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
1…3738404243…334

Comments

  • Options
    #1172
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Christy42 wrote: »
    On Russia. Trump has publicly accepted that Russian interference happened.

    Yes and so why then did no user on this thread condemn Schiff constantly saying in the Senate that the Trump and the Republicans believe that "Ukraine and not Russia" interfere in 2016. Why do you all overlook that utter nonsense?
    Has he done anything to stop it happening again?

    https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-thirteen-russian-individuals-and-three-russian-companies-scheme-interfere
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/us-yevgeniv-priogzhin-sanctions/index.html


  • Options
    #1173
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Yes and so why then did no user on this thread condemn Schiff constantly saying in the Senate that the Trump and the Republicans believe that "Ukraine and not Russia" interfere in 2016. Why do you all overlook that utter nonsense?



    https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-thirteen-russian-individuals-and-three-russian-companies-scheme-interfere
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/us-yevgeniv-priogzhin-sanctions/index.html

    Who's Kevin McCarthy?*
    Expert after expert in the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump testified about one key fact: That Ukraine had no role interfering in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton. And one key witness sounded the alarm even louder.

    "This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves," said Fiona Hill, Trump's former top Russia adviser, in testimony that reflects what US intelligence officials have privately told lawmakers in recent months.

    But to House Republicans, that's all just a bunch of talk.

    Asked after Hill's testimony if he believed Ukraine interfered in the 2016 elections, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said: "I think they did."

    McCarthy is hardly alone. Amid the impeachment fight where Trump is demanding loyalty from congressional Republicans, most are unwilling to break from the President -- even on a matter that national security experts warn could help Russia in its efforts to undermine Ukraine.

    Moreover, US intelligence officials who briefed senators in recent months have reiterated the point that Russia has been engaging in a years-long effort to shift the blame of Moscow's interference in the 2016 election to Ukraine, a message that has been echoed during public testimony by Hill and other witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.

    Link: here.

    *this is not a trick question.


  • Options
    #1174
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Who's Kevin McCarthy?*

    Kevin McCarthy is the guy who said Trump was paid by Russia.

    He's also the House leader of the Republicans.


  • Options
    #1175
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Well, according to the Oxford definition: a hoax ​is an act intended to make somebody believe something that is not true.

    That definition fits something like a photoshopped bigfoot image but I don't see how it applies to an investigation launched by Trump's DOJ on the back of confirmed actions in public and in private by Trump's team and the Russians.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    There were NO attempts by the Trump campaign to conspire or coordinate with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. None.

    Do you think nobody here has heard of Roger Stone, Rob Goldstone, Trump Junior and Natalya Veselnetskaya?


  • Options
    #1176
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    FISA could have been obtained incorrectly, illegally etc, but that doesn't mean that collusion didn't happen.

    That's true, which is why I have never claimed that FISA abuse meant there was no collusion. The reason why I say there was no collision is because that was the finding of the Attorney General:
    "The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election"

    The Mueller report was not written by Mueller by the way. He knew little about its contents. It was written by Clinton loyal legal eagles.
    He then went off to try and get another foreign country, Ukraine, to dry to dig up dirt on his political opponent, something he apparently was aghast at others doing.

    That is a mere narrative. Nothing more and nothing less. Notice how there are no facts in your statement or even circumstantial information to justify your conjecture.

    You see, here's the problem: the left (democrats, liberals etc) believe there is no reason to think that Joe & Hunter did anything wrong (with regards to their Ukraine dealings) and so are therefore understandably unable to grasp why it is that Trump made the request of Zelensky which he did. As long as the left thinks this way, then of course Trump's motive for making the request (in their minds) can only be because Joe was running for office.

    Here's the inconvientant truth though: there was good reasons for asking Zelensky to "look into" what went on with regards to the Bidens and Burisma and it had diddly zip to do with the fact that Joe was running for office. Trump told us why on the call and the facts back him up. He said:
    "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

    There is no need to be inferring other motives. There's a lot of talk, he said. Well, he was right, there was. In fact long before Trump even ran for office, the media was raising an eyebrow about how Hunter's position looked odd. After Trump was elected those stories just increased, and especially so after Biden bragged in public (in Jan 2018) that when he was Vice President he'd withheld $1Billion from Ukraine until they fired their prosecutor (Shokin).

