Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Nope, I was referring to those who quote someone out of context to make it look as if they have said something which they have not. Just as you have done right now in fact. Seems to be a theme with the left, this quoting people out of context all the time.
You said "liars are the enemy of the people", which was very clear - I'm not really sure how that can be quoted out of context.
A quick AltaVista search shows that as of December 16th, 2019, Trump had made 15,413 false or misleading claims as President.
So I think it's more than fair to say that he is definitely a liar, a big liar, perhaps the BIGGEST liar anywhere, certainly I can't think of a bigger one anywhere. Can you?
So therefore, given what you say, Trump is according to you an enemy of the people.
Perhaps you meant to say "liars are the enemy of the people, except for the liars I like, like Trump, whose lies are totally awesome, I love his lies, go Trump lies, they make him the friend and hero of the people!"
Did you? Because that's strongly how it appears.0 -
sid waddell wrote: »You said "liars are the enemy of the people", which was very clear - I'm not really sure how that can be quoted out of context.
A quick AltaVista search shows that as of December 16th, 2019, Trump had made 15,413 false or misleading claims as President.
So I think it's more than fair to say that he is definitely a liar, a big liar, perhaps the BIGGEST liar anywhere, certainly I can't think of a bigger one anywhere. Can you?
So therefore, given what you say, Trump is according to you an enemy of the people.
Perhaps you meant to say "liars are the enemy of the people, except for the liars I like, like Trump, whose lies are totally awesome, I love his lies, go Trump lies, they make him the friend and hero of the people!"
Did you? Because that's strongly how it appears.
The stack of publicly stated lies amounted to 16,241 as at 19th January, 2020.
Can you imagine how many thousands more he has told to his suck-up acolytes in private in the White House, on the Golf Courses and in Mar-a-Lago? Poor St Peter has run out of ink by now, I reckon...
The boy-King is a pathetic liar.. Pure and simple... And sadly, his lies and his getting away with them have now spawned a whole new level of dishonesty in Republican politics in the USA. Perhaps it was always there, but Trump and his Senate co-conspirators have now made outright lying, EVEN UNDER OATH, commonplace.
So much for future attempts at proving perjury in US Courts!!! When the Senators can act in complete defiance of both their written OATH and the daily repeat of same, with such gay abandon, it would only be a hypocrite who would prosecute anyone for perjury down the line.0 -
Everytime Trump does something crazy, his mop and bucket brigade come on here until they are found out so they can scarper off and wait til the next scandal breaks to wade in with more apologist or denial bullsh1t.
Remember this?
https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1223485696004042752?s=190 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »He was vindicated on that last time I checked.
If only liberals were as upset about FBI officials lying about innocent people as they are about stats not being accurate at a campaign rally and sharpie marks on maps. Dear God, y'all have strange priorities about what should be ignored and what there should be outrage over.
Would ya stop. That started on the Clinton campaign:
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html
So much of the above is deliberate misquoting of Trump to fit a certain narrative, just like saying he called immigrants animals without making it clear he was referring to MS-13 or editing news clips to make it appear as if he has called Neo-Nazis fine people, deliberately not showing the next 50 seconds were he condemns them totally.
Good to see you're rolling out all the oldies though, as it can mean only one thing and that is that you realise this pathetic attempt at ousting Trump from office, under the guise of impeachment, is going nowhere fast.
Did Trump push the birther campaign or not? Was he the main flag bearer for that racist campaign?
Trump was not vindicated on the sharpie.
We always knew impeachment would go nowhere. Mitch said from the start he didn't want a fair trial and Trump had been blocking evidence for months. You talk about the transcript of the call. Has that been released yet? The full one?
Calling them oldies does not mean he didn't lie. You called the media the enemy of the people because they lie and yet support a man with a far bigger history of lies. They weren't misquoting him either. Trump supporters just did backflips to decide he meant something entirely different and didn't lie. (For instance on the fine people one Trump supporters tend to forget he retracted his talk of not liking racists two days later- plus what fine person walks along side someone else waving a literal Nazi flag?).
