Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Stop moaning ffs

Funny you mention that. WaPo has a piece yesterday about what’s actually going on while he’s doing / saying this stuff. (or not actually saying as Grover rightly points out).

I’ll try find the link.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

If the story is true, it wasn't sexual. It was to get him in the country. If true.

From a brief Google this morning, she has previously shown proof she's the youngest of 7 children. The man she married is three years younger than her and wasn't listed in her family records. Also, there are legal paths to citizenship when you have a sibling who is already a US citizen, so she wouldn't have had to marry a brother for him to gain citizenship.

If true, would you condemn Trump for making such a vile, false attack on a sitting Congresswoman in front of a roaring crowd without any shred of proof or evidence?

Billy Mays

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not going to answer ridiculous and stupid questions. I don't believe that Trump wants his supporters to kill Omar. You apparently do, and the other poster apparently thinks that Trump won't leave office and will become a dictator.

Talk to each other and make those beliefs stronger, because nothing anyone says will ever weaken them.

He might not become a dictator but he'd certainly love to be a dictator


You're very naive if you think Trump is just going to put his hands up and accept it if he loses the 2020 election

everlast75

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Funny you mention that. WaPo has a piece yesterday about what’s actually going on while he’s doing / saying this stuff. (or not actually saying as Grover rightly points out).

I’ll try find the link.

Mueller was supposed to testify yesterday. Let's see if he has a rally on the 24th and says more incendiary headline grabbing stuff.

More details re Epstein and Cohen today....

Stop moaning ffs

#RacistPresident is trending on twitter.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

From a brief Google this morning, she has previously shown proof she's the youngest of 7 children. The man she married is three years younger than her and wasn't listed in her family records. Also, there are legal paths to citizenship when you have a sibling who is already a US citizen, so she wouldn't have had to marry a brother for him to gain citizenship.

If true, would you condemn Trump for making such a vile, false attack on a sitting Congresswoman in front of a roaring crowd without any shred of proof or evidence?

Yeah. Why would you ask me such a question?

hill16bhoy

everlast75 wrote: »

When is it enough for you?

when are you going to say;

"do you know what? **** this guy? I've had it taking pot shots at those that are outraged by his vitriolic, dangerous tropes. They are spot on. This guy is out and out dangerous and people should just come out and flatly say so"

He didn't mean for news outlets to be pipe bombed either, no? When he called out the press as being the enemy of the people? (I mean, are we passed parsing his words by claiming he meant "just" the fake media? We okay with that now?)

You are stretching the term "plausible deniability" passed the point of no return.

If somebody is still with Trump now, there will never be a "that's enough" moment, something will always be found to excuse him.

There has never been a "that's enough" moment for Brexiteers, and there never will be either.

What attracted people to Trump in the first place was his open voicing of bigotry.

People will not turn away from him now because of racism and other bigotry, it only makes them more loyal to him.

I think the misunderstanding that a lot of people have comes from them thinking that this stuff won't appeal to so called "middle of the road" voters.

Fear and hatred, when they're out of the bottle, are a powerful motivating factor and can pull in plenty of people who initially opposed a demagogue.

Hitler got 33% of the vote in November 1932. By March 1933 he'd upped that to 43% and thereafter, while there were obviously no more elections, Hitler became wildly popular.

Vladimir Putin may rig elections in his favour, but even if he didn't, he'd very likely win with well over 50% of the vote.

Viktor Orban's popularity continues to rise in Hungary.

Once fear, hatred and destruction of truth are out of the bottle, they are almost impossible to stop.

The only way you have a chance is a by a concerted, wide ranging effort from democratic forces in the media, the judiciary, politics and civil society, using every tool available to them, and that's been completely lacking in the US.

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not a Trump supporter.

A lot of Trump supporters say that.

TheIrishGrover

Apologies for my post. I misinterpeted. Please ignore my post. Ah. It's been deleted. Thanks. And apologies again to Ads by Google.

hill16bhoy

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A lot of Trump supporters say that.

Yeah, I'm sure they do. Not sure what your point is. I know it may seem hard to believe but me sitting here ridiculing the rabid hysteria of "He wants her assassinated!" and "He's literally going to be a dictator!!" does not make me a Trump supporter.


Mods: Why did the post this guy quoted disappear? I didn't delete it. Edit: Nevermind.

