Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

pixelburp

Enter name here wrote: »

Happy to discuss anything you choose, as long as we can also discuss the the various laws and racist remarks Hilary has made previously otherwise just pointless, arguing or discussing anything apparently is seen as aggressive and confrontational so very limited in how I can reply. But I'll simply leave much easier than arguing or discussing rational points with people who only see one side.

Whereas your "side" is to bring up Trump's now retired ooponent from 2+ years ago? Why do you think this is even relevant to the discussion. This is a thread about Donald Trump, who, as you seem to be aware, won the election.

And spends his days making outrageous, asinine comments on Twitter so forgive me if the standard isn't particularly high - the president isn't exactly leading by example when he blathers about killing 10s of millions or makes idiot comments to 911 first responders.

"But Hillary!" Christ, it's not even parody at this stage.

Timberrrrrrrr

duploelabs wrote: »

Ah but Hillary....

Clap


Clap


Clap

We're beyond that level of response by now, best up your game

I have a new rule.with posters like that, if they are here less than a year or have less than 200 posts i just ignore them until they reach one of those criteria. Funnily not one of them has managed to make the cut yet

Stop moaning ffs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have a new rule.with posters like that, if they are here less than a year or have less than 200 posts i just ignore them until they reach one of those criteria. Funnily not one of them has managed to make the cut yet

A lot of that all over boards. All low posts counts with all the same pungent opinions retooled to whatever the topic is.

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have a new rule.with posters like that, if they are here less than a year or have less than 200 posts i just ignore them until they reach one of those criteria. Funnily not one of them has managed to make the cut yet

There's similar criteria on the soccer forums, why they couldn't enact the same here is beyond me

FatherTed

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

... Democrats wanted the steele dossier allegations to be investigated and Mueller was their man to do the job.

Stop making shyte up. The FBI wanted the allegations investigated. And Mueller was a Trump administration appointment.

Quin_Dub

duploelabs wrote: »

Ah but Hillary....

Clap


Clap


Clap

We're beyond that level of response by now, best up your game

Cody montana wrote: »

Go ahead.

pixelburp wrote: »

Whereas your "side" is to bring up Trump's now retired ooponent from 2+ years ago? Why do you think this is even relevant to the discussion. This is a thread about Donald Trump, who, as you seem to be aware, won the election.

And spends his days making outrageous, asinine comments on Twitter so forgive me if the standard isn't particularly high - the president isn't exactly leading by example when he blathers about killing 10s of millions or makes idiot comments to 911 first responders.

"But Hillary!" Christ, it's not even parody at this stage.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have a new rule.with posters like that, if they are here less than a year or have less than 200 posts i just ignore them until they reach one of those criteria. Funnily not one of them has managed to make the cut yet

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

A lot of that all over boards. All low posts counts with all the same pungent opinions retooled to whatever the topic is.

##Mod Note##

No more one liners please and if you have an issue with a post then report it.

You're all here long enough to know better..

Thank you.

everlast75

Enter name here wrote: »

Happy to discuss anything you choose, as long as we can also discuss the the various laws and racist remarks Hilary has made previously otherwise just pointless, arguing or discussing anything apparently is seen as aggressive and confrontational so very limited in how I can reply. But I'll simply leave much easier than arguing or discussing rational points with people who only see one side.

We are talking about Trump. The clue is in the title of the thread. That's the way things work on Boards.

So, where do you stand on the fact that Trump carried out multiple acts which could legally construed as obstruction of justice and but for a legal opinion he would tried and convicted, according to over 1000 state and line prosecutors?

Where do you stand on the fact that he carried out a felony in instructing his then personal attorney to pay hush money to a porn star to prevent that story informing the american public as to what kind of man he is?

Where do you stand on his recent race baiting led to thousands chanting racist words towards 4 duly elected congresswomen?

Sonics2k

Enter name here wrote: »

Happy to discuss anything you choose, as long as we can also discuss the the various laws and racist remarks Hilary has made previously otherwise just pointless, arguing or discussing anything apparently is seen as aggressive and confrontational so very limited in how I can reply. But I'll simply leave much easier than arguing or discussing rational points with people who only see one side.