Remember Russian interference (not Trump links with them ) was denied by Trump and is now accepted by Trump. He had all the evidence when he denied it before and promised proof that Russia was not involved. I am still waiting on this proof. Quid pro quo was denied and is now accepted (with the excuse being it was for the US).
Forgot about him dictating what his doctor should write on his medical exam before the election as well. Did he win man of the year in Michigan? Is there a death and inheritance tax currently in the US? Has the income in Michigan increased by $10,000 a year in his presidency?
Will South Korea give the US 500 million more a year for military costs? Is the USMCA the biggest trade deal ever?
You'll notice I stuck a few new ones in there since Trump's old lies don't count for some reason?0 -
@Outlaw Pete: What is it about the admission by the Trump Administration that there was a Quid Pro Quo [this for that] link between the request from Don Trump to President Zelensky for the announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, and the other item discussed on the call [the White House visit] that you seem unable to see?
You also seem to refuse to see there is more than a smidgeon of chance that the block on the military aid funding was a flexing of Admin power to pressure Zelensky to see things the way Don wanted him to. Using the ambassadors quote "Don never told me" as proof that there was no link is just silly when the Admin did fess up to applying the block.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a direct correlation between the request for the investigation and the other item discussed on the call, the visit by President Zelensky to the White House: give me what I want or you're persona non grata at the White House. Toss in the military aid block which, according to official OMB documents, began shortly after the call was ended and voila, you have the pressure point being applied to Ukraine's life. That the block was a time-delay pressure device doesn't get away from the direct effect it would have when the news of it broke.
What caused the device to explode in Mulvaney's face was the whistleblower, and the explosion injured only Don's Admin because it went off earlier than Don & Co wanted. The explanation then put forward to explain the block by OMB, the former agency that Mulvaney worked at before becoming Don's acting COS, that the hold was applied to see if the US was getting value for money in the aid is stupid and probably the best they could come up with at the time of panic, which speaks volume itself.0 -
Advertisement
-
aloyisious wrote: »@Outlaw Pete: What is it about the admission by the Trump Administration that there was a Quid Pro Quo [this for that] link between the request from Don Trump to President Zelensky for the announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, and the other item discussed on the call [the White House visit] that you seem unable to see?
You also seem to refuse to see there is more than a smidgeon of chance that the block on the military aid funding was a flexing of Admin power to pressure Zelensky to see things the way Don wanted him to. Using the ambassadors quote "Don never told me" as proof that there was no link is just silly when the Admin did fess up to applying the block.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a direct correlation between the request for the investigation and the other item discussed on the call, the visit by President Zelensky to the White House: give me what I want or you're persona non grata at the White House. Toss in the military aid block which, according to official OMB documents, began shortly after the call was ended and voila, you have the pressure point being applied to Ukraine's life. That the block was a time-delay pressure device doesn't get away from the direct effect it would have when the news of it broke.
What caused the device to explode in Mulvaney's face was the whistleblower, and the explosion injured only Don's Admin because it went off earlier than Don & Co wanted. The explanation then put forward to explain the block by OMB, the former agency that Mulvaney worked at before becoming Don's acting COS, that the hold was applied to see if the US was getting value for money in the aid is stupid and probably the best they could come up with at the time of panic, which speaks volume itself.
Watch when they completely avoid the questions asked and instead post something completely different, if they post at all0 -
everlast75 wrote: »Everytime Trump does something crazy, his mop and bucket brigade come on here until they are found out so they can scarper off and wait til the next scandal breaks to wade in with more apologist or denial bullsh1t.
Remember this?
https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1223485696004042752?s=19
Oh christ the sharpie incident. I mean he's sitting there and wanted us to believe that he didn't know how an official chart showing the possible track of a hurricane had an extension to it when even stevie wonder could see it was a mess.0 -
Oh christ the sharpie incident. I mean he's sitting there and wanted us to believe that he didn't know how an official chart showing the possible track of a hurricane had an extension to it when even stevie wonder could see it was a mess.
How much of an egotistical narcissist does one have to be to never apologise and admit they're wrong?
I wonder if our 'North Korean news reader' in residence can point us to a clip of Trump genuinely apologising with an admission?0 -
duploelabs wrote: »I wonder if our 'North Korean news reader' in residence can point us to a clip of Trump genuinely apologising with an admission?
