Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Comments like this from your side of the aisle are laughable.

Not really "my side" nor am I anywhere near an aisle (nor are you I suspect).

But my comments largely hold true for the Democrats as well.

If Trump wasn't the most consistently unpopular President in History by some margin(or at least since polling began) then I am sure that the Democrats would have another angle to take in order to try to win back the WH/Senate etc.

When a President has not managed to convince even half of the population to like him at any point in his Presidency to date , of course they are going to leverage that to go after him.

US Politics is utterly broken and viciously polarised and to be honest the GOP take most of the blame for it , starting with Newt Gringrich.

Fonny122

Midlife wrote: »

How can you support Trump and say facts matter?

Are you serious with this?

He is and he isn't is my guess. It is clear from Outlaw Pete's posts and refusal to actually expand on any of his comments when they are challenged that he is not interested in having any meaningful debate and instead is only here to virtue signal his loyalty to other Trump supporters. This is a very standard practice among them on reddit, Twitter etc so it should not come as a surprise whatsoever.

Loyalty is all that matters, and any deviation from that whatsoever means running a huge risk of being kicked out of the group.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Comments like this from your side of the aisle are laughable.

For over three years you all pushed the lie that Trump had colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election and ignored every single piece of evidence to the contrary. Not only that, but simultaneously also dismissed facts and evidence which clearly showed that FBI officials had spied on the Trump campaign, lied to the FISA courts in order to keep doing so, and leaked investigation information to the media in a clear and concerted effort at misleading the public into believing that the Kremlin had compromising information on Trump and that he was effectively in their pocket. So spare me the nonsense about facts and evidence not mattering to those who support him as POTUS as tis your good selves which are prone to looking the other way when the truth doesn't fit your nauseating narrative that Trump is the devil incarnate.

Out of natural debating interest, how long did it take you to compose this post?

Fonny122

Quin_Dub wrote: »

US Politics is utterly broken and viciously polarised and to be honest the GOP take most of the blame for it , starting with Newt Gringrich.

He ratcheted it up to a whole new level, but I would actually it started with Barry Goldwater and also Nixon, under whom many of the scummiest characters in US politics got their starts. Stone and Manafort for example, and Roger Ailes who started FOX News explictly to foster the cult-like following we see among Trump supporters today so that they wouldn't be held accountable for crimes like Watergate.

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

Yes, but going through them publicly in a House hearing and having Parnas testifying about them under oath publicly would have greater impact than now in the Senate where they'll likely just be glossed over and ignored.

Are you kidding? His story has more holes in it than a sieve.

For example, he claimed last night that Yovanovitch being in the way of Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens was "the only motivation" for getting rid of her:


https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1217640777125376000


Really, well what about the bad mouthing she was doing about Trump which Parnas says his business partner had apparently Trump about over dinner in April 2018?

Yet another 'We have him now!' dies a death.

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Are you kidding? His story has more holes in it than a sieve.

For example, he claimed last night that Yovanovitch being in the way of Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens was "the only motivation" for getting rid of her:


https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1217640777125376000


Really, well what about the bad mouthing she was doing about Trump which Parnas says his business partner had apparently Trump about over dinner in April 2018?




Yet another 'We have him now!' dies a death.

So instead you claiming that you just have a president who flies off the handle and says a long serving diplomat from his own country should be fired because some random foreign businessman he barely knows (his claim) said she was 'unfriendly to his interests'.

You fairly messed that one up Pete.

Yeah trump is completely innocent of all the charges because the simple truth in all the cases is that he's just irrational, impulsive, hires awful people and then has no clue what they're doing.

Works for me if that's the line you want to take

Christy42

So is Guiliani still in place? Can we take it as read he didn't act without Trump's approval when conducting business with the Ukrainian president on behalf of Trump's personal lawyer?

Yeah there was no way that assassination attempt ended with Hyde. No idea how far up it would go.

