Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Like I said, he clearly made a bags of what he was supposed to say, if he even had a grasp of what was happening at all that is, we're talking about Donald Trump here, not some great orator or evil genius. How many times do we have to have arguments based around the way Donald Trump has worded something before people start accepting that maybe, just maybe, he isn't articulate or all that intelligent.

If you watch the brief presser he gave on the day he says:



That's true, and so it seems he thought that the new $1billion campus expansion was going to be part of where he was.

Right after that Cook starts explaining how it will be ten minutes away and you can see it's news to Trump from his expression. If anything the truth is more impressive anyway, than this lie he supposedly concocted about how the plant he was in was a new one. Maybe once in awhile given Trump the benefit is the way to go, although I can't see that happening anytime soon with some folk.

Is it logical to give him the benefit of the doubt? By chance, odds are some of what he says is a mistake. However fool me 13000? times shame on you. Fool me 13001 times shame on me. If someone repeatedly lies then they don't get the benefit of the doubt. That is on him as it is a common sense rule.

At best he has no idea what is going on at any given time. At worst he is a pathological liar. Either way he should not be in that office.

If these are mistakes not only is he not a good orator, he is a bad one on a scale I have not seen before and I have seen people go to shreds during talks.

I agree on the not that intelligent or articulate. I am not even sure he knows he is lying. He simply has no interesrt in the truth and says things as if they were true while not having a clue. Like me stating the area of Mars with complete certainty. I could be right but I don't have a clue. I still count this as lying as he knows it is likely untrue.

pixelburp

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Like I said, he clearly made a bags of what he was supposed to say, if he even had a grasp of what was happening at all that is, we're talking about Donald Trump here, not some great orator or evil genius. How many times do we have to have arguments based around the way Donald Trump has worded something before people start accepting that maybe, just maybe, he isn't articulate or all that intelligent.

We've had three years of Trump "making a bags" of everything from press conferences, summits, launches, disaster relief (surely an open goal for any president), legislation reform, politicking, etc. etc. Basic communications should not be a bar that's missed here.

Why should we continuously give him the benefit of the doubt, or try to reframe the narrative to forgive the supposed Leader of the Free World for being incapable of some of the more basic aspects of his job?

The man is clearly out of his depth, and arguably not fit to hold a position of extreme geopolitical importance. Benefit of the doubt shouldn't apply here, he had his lean-in time, yet his administration is barren of talent, and those who are there are leaving in record numbers.

blackcard

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Like I said, he clearly made a bags of what he was supposed to say, if he even had a grasp of what was happening at all that is, we're talking about Donald Trump here, not some great orator or evil genius. How many times do we have to have arguments based around the way Donald Trump has worded something before people start accepting that maybe, just maybe, he isn't articulate or all that intelligent.

Is he not a stable genius?

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

The man is clearly out of his depth, and arguably not fit to hold a position of extreme geopolitical importance.

I wouldn't hire him to clean windows.

PropJoe10

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think the single best description of the Trump/Sondland phone call where Trump repeatedly says "I want Nothing , No Quid Pro Quo" etc. is that it's like a scene from a Mafia Movie where the mobster is on the phone and knows that the police are listening in so he starts loudly protesting his innocence and denying any knowledge of the crimes being mentioned by the guy on the other end of the phone.

We now have a mountain of sworn evidence from multiple people that they were acting on Trumps orders to withhold aid and a WH meeting until Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden/Burisma.

We are supposed to believe that a phone call with Trump (a man with what can at best be described as a "limited" vocabulary) where he actually uses the phase "No Quid Pro Quo" isn't suspicious ??

A phone call that occurred a few hours after he was informed that a complaint about Quid Pro Quo had been submitted and was being taken seriously ?

Seriously - That's the defence here?

As I said earlier, it's the equivalent of someone going on the phone and assuring someone they've no intention of doing them wrong, while at the same time, having their crew rob them. It's the only defence that Trump and his base have left now, so you can expect them to cling to that Sondland soundbite like a life raft.

Personally I don't think this impeachment hearing will make a blind bit of difference in the long run but it's definitely a worthwhile exercise, simply to show the world what an incompetent, shady bunch of muppets are currently running the US. Another 4 years of this would be hugely damaging though.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Short answer: No.

Very long answer: the reason most of you (collective you: be it left-leaners, liberals or just plain DT haters) feel the way you do is because you have only focused on one single narrative for three years and missed everything else that has been going on. It's been the disportionate olympics: from Russiagate; through 'Kavanaugh-gate'; through 'Nazis-are-fine-people-gate'; through 'Meryl Streep saying he mocked disabled journalists-gate'; through 'Immigrants-are-animals-gate' (etc etc) right up to where we are now with 'He tried to bribe Ukraine to investigate a 2020 opponent-gate'.