    This resulted in a lot if rumblings in Ukraine. Shokin's daughter was interviewed and said Shokin was going to sue and infighting began amongst those who were in power at time, each suggesting the other was corrupt. Eventually it all led to the case being reopened (in April 2019) by the prosecutor who replaced Shokin (Lutsenko). Now I know what's going to be said here, the usual: "There was international support for Shokin's firing, he was corrupt, he wasn't prosecuting people he should have been" blah blah blah and maybe there is some truth to this, perhaps (although I haven't seen any evidence he was corrupt) but even if it was, that doesn't make "the talk" Trump referenced having heard go away. So, EVEN IF Shokin was corrupt, and Joe only wanted him fired for that reason and that reason alone, that doesn't change the fact that Donald J Trump was aware of all that was being said ("lot of talk") which included the reopening of investigations suggesting that Shokin may not have been corrupt after all and Biden fired him to stop a prosecution of his son's boss. Afterall, it was the DNC friendly NABU that closed the case on Burisma, not Shokin, and they had a great year court wise following Shokin's departure.

    In fact, it would be more strange if Trump HADN'T asked Zelensky to take a look into it.

    Either way, for Schiff to sit in front of Congress and (via a means of a parody) suggest that Trump had asked Zelensky to "make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it" is disgraceful, and you can all claim that it was justified as long as you like but it was not. All throughout this whole effort to oust Trump from office, there have been lots of these parodies and exaggerations, and I'd suggest that if Trump was so guilty, there would have been no need for any of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1177
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Who's Kevin McCarthy?*



    Link: here.

    *this is not a trick question.

    And this is the answer to the earlier question of why should anyone engage with Pete.

    Pete, you're so partisan you don't actually have a real handle on what's true or not.

    How can you expect someone to engage with that.


  • Options
    #1178
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Midlife wrote: »
    And this is the answer to the earlier question of why should anyone engage with Pete.

    Pete, you're so partisan you don't actually have a real handle on what's true or not.

    How can you expect someone to engage with that.

    It genuinely took me less than 10 seconds to find that link.

    Pete, any comment?


  • Options
    #1179
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,616 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    That's true, which is why I have never claimed that FISA abuse meant there was no collusion. The reason why I say there was no collision is because that was the finding of the Attorney General:

    Yeah, you are right you never claimed it, but funnily every time Russia or Ukraine is brought up your first line of 'defence' is FISA, when you yourself have just explained that it has nothing to do with whether the collusion or QPQ is true or not.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    The Mueller report was not written by Mueller by the way. He knew little about its contents. It was written by Clinton loyal legal eagles.

    Do you have an actual basis for that? I mean, it is quite a conspiracy that a man with almost impeccable record suddenly became a stooge for the left!
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    That is a mere narrative. Nothing more and nothing less. Notice how there are no facts in your statement or even circumstantial information to justify your conjecture.

    There is no point outlining the facts, yet again. The GOP have shown that they don't care for facts. Mulvaney publicly admitted to the QOQ and Trump said in a interview prior that he was open to getting foreign intel. Why have witnesses clearly laying out how unusual and against any prior operations the decision was and we have Rudy writing to the Ukraine Pres asking, as Trump personal lawyer rather than on behalf of the US, for a meeting.

    But you don't care about any of that because it doesn't suit. Better to bring up FISA, or HC, or Obama or better yet Biden Jr.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You see, here's the problem: the left (democrats, liberals etc) believe there is no reason to think that Joe & Hunter did anything wrong (with regards to their Ukraine dealings) and so are therefore understandably unable to grasp why it is that Trump made the request of Zelensky which he did. As long as the left thinks this way, then of course Trump's motive for making the request (in their minds) can only be because Joe was running for office.

    If Trump was on a campaign to get rid of corruption then I would be all in with you. But where else has he tackled corruption? His own, his family, the US, Israel? What about Saudi? Or even in the Ukraine, can you name one other instance where Trump is looking to root out corruption? Or maybe it really was out Biden rather than corruption.

    I, and I think the majority of posters on here, would happily see Biden investigated, his son investigated. That is the difference. I am happy to see them all taken down. You want to protect some (it happens to be Trump at the moment) because they are on your side.