TheIrishGrover

Well, the thing is..... Who is going to run against him? I mean there is no real genuine Democrat alternative. Sure, the younger and more liberal voters who didn't turn up last time will vote Democrat but you can bet your bottom dollar every single one of his supporters WILL turn. 100% of them (at least )

Right now there shouldn't be a debate about which Democrat is going to run. Right now there should already be one single voice/face. We should know who this person is and what they stand for. Say what you like about Obama. You knew who the hell he was even before he got the nomination. The Democrats are just eating their young at this stage.

I hope I'm wrong but come on. They should have gotten behind one single person by the end of last year.

Podge_irl

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well, the thing is..... Who is going to run against him? I mean there is no real genuine Democrat alternative. Sure, the younger and more liberal voters who didn't turn up last time will vote Democrat but you can bet your bottom dollar every single one of his supporters WILL turn. 100% of them (at least )

Right now there shouldn't be a debate about which Democrat is going to run. Right now there should already be one single voice/face. We should know who this person is and what they stand for. Say what you like about Obama. You knew who the hell he was even before he got the nomination. The Democrats are just eating their young at this stage.

I hope I'm wrong but come on. They should have gotten behind one single person by the end of last year.

The election is 16 months away. Clinton was the presumptive nominee until Jan '18 and the Iowa caucus. So no, they absolutely shouldn't have a candidate already.

Besides the longer you have a nominee the more time to trash the nominee.

TheIrishGrover

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well, the thing is..... Who is going to run against him? I mean there is no real genuine Democrat alternative. Sure, the younger and more liberal voters who didn't turn up last time will vote Democrat but you can bet your bottom dollar every single one of his supporters WILL turn. 100% of them (at least )

Right now there shouldn't be a debate about which Democrat is going to run. Right now there should already be one single voice/face. We should know who this person is and what they stand for. Say what you like about Obama. You knew who the hell he was even before he got the nomination. The Democrats are just eating their young at this stage.

I hope I'm wrong but come on. They should have gotten behind one single person by the end of last year.

I just checked at the primaries in February..... It feels like it should be a way way smaller field by now.

In 2016, six months before the primary, was it just Hillary and Sanders, or were there others?

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah. Why would you ask me such a question?

Honestly, there are a lot of people who come across not as Trump supporters, but at the very least Trump excusers. People who dismiss or wave off any criticism of him. While there are some people who go too far the other way and everything Trump says is the worst thing ever and that should also be called out, this was a blatant attack on a sitting Congresswoman, steeped in racist rhetoric, which will at the very least lead to her receiving targeted abuse from his most fervent supporters and force her to have to rebut such an accusation, which keeps her in the news headlines for same.

I think his comments last night don't just deserve to be rebutted, or allowing him to walk away saying "I didn't say it, I just said other people have said it" or similar. He should be actively condemned for his comments. I was simply interested to know what side of the fence you fall on with that as your repeated "If true" in my opinion sounded like "Well there may be some truth in what he's saying".

Until he offers a shred of proof of same, it should be utterly dismissed as a falsehood.

hill16bhoy

Penn wrote: »

From a brief Google this morning, she has previously shown proof she's the youngest of 7 children. The man she married is three years younger than her and wasn't listed in her family records. Also, there are legal paths to citizenship when you have a sibling who is already a US citizen, so she wouldn't have had to marry a brother for him to gain citizenship.

See, the fact you're even discussing this shows how well Trump's strategy of obvious outright lies, propaganda and destruction of truth works.

Facts mean nothing to Trump supporters, that's been obvious since 2015, you could take it further and go back to the birther conspiracy against Obama which Trump led. You can go back further than that to the swift boat conspiracy against John Kerry, the Iraq War, the 2000 election and the conspiracy theories about Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

But this strategy has always worked, it's time honoured.

Democrats - I don't mean just the Democratic party, I mean people who believe in truth and democracy, will always be bringing a slingshot to a gunfight in this information war.

A lot of democrats believe that truth will always win. Much as we might like to believe it, it isn't the case, sadly.

The refusal to confront the truths of inconvenient history among not just Republicans but the vast majority of the white population of the US made the situation we're living through today possible.

Today's destruction of truth is possible because the truths of history didn't win among a large number of people.

This is the same process that has led to Brexit and the headlong rush towards no deal.

Truth is powerless in a situation where fascism exists because the fascist explicitly bases their strategy around creating a situation where truth has no currency.

That's the situation that currently exists in Russia, China, Turkey, Hungary, Venezuela and increasingly in Poland, Italy and Brazil.

jem

Need to bear in mind that only 5 Americal presidents havnt been elected to serve a second term and one of those wasnt elected for the first one.
George Bush Snr. 1989-1993 ( Clinton beat him)
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 ( regan beat him and the democrats were at war with each other)
Gerald Ford ( he replaced Nixon and wasnt even elected vice president)
Herbert Hoover 1929-1933
William taft 1909-1913

So the odds are that the orange one will be reelected

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I just checked at the primaries in February..... It feels like it should be a way way smaller field by now.