Trump doesn't believe in apologies. Two of Trump's most important advisers throughout his professional life were Roy Cohn (McCarthyist senator) and Steve Bannon (Breitbart news), and both men have helped form him into the man he is today who would rather through a counter-punch (no matter how flailing) than ever admit to wrongdoing.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »@Outlaw Pete: What is it about the admission by the Trump Administration that there was a Quid Pro Quo [this for that] link between the request from Don Trump to President Zelensky for the announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens
Link me to where the Trump administration admitted that the White House visit was conditional on Zelensky announcing investigations into the Bidens.You also seem to refuse to see there is more than a smidgeon of chance that the block on the military aid funding was a flexing of Admin power to pressure Zelensky to see things the way Don wanted him to. Using the ambassadors quote "Don never told me" as proof that there was no link is just silly when the Admin did fess up to applying the block.
No, I am merely saying that I don't see the evidence which the democrats claim to have had to support the accusation that the aid was being withheld until Zelensky announced that he would investigate the Bidens.It doesn't take a genius to work out that there is a direct correlation between the request for the investigation and the other item discussed on the call
So, you're admitting it yourself: it's conjecture.The explanation then put forward to explain the block by OMB, the former agency that Mulvaney worked at before becoming Don's acting COS, that the hold was applied to see if the US was getting value for money in the aid is stupid and probably the best they could come up with at the time of panic, which speaks volume itself.
Why would all these people lie? You're talking about dozens of people that have confirmed that there were three issues of concern to Trump and which resulted in the hold. These issues were worked upon. This was testified to by the democrats' witnesses. Ukraine also announced that they were signing further ant-corruption laws into place in the September.
Either way, the fact that you are basically asking me 'Don't you think though?' kind of questions shows that there was not enough proof to support the articles of impeachment. What you should be pointing out are facts. It's insane the democrats got the votes they did to begin with based on such a shoddy case. It's actually pretty frightening. I know it's been 50 years or so since they held a super majority, but there is no doubt in my mind that if they held it today, they'd convict Trump.0 -
Advertisement
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Link me to where the Trump administration admitted that the White House visit was conditional on Zelensky announcing investigations into the Bidens.
No, I am merely saying that I don't see the evidence which the democrats claim to have had to support the accusation that the aid was being withheld until Zelensky announced that he would investigate the Bidens.
So, you're admitting it yourself: it's conjecture.
Why would all these people lie? You're talking about dozens of people that have confirmed that there were three issues of concern to Trump and which resulted in the hold. These issues were worked upon. This was testified to by the democrats' witnesses. Ukraine also announced that they were signing further ant-corruption laws into place in the September.
Either way, the fact that you are basically asking me 'Don't you think though?' kind of questions shows that there was not enough proof to support the articles of impeachment. What you should be pointing out are facts. It's insane the democrats got the votes they did to begin with based on such a shoddy case. It's actually pretty frightening. I know it's been 50 years or so since they held a super majority, but there is no doubt in my mind that if they held it today, they'd convict Trump.
So we should see testimony by those in the know? You don't think this should at least be looked into? You seem to want proof without allowing any evidence to be looked at whatsoever.
If there was a Democrat super majority they would a trial for a man with questions to answer and a history of corruption. I mean with Bolton and the potential for the transcript of the phone call to be released.
The reason the final Republican fell into place and didn't ask for witnesses was because they felt the case was proven so why bother with witnesses to confirm it. So do you not think there are answers there? If Republicans feel it happened!0 -
Was he the main flag bearer for that racist campaign?
Hillary Clinton's campaign started it when she ran in 2008.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
"Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.
Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)...
On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election."0 -
Yes, one of many reasons she should never have been the Democratic nominee.peddlelies wrote: »Hillary Clinton's campaign started it when she ran in 2008.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
Now, why is this relevant to Trump who 'ran' with this lie for the next what, 7 years? Because HRC started it, it's o.k.?0 -
Yes, one of many reasons she should never have been the Democratic nominee.
Now, why is this relevant to Trump who 'ran' with this lie for the next what, 7 years? Because HRC started it, it's o.k.?