Why discuss Hilary and the awful person she is, on a thread about Trump and the awful person he is?

You know it's possible to not like both of them, right? Go make a thread about Hilary and people can chat about her there.

Outlaw Pete

hill16bhoy wrote: »

If you deny that obvious racism is racism - and a quick look at your posting history strongly suggests that is the case - yes, that would certainly make you a racist.

So you were calling me a racist then, thanks for clarifying, and just for the record, I have never denied that someone was being racist if they were obviously being so in my life. Problem is the kind of nonsense people like you are happy to see labelled as racism these days. You're a racist! is losing all meaning we hear it so damn much.

Now, any chance you can answer the question you were asked?

You said the Republican Party was the party of white supremacy and I asked you:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Okay, give me some examples of how this white supremacist regime manifests itself.

Or are you just going to cop out now and say something like 'Trump's a wacist and they all support him and so they're all wacists too'.

hill16bhoy

"Wacist" is a commonly used term among the online far right which is used to deny or celebrate racism.

Generally I find that if somebody on the internet writes "wacist", it's a safe bet they're an out an out racist troll who is not worth engaging with.

I see nothing here to dispel my view.

Outlaw Pete

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Generally I find that if somebody on the internet writes "wacist", it's a safe bet they're an out an out racist troll who is not worth engaging with.

I see nothing here to dispel my view.

In my experience those who resort to ad hominem attacks generally have run out of arguments to support opinions they've expressed.

Cody montana wrote: »

When he told those democratic politicians to go to their own countries it WAS racist.

So? That doesn't make him a racist. Do you think the following comment makes Piers Morgan a racist?

He is a racist.
What else can it be?

Harsh, inconsiderate, wrongheaded (particularly given only one of them came from another country). There are many things which it could be reasonable to infer those tweets as being, but racist was not one of them.

You see, a racist is someone who believes that their race is superior to another's race (or even all races) but there was nothing about the remarks which could lead one to reasonably believe that they were made because Trump believes the white race is better than each of their races.

No, Trump's comment were made out of anger and frustration at these women because of how despicable they are as people. He is judging them by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. Had one of the squad been a white south african, or white Parisian, then he'd be chewing them out in the very same way.

It's lazy, inaccurate and cringeworthy to label it racist, but given almost anything is being called racist these days, even use of the word 'infest', well then it is of course not in least surprising that it was.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

This is ****ing disgusting.

What I am saying is that this (insert expletive here) has just debased the office utterly beyond recognition. These tweets are like something from a teenager who is having a row via social media with someone in his school.

Pure pathetic adolescent crap. And this from the highest office in the Land.

Ah come on, he wasn't using the POTUS account and besides, he's right, Sharpton's a nasty piece of work. The following clip leaves that in no doubt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpZ0RwtvZmk

He's right on Baltimore too, laughable that people are saying he was racist on that too, even the ex Mayor pretty much said it was a hellhole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2D4zoIODVo

Trump's comments probably the best thing that's happened the place and finally now that the spotlight has been shone on it, worldwide, steps will be taken to address the issues the place, and its people, undoubtedly are dealing with.

Outlaw Pete

Igotadose wrote: »

Replaced by that congressman Ratcliffe who went after Mueller so hard last week.

Great nomination by Trump....

Ratcliffe cut to the crux of the issue last week with Mueller by calling him out on his nonsense about re the findings of his report (or at least the pro-Hillary staff's report) not fully exonerating Trump. Democrats had been parroting that rubbish since the report first dropped.

It's absurd, he was tasked with making a determination on whether or not there was sufficient evidence that the POTUS (or his team) had broken laws, end of story. He was not tasked with exonerating anyone. That filler was just added by the pro-Hillary lawyers doing their bit behind the scenes to try and dilute, and dostracy away from, the main findings.