In 2016, six months before the primary, was it just Hillary and Sanders, or were there others?

By Feb 2016 it was just Sanders and Clinton.

The previous summer it was 6 main candidates and 3 of those were also rans from day one.

everlast75

jem wrote: »

Need to bear in mind that only 5 Americal presidents havnt been elected to serve a second term and one of those wasnt elected for the first one.
George Bush Snr. 1989-1993 ( Clinton beat him)
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 ( regan beat him and the democrats were at war with each other)
Gerald Ford ( he replaced Nixon and wasnt even elected vice president)
Herbert Hoover 1929-1933
William taft 1909-1913

So the odds are that the orange one will be reelected

Because he is a stereotypical President?

looksee

In the background the country continues to keep ticking over. All this stuff that makes the headlines every day gives the impression that the US must be falling to bits because no one is minding it, but it keeps going. A number of Republicans (a small number, but still...) have said that they don't approve of Trump's racism but they support his policies. I am having trouble seeing any policies, but maybe I am confused by the clouds of smoke from the outrageous stuff.

Most of the election policies have not come to anything, and his foreign policy seems to be knee-jerk stuff, so can anyone explain to me what policies he has, what is it that otherwise intelligent, if not particularly moral, elected representatives see in him that is worth destroying society for? There must be something, or is there really something truly sinister going on?

This is one of the most disturbing images I have seen on the subject https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/republican-women-trump-racist-tweets-progressive/index.html
Eight over-groomed, Stepford wives arguing that Trump is not racist, fairly obviously because they do not want the label of 'racist' on themselves. It is a wholly contrived film with hand picked women with the sound just sufficiently out of sync to make them look odd. Who is being persuaded here? There is no mention of policies, it is all 'cult of personality' stuff, could they have discussed policies if the subject had been introduced?

Which comes back to the original question, are there any policies?

hill16bhoy

kilns wrote: »

Can the ordinary decent middle of the road card carrying Republican voters actually stand this man? or is it party over anything else?

I guess we will soon see

If they're "decent", they deserted him long ago and voted against him.

If they aren't "decent", they're still with him.

The reality is there aren't any genuinely "decent" people still with him, only people that either subscribe wholesale to his naked bigotry, or people who are prepared to tolerate it.

There are many people who like to think of themselves as decent people who still support him, but the banality of evil and all that.

Stop moaning ffs

I saw this on twitter and it’s depressingly true right now particularly as it relates to his base or anyone defending him
‘‪Racism is so American, that when you protest it, people think you are protesting America. ‘

He’s made this the rotten core of his whole presidency and the daily ‘new low’ has desensitised media and public both.
How did we allow this to become normal? He’s playing a blinder at creating a fascist mindset and state

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure they do. Not sure what your point is. I know it may seem hard to believe but me sitting here ridiculing the rabid hysteria of "He wants her assassinated!" and "He's literally going to be a dictator!!" does not make me a Trump supporter.

You're literally using the Trump strategy and the strategy all fascists use here - calling people "ridiculous" and "hysterical", while completely ignoring pertinent points, and giving credence to his latest obvious lie designed to whip up racial hatred.

I mean, what you did there is Trump strategy 101.

Did somebody say ridiculous and hysterical, eh?

RIGOLO

so what happened to IMPEACHMENT .. I thought Nancy and Democrat party controlled the House.

Rememebr when Nancy got the gavel and all the anti-Trumpers were like we are going to show him what the power is now.

House kills solo Democrat's bid to impeach Trump


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/trump-impeachment-house-vote/index.html

doesnt look like the anti-Trumpers are getting it any time soon.

So much for all the calls for impeachment.
Last I checked you cant be impeached for a TWEET.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He should be impeached on his unapologetic racism alone. He's stirring up hate for political gain. ,

Igotadose wrote: »

Impeachment's the only choice, even though it'll fail in the Senate. They need to get it going based on obstruction, that seems the most likely solid case. They won't impeach him because he's a bigot and a racist, it's what he does to the country that matters.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Pelosi knows that the GOP, as shown numerous times by McConnell, will under no circumstances have anything to do with impeachment. It is doomed to failure and will be painted as the DNC having no actual policies beyond 'Hate Trump'.