Did Hillary Clinton actually claim that Obama was not born in the US or spread doubt as to such?
Because I can't find any indication she did.
Trump, as we all know, very much did.0 -
sid waddell wrote: »Did Hillary Clinton actually claim that Obama was not born in the US or spread doubt as to such?
Because I can't find any indication she did.
Trump, as we all know, very much did.
no, she didn't, though some in her campaign might've flirted with the idea. So, I retract she shouldn't have been the nominee because of this (plenty of other reasons she shouldn't have been). That said, it was the original poster claiming Trump's lies were the truth, and I challenged said poster to define why he's o.k. with Trump lying about it and trafficking in birtherism till like 2014, no matter where the story originated from.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-2283040 -
peddlelies wrote: »Hillary Clinton's campaign started it when she ran in 2008.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
"Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.
Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)...
On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election."
Was Trump the main flag bearer and a vocal proponent for this racist campaign? This was my question. How does the response not mention Trump once?0 -
Was Trump the main flag bearer and a vocal proponent for this racist campaign? This was my question. How does the response not mention Trump once?
Yeah, pretty much he was. Remember all the nonsense about birth certificates? All that to keep Trump's name in the news - he's definitely the 'any publicity is good publicity' mindset.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Link me to where the Trump administration admitted that the White House visit was conditional on Zelensky announcing investigations into the Bidens
I refer you to the statement made by Don Trumps acting COS, Mick Mulvaney, to the media when he was asked if there was quid pro quo request made by Don when he spoke to President Zelensky and Mick told the media there was. I also refer you to the various statements made by the constitutional law adviser, Alan Dershowitz, for the Don Trump legal team at the senate trial sittings where he made his opinion clear on the issue of presidential quid pro quos.
I don't expect you to argue now that Alan had not made any connection between his advice and the role he was filling as part of Don's team when making his statements to the senators and that Alan's advice was not in any way connected to the impeachment charges Don is facing in the senate in connection with the Quid Pro Quo call but you're welcome to try.
As for the other parts of your response, I'm going to ignore them as I see them as similar to Alan Dershowitz's in-senate tactics of deliberately stepping around what Don did. I'm allergic to waffle. BTW, if the Dems did have a super majority today, I doubt if it would be Don would be sitting in the Oval Office.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34364
Yeah, pretty much he was. Remember all the nonsense about birth certificates? All that to keep Trump's name in the news - he's definitely the 'any publicity is good publicity' mindset.
He also claimed, on air during an interview IIRC, to have been privvy to bombshell evidence via a contact in Hawaii and would reveal in the coming days. So still waiting on that. The Birther movement was a repugnant and racist campaign to delegitimise America's first black president and it shouldn't be ignored that Trump's fingerprints were all over it. He was the chief architect of that campaign. Clinton may have tried the same in 2008 with a photo of Obama's time in Kenya to sow doubt, but Trump openly stoked it as public discourse.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
peddlelies wrote: »Hillary Clinton's campaign started it when she ran in 2008.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667
"Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign Monday of "shameful offensive fear-mongering" by circulating a photo as an attempted smear.
Plouffe was reacting to a banner headline on the Drudge Report saying that aides to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) had e-mailed a photo calling attention to the African roots of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)...
On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election."
And that's all you need to know about Trump supporters.
'Hilary Clinton started it'
A completely useless president who seems incapable of accomplishing anything of note bar embroil himself in scandal and piss people off.
But people still love him because he's basically the protest to Clinton.0 -
Another six countries 'banned' by the US "Nigeria, Eritrea, Tanzania, Sudan, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar (known as Burma)".0
-
-
Kyrgyzstan ?
Maybe the rationale (assuming there is some logic going on in this White House) is based on the predominance of practicing Muslims in the population of Kyrgyzstan, 83% according to Wikipedia. Myanmar's inclusion seems to be a direct blocking of the Rohjngya people, whose Islamic members represent just 1% of the population of Myanmar.0 -
Full explanation is here. I didn't know it before reading, but apparently Chad has had its restrictions removed while the other six were added.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-improving-enhanced-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry/
(i) Kyrgyzstan does not comply with the established identity-management and information-sharing criteria assessed by the performance metrics. Kyrgyzstan does not issue electronic passports or adequately share several types of information, including public-safety and terrorism-related information, that are necessary for the protection of the national security and public safety of the United States. Kyrgyzstan also presents an elevated risk, relative to other countries in the world, of terrorist travel to the United States, though it has been responsive to United States diplomatic engagement on the need to make improvements.