So yeah, Ratcliffe is an excellent nom, particularly as he is someone that doesn't have his head in the sand with regards to just how shady certain individuals within the FBI and Obama administration behaved when going about obtaining warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Nor indeed with regards to just whose interests these people were working neither. Ratcliffe believes crimes were committed and so hopefully he gets appointed. Enough time has been wasted on the hoax, time now to focus on those who actually attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and hold them accountable.

FrostyJack

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great nomination by Trump....

Ratcliffe cut to the crux of the issue last week with Mueller by calling him out on his nonsense about re the findings of his report (or at least the pro-Hillary staff's report) not fully exonerating Trump. Democrats had been parroting that rubbish since the report first dropped.

It's absurd, he was tasked with making a determination on whether or not there was sufficient evidence that the POTUS (or his team) had broken laws, end of story. He was not tasked with exonerating anyone. That filler was just added by the pro-Hillary lawyers doing their bit behind the scenes to try and dilute, and dostracy away from, the main findings.

So yeah, Ratcliffe is an excellent nom, particularly as he is someone that doesn't have his head in the sand with regards to just how shady certain individuals within the FBI and Obama administration behaved when going about obtaining warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Nor indeed with regards to just whose interests these people were working neither. Ratcliffe believes crimes were committed and so hopefully he gets appointed. Enough time has been wasted on the hoax, time now to focus on those who actually attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and hold them accountable.

By great nomination, you mean awful one. No experience, yes man sycophant, increase the executive power of Trump, swamp up the swamp even more. He won't stand up to Trumps bs, instead he will double down on it. He ticks all the boxes for this administration, goes on the networks talking rubbish to brown nose Trump and gets a job out of it. I cannot think of one appointment, other than Mad dog, who could take no more of the nonsense and quit, that would take that position in any other first World country. Bring every department down systematically that the country relies on, you would swear he was doing the bidding of a foreign enemy or something.

And for the millionth time Mueller, Comey and McCabe were all Republicans. Comey helped scupper Hillary's campaign and probably stopped her being elected, I am sure they are all anti Trump now, after being first hand witnesses to all his crimes and his car crash of administration. Mueller was appointed by Trumps administration to be special council. Mueller not making a determination helped Trump not hindered him. Believe whatever lie or fantasy conspiracy you want but please stop constantly spout them here.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In my experience those who resort to ad hominem attacks generally have run out of arguments to support opinions they've expressed.



So? That doesn't make him a racist. Do you think the following comment makes Piers Morgan a racist?

Harsh, inconsiderate, wrongheaded (particularly given only one of them came from another country). There are many things which it could be reasonable to infer those tweets as being, but racist was not one of them.

You see, a racist is someone who believes that their race is superior to another's race (or even all races) but there was nothing about the remarks which could lead one to reasonably believe that they were made because Trump believes the white race is better than each of their races.

No, Trump's comment were made out of anger and frustration at these women because of how despicable they are as people. He is judging them by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. Had one of the squad been a white south african, or white Parisian, then he'd be chewing them out in the very same way.

It's lazy, inaccurate and cringeworthy to label it racist, but given almost anything is being called racist these days, even use of the word 'infest', well then it is of course not in least surprising that it was.

He absolutely would not have said it had they been white. Especially if some were white Americans aside from coloured Americans. I presume he has at least clarified what he meant?

I assume all that birther nonsense would have been the same for a white president? Or if the central park 5 were white?

As for Baltimore. A few years back that was down to the president. Why not anymore? I thought giving out about America was now unAmerican.

I love the "he is not a racist, he just says racist things cos..." approach. If people say racist things they are probably just a racist. I get people get mad or use bad phrasing but his original message was in a tweet. Plenty of time to review and be ok with it. Plus plenty of time to clarify and apologise for his statements.

You are making massive assumptions that he is judging them on character or it was made out of anger. The man has a history of saying racist things. He seems to regret none of it. Occam's razor seems to apply.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah come on, he wasn't using the POTUS account and besides, he's right, Sharpton's a nasty piece of work. The following clip leaves that in no doubt.