There is clearly more than enough to impeach Trump, he should at the very least be questioned over Ivanka and Kushners roles, KAC breaking the rules and his failure to put his business's in a blind trust. That is before we get to his selection of Putin's word over the CIA/FBI. That is before we get to his refusal to take election interference seriously.

Dog Man Star wrote: »

The impeachment process obliges public testimonies that they cannot achieve at the moment.

StringerBell wrote: »

The thing I don't understand is why not to open an inquiry, an impeachment inquiry in the House. Forget the Senate, they aren't going to convict and impeach but it will get as much info as possible out to the public. Issue censure, use it as campaign material for 2020. You won't convince the brainwashed, as sad as it is they are a lost cause and unable to help themselves but you would make sure that the swing voters have as much chance as possible to not vote for this man.

PropJoe10 wrote: »

You're not wrong on what would probably happen, but not starting impeachment proceedings just sends out the message that the President of the day can basically do whatever they want without any repurcussions.

Politics is totally broken in the US anyway. The two party system is a complete disaster. Never seen anything as divided in my life.

everlast75 wrote:

He has carried out multiple impeachment worthy offences, compared to presidents who were impeached previously. .
Whether the blindly loyal Rep members of the senate would vote with their conscience is another matter.
And trump had better be careful what he wishes for. I think Nixon was impeached on three charges
1) obstruction of justice
2) abuse of power
3) contempt of Congress .

everlast75 wrote:

I've discussed this before.
Laurence Tribe had an idea. Move forward with an impeachment hearing in the House, giving Trump the right of reply and putting the House's powers at their strongest.
Educate the public, convict in the House but rather than move to the Senate for the vote, issue a *censure* from the House of Trump, stating publicly that there is no point putting it to the Senate as they won't do their job and convict.
You get the benefit of the hearing without the risk of a defeat in the Senate.. .

Danzy

RIGOLO wrote: »

so what happened to IMPEACHMENT .. I thought Nancy and Democrat party controlled the House.

Rememebr when Nancy got the gavel and all the anti-Trumpers were like we are going to show him what the power is now.

House kills solo Democrat's bid to impeach Trump


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/trump-impeachment-house-vote/index.html

doesnt look like the anti-Trumpers are getting it any time soon.

So much for all the calls for impeachment.
Last I checked you cant be impeached for a TWEET.

Nancy and the House know that impeachment is a dead end, waste of their time.

InTheShadows

Trump like he said himself can do and say what he wants and still get voted back in.

Bill Clinton put it best many years ago, "it's the economy stupid".

As long as it does well Trump is going nowhere that's the cold hard truth.

RIGOLO

everlast75 wrote: »

You are an apologist for a racist.

That's not meant as an insult by the way, and I am sure you don't take it as one. Just a statement of fact.

feel free to post where Ive been an apologist for any persons racist act.

otherwise its just a statement of your opinion , not fact.

just cos you say its a fact dont make it a fact.

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

so what happened to IMPEACHMENT .. I thought Nancy and Democrat party controlled the House.

Rememebr when Nancy got the gavel and all the anti-Trumpers were like we are going to show him what the power is now.

House kills solo Democrat's bid to impeach Trump


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/trump-impeachment-house-vote/index.html

doesnt look like the anti-Trumpers are getting it any time soon.

So much for all the calls for impeachment.
Last I checked you cant be impeached for a TWEET.

And I thought you knew how the US Government works?

The Republicans control the Senate. Which means, as the Republicans have no spine and cannot stand up to a card carrying racist, they won't vote to impeach.

Do you understand now?

BTW - by your voicing of support for Trump, you are voicing your support for racism. I know you know this - but its worth repeating.

Stop moaning ffs

RIGOLO wrote: »

feel free to post where Ive been an apologist for any persons racist act.

otherwise its just a statement of your opinion , not fact.

just cos you say its a fact dont make it a fact.

So you agree he’s a racist then?

Danzy

InTheShadows wrote: »

Trump like he said himself can do and say what he wants and still get voted back in.

Bill Clinton put it best many years ago, "it's the economy stupid".

As long as it does well Trump is going nowhere that's the cold hard truth.

Hiring is rebounding at the moment, consumer confidence, strong wage and job growth, especially for African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

Longest period of growth on record.

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

feel free to post where Ive been an apologist for any persons racist act.

otherwise its just a statement of your opinion , not fact.

just cos you say its a fact dont make it a fact.

I deleted that post, so I could reply to your substantive point.

He is a racist. That is a fact.

Thankfully, we are not living in a world of alternative facts, much to your and Kelly Anne Conway's chagrin.