Although Burma has begun to engage with the United States on a variety of identity-management and information-sharing issues, it does not comply with the established identity-management and information-sharing criteria assessed by the performance metrics. Burma does not issue electronic passports nor does it adequately share several types of information, including public-safety and terrorism-related information, that are necessary for the protection of the national security and public safety of the United States. Burma is in the process of modernizing its domestic identity-management and criminal-records systems and has worked with the United States to develop some of those systems. It has also recognized the need to make improvements. As its capabilities improve, the prospect for further bilateral cooperation will likely also increase. Despite these encouraging prospects, Burma’s identified deficiencies create vulnerabilities that terrorists, criminals, and fraudulent entrants could exploit to harm United States national security and public safety.
And from the removal of restrictions on Chad.
Chad has improved its identity-management practices by taking concrete action to enhance travel document security for its nationals, including taking steps to issue more secure passports and sharing updated passport exemplars to help detect fraud. The Government of Chad also improved handling of lost and stolen passports, the sharing of which helps the United States and other nations prevent the fraudulent use of such documents. Additionally, the United States has confirmed that Chad shares information about known or suspected terrorists in a manner that makes that information available to our screening and vetting programs and has created a new, standardized process for processing requests for relevant criminal information. Chad has proven its commitment to sustaining cooperation with the United States through a regular review and coordination working group. This working group, which has met twice since Proclamation 9645 was issued, allows for regular tracking of the progress summarized above. In sum, Chad has made improvements and now sufficiently meets the baseline. I am therefore terminating the entry restrictions and limitations previously placed on the nationals of Chad
These seem pretty objective standards, which seem more likely than trying to prohibit the huge masses of Rohjingya who are trying to endter the US right now.0 -
Does Saudi Arabia comply with the above?
Unfortunately the above comes from the white house. Was it the report originally written in sharpie?
The benefit of the doubt is long gone. If more reliable regimes join in I would pay more attention.
Looking at the list of names we should make Trump announce them. See if he can pronounce any of them. Honestly him getting annoyed over not being able to pronounce them seems as likely a reason as any.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Full explanation is here. I didn't know it before reading, but apparently Chad has had its restrictions removed while the other six were added.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-improving-enhanced-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry/
Ditto on a country's border entry point security. Despite and irrespective of the signers personality, it would be valuable to compare the US ban list with those of the EU countries and other countries in respect of countries which have control issues in order to put things in proper perspective where it come to a countries worries about foreign nationals travel intents. Don isn't the analysts and office staffers to work out who is/are likely terrorist threats to block, nor the advisers working on the final advisory list for him, he's just the signer of the empowering document they worked to give him.0 -
Does Saudi Arabia comply with the above?
Unfortunately the above comes from the white house. Was it the report originally written in sharpie?
The benefit of the doubt is long gone. If more reliable regimes join in I would pay more attention.
Looking at the list of names we should make Trump announce them. See if he can pronounce any of them. Honestly him getting annoyed over not being able to pronounce them seems as likely a reason as any.
It quite probably does. If solid governments like those of Rwanda or Mali manage to make it work, it seems reasonable that the Saudis can.
Of note, the ban doesn't actually ban visitors from coming from these six countries, what it does do is prevent issuance of visas which can result in an immigration status. If someone from Kyrgyzstan wants to come on a holiday to Disneyland, they still can apply.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
TomOnBoard wrote: »Maybe the rationale (assuming there is some logic going on in this White House) is based on the predominance of practicing Muslims in the population of Kyrgyzstan, 83% according to Wikipedia. Myanmar's inclusion seems to be a direct blocking of the Rohjngya people, whose Islamic members represent just 1% of the population of Myanmar.
It might also be a confluence of Russian and US intelligence advice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement