services (all of them, together), engage in bullying and literal name-calling on social media (constantly), surround themselves with sleaze, put their family members in power, snub allies, attack veterans, engage in blatant sexism, evidence of affairs, the list is almost endless

Your watching too much CNN

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is a very reasonable question, and I'll guarantee it's the first question the police would ask as well. Remember, this is the US, we can shoot people here, legally. I get that the context of the question is supposed to be just randomly walking up to someone and shooting them, but prima facie, her answer is entirely correct.


Remember Roy Moore, the Alabama chap of questionable moral virtue from a couple years ago? The Virginia State Senate race had their own version this week, Joe Morrissey. He ran in a district in Richmond which is so blue that the Republicans didn't even bother fielding a candidate, his opponent was an independent.

He was a long-time State Delegate, in 2015, he was in jail when he was re-elected for the relationship he had with a minor, his law license as an attorney was also revoked. He is now set to become a State Senator, beating the independent candidate 60/40. https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/virginia-lawmaker-jailed-for-teen-sex-scandal-wins-senate-seat

You know when someone keeps trying to convince you they are impartial. But you firmly believe they will go which ever direction allows them to hold on to their firearms.

Is all this worth it...

duploelabs

DeconSheridan wrote: »

Your watching too much CNN

*You're

Tell us, where do you get your news from?

Penn

The Charity thing is hilarious, really. I mean it shows Trump up for exactly who he is; someone who solicited charitable donations, used a lot of it for his own personal purposes (including buying a f*cking portrait of himself to put in his own club), says he'll never settle the case, then settles the case.

He used charitable donations to settle lawsuits against him and buy portraits of himself, and people will still defend him. People still won't see that maybe when the Democrats and media are calling him out for being a liar, it might be because he's actually a liar. When people call him out for being immoral, maybe it's because he's actually immoral.

He took money from people, for charity, and bought a portrait of himself and paid off lawsuits against him. That actually happened.

hetuzozaho

Penn wrote: »

The Charity thing is hilarious, really. I mean it shows Trump up for exactly who he is; someone who solicited charitable donations, used a lot of it for his own personal purposes (including buying a f*cking portrait of himself to put in his own club), says he'll never settle the case, then settles the case.

He used charitable donations to settle lawsuits against him and buy portraits of himself, and people will still defend him. People still won't see that maybe when the Democrats and media are calling him out for being a liar, it might be because he's actually a liar. When people call him out for being immoral, maybe it's because he's actually immoral.

He took money from people, for charity, and bought a portrait of himself and paid off lawsuits against him. That actually happened.

I see his defending it. I don't fully understand what he is saying though. Can someone explain what he is angry about?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1192594646691729408

I do like the way within a few lines he goes from "no expense" to "almost no expenses".

FreudianSlippers

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I see his defending it. I don't fully understand what he is saying though. Can someone explain what he is angry about?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1192594646691729408

I do like the way within a few lines he goes from "no expense" to "almost no expenses".

1) "Every penny of the $19 million raised by the Trump Foundation went to hundreds of great charitable causes..."

Fact check = FALSE

That's literally what you settled the case about. You have, in your actual settlement, admitted at $2m did not.

2) He's the "only person in history" who can give $19m to charity

Fact check (literally 2 second Google) = FALSE

Bezos may have been the philanthropy world’s marquee donor in 2018, but a different Seattleite was largely responsible for 2017’s generosity: Bill Gates. Gates and his wife Melinda gave $4.8 billion to their foundation that year, but only about $150 million in 2018. This was their stingiest stretch in at least four years (but given how much Gates has reshaped the philanthropy world with The Giving Pledge and with almost $50 billion in donations, they probably deserve some slack.)

Also falling from the rankings were Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, who gave $2 billion in 2017 but just about 10 percent of that, $200 million, last year.

[Source: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/12/18222403/tech-philanthropy-rankings-bezos-gates-zuckerberg ]

Quin_Dub

Way too much backseat moderation and personal stuff going on in the thread in the last day or so.

Play the ball not the man and if you have issues or concerns - Use the report function.

Thanks.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is a very reasonable question, and I'll guarantee it's the first question the police would ask as well. Remember, this is the US, we can shoot people here, legally. I get that the context of the question is supposed to be just randomly walking up to someone and shooting them, but prima facie, her answer is entirely correct.