"If he doesn't use the POTUS account, his racism doesn't count"

Though it's already been decided by the Courts that his personal account counts as a Presidential account under the First Amendment

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Twitter/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf

Turning to the merits of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim,
we hold that the speech in which they seek to engage is protected
by the First Amendment and that the President and Scavino exert
governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump
account, including the interactive space of the tweets sent from
the account. That interactive space is susceptible to analysis
under the Supreme Court's forum doctrines, and is properly
characterized as a designated public forum. The viewpoint-based
exclusion of the individual plaintiffs from that designated public
forum is proscribed by the First Amendment and cannot be justified
by the President's personal First Amendment interests.

FrostyJack

Christy42 wrote:

As for Baltimore. A few years back that was down to the president. Why not anymore? I thought giving out about America was now unAmerican.

Only last week it was a treasonous to critise America and people that do should go home, now to call parts of America "rat infested" s holes is the patriotic thing to do. I wonder is there higher power controlling things just watch what length people will go to defend him. If it was an movie character or sports team I would have given up defending after the first hour, over 2 years in and the gymnastics continues. It must be exhausting or really well paying.

StringerBell

It's just a continuation of his 2016 platform, "the American dream is dead" "American Carnage" and all his other insults to the country. It's also instructive, it highlights clearly and separates those who have the ability to critically think and those who don't.

Other than that, the walls continue to close in and pressure from multiple angles increases. Pageantry is for the politicians and the media, the courts are concerned with fact primarily and increasingly the chickens are making their way home now to roost, should be an interesting few months ahead.

Penn

An analysis of Trump's claims regarding 9/11 with evidence to back up same, posted on Reddit.

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/cjcn0x/trump_tells_911_first_responders_i_was_down_there/evckl4h/
Two of the key points relevant to his speech yesterday:

3 Trump lied and claimed he had hundreds of his men working in the 9/11 rescue effort when he didn't have any.

Trump: I have hundreds of men inside working right now and we’re bringing down another 125 in a little while. And they’ve never done work like this before. And they’re hard-working people but they’ve never seen anything like it. And they’ve never done work like this before, it’s terrible.

Richard Alles, a retired deputy chief with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), who now serves as director of 9/11 community affairs for the law firm Barasch McGarry Salzman and Penson, told us that in all the hours, days and months he spent at Ground Zero as an FDNY battalion chief starting 20 minutes after the buildings collapsed, he never witnessed a large group of workers hired by Trump at the site helping with search and rescue. “This is the first I’m hearing of it,” Alles told us by phone. “There would have been no need for that. Between police, fire and the construction crews, we had it all covered.”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-searching-911-survivors/

4 Trump lied and claimed that he helped in the 9/11 clean-up personally.

“Everyone who helped clear the rubble — and I was there, and I watched, and I helped a little bit — but I want to tell you: Those people were amazing,” Trump said. “Clearing the rubble. Trying to find additional lives. You didn’t know what was going to come down on all of us — and they handled it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/11/trumps-long-history-of-lying-about-9-11-and-exploiting-it-for-personal-gain/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d56875ed2bf9

All Trump did was show up and get himself interviewed on TV at the site. He didn't get his hands dirty.

Lying... about 9/11... Are there any depths this man won't sink to?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nor indeed with regards to just whose interests these people were working neither. Ratcliffe believes crimes were committed and so hopefully he gets appointed. Enough time has been wasted on the hoax, time now to focus on those who actually attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and hold them accountable.

Is this from the QAnon stuff?

everlast75

I really, really thought we were all past this "is he or isn't he a racist" nonsense.

These kind of posts which parse words, or say his comments as harmless trolling, etc etc - I refer to them as the "mop and bucket brigade" who only come out after he says something controversial in order to try minimise the damage.

The horse has bolted.

He is a racist.

Just accept it and let's all move on please ffs.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great nomination by Trump....

Ratcliffe cut to the crux of the issue last week with Mueller by calling him out on his nonsense about re the findings of his report (or at least the pro-Hillary staff's report) not fully exonerating Trump. Democrats had been parroting that rubbish since the report first dropped.