So why would any of you feel any different than you currently do when your opinions are not informed as a direct result of what you have chosen to pay attention to and not to pay attention to. Of course you all feel Trump's only reason for requesting that the Bidens' Burisma dealings get investigated would be personal and motivated by the fact Biden might be on the ballot in 2020.

But, if you at least try and see things from Trump's REAL perspective, taking on board all that he was accused of, from being a Russian agent, to a traitor, to someone who'd pay prostitutes to urinate in a bed just cause Michelle Obama had slept in it, and also take on board what he had been told (even if some of it was false) about the role Ukraine played in it all, with regards to a Ukrainian politician releasing the documents that led to his campaign manager being linked with corruption, and that very same politician being a source for that Steele dossier .. and it really shouldn't be a much of surprise that Trump would be of the belief that Ukraine tried to 'take him down' in 2016 and that he would jump at the chance to have that all investiigated.

So that brings us to the Bidens and Burisma. So why mention them to Zelensky? Well: the video of Biden bragging that he had Ukraine's prosecutor fired went viral, and the stuff about Hunter had also been splashed all of the media too, from the NY Times to The Hill. Also, note that Trump prefaced the request with: 'There's a lot of talk' and 'People want to find out' and so clearly he believes this needs to be 'looked into' because of what he is hearing from others. Who are those others? Could be Rudy or it could be US Intel, but he mentions AG Barr first and so that would lead me to believe that there has been some discussion of maybe an official investigation into Budens-Burisma going on and that is why he sought Ukraine's cooperation there.

One quote from Mulveney during that presser which never gets quoted is:



Now don't confuse any of the above with my saying that I don't think there could have been a transactionary aspect to it all, one way or t'other, but that's just how these things are, and I think that's what Mulveny was trying to say, but made a bags of it. I think for sure Trump would have spoken with Mulveney, Rudy and Sondland with regards to him only wanting to give aid to Ukraine if their days of corruption were behind them and wanting Zelensky to maybe do something to show that he was serious in that regard. That investigations into the alleged meddling of the Ukrainians in 2016 may have been mentioned during these discussions, does not therefore make it a QPQ.

For a start, even if that was a decided upon condition which Trump wanted at one state of feeling Zelensky out with regards to his seriousness about fighting corruption, there's nothing to say he wouldn't soften on it a week later. So evidence of Trump even saying he would not release aid until Ukraine committed to having investigations, wouldn't be the smoking gun that the democrats would no doubt treat it as should such a thing come to light.

Have a feeling my short answer will be more appreciated than my long one.

So it's our fault he keep doing stupid things and we should l just back off and allow him to be a corrupt idiot?

How about instead we listen to the evidence being presented.

Stallingrad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wouldn't hire him to clean windows.

Neither would I, transparency is not his strong point.

DrumSteve

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wouldn't hire him to clean windows.

I would 100% hire him to clean my windows.

It would be hilarious.

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

• He opened nothing , it's been there since 2013
• It's not an Apple facility , it's owned and run by Flextronics Inc.
• Apple are opening a new facility in Austin , but it's not a factory
• So ZERO Manufacturing jobs being added
• The jobs that Apple are adding are roles that have never been overseas , they are white collar development jobs (which I can almost guarantee will be mostly filled by Indian & Asian immigrants on H1 Visas)
• Congress was open today and doing stuff.

Ah here, you're making my argument for me now:

That place is not run by Apple you say? Grand, well that goes a long way of explaining Trump's comments then as he's talking about Apple facilities.

As for moaning about his tweet. It was a play on words. He opened something, Pelosi closed something. I wouldn't look to deep into it.

Funny, I don't see you ever on this thread criticizing lies from Pelosi, like when she said Schiff's parody was "using the President's own words" - those are not just little white lies either, they were very deliberate lies. Lies designed to to manipulate the public into seeing that the President should be removeed from office.

But look everyone, Trump said he opened a new Apple plant and it's not new, all he was really doing was helping Apple launch a $1billion Campus!!

Honestly.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, you're making my argument for me now:

That place is not run by Apple you say? Grand, well that goes a long way of explaining Trump's comments then as he's talking about Apple facilities.

As for moaning about his tweet. It was a play on words. He opened something, Pelosi closed something. I wouldn't look to deep into it.