As long as Trump obstructs the impeachment process you have to figure he is hiding something. Especially if we don't see key witnesses in front of the Senate which should be friendly towards him.

Man who would have thought a few years ago that so many people would be ok with the US President openly advocating for the US to commit more war crimes.

Itssoeasy

Seems Donald trump is claiming after all that has come out in recent days about the connection between lev Parnas and people around him and he himself that bar a photo he knows nothing about him or of him. So trump is taking pictures with strangers then ?

Also, Robert hydes house was searched today after what was released earlier in the week by the FBI.

PropJoe10

Midlife wrote: »

How can you support Trump and say facts matter?

Are you serious with this?

The only positive thing you can say about Outlaw Pete is that he's consistent. Take from that what you will.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Are you kidding? His story has more holes in it than a sieve.

For example, he claimed last night that Yovanovitch being in the way of Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens was "the only motivation" for getting rid of her:


https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1217640777125376000


Really, well what about the bad mouthing she was doing about Trump which Parnas says his business partner had apparently Trump about over dinner in April 2018?




Yet another 'We have him now!' dies a death.

Your trust in Parnas when believing his story that he told Don Trump at the dinner about Ambassador Yovanovich bad-mouthing him clashes with your distrust in him "his story has more holes in it than a sieve". I see that it was both Parnas and Igor Fruman [and not just Fruman] who both told Don Trump the story about the ambassador so maybe that explains it.

I got that last sentence from the black on white quote you included in your 2010 post but see you wrote above that Parnas said his business partner had apparently Trump about over dinner in April 2018?

What amuses me is that Don is denying knowing Parnas at all, apparently having said so several times while sitting behind the resolution desk in the Oval Office talking about the impeachment hearing today. It brought to mind his denial of knowing his former 2015 election manager.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Are you kidding? His story has more holes in it than a sieve.

For example, he claimed last night that Yovanovitch being in the way of Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens was "the only motivation" for getting rid of her:


https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1217640777125376000


Really, well what about the bad mouthing she was doing about Trump which Parnas says his business partner had apparently Trump about over dinner in April 2018?




Yet another 'We have him now!' dies a death.

You could pretty much copy and paste (your favourite tactic) from your response to when Michael Cohen took the stand.

Do you think that Trump is telling the truth when Donald says the he doesn't know Parnas?
Geniune question

PropJoe10

duploelabs wrote: »

You could pretty much copy and paste (your favourite tactic) from your response to when Michael Cohen took the stand.

Do you think that Trump is telling the truth when Donald says the he doesn't know Parnas?
Geniune question

You won't ever get a reply to a straight question about Don's truthfulness from a Trump defender, because they're in total denial about that. As far as they seem to be concerned, the whole world is a giant conspiracy set up to take Don and his amazing administration down. You can line up at least 20 disgusting Trump lies that probably would've taken down any other politician in recent history, but they just stick their fingers in their ears and shout about Hilary, Obama and Burisma.

It's the main reason why Trump will most likely get re-elected this year. He seems to have an unbreakable hold over his base. I've never seen anything quite like it before.

duploelabs

PropJoe10 wrote: »

You won't ever get a reply to a straight question about Don's truthfulness from a Trump defender, because they're in total denial about that. As far as they seem to be concerned, the whole world is a giant conspiracy set up to take Don and his amazing administration down. You can line up at least 20 disgusting Trump lies that probably would've taken down any other politician in recent history, but they just stick their fingers in their ears and shout about Hilary, Obama and Burisma.

It's the main reason why Trump will most likely get re-elected this year. He seems to have an unbreakable hold over his base. I've never seen anything quite like it before.

Well I'd assume the best of people, if said poster is here to debate and discuss then I'd trust they would respond when challenged to find some sense of empathy and understanding as to where they came to their standing. If they don't, then I'd assume that they're just here to virtue signal to their other chums who lurk on other subs of Boards and thus get their own immature sense of 'pwning dem libs'.
However given that this isn't the first time that they've ghosted these challenges, I don't hold much hope of a spine being in them.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1218148975674560512?s=19

Would be interested to hear a trump supporting military person's take on this....