It's absurd, he was tasked with making a determination on whether or not there was sufficient evidence that the POTUS (or his team) had broken laws, end of story. He was not tasked with exonerating anyone. That filler was just added by the pro-Hillary lawyers doing their bit behind the scenes to try and dilute, and dostracy away from, the main findings.

So yeah, Ratcliffe is an excellent nom, particularly as he is someone that doesn't have his head in the sand with regards to just how shady certain individuals within the FBI and Obama administration behaved when going about obtaining warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Nor indeed with regards to just whose interests these people were working neither. Ratcliffe believes crimes were committed and so hopefully he gets appointed. Enough time has been wasted on the hoax, time now to focus on those who actually attempted to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and hold them accountable.

What 'hoax' are you referring to?

Also if there was one instance of trump obstructing them there may be a case to argue, but ten times as found by (the republican) Mueller?

Imagine if it was a charge of murder, 'well we can't be exactly sure that they didn't murder those ten different people in different circumstances with different sets of evidence'??

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great nomination by Trump....

He was tasked with making a determination on whether or not there was sufficient evidence that the POTUS (or his team) had broken laws, end of story.

He was not tasked with exonerating anyone..

You're correct on the 1sr and 2nd. Don Trump vocally disagrees with you when it comes to the report and exoneration, despite the author of the report making it clear in congress that his report does not exonerate the president from culpability in respect of the charges the president says the report clears him of.

As for the part about Radcliffe investigating anyone, we'll just have to see whether he insists on looking under US beds instead of at the character of the visitors from abroad Don has invited into the Oval Office for one-on-one chats.

Re the nomination, I assume it'll pass with flying colours. Thing is it'll denude the congress by one, one from within the Pro-Trump rump of congress, which might not be good for the Republicans, however good it does Don.

Rjd2

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah come on, he wasn't using the POTUS account and besides, he's right, Sharpton's a nasty piece of work. The following clip leaves that in no doubt.

I agree Sharpton is unpleasant and the Dems whitewashing his past is absurd but I also think Trump has not exactly excelled last few days. with his comments.

Basically both are pretty unpleasant individuals. Case closed.:)

mad muffin

everlast75 wrote: »

I really, really thought we were all past this "is he or isn't he a racist" nonsense.

These kind of posts which parse words, or say his comments as harmless trolling, etc etc - I refer to them as the "mop and bucket brigade" who only come out after he says something controversial in order to try minimise the damage.

The horse has bolted.

He is a racist.

Just accept it and let's all move on please ffs.

I hope that when he wins 2020. You will come out and say. We know for sure now, without a shadow of a doubt. That America is out and out racist. Don’t forget to include that all the African Americans, Hispanics, and other people of colour, are self hating racists. Being used by the republicans and by trump.

Christy42

mad muffin wrote: »

I hope that when he wins 2020. You will come out and say. We know for sure now, without a shadow of a doubt. That America is out and out racist. Don’t forget to include that all the African Americans, Hispanics, and other people of colour, are self hating racists. Being used by the republicans and by trump.

I mean it isn't like too many African Americans are voting for Trump. Why would the poster call people who voted for Warren or whoever racist? Some Hispanics will vote Republican because the bay of pigs is more important than racism to them.

But yeah if Trump wins people will have to accept that a large chunk of America is either actively racist or largely ok with a racist representing them which is not overly dissimilar.

mad muffin

Rjd2 wrote: »

I agree Sharpton is unpleasant and the Dems whitewashing his past is absurd but I also think Trump has not exactly excelled last few days. with his comments.

Basically both are pretty unpleasant individuals. Case closed.:)

They sweep everything under the rug. I don’t see them calling for the governor of Virginia to resign.

Oh but look trump is racist. We’ve established that 100 percent.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/ijr.com/trump-didnt-allow-steve-king-fly-iowa-air-force-one/amp/

President Donald Trump made it clear he has no room for Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) in his political party — or at least on Air Force One.