Funny, I don't see you ever on this thread criticizing lies from Pelosi, like when she said Schiff's parody was "using the President's own words" - those are not just little white lies either, they were very deliberate lies. Lies designed to to manipulate the public into seeing that the President should be removeed from office.

But look everyone, Trump said he opened a new Apple plant and it's not new, all he was really doing was helping Apple launch a $1billion Campus!!

Honestly.

You are correct - Schiffs "parady was a calculated move , just like Trumps in Texas.

His whole schtick with the voters is "MAGA" , "Bring back Jobs" blah blah blah.

So he goes to Austin to stand with Tim Cook when announcing their new facility and he has 2 options

He could tell the truth, which would read something like

I'm pleased to be here when Apple announce a new facility here as , let's be honest hiring people in Silicon Valley is very expensive so they are opening here in Austin where the cost of living is 30% lower and so are the taxes. This way Apple can pay lower wages and less tax.

Oh and while I'm at it , the roles they are hiring for will mostly be filled by Indian & Chinese Graduates here on H1 Visas and almost none of my typical voters (White Non-College Males) will be within an asses roar of being qualified for any of these jobs".

Oh and none of this category of jobs have ever been overseas , they've always been on-shore.

Or he could go with

Today I opened a major Apple Manufacturing plant in Texas that will bring high paying jobs back to America.

Now - Which one is more accurate and which one is more Politically expedient for Donald Trump?

Tell me again why it's just because he's "inarticulate"??

Outlaw Pete

Most of your questions I had addressed in recent replies, but I'll answer these:

everlast75 wrote: »

trump was empathetic in terms of saying no quid pro quo to Sondlond. That was AFTER he became aware there was an issue. Is screams guilt

Nah, it screams that he was furious that he had been misrepresented by Sondland.

Question for you: If Trump had been telling Sondland for months that the aid was conditional on investigations, as you all suggest - then why did Sondland need to phone Trump in September and ask him what he wanted from Zelensky?

if sondlond revising his testimony is enough to label him untrustworthy, why do you believe for one moment whatever comes out of Trump's mouth, given he is such a prolific liar?

I don't think he's a liar in that sense and neither did Morrison or Fiona Hill. How they speak of him is that he exaggerates a lot.

if you take Hill's word on the character of Sondlond, why do you refuse to acknowledge the rest of her testimony, in relation to what Rudy was up to and how that helps the Russians?

Can you be specific? Which portion of her testimony?

One last point - you can claim that not speaking to the investigators is clever so that no one self implicates, but to the average joe it looks guilty as hell. Its showing in the polls.

Polls said Hillary would win. They are a flawed tool. You'll always find a source that says what you want them to.


https://twitter.com/KellyannePolls/status/1197660604590370818

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You are correct - Schiffs "parady was a calculated move , just like Trumps in Texas.

His whole schtick with the voters is "MAGA" , "Bring back Jobs" blah blah blah.

So he goes to Austin to stand with Tim Cook when announcing their new facility and he has 2 options

He could tell the truth, which would read something like




Or he could go with



Now - Which one is more accurate and which one is more Politically expedient for Donald Trump?

Tell me again why it's just because he's "inarticulate"??

Did Pete admit he was inarticulate?

JFC. Well that's a start anyway.

Nothing wrong with being one of the most powerful men in the world and not being able to convey what he means.

What possible negative implications could there be? Everyone knows international diplomacy is not nuanced at all. Sure a nudge and a grunt will resolve most situations no doubt.

So much for him "telling it like it is", eh?

In Pete's own words he isn't that articulate or all that intelligent. We know he is dishonest, he lies all the time about almost everything. He should be impeached, he is so unfit for the job its almost funny. Whether it's for quid pro quo with Ukraine or his constant emoluments violations he has to go.
On a side note about his occasional round of golf as Pete put it:
https://trumpgolfcount.com/
If I was an American tax payer I would be up in arms over this, among everything else he does!

EltonJohn69

Trump going on fox and friends later to talk conspiracies.... should be fun

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

You are correct - Schiffs "parady was a calculated move , just like Trumps in Texas.

Only difference is that what Schiff did is immoral given that he suggested Trump threatened Zelensky and asked him to fabricate dirt, lots of it.

His whole schtick with the voters is "MAGA" , "Bring back Jobs" blah blah blah.

Doesn't remotely compare. End of the day Trump made a deal with Apple which will result in new jobs and billions in investment for Austin. You want to sneer at that and undermine it as you can't stand admitting that Trump is doing a good job as POTUS.

Tell me again why it's just because he's "inarticulate"??

