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

hotmail.com

ECO_Mental wrote: »

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

First Ladies aren't in the cabinet.

hotmail.com

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

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

I had to google what that was about. I don't follow the Trump drama as much as people here.

First Ladies given far too much attention by US media.

It produces this type of Be Best nonsense and whatever Michelle Obama did.

Cody montana

Will the next president remove the efforts of Melania to...….erm……..stop...…erm...?

Cody montana

BTW if Michelle Obama was the Democratic nominee, she would walk it.
A woman of intelligence, dignity and leadership.

hotmail.com

Cody montana wrote: »

BTW if Michelle Obama was the Democratic nominee, she would walk it.
A woman of intelligence, dignity and leadership.

Yeah because the last First Lady to run president went so well.

Cody montana

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yeah because the last First Lady to run president went so well.

Your bias is showing.
Why wouldn’t Michelle be a suitable candidate?

hotmail.com

Cody montana wrote: »

Your bias is showing.
Why wouldn’t Michelle be a suitable candidate?

Did you not read what I said?

The Democrats have been scarred by a First Lady running for office (Hillary).. I doubt they are going to go down that road again any time soon.

Cool your jets, Michelle defender.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

Unelected First Ladies make policies now?

You think Melania Trump has no input into Don Trump's policies?

hotmail.com

aloyisious wrote: »

You think Melania Trump has no input into Don Trump's policies?

No idea!

pixelburp

Michelle Obama spent 8 years watching her husband being pilloried by a sometimes rabid press, where tan suits and poupon mustard caused near hysterical rage. That's before you even got to the actual legislative hurdles like the ACA. Having got Barrack and their family life back to something resembling normality, I don't blame Michelle for taking one look at the state of politics and backing away.

I do respect the woman, think she's a class act and an erudite intelligent individual, but also smart enough to know she'd be inviting a world of political pain and futility in entering that race. Yes I think she'd win the nomination at a canter but why would she want to?

Cody montana

hotmail.com wrote: »

Did you not read what I said?

The Democrats have been scarred by a First Lady running for office (Hillary).. I doubt they are going to go down that road again any time soon.

Cool your jets, Michelle defender.

So no answer.

hotmail.com

pixelburp wrote: »

Michelle Obama spent 8 years watching her husband being pilloried by a sometimes rabid press, where tan suits and poupon mustard caused near hysterical rage. That's before you even got to the actual legislative hurdles like the ACA. Having got Barrack and their family life back to something resembling normality, I don't blame Michelle for taking one look at the state of politics and backing away.

I do respect the woman, think she's a class act and an erudite intelligent individual, but also smart enough to know she'd be inviting a world of political pain and futility in entering that race. Yes I think she'd win the nomination at a canter but why would she want to?

Semblance of normality? Aren't they multi millionaires now. You make it sound horrific. He did run for re election so they must have enjoyed the job.

One thing being a spouse of a head of state, different story when the scrutiny comes down on policy matters.

As an observer, it seems Americans aren't bothered with smart or erudite leaders. They regularly elect non intelligent and often poorly spoken leaders.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

Semblance of normality? Aren't they multi millionaires now. You make it sound horrific. He did run for re election so they must have enjoyed the job.

One thing being a spouse of a head of state, different story when the scrutiny comes down on policy matters.

As an observer, it seems Americans aren't bothered with smart or erudite leaders. They regularly elect non intelligent and often poorly spoken leaders.

Spending every waking moment in not only the media spotlight, but the news cycles where every utterance and action is parsed, criticised and at worst outright decried as borderline disgraceful behaviour? Yes I think it would have been tough, especially in trying to raise two preteen daughters within this bubble.

That they're millionaires has nothing to do with it and it really shouldn't need reminding of the adage that money doesn't buy happiness. Being the family of a politician is notoriously stressful, and a hard existence.

All utterly academic given M Obama isn't running for office. But based on the experience of Barrack, it's an entirely understandale reaction.

You couldn't pay me enough money to get involved in American politics.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Michelle Obama spent 8 years watching her husband being pilloried by a sometimes rabid press, where tan suits and poupon mustard caused near hysterical rage.

