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

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

So an inconsistency in a story means we shouldn't trust someone?

Interesting thing for a trump supporter to say

pixelburp

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.

Yup, the Black Hills national forest. Fireworks naturally banned in the area. Donald Trump, president of the United States, is a spectacularly ignorant man. And if that Washington Post article earlier is to believed, incapable of learning

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Right.

So how about those people he accused of being in the loop testify under oath and prove he's talking bull.

Well?

Didn't think so.

So do you think it was all rudy, directing him to do what he did, or was Trump involved?

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

So, to clear this point up, you don't believe he and his partner ever told Don at a dinner party that Ambassador Yovanovich had bad-mouthed him in Kyiv?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Do you think he should be dragged in front of some kind of forum where he should answer questions under oath and under penalty of perjury?

aloyisious

The ruling on this case coming before the USSC, which the court will hear before the presidential election, will have an effect on the outcome one way or the other. I got it while taking a look at Fox News online. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-faithless-elector-case-ahead-2020-presidential-election

On other news channels, CNN is reporting that more texts from Robert Hyde have come to light which seem to show surveillance on Ambassador Yovanovich in Kyiv, as the text comments cover her presence in the US embassy there. CNN is also mentioning Mr Nunez during the showing of the report. Mike Pompeo is also on a clip denying that he ever met, had contact with or knew Mr Parnes.

One other item of good news on the CNN report is that 11 US Soldiers at the missile-struck airbase received what has been decided is PTSD harm, no physical injury, during the attack there. The PTSD effects took several days to come to light for medical personnel to begin treatment of the 11 soldiers for the PTSD symptoms. Edit: any response from the president to this last report should show where his head is at now in respect to Iran so angry tweets might be bad.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

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



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.

I mean the gun problems the US has easily exceeds the bar for a state of emergency. That bar is a few women and children "invading" if you remember. Can't have it both ways. Either higher up Republicans should admit that they over egged the state of emergency or this sort of thing is fair game. (Pretty sure that did effect lives and was Trump, not voters lives so who give a hoot right?)

Wait. Should they give up on enforcing the rule of law because they can't control people with guns safely? That seems to be what you are saying. That is a big issue. Anyone thinking of showing up to this event should be top of the list of people not allowed to have guns. If people are considering showing up to a rally with guns that could break into violence that really indicates that there are too many untrustworthy people with guns and that the people should, in general, have less guns.

Are people really going to bring a load of guns to the rally? Are people that dumb? They are meant to live in a democracy. Solve the issue at a ballot box, not just grab a gun whenever someone does something you don't like.

Water John

The Trump admin rolls back on the quality of school meals. This was a policy originally instituted by Michelle Obama. so to make the point of pettiness they make the change, on her birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/trump-administration-school-lunch-michelle-obama-rules-roll-back

Billy Mays

Water John wrote: »

The Trump admin rolls back on the quality of school meals. This was a policy originally instituted by Michelle Obama. so to make the point of pettiness they make the change, on her birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/trump-administration-school-lunch-michelle-obama-rules-roll-back

But multiple pens...

Water John

Water John wrote: »

The Trump admin rolls back on the quality of school meals. This was a policy originally instituted by Michelle Obama. so to make the point of pettiness they make the change, on her birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/trump-administration-school-lunch-michelle-obama-rules-roll-back

Is this one of the many successes that the Trump fans are touting here the last few days? Here's Trump delivering yet again, MAFA! (make America fat again).

Outlaw Pete

Midlife wrote: »

So an inconsistency in a story means we shouldn't trust someone?

It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.

Interesting thing for a trump supporter to say

I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days).

So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.



I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days).

So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.

So on the subject of truth, do you believe trump when he says that he doesn't know Parnas?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.



I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days).

So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.

Laughable, there are over 12,000 proven lies. That's not leftist propaganda, that's the truth. Why do you think he won't ever give evidence under oath. The white house counsel called him a ****ing liar while the Mueller investigation was ongoing.