Remember Roy Moore, the Alabama chap of questionable moral virtue from a couple years ago? The Virginia State Senate race had their own version this week, Joe Morrissey. He ran in a district in Richmond which is so blue that the Republicans didn't even bother fielding a candidate, his opponent was an independent.

He was a long-time State Delegate, in 2015, he was in jail when he was re-elected for the relationship he had with a minor, his law license as an attorney was also revoked. He is now set to become a State Senator, beating the independent candidate 60/40. https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/virginia-lawmaker-jailed-for-teen-sex-scandal-wins-senate-seat

Got the police ? context immediately as a retired MP. It would have been the first question in my head. I can just imagine the scene "he voted for the other fella" because of the extreme mindset some have settled into on both sides of the debate over there.

everlast75

We had some on here lauding Mick Mulvaney's abrupt replies to the press, saying that quid pro quos happen and people should "get over it". What they found hilarious was that they made this out to be a catch phrase of sorts for Mulvaney, and you could buy a tshirt with that on it on certain Trump affiliated websites (presumably to own the libs)

Well Jim (aka Gym) Jordan is at centre of an abuse scandal

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1192642406434443269?s=20


Perhaps, the Trump merch site could sell tshirts with Jim's catchphrase - "Yeah, yeah, we know."

BonnieSituation

Penn wrote: »

The Charity thing is hilarious, really. I mean it shows Trump up for exactly who he is; someone who solicited charitable donations, used a lot of it for his own personal purposes (including buying a f*cking portrait of himself to put in his own club), says he'll never settle the case, then settles the case.

He used charitable donations to settle lawsuits against him and buy portraits of himself, and people will still defend him. People still won't see that maybe when the Democrats and media are calling him out for being a liar, it might be because he's actually a liar. When people call him out for being immoral, maybe it's because he's actually immoral.

He took money from people, for charity, and bought a portrait of himself and paid off lawsuits against him. That actually happened.

It's called "a Haughey".

Leroy42

What I don't get is, clearly this man is rich - there is a debate over how rich - but the guy clearly has money.

So why even bother using charity money for himself? Is is purely down to the fact that he sees everything as due to him? IMO, it would be down to him thinking that he is entitled to a cut since his name delivered the monies in the first place.

So in effect, to hi, it is not taking money from a charity, it is simply is due for being so great.

The problem that all voter should have with that, if it is the case, then won't he be dong exactly the same as POTUS? Everything he does is based around what he gets out of it rather than what is best for the country.

abff

Leroy42 wrote: »

Everything he does is based around what he gets out of it rather than what is best for the country.

I think that's quite a fair summary of what Trump is all about.

And you're probably right that he feels that it's his due because of his absolute awesome greatness.

Leroy42

abff wrote: »

And you're probably right that he feels that it's his due because of his absolute awesome greatness.

It is the only thing that makes sense to me on his behaviour. How many times has he remarked that he shouldn't be investigated/impeached because X is the best in history.

I believe he truly thinks that everyone owes him for being awesome and therefore the least they can do is let him get something out of it.

26000 Elephants

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why even bother using charity money for himself?

Simply because he is not *that* rich. Not in the sense of Bezos or Gates, to which he aspires. To maintain the veneer of wealth, he needs to grift constantly.

Dohnjoe

everlast75 wrote: »

Ahhhh.. you changed up the order this time.

1) accuse this place of being an echo chamber

Doesnt Trump have very low polling figures almost anywhere outside his support base. Last I checked he's deeply unpopular here in Ireland

Wouldn't that make labeling this public forum an "echo chamber" completely disingenuous?

Gbear

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Doesnt Trump have very low polling figures almost anywhere outside his support base. Last I checked he's deeply unpopular here in Ireland

Wouldn't that make labeling this public forum an "echo chamber" completely disingenuous?

It's like calling the science forum an echo chamber because they accept the existence of gravity.

BloodBath

There's a reason most rich people have their own charities and it's not because they are generous kind people.

It's a loophole to siphon money away from taxation.

amandstu

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Doesnt Trump have very low polling figures almost anywhere outside his support base. Last I checked he's deeply unpopular here in Ireland

Wouldn't that make labeling this public forum an "echo chamber" completely disingenuous?