    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Either way, for Schiff to sit in front of Congress and (via a means of a parody) suggest that Trump had asked Zelensky to "make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it" is disgraceful, and you can all claim that it was justified as long as you like but it was not. All throughout this whole effort to oust Trump from office, there have been lots of these parodies and exaggerations, and I'd suggest that if Trump was so guilty, there would have been no need for any of them.

    Well, since Trump refuses to testify, refuses to let his staff to testify, then I think it is fair that Schiff put forward the probability.

    And it is the height of hypocrisy, although it appears normal, for you to complain about politicians using parodies and exaggerations. Maybe Schiff is simply tired from all the work he is doing and having to handle the impeachment trial. Apparently that is an excuse in your view.


  • Options
    #1180
    EltonJohn69
    Registered Users Posts: 4,346 ✭✭✭EltonJohn69


    Looks likes Sanders has own Iowa and Biden finished last.... I would say that’s Joe finished but the results suggest that Bidens supports may not support Sanders..... which could be big for a trump... a divided democratic base.....


  • Options
    #1181
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,616 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    If the Democrats divide their base again then they only have themselves to blame.

    Of course to do that they would first have to acknowledge that in large part POTUS Trump is down to them in 2016.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1182
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,662 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Pistol Pete: A small selection from your post above to prove your point about the innocence of Don Trump.

    Quote:The reason why I say there was no collision is because that was the finding of the Attorney General.

    Quote:
    "The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election"

    The Mueller report was not written by Mueller by the way. He knew little about its contents. It was written by Clinton loyal legal eagles. End quote.

    One thing is certain and that is that the AG did not carry out any investigation to come to any finding, he based his finding on the Mueller report not finding [as per above quote] that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election".

    Its peculiar to note that the Mueller report, the one relied on by the AG, was allegedly written by Clinton loyal legal eagles.... Maybe it's just me then that the report cleared Don Trump of conspiracy or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election. I'd have thought that the loyal Clinton legal eagles would have written a report to the opposite effect confirming that Don Trump did work with Russia, seeing as how they would have been working for the Dems. Is this another conspiracy theory gone wrong?


  • Options
    #1183
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    EltonJohn69 wrote: »
    Looks likes Sanders has own Iowa and Biden finished last.... I would say that’s Joe finished but the results suggest that Bidens supports may not support Sanders..... which could be big for a trump... a divided democratic base.....


    Aaand... your conclusions are based on what?

    Where did you get your results?


  • Options
    #1184
    EltonJohn69
    Registered Users Posts: 4,346 ✭✭✭EltonJohn69


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Aaand... your conclusions are based on what?

    Where did you get your results?


    The results are pretty easy to get and analyse


  • Options
    #1185
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Yes and so why then did no user on this thread condemn Schiff constantly saying in the Senate that the Trump and the Republicans believe that "Ukraine and not Russia" interfere in 2016. Why do you all overlook that utter nonsense?



    https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-thirteen-russian-individuals-and-three-russian-companies-scheme-interfere
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/us-yevgeniv-priogzhin-sanctions/index.html

    I mean Trump had to be bullied into sanctions in the first place by the Senate so not sure that counts. He spent a long time denying interference (including promising proof at one point). Curious if we are just not hearing about counter measures for security reasons. The CIA/FBI were hammered by Trump for stating Russia's involvement but stuck to their guns so presumably have been working in the background.

    It was the Republican party line for a long time. They tried to push someone in the Ukraine as the attacker for a while. Trump promised proof that Russia were innocent. They were largely forced into it by every relevant agency and multiple countries saying it was Russia. I believe that is what Schiff is getting at. Though he should be pointing out the Republicans did eventually update there views to what was obvious several years prior.


  • Options
    #1186
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    EltonJohn69 wrote: »
    The results are pretty easy to get and analyse

    Surely that is the issue!

    As at the time of your posting, results from the IOWA Democratic caucasus were at least 2-2.5 hours away.... What is your source of such pre- announcement(s).


  • Options
    #1187
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    To my mind, an amazing result out of IOWA...

    Finally!!!

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html

    Buttigeig came in at #1 with 27%

    WoW!

    The Cat is certainly among the Pigeons now!

    :D:D:D:D

    That report comes from a 62% vote count... It may change...


  • Options
    #1188
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    62% of caucuses have reported, so lots can change yet, it's far from certain. Definitely a surprise lead but there are more than enough results left at this stage... not sure who's left that a prediction can be drawn either.