Dijon Mustard! :mad::mad:

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dijon Mustard! :mad::mad:

Indeed! Frankly a disgrace any sitting President would use such condiments. The office of the president had never been so demeaned, before or since.

Never had the hypocrisy of American news media than those 8 years versus these 3.

Brian?

hotmail.com wrote: »

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

They often do, it really depends on the POTUS.

Why do you have a problem with unelected people creating policy anyway. The whole cabinet is unelected.

hotmail.com

Brian? wrote: »

They often do, it really depends on the POTUS.

Why do you have a problem with unelected people creating policy anyway. The whole cabinet is unelected.

They are members of the cabinet. The First Lady is the spouse and she has no official role.

The media exaggerate their importance and people seem to fall for it.

I didn't know the first thing about Michelle Obama, or Laura Bush or the current First Lady.

StringerBell

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed! Frankly a disgrace any sitting President would use such condiments. The office of the president had never been so demeaned, before or since.

Never had the hypocrisy of American news media than those 8 years versus these 3.

I don't think Hannity ever got over that, I mean....the horror....the horror...

Itssoeasy

So Alan Dershowitz who is part of president trumps impeachments team has said that even if there was abuse of power by president trump it's not an impeachable offence...

The problem with that statement is unlike the ambiguous high crimes and misdemeanours the crime of abuse of power is LITERALLY written in over 200 year old ink into the US constitution as one of the specific grounds for impeachment. The framers or founders is used a lot by both parties and the US constitution isn't a document that deals in specifics that much but of all the things to claim, the one thing that men from the 18th century made sure is clear is abuse of power and Alan Dershowitz decides to claim otherwise is insane.

StringerBell

Dershowitz is gonna be a problem for Trump, they will need to get him on message pretty fast. He is claiming to be not part of the defence team when he clearly is. The thing is, even he isn't part of the defence team he's a witness. If he's a witness then there must be witnesses.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure what the state of emergency is that you're referencing on the 'other side.' Perhaps you are confusing the border issue with one, which is not a good analogy for two reasons. 1) It wasn't a declaration of a state of emergency, which is another matter entirely (eg hurricane disaster). In the history of the US, there have been 59 national emergencies, starting with an insufficient number of ships in the merchant fleet. National emergencies do not normally suspend the rights or privileges of the common person. States of emergency normally do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States , and 2) A large part of the border problem was caused by illegal activity and the declaration was a result of the problem, not the cause of it.

I am saying that there may, now, indeed be trouble resulting from bringing guns to the protest, but as a result of the governor's emergency declaration. Prior to the declaration of emergency, they could bring their guns and there would have been no conflict between them and police. Indeed, they can still bring their guns if they have the demonstration at a location just outside the capitol grounds, such as in front of City Hall or the State Supreme Court, anywhere except the 350mx200m grounds of the capitol building, which is not normally a 'gun free zone' and has had firearms present at demonstrations in the past.

Again, until the Governor declared the state of emergency, the planned protest and all actions accompanying it were completely legal. Can you think of any other states of emergency declared anywhere in the Western World which have occured before a political demonstration happened or the start of trouble?

duploelabs

mickdoocey wrote: »

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.

Except Trump denying that he knows parnas, despite numerous photos, a direction from Jay Seklow saying that Trump is ok with Parnas using his lawyer, phone records etc etc etc

mickdoocey wrote: »

so far there is nothing here.
the democrats could have called Bolton and parnas and anyone else they wanted when investigating trump.

They did, and were blocked.

mickdoocey wrote: »

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.

There are still cases ongoing to determine if the president has veto over a subpoena

mickdoocey wrote: »

they did not which means they are either incompetent or they have nothing.
they have nothing .

They have extensive hard evidence that was submitted in the impeachment hearings, none of which was refuted by the republicans

mickdoocey wrote: »

That's the thing about liars, its hard to take them serious and that goes for parnas too.

So person A says one thing, and then is corroborated with other witness testimony, paper evidence, etc. Person B refutes that yet has no evidence to back up this. Which do you believe?

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure what the state of emergency is that you're referencing on the 'other side.' Perhaps you are confusing the border issue with one, which is not a good analogy for two reasons. 1) It wasn't a declaration of a state of emergency, which is another matter entirely (eg hurricane disaster). In the history of the US, there have been 59 national emergencies, starting with an insufficient number of ships in the merchant fleet. National emergencies do not normally suspend the rights or privileges of the common person. States of emergency normally do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States , and 2) A large part of the border problem was caused by illegal activity and the declaration was a result of the problem, not the cause of it.

I am saying that there may, now, indeed be trouble resulting from bringing guns to the protest, but as a result of the governor's emergency declaration. Prior to the declaration of emergency, they could bring their guns and there would have been no conflict between them and police. Indeed, they can still bring their guns if they have the demonstration at a location just outside the capitol grounds, such as in front of City Hall or the State Supreme Court, anywhere except the 350mx200m grounds of the capitol building, which is not normally a 'gun free zone' and has had firearms present at demonstrations in the past.

Again, until the Governor declared the state of emergency, the planned protest and all actions accompanying it were completely legal. Can you think of any other states of emergency declared anywhere in the Western World which have occured before a political demonstration happened or the start of trouble?

Are you going to declare an emergency because of people Jay walking in New York too much? Or for people speeding. Both crimes that happen a lot. You know the border wasn't an emergency situation. It really, really wasn't the cause of it. The cause of it was Trump wanting to look like he was tough on brown people. It had nothing to do with actual crossings.

Again it is within the governor's rights to do this. It does not justify anyone using force because of it. I can't think of any Western Country promoting war crimes so heavily. The western world is no longer a relevant benchmark for the US. You seem to have an issue with political norms being broken by one side but not the other. Precedent has been set. Either the top makes a point of following it again or this sort of thing will happen all over the places at lower levels of government. Similar to a job. The higher ups set the standard.

Side point: the emergency declaration seems counter productive but why would anyone bring a gun to a demonstration? Either you will shoot it or not. If not, why bother bring the gun. If so you should be allowed the gun. If I thought I needed it for defense then I would be more concerned about protesting law and order then gun rights.

(Thanks for the difference on national emergency vs state of emergency - I didn't know that but I stand by the fact that abusing political norms will encourage others to do the same).

Gbear

duploelabs wrote: »

So person A says one thing, and then is corroborated with other witness testimony, paper evidence, etc. Person B refutes that yet has no evidence to back up this. Which do you believe?

Answer: "Whoever is on my team".

One of the more fascinating phenomena of this episode is why Trump supporters bother to even engage with debate about this stuff. We know your positions aren't based on argument, but identity. That being the case, why bother trying to refute it? Why not just stick to the evasion of the religious; "That's just what I believe."?

Is there some realisation deep down that they need to justify themselves, so they feel the need to do so in a debate forum, however feebly?

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

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

Hey Outlaw, have you a problem with answering a simple 'yes/no' question? Have you the debating version of Bone Spurs or something?

mickdoocey

duploelabs wrote: »

Except Trump denying that he knows parnas, despite numerous photos, a direction from Jay Seklow saying that Trump is ok with Parnas using his lawyer, phone records etc etc etc



They did, and were blocked.

There are still cases ongoing to determine if the president has veto over a subpoena


They have extensive hard evidence that was submitted in the impeachment hearings, none of which was refuted by the republicans

So person A says one thing, and then is corroborated with other witness testimony, paper evidence, etc. Person B refutes that yet has no evidence to back up this. Which do you believe?

I saw the interview with parnas - all he offered was some of his own notes.
trump says he does not know him
the Ukrainian foreign minister does not know parnas
pence does not know parnas
let parnas provide evidence that backs up his claims - currently his story is that just that a story.

the democrats should have called any witness they wanted in the house of representatives and if trump vetoed the evidence then they go to court to force the witness to give evidence
the dems did not we can assume because they decided their evidence was so poor the courts would have decided with trump
the dems have no hard evidence against trump. give me one witness who had first hand evidence of the call.

trump and sanders - claims have been made against them that is not corroborated by anyone.
trump - every witness called in the house were NOT on that call
sanders- no one has backed up warrens claims

To impeach the president of America you need hard evidence and even then the houses can decide to not remove the president. Clinton was guilty of perjury but the senate did not remove him because it was decided it was not in the countries interest.

this is whole episode is political, the dems not going to the courts is proof of that.

aloyisious

mickdoocey wrote: »

give me one witness who had first hand evidence of the call.