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

Would be interested to hear a trump supporting military person's take on this....

Oh that is easy. Despite having the greatest military, the actuals generals are all rubbish and thank god Trump finally started to kick butt.

They happily live in a dual universe whereby everything US is the great and bestest ever, whilst at the same time being run terribly but useless, corrupt and anti American lefty liberals

pixelburp

Honestly, I had always presumed that an open, flagrant attack on not just the military- but the very CHARACTER of the military - would sink a US politician's career faster than any backstreet abortion or blackface. The manner in which Trump just seems to slide away from these gross aberrations against common decorum astonishes, even if at the same time doesn't surprise at all. All that's left truly is murder on 5th avenue.

I mean sure, he threw insults at the Khans back in 2016 so this isn't new; but even if you squeeze your eyelids and call that family props of an attack campaign, you just see this continuously line of ignorance & vulgarity when it comes to the armed forces that should - should - kill off the man's chance of re-election. Yet here we stand.

Manic Moran

Would be interested to hear a trump supporting military person's take on this....

I'm sure there are a number of military-focused websites you could go browse.

you just see this continuously line of ignorance & vulgarity when it comes to the armed forces that should - should - kill off the man's chance of re-election. Yet here we stand.

I would submit that the problem goes beyond merely attitude to armed forces, but attitude in general. What is causing the man's chance of re-election isn't an ignorance of this, but a choice to work on the basis that verbal tirades and daftness do not create the laws or policy which affects one's lives, and that the positions of the political opposition are such that they will create laws or policy with which that voter disagrees more than those demonstrated by Trump.

Oh. Keep an eye on Virginia Monday. Up until recently, the discussion on firearms boards has been along the lines of a large number of folks trying to convince a small number of folks that showing up tooled up with visible weapons (at least, visible rifles) is counter-productive for a rally. After the Governor decided to ban firearms at the rally by declaring a state of emergency (A political demonstration is a state of emergency?), the discussion has changed to debating which firearms to show up with, on the fairly reasonable supposition that the police are going to have difficulty using force against a large number of armed persons, likely mixed in a crowd with unarmed persons. I honestly can't get a read on how many people are going to actually show with firearms, but the folks are pissed. Even Antifa say they're showing up... to support the demonstration and march with the gun rights folks. I put even odds three ways on this ending with blood, the ban being ignored and unenforced, or the police managing to ensure the thousands of folks are unarmed.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm sure there are a number of military-focused websites you could go browse.

But how do you feel about? Do you agree that the generals are all useless. Which of course, despite all the money, all the weapons, and no matter how well trained in individual soldiers are, the army is next to useless?

Do you really believe that?

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how do you feel about? Do you agree that the generals are all useless. Which of course, despite all the money, all the weapons, and no matter how well trained in individual soldiers are, the army is next to useless?

Do you really believe that?

Of course not. We certainly have issues, mainly relating to funding and personnel management, but overall, we're in a pretty reasonable state. The latter is being addressed rather well in the last two or three years, with a number of good changes being implemented. (And to be clear, I view them as changes within Dept of the Army and DOD not the result of Trump policies. At least, not beyond Trump's selection of the generals who are implementing those changes, who may well have been selected whoever the president is.).

Leroy42

So then, the question comes back to how you feel, or indeed any member of the military, with the CiC having such disregard for your leaders.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

So then, the question comes back to how you feel, or indeed any member of the military, with the CiC having such disregard for your leaders.

Not happy about it. I doubt any member would be.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not happy about it. I doubt any member would be.

So what are the odds of Joe Smiths family, residents and voters at 154 Wyoming Drive, which just coincidentally happened to be the home/vote address of Lt Gen J Smith, approaching their GOP congressperson to tell him they're pissed off about the disrespect the President is giving to the US military and let him know it will end in loss of votes to him as a congressman if the president is not told to lay off the B/s by his party?