MadYaker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.



I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days).

So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.

I honestly laughed out loud when I read that sentence.

PropJoe10

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.



I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days).

So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.

You do know that a very high percentage of his lies are backed up by video of him actually saying them, don't you? How do you explain that?

mcmoustache

PropJoe10 wrote: »

You do know that a very high percentage of his lies are backed up by video of him actually saying them, don't you? How do you explain that?

That's the thing. This isn't like lying about something that's unknown or unknowable like a dispute between two people's account of their private conversation. The video is all there for everyone to see.

PropJoe10

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's the thing. This isn't like lying about something that's unknown or unknowable like a dispute between two people's account of their private conversation. The video is all there for everyone to see.

If its not on video, its on his official Twitter account. Although maybe Outlaw Pete reckons that he's had his Twitter account hacked by the leftist media. We'll likely never know for sure.

hotmail.com

Water John wrote: »

The Trump admin rolls back on the quality of school meals. This was a policy originally instituted by Michelle Obama. so to make the point of pettiness they make the change, on her birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/trump-administration-school-lunch-michelle-obama-rules-roll-back

Unelected First Ladies make policies now?

The Phantom Jipper

hotmail.com wrote: »

Unelected First Ladies make policies now?

Think of it as a healthy eating version of "Be Best".

Brian?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Unelected First Ladies make policies now?

They have done so since at least Eleanor Roosevelt, possibly earlier. I’m not as much of a political anorak as you though, so I am not really sure.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Unelected First Ladies make policies now?

Not to worry.

Just have the kids assessed by Trump's doctor. They'll all live to 100 and be declared 6'4"

Midlife

Pretty impressive that an agricultural lobby can get the country to row back on healthy food for children.

Trump came to power saying that the country didn't work for the people but special interests have had a field day under him.

Leroy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It wasn't a simple inconsistency, it was a complete contradiction to what he said previously.



I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others. Don't believe Trump when it comes to the Stormy Daniels issue (for example). What I won't do however is buy into the crap that Trump is a compulsive liar. Or regurgitate leftist propaganda from the likes of the Wapo which say that he has lied 12,000 times (or whatever number is they are at these days).

So, not a Trump Supporter per se, more a Truth supporter, and one thing's for sure over the last three years: when it comes to the amount of the lies from Trump, it's nothing anywhere close to the amount of lies that there's been about Trump.

You have dismissed everything else Parnas has to say on the basis that he is lying about one aspect of it. You say yourself that you hold Trump to the same standards, so since we know that Trump lied about so many issues then I can assume that you no longer believe him.

Or am I misunderstanding your phrase "I hold Trump to the same Standard I hold others"?

And you know what, that is all actually most people want. People expect, and accept, that others will different opinions, different positions, and different political leanings. But at the very least be consistent. If you treat one person as a liar because of errors in their story, then at least treat everyone, be it people you support or not.

duploelabs

Midlife wrote: »

Pretty impressive that an agricultural lobby can get the country to row back on healthy food for children.

Trump came to power saying that the country didn't work for the people but special interests have had a field day under him.

From a food production field as is my own, its amazing the level of gutting and profiteering that Betty DeVos has done to the school meal program in the states

mickdoocey

nothing has been released yet that shows there is anything to the parnas affair
parnas version of events backed up with some photos and he was in contact with some staffers.
so far there is nothing here.
the democrats could have called Bolton and parnas and anyone else they wanted when investigating trump.
if the democrats really believed they had the evidence to get trump out they would have went to the courts to make people like Bolton to appear before the house of representatives to give evidence.
they did not which means they are either incompetent or they have nothing.
they have nothing .
The are playing right into trumps hands, people in general don't like politicians but they hate politicians who are truly dishonest.
that is why Bernie sanders is back on track, warren with the backing of CNN and with zero evidence went after sanders and it has backfired badly on warren - she who claimed native American ancestry and had a bizarre love story about her mother. All proven lies.
That's the thing about liars, its hard to take them serious and that goes for parnas too.

ECO_Mental

hotmail.com wrote: »

Unelected First Ladies make policies now?

Isn't everybody in trumps cabinet unelected.....in fact that's the way the whole system works.....

Leroy42

Trump refused to let many people give evidence.
It seems we are back to the line that if everything isn't proven then the default is that nothing happened. So surely you take the same view of Biden? or HC? Trump has nothing on Biden so why withhold funds to investigate?

Things are investigated to get to the truth, not because the truth is already known. An investigation is started when there is sufficient reason to assume that things may have happened against the law or standards.

Again, fine to have the view you have, be try at least to be consistent.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

That may depend on whether you ascribe to the belief that a large number of voters in the US vote not "for the person I support", but "against the person I dislike most". I suspect a large number of people do indeed do so. That comes down to the nature of the competition for the seat, both internally and across the parties. Doubtless a number will go 'a pox on both of you', as I did, but they seem to be a minority. Except if you're a Bernie fan, possibly, going by 2016 results.

Wait. Should they give up on enforcing the rule of law because they can't control people with guns safely? That seems to be what you are saying. That is a big issue. Anyone thinking of showing up to this event should be top of the list of people not allowed to have guns.

Why? What makes you think that people don't routinely bring guns to rallies in Virginia, where one in every ten adults has a license to carry? So far, the only major trouble has been caused by a car.

Basically, the governor is declaring a state of emergency because people will be doing what they are legally entitled to do, under the laws of Virginia. So it's not 'enforcing' the rule of law, it's 'suspending' the rule of law. He has the legal authority to make such a suspension of rights, but he's driving the gun rights proponents point for them in doing so. Most states of emergency tend to involve natural disasters or mass lawlessness. There is no such trigger here.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

That may depend on whether you ascribe to the belief that a large number of voters in the US vote not "for the person I support", but "against the person I dislike most". I suspect a large number of people do indeed do so. That comes down to the nature of the competition for the seat, both internally and across the parties. Doubtless a number will go 'a pox on both of you', as I did, but they seem to be a minority. Except if you're a Bernie fan, possibly, going by 2016 results.



Why? What makes you think that people don't routinely bring guns to rallies in Virginia, where one in every ten adults has a license to carry? So far, the only major trouble has been caused by a car.

Basically, the governor is declaring a state of emergency because people will be doing what they are legally entitled to do, under the laws of Virginia. So it's not 'enforcing' the rule of law, it's 'suspending' the rule of law. He has the legal authority to make such a suspension of rights, but he's driving the gun rights proponents point for them in doing so. Most states of emergency tend to involve natural disasters or mass lawlessness. There is no such trigger here.

Well we don't need the natural disasters or serious events anymore. Just declare a state of emergency and you are grand. Precedent has been set at this point and it can't be applied for one side and not the other. While Trump is supported by Republicans that has to be the bar. State of emergency is still the law. It just changes what makes the laws really but it is his legal right and the law. I don't agree with it (well I am pro gun control but honestly this seems unlikely to make people realise the issues).

Edit: when you run over traditional procedure repeatedly and support this then don't be surprised when it gets turned against you. Either Trump and Mitch need to go or this is the new standard of ignoring political norms to abuse for your side. Anything else is hypocritical.

You seemed to be saying there would be some trouble with the people bringing guns to the protest. Hence the issue. If they are peaceful and not against the law I have no issue with them but that is not what your post seemed to imply (or I don't understand your point). However if it is against the law then it is an issue as your are bringing weapons and facing down police while breaking the law. That is just dumb of them.

hotmail.com

Brian? wrote: »

They have done so since at least Eleanor Roosevelt, possibly earlier. I’m not as much of a political anorak as you though, so I am not really sure.

First Ladies take up "campaigns" but they don't have policies in a political sense