I stand by what I said as if Trump had said what Cook went on to, it would have even more impressive, but yet he didn't and so he mustn't have known, otherwise he for sure would have. Notice his next Tweet (the one I later posted) did say what Cook did and so that backs up my view that he just had his wires crossed.

You all must be hard up for dirt on Trump if you have to resort saying Trump's a liar over something like this. You want lies, folks? Take a look at the Steele Dossier. It's full of them. You want a liar? Take a look at who paid for it.

DrumSteve

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Only difference is that what Schiff did is immoral given that he suggested Trump threatened Zelensky and asked him to fabricate dirt, lots of it.



Doesn't remotely compare. End of the day Trump made a deal with Apple which will result in new jobs and billions in investment for Austin. You want to sneer at that and undermine it as you can't stand admitting that Trump is doing a good job as POTUS.



I stand by what I said as if Trump had said what Cook went on to, it would have even more impressive, but yet he didn't and so he mustn't have known, otherwise he for sure would have. Notice his next Tweet (the one I later posted) did say what Cook did and so that backs up my view that he just had his wires crossed.

You all must be hard up for dirt on Trump if you have to resort saying Trump's a liar over something like this. You want lies, folks? Take a look at the Steele Dossier. It's full of them. You want a liar? Take a look at who paid for it.

TBF to the Steele Dossier, it turned out loads of stuff in there was actually true.

DrumSteve

DrumSteve wrote: »

TBF to the Steele Dossier, it turned out loads of stuff in there was actually true.

And it was originally paid for by a republican website according to Wikipedia.

Overheal

So the defense of trump swirls around a conversation with Sondland, long after this shakedown has been underway, and people like Taylor were threatening to quit over the circumstances, Sondland calls up POTUS and basically just asks “what the **** do you want from Ukraine” and Trump directly responds to the effect of “I want nothing! I want no Quid pro quo!” Not a word about anti-corruption efforts. Sondland relays this message to Taylor.

That’s like sitting in the car with your dad and out loud wondering “why are we taking this way to the store” and he yells “NOTHING! No dead bodies to hide!”

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

Did Pete admit he was inarticulate?

Did everlast just address everyone else part from me?

JFC. Well that's a start anyway.

Not really ...

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But it's Trump, one of the most inarticulate politicians in history, and so you're gonna have ample opportunities to make huge leaps from minor misspeaks.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The irony, eh, given that liberals want Trump done for treason for merely being inarticulate.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He's not intelligent enough, nor articulate enough. Nor can he deflect questions like a pro.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump is inarticulate, falters often, but is true to his word when it comes to policy promises and the economy is booming.

Obama had the gift of the gab, a great orator, full of promises, but got little done and left America in a mess.

Know which of the two I'd rather have..

I notice this narrative keeps coming up. That I never criticize or say anything negative about Trump but the truth is I have condemned him multiple times on these threads. I said he was wrong to accuse the Bidens of corruption (should have just kept his comments for the appropriate channels, of which I for sure feel the phone call was one) that he shouldn't have withdrew troops from Syria, revoked Obama's drone reporting policy etc. Just that nobody pays much attention to that stuff. It kinda disappears in the grass given 99.9% of the posts about Trump on this forum are negative. So time to let that one die. If Trump does something, or says something, which is questionable, I'll be calling him out on it.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here, you're making my argument for me now:

That place is not run by Apple you say? Grand, well that goes a long way of explaining Trump's comments then as he's talking about Apple facilities.

As for moaning about his tweet. It was a play on words. He opened something, Pelosi closed something. I wouldn't look to deep into it.

Funny, I don't see you ever on this thread criticizing lies from Pelosi, like when she said Schiff's parody was "using the President's own words" - those are not just little white lies either, they were very deliberate lies. Lies designed to to manipulate the public into seeing that the President should be removeed from office.

But look everyone, Trump said he opened a new Apple plant and it's not new, all he was really doing was helping Apple launch a $1billion Campus!!

Honestly.

Why would someone come to a thread about Trump complaining about Pelosi lying? The entire point of this thread is to discuss Trump.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Did everlast just address everyone else part from me?



Not really ...









I notice this narrative keeps coming up. That I never criticize or say anything negative about Trump but the truth is I have condemned him multiple times on these threads. I said he was wrong to accuse the Bidens of corruption, that he shouldn't have withdrew troops from Syria, revoked Obama's drone reporting policy etc. Just that nobody pays much attention to that stuff. It kinda disappears in the grass given 99.9% of the posts about Trump on this forum are negative. So time to let that one die. If Trump does something, or says something, which is questionable, I'll be calling him out on it.