Apparently his support is holding up in the swing states:eek:

Leroy42

amandstu wrote: »

Apparently his support is holding up in the swing states:eek:

Which ones? The mid terms and the results of the recent races woud indicate that he is facing into quite a serious issue in terms of reelection.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which ones? The mid terms and the results of the recent races woud indicate that he is facing into quite a serious issue in terms of reelection.

I don't know,wasn't paying close attention.

Cuomo was talking about it last night saying that around 5 swing** states were very close even though nationally the likely Democratic candidates were doing much better.


I think the problem is that last time Trump squeaked through (fairly or probably imo unfairly) and that the Dems to not have enough of a lead in those tight races to feel confident .

* think that is how they were described.

StringerBell

amandstu wrote: »

Apparently his support is holding up in the swing states:eek:

His average disapproval rating in the states that got him elected, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc is 59%

With defeating trump the number 1 motivator for voters in 2020

Leroy42

This far out, and particularly since the Dems haven't an actual challenger, polls themselves are of very limited use. So I would think that the only thing we can go on, for now, is the results of actual elections.

Clearly Trump continues to have large support, but nothing that would point to him being able to turn the trend in the polls around or that he will have lost a huge amount of the voters that opted for him in 2016 for the mere fact that HC is no longer (at this point!) running.

I fully expect Trump so go hard and sling plenty of mud against whenever DNC candidate runs against him, but my own view is that it won't have the same effect as it did with regards to HC. There was a very clear distrust of her and a willingness of many to believe that something, anything, must be hidden in her closet.

beggars_bush

BloodBath wrote: »

There's a reason most rich people have their own charities and it's not because they are generous kind people.

It's a loophole to siphon money away from taxation.

Tax writedowns

amandstu

StringerBell wrote: »

His average disapproval rating in the states that got him elected, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc is 59%

With defeating trump the number 1 motivator for voters in 2020

Hope you are right....if I get a chance to see that segment again I will let you know.

StringerBell

amandstu wrote: »

Hope you are right....if I get a chance to see that segment again I will let you know.

That was on some poll last night, I think NBC had it but I didn't look into it further to see where the poll came from.

PropJoe10

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Doesnt Trump have very low polling figures almost anywhere outside his support base. Last I checked he's deeply unpopular here in Ireland

Wouldn't that make labeling this public forum an "echo chamber" completely disingenuous?

He is the most deeply unpopular US President in history, outside his core base. He's never even attempted to build any sort of bridge between his fanbase and those outside. In fact, quite the opposite. Hence the "Never Trumper" and other childish insults that he throws at anyone that might dare to question him.

check_six

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Simply because he is not *that* rich. Not in the sense of Bezos or Gates, to which he aspires. To maintain the veneer of wealth, he needs to grift constantly.

There's something odd about it though. Doesn't seem like he pays for *anything* out of his own pocket. Just gets whatever organisation he's running at the time to pay for him.

Of course, on the other hand, sometimes he doesn't pay at all. There are a lot of stories about him stiffing contractors for any work carried out for him.

Not the kind of character you'd include in a round (one of the lesser of his flaws).

beggars_bush

check_six wrote: »

There's something odd about it though. Doesn't seem like he pays for *anything* out of his own pocket. Just gets whatever organisation he's running at the time to pay for him.

Of course, on the other hand, sometimes he doesn't pay at all. There are a lot of stories about him stiffing contractors for any work carried out for him.

Not the kind of character you'd include in a round (one of the lesser of his flaws).

He'd fit in perfectly on the stinge thread on after hours

pixelburp

I don't think Trump admires Bezos or Gates, I think he's deeply, irrationally jealous of them - and their Soft Power. Their wealth eclipses his, and it's via a medium Trump has singularly failed to break (having made some stabs at media companies, while old-media busineses like Trump Magazine have sunk too). His hatred of Bezos, particularly in light of the latters ownership of the Washington Times, has been pretty naked, even by Trumps standards. I daresay a lot of old school tycoons find these tech billionaires hard to reconcile.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

The difference is that the police ask the question to try to understand motive as that can determine the final charges, if any, will be made.

The woman is asking so that she can be given an excuse.

You mean the question wasn't being asked in a fair, open, and non-partisan manner?