Assuming you are talking about the phone conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, 1st witness, Donald J Trump. 2nd Volodymyr Zelensky, 3rd, 4th and 5th, the senior members of Donald J Trump Cabinet who names are in the public domain as being in Donald J Trumps presence when he was talking to President Zelensky. Another proof item: the transcript of the call itself provided to the world by Donald J Trump himself. You remember that transcript?

Itssoeasy

mickdoocey wrote: »

I saw the interview with parnas - all he offered was some of his own notes.
trump says he does not know him
the Ukrainian foreign minister does not know parnas
pence does not know parnas
let parnas provide evidence that backs up his claims - currently his story is that just that a story.

the democrats should have called any witness they wanted in the house of representatives and if trump vetoed the evidence then they go to court to force the witness to give evidence
the dems did not we can assume because they decided their evidence was so poor the courts would have decided with trump
the dems have no hard evidence against trump. give me one witness who had first hand evidence of the call.

trump and sanders - claims have been made against them that is not corroborated by anyone.
trump - every witness called in the house were NOT on that call
sanders- no one has backed up warrens claims

To impeach the president of America you need hard evidence and even then the houses can decide to not remove the president. Clinton was guilty of perjury but the senate did not remove him because it was decided it was not in the countries interest.

this is whole episode is political, the dems not going to the courts is proof of that.

Some of his notes ? No he provided text conversations and a letter from Rudy gulianni that was previously unknown.
Trump says he doesn't know lots of people some of whom are in jail Donald trump is a liar of epic proportions. How many people let their lawyer represent someone they claim to have no knowledge of ?
That Ukrainian foreign minister isn't the one he was dealing with.
It seems selective amnesia is a thing in this presidency. Devin nunes says he didn't know lev Parnas but clearly that was a lie.

They did call witnesses and nine of them refused because they were blocked by Donald trump who was exerting a blanket privilege. They went to court to try and don mcgann to turn up and that's still going on. There was a witness who was on the call and that was Lt col Vindman so again you are not being truthful.

I'll give you three witnesses with first hand knowledge who if the call was as perfect as trump continues to claim it was should clear the president. They are John Bolton, mike pompeo, and Mike Mulvaney. They have first hand knowledge but we're blocked.

mickdoocey

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Some of his notes ? No he provided text conversations and a letter from Rudy gulianni that was previously unknown.
Trump says he doesn't know lots of people some of whom are in jail Donald trump is a liar of epic proportions. How many people let their lawyer represent someone they claim to have no knowledge of ?
That Ukrainian foreign minister isn't the one he was dealing with.
It seems selective amnesia is a thing in this presidency. Devin nunes says he didn't know lev Parnas but clearly that was a lie.

They did call witnesses and nine of them refused because they were blocked by Donald trump who was exerting a blanket privilege. They went to court to try and don mcgann to turn up and that's still going on. There was a witness who was on the call and that was Lt col Vindman so again you are not being truthful.

I'll give you three witnesses with first hand knowledge who if the call was as perfect as trump continues to claim it was should clear the president. They are John Bolton, mike pompeo, and Mike Mulvaney. They have first hand knowledge but we're blocked.

exactly you prove my point
the dems should have called Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney before the house
if trump called executive privilege, then they bring him to court to force those witnesses to testify
that is how the process works
they did not do it and that we all know why - they have no evidence

vindmans was on the call but was not in the room and not apart of the decision making
he has no context to offer and worse of all we now know he had a very loose tongue and when this is all over will immediately sacked because of safety concerns

duploelabs

mickdoocey wrote: »

exactly you prove my point
the dems should have called Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney before the house
if trump called executive privilege, then they bring him to court to force those witnesses to testify
that is how the process works
they did not do it and that we all know why - they have no evidence

vindmans was on the call but was not in the room and not apart of the decision making
he has no context to offer and worse of all we now know he had a very loose tongue and when this is all over will immediately sacked because of safety concerns

What's with the cognative dissonance? Bolton Mulvaney and Pompeo were called and were blocked, cases were filed against this veto and are still in a legal bind