King has largely been exiled from the Republican Party for making racist comments during an interview with the New York Times.

mad muffin

Christy42 wrote: »

I mean it isn't like too many African Americans are voting for Trump. Why would the poster call people who voted for Warren or whoever racist? Some Hispanics will vote Republican because the bay of pigs is more important than racism to them.

But yeah if Trump wins people will have to accept that a large chunk of America is either actively racist or largely ok with a racist representing them which is not overly dissimilar.

I see many many. YouTube videos made by African Americans that support trump and that deride the dems and anyone for calling him racist.

Are they all stupid?Ignorant?Payed shills? Or are they actually seeing things for what they are? Dems taking big but in reality doing sweet fa for them.

Why is it that they keep on voting dems but they are the most poor. The most uneducated. Living in places like Baltimore. A majority black city. Why is it that the poorest of the inner city neighbourhoods are majority black? Why is their population in decline. With a planned parenthood on every corner of their neighbourhood? If the dems are there to look after them. Because the republicans are the party of racists. Why aren’t they thriving? Why are the harshest laws that target them are laws created by the dems?

People’s hatred for trump and the dems hatred for trump don’t see the Forrest for the trees. All they do is wait for a tweet and then trip over themselves in a rush to call trump racist.

That’s basically American politics right now.

Christy42

mad muffin wrote: »

I see many many. YouTube videos made by African Americans that support trump and that deride the dems and anyone for calling him racist.

Are they all stupid?Ignorant?Payed shills? Or are they actually seeing things for what they are. Dems taking big but in reality doing sweet fa for them.

Why is it that they keep on voting dems but they are the most poor. The most uneducated. Living in places like Baltimore. A majority black city. Why is it that the poorest of the inner city neighbourhoods are majority black? Why is their population in decline. With a planned parenthood on every corner of their neighbourhood? If the dems are there to look after them. Because the republicans are the party of racists. Why aren’t they thriving? Why are the harshest laws that target them are laws created by the dems?

The war on drugs was probably the most heavy handed targeting of African Americans. And opposing healthcare and education initiatives. And ensuring that those targeted by the failed war on drugs can't vote.

I am sure there are some. Let's see if Trump can get 20% of the African American vote. Seems like a nice incredibly low bar for someone who has generally lowered the bar.

Certainly the Dems have not done enough for them but they are less likely to actively target them. African Americans are stuck with poor options. They are not thriving because one party has not done enough and the other has tried to keep them poor.

The failure of the Dems does not excuse Trump's racism.

You use the evidence of black people making pro Trump videos. What do you think of the far more frequent anti Trump videos (paid shills, ignorant or seeing Trump for what he is).

mad muffin

Christy42 wrote: »

The war on drugs was probably the most heavy handed targeting of African Americans. And opposing healthcare and education initiatives. And ensuring that those targeted by the failed war on drugs can't vote.

I am sure there are some. Let's see if Trump can get 20% of the African American vote. Seems like a nice incredibly low bar for someone who has generally lowered the bar.

Certainly the Dems have not done enough for them but they are less likely to actively target them. African Americans are stuck with poor options. They are not thriving because one party has not done enough and the other has tried to keep them poor.

The failure of the Dems does not excuse Trump's racism.

You use the evidence of black people making pro Trump videos. What do you think of the far more frequent anti Trump videos (paid shills, ignorant or seeing Trump for what he is).

You see. The anti trump videos are hypocrisy. They point to trump saying stupid stuff like they had airports in the war of independence yet failed to mention that obama said USA has 57 states.

Or more recently with Baltimore. Calling it racist. When their own politicians were caught out saying essentially the same thing. And in 2015 Bernie called in like a 3rd world country. Or the example of Virginia’s governor and actual racist.

Also never do they call our Sharpton for his out and out racism.

And just the last few hours Omar retweeted Tom Arnold’s 2017 tweet about how happy he was when den. Rams Paul’s neighbours assaulted him. Let see how the dems call her out.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ilhan-omar-apparently-hit-back-at-rand-paul-with-this-retweet/ar-AAF2q62?c=11430548100852357998&mkt=en-us