I'm mindful that the extended families of D/F Pers here are pissed off with both of the Irish Govt members wearing the Defence ministerial hat to the extent that two candidates from that fold are standing for election in the Kildare South area.

Manic Moran

So what are the odds of Joe Smiths family, residents and voters at 154 Wyoming Drive, which just coincidentally happened to be the home/vote address of Lt Gen J Smith, approaching their GOP congressperson to tell him they're pissed off about the disrespect the President is giving to the US military and let him know it will end in loss of votes to him as a congressman if the president is not told to lay off the B/s by his party?

Depends on what sort of internal opposition Congressman Blank has in the nomination process for re-election, and who's going up against him in the actual election. If none and "progressive", then I would say 'slim', because ultimately, the Smiths are going to either vote for Congressman Blank, or Congressman Blank's opponents in the other parties (Democrat, Libertarian, Green, whoever). If Congressman Blank is more closely aligned with the Smiths' overall values and votes for policies and bills that they like, and the Smiths think that Candidate Also-Blank from the Democratic Party is less likely to vote for policies and bills that they like (or worse, vote for policies and bills that they dislike), then the threat of a loss of votes will be an empty threat, and the Congressman knows it. The Congressman doesn't need to approve of Trump's position either, but the question to him is whether or not making waves on the matter will result in an overall benefit to him vis a vis his position within the party. The voter feeling offended is of less import than the voter feeling that the laws and policies being passed are against his interest and desires.

This, again, is why Democrats need to focus on putting forward moderate candidates for congressional seats. And, to their credit, they generally are in such places, with demonstrated success in 2018, even though they are getting relatively little visibility on the national stage which is affecting the party's Presidential chances.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not happy about it. I doubt any member would be.

Yeah but will they do anything about it.

Remember that this man cheated his way out of the draft, called those captured to be losers (or something similarly disrespectful) and called out a Purple Heart family for having the gall to speak out against him.

But he loves the military. Well except the generals of course.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

One person has been banned for personal abuse. Be nice please fold.

woohoo!!!

The GOP will absolutely back Trump, he's their man, it's that simple. What I could foresee, should mounting evidence lead to a big drop in his GOP numbers, that they'll pressure him to resign. And I could well foresee in such a scenario, Trump telling them to f right off.

Outlaw Pete

aloyisious wrote: »

Your trust in Parnas when believing his story ..

Nope, you misunderstand me. I don't trust Parnas, that's the point.

I highlighted what he claimed happened at that dinner to expose the inconsistency in his story, nothing more.

Seems I'm not alone taking what he says with a bag of salt:


https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1217846724884037632

Itssoeasy

I see that Donald trump is going to have fireworks at Mount Rushmore after he was told they hadn't any for twenty years. He said what would burn as its rock but Mount Rushmore is in a national park isn't it ? Surely having fireworks land in a wooded area isn't a good thing.

Timberrrrrrrr

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that Donald trump is going to have fireworks at Mount Rushmore after he was told they hadn't any for twenty years. He said what would burn as its rock but Mount Rushmore is in a national park isn't it ? Surely having fireworks land in a wooded area isn't a good thing.

He's gonna send in the national guard to rake the leaves 1st

















(he isn't but nothing would surprise me)

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on what sort of internal opposition Congressman Blank has in the nomination process for re-election, and who's going up against him in the actual election. If none and "progressive", then I would say 'slim'.

I was thinking along the lines of "because of the presidents attitude, we're not voting for the party this time as it is not doing anything to rein in his damaging effect on the party but we're also not voting for anyone else so you lose our votes" meaning that the other party gets its own usual votes giving it a greater number in the overall.

Magnify that across the board from dis-satisfied voters with the different constituencies and electoral houses, then it should have an effect outside the norm. While there'd doubtless be dis-satisfied people and voters within the Dems with their elders, it's the GOP and Don Trump that I am referring to here as he's POTUS.