The Inarticulate Defense of impeachable acts

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Sondland calls up POTUS and basically just asks “what the **** do you want from Ukraine

Why did he do that?

Why didn't he call and say: "Hey Boss, are you still of the position that 'no investigations, no aid'?"

Why is Sondland asking Trump what he wanted off Zelensky if (according to you) he already knew?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why did he do that?

Why didn't he call and say: "Hey Boss, are you still of the position that 'no investigations, no aid'?"

Why is Sondland asking Trump what he wanted off Zelensky if (according to you) he already knew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRVdV_7SItg

Note this is 2 days before the aid is released and long after the July 25 call, the suspension of aid made public in Politico, and the Whistleblower complaint being filed with the ICIG on August 12.

DrumSteve

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why did he do that?

Why didn't he call and say: "Hey Boss, are you still of the position that 'no investigations, no aid'?"

Why is Sondland asking Trump what he wanted off Zelensky if (according to you) he already knew?

I think that timing of that question relevant to when the whistleblower complaint became known, goes someway to answering that.

Leroy42

Again I go back to looking at Trump history and modus operandi. The man thinks himself to be the best deal maker in the world, and the world is just one deal after another. He, someone else, wrote a book on it.

And he has shown it time and again whilst in office. Deal with China, deal with NK. Sure he is terrible at it, but it is still how he operates.

And yet somehow we are supposed to believe that he simply withheld aid on a whim. That he had this power position but wanted nothing from it? That in of itself makes no sense when looking at how he does business.

And again, Mulvaney has already admitted that a deal was being sought. The question then becomes whether it is legitimate for POTUS, or any politician, to use their position to get someone else to investigate a potential political opponent.

As one Congressman said yesterday, what would people think if the local Mayor withheld police salaries unless the police chief agreement to conduct an investigation against a political rival? No way would people accept it, and nor should they.

And Trump knows this, which is why his initial defence was that he was merely fighting corruption. And that he had every right to do so. That was of course until people pointed out that he had only asked for one particular person to be investigated rather than try to combat corruption. Since then the defence has changed tack to say he never asked in the first place!

Overheal

The post-hearing disinformation campaign is in full tilt now - Schiff 'made the whole thing up' and is 'a sick puppy' - so I guess perjury charges for all these witnesses is to follow?


https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-adam-schiff-is-a-sick-puppy-who-made-the-whole-thing-up/

Lots of DARVO going on

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

Again I go back to looking at Trump history and modus operandi. The man thinks himself to be the best deal maker in the world, and the world is just one deal after another. He, someone else, wrote a book on it.

And he has shown it time and again whilst in office. Deal with China, deal with NK. Sure he is terrible at it, but it is still how he operates.

And yet somehow we are supposed to believe that he simply withheld aid on a whim. That he had this power position but wanted nothing from it? That in of itself makes no sense when looking at how he does business.

And again, Mulvaney has already admitted that a deal was being sought. The question then becomes whether it is legitimate for POTUS, or any politician, to use their position to get someone else to investigate a potential political opponent.

As one Congressman said yesterday, what would people think if the local Mayor withheld police salaries unless the police chief agreement to conduct an investigation against a political rival? No way would people accept it, and nor should they.

And Trump knows this, which is why his initial defence was that he was merely fighting corruption. And that he had every right to do so. That was of course until people pointed out that he had only asked for one particular person to be investigated rather than try to combat corruption. Since then the defence has changed tack to say he never asked in the first place!

Sondland also made it pretty obvious that Trump was only looking for Zelensky to announce it, and on CNN, of all places. He didn't seem to care about the logistics of it, or even care if the investigation actually happened or not.

Guess who that was designed to hurt?

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

The post-hearing disinformation campaign is in full tilt now - Schiff 'made the whole thing up' and is 'a sick puppy' - so I guess perjury charges for all these witnesses is to follow?


https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-adam-schiff-is-a-sick-puppy-who-made-the-whole-thing-up/

Lots of DARVO going on

Disturbing.

everlast75

Anyone who thinks Trump is an appropriate candidate for presidency, should tune in to Fox & Friends now, watch the whole lot and then say so with a straight face.

Overheal

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Disturbing.

As is the fact the public won't hear testimony from Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Pence, Eisenberg, Trump, Mulvaney, Pompeo, etc.

If they're innocent take the stand swear the oath and tell America in no ambiguous terms that everything they did was above board. You wanna hear from Biden, Biden and a whistleblower? Go nuts. But not without the above lot.