  • Options
    #1189
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    pixelburp wrote: »
    62% of caucuses have reported, so lots can change yet, it's far from certain. Definitely a surprise lead but there are more than enough results left at this stage... not sure who's left that a prediction can be drawn either.

    No, I get that only 62% have reported...

    But Jeez... who wudda thought Mayor Pete wudda been ahead of the posse at ANY point of counting in IOWA?

    To me, albeit ahead of a finalised outcome,this is actually quite huge...


  • Options
    #1190
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,229 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    Donnie giving racist piece of sh!t Rush Limbaugh the presidential medal of freedom icon14.png


  • Options
    #1191
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Billy Mays wrote: »
    Donnie giving racist piece of sh!t Rush Limbaugh the presidential medal of freedom icon14.png

    Probably linked with the fact that Rush is suffering from terminal lung cancer...

    So, who cares? If Rush (who may well have a history of being a POS) is near death's door, who among us can deny him whatever tin badge he would enjoy on the way to his next life?

    That tin badge has long since been debased as a result of Trump's debasement of the very process of according such badges to his acolytes.... moral fibre and intrinsic courage contributed nothing to such awards as the Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Let's not ALL lose our humanity during the terribly partisan times in which we live.. Let's just wish Rush well as a fellow human being, and wish that his suffering is limited.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1192
    sid waddell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭sid waddell


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    Probably linked with the fact that Rush is suffering from terminal lung cancer...

    So, who cares? If Rush (who may well have a history of being a POS) is near death's door, who among us can deny him whatever tin badge he would enjoy on the way to his next life?

    That tin badge has long since been debased as a result of Trump's debasement of the very process of according such badges to his acolytes.... moral fibre and intrinsic courage contributed nothing to such awards as the Presidential Medal of Freedom

    Let's not ALL lose our humanity during the terribly partisan times in which we live.. Let's just wish Rush well as a fellow human being, and wish that his suffering is limited.
    The best tribute to Rush Limbaugh would be for America to vote for a president who will give everybody access to the sort of top class healthcare Rush Limbaugh has access to but wants to deny to others.


  • Options
    #1193
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Billy Mays wrote: »
    Donnie giving racist piece of sh!t Rush Limbaugh the presidential medal of freedom icon14.png

    A bonafide racist, sexist piece of ****, and you'll still find people on here saying trump doesn't support racism.


  • Options
    #1194
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,283 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Billy Mays wrote: »
    Donnie giving racist piece of sh!t Rush Limbaugh the presidential medal of freedom icon14.png

    Read this guys Wiki page.
    A truly disgusting individual.

    Everything Trump touches turns to ****e.


  • Options
    #1195
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Christy42


    "If the left ever senses or smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police" - Limbaugh

    The man needs to be shown up for who he is. It is sad he has cancer but unless you want to give anyone and everyone with cancer the US' highest honour then the fact that he is the human equivalent of garbage needs to be pointed out repeatedly.


  • Options
    #1196
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,283 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Everyone seems to be talking about Nancy tearing up Trumps speech.

    Well played.


  • Options
    #1197
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,345 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Everyone seems to be talking about Nancy tearing up Trumps speech.

    Well played.
    it is rather good
    https://i.imgur.com/0Gl5eGD.gifv


  • Options
    #1198
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,585 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    duploelabs wrote: »
    it is rather good
    https://i.imgur.com/0Gl5eGD.gifv

    The pearl clutchers will be outraged.

    Weirdly they were silent when Trump said previously that Nancy's false teeth must be falling out.

    The speech was utter lies and racism combined.

    Nancy said ripping it up was more courteous than the alternative....


  • Options
    #1199
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Interesting that Trump decided to declare that pre existing conditions will always be covered in the US. In spite of battling in the courts to get rid of that. Or that the cost of prescription drugs will lower when Republicans are holding up Democratic bills to do just that.

    Healthcare will be so easy. So easy that Republicans went to pieces over it when they had all 3 branches of government.


  • Options
    #1200
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,622 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Silly from Pelosi I thought.

    When you're up against somebody childish, you don't lower yourself to their level, and give them cheap political points to score.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1201
    ricero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,348 ✭✭✭✭ricero


    Embarrassing by Pelosi, a disgrace to her party.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement