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

Timberrrrrrrr

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, he was acquitted as there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had done what he was accused of doing. All these people had was a narrative and one which even they knew they hadn't proven, hence their efforts to get Bolton to testify in the hope that maybe he would have evidence that would show that what they alleged was true.

Funny how even though this "new evidence" was not admitted, all the democrats in the Senate still found Trump guilty anyway. So the evidence they had was good enough to prove Trump's guilt to themselves, just not other people I guess. Well, apart from the democrat in the republican seat.

Evidence is supplied by witnesses, They blocked any witnesses, What were they scared of?

Also

What's your thoughts on this?

kilns wrote: »

It largely goes unreported but today the senate republicans have blocked bills to report foreign interference in their election and an increase in security in the voting machines.

These guys have no shame

Why would they do this?

StringerBell

It's actually mind boggling and infuriating on equal levels, how many times like? No point, no good faith, no need to even engage with it.

Christy42

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, he was acquitted as there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had done what he was accused of doing. All these people had was a narrative and one which even they knew they hadn't proven, hence their efforts to get Bolton to testify in the hope that maybe he would have evidence that would show that what they alleged was true.

Funny how even though this "new evidence" was not admitted, all the democrats in the Senate still found Trump guilty anyway. So the evidence they had was good enough to prove Trump's guilt to themselves, just not other people I guess. Well, apart from the democrat in the republican seat.

Given that two Republican senators stated it happened (one was voting against new witnesses because they felt the case had been proven but would still not vote for removal) it is not that funny. Are both Democrats to you?

Romney is not a Democrat. But obviously the logic goes that anyone disagreeing with Trump is a Republican (in spite of the fact that many of Trump's policies are against Republican ideals and isn't really a Republican himself).

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, he was acquitted as there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had done what he was accused of doing. All these people had was a narrative and one which even they knew they hadn't proven, hence their efforts to get Bolton to testify in the hope that maybe he would have evidence that would show that what they alleged was true.

Funny how even though this "new evidence" was not admitted, all the democrats in the Senate still found Trump guilty anyway. So the evidence they had was good enough to prove Trump's guilt to themselves, just not other people I guess. Well, apart from the democrat in the republican seat.

What is this i don't even

kilns

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, he was acquitted as there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had done what he was accused of doing. All these people had was a narrative and one which even they knew they hadn't proven, hence their efforts to get Bolton to testify in the hope that maybe he would have evidence that would show that what they alleged was true.

Funny how even though this "new evidence" was not admitted, all the democrats in the Senate still found Trump guilty anyway. So the evidence they had was good enough to prove Trump's guilt to themselves, just not other people I guess. Well, apart from the democrat in the republican seat.

Hey I know this guy committed a murder, the whole world knows, the whole court knows. But heck all the eye witnesses who can prove it have been stopped giving evidence by the murderer. The jury dont want to hear from those witnesses as they are all friends and family of the murderer. So nothing to see here. Meanwhile the murderer is back on the streets the next day committing crimes.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, apart from the democrat in the republican seat.

In line with your train of thought that if one, after viewing the evidence, finds the accused guilty as charged, will you declare any judge who decides an acquaintance - say Mr Stone - of President Trump is guilty as charged is a democrat? Cutting to the chase, is it your case now that one has to be a republican to understand the evidence put before you to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused? Is it your belief that Don is the only person to set the standard by which all evidence must be seen?

PropJoe10

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, he was acquitted as there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had done what he was accused of doing. All these people had was a narrative and one which even they knew they hadn't proven, hence their efforts to get Bolton to testify in the hope that maybe he would have evidence that would show that what they alleged was true.

Funny how even though this "new evidence" was not admitted, all the democrats in the Senate still found Trump guilty anyway. So the evidence they had was good enough to prove Trump's guilt to themselves, just not other people I guess. Well, apart from the democrat in the republican seat.

Not even sure what to say about this post. Remarkable really.

EltonJohn69

I don’t like Bloomberg as a candidate but I’m liking his tweets against Trump.... he is fighting fire with fire.... I’m sure his tweets are getting under Trumps skin

duploelabs

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I don’t like Bloomberg as a candidate but I’m liking his tweets against Trump.... he is fighting fire with fire.... I’m sure his tweets are getting under Trumps skin

I'd say his bank balance irks him more

Timberrrrrrrr

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

I don’t like Bloomberg as a candidate but I’m liking his tweets against Trump.... he is fighting fire with fire.... I’m sure his tweets are getting under Trumps skin

They definitely are!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227943796681400320?s=19

I love how he calls Bloomberg a man with money who can't debate, Will Donald be debating in the election run up? Something tells me he wont be allowed. Fair amount of ranting against Bloomberg so far, seems to be slightly unhinged.

marno21

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

They definitely are!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1227943796681400320?s=19

I love how he calls Bloomberg a man with money who can't debate, Will Donald be debating in the election run up? Something tells me he wont be allowed. Fair amount of ranting against Bloomberg so far, seems to be slightly unhinged.

Somebody is rattled

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1227946304057364481

everlast75

marno21 wrote: »

Somebody is rattled

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1227946304057364481

Trump is projecting again.

He claims to be 6'4". He isn't. And the way he stands looks like he has those cuban heals on him.

He's insecure about his height.
He's insecure about the size of his hands.
He's insecure about his hair.
He's insecure about his tan.

Stallingrad

When was the last time that bufoon tweeted something Presidential? It's like a bunch of drunk teenagers have robbed his phone.

check_six

Stallingrad wrote: »

When was the last time that bufoon tweeted something Presidential? It's like a bunch of drunk teenagers have robbed his phone.

Imagine you were in charge of a twitter account for some kind of business and produced a similar stream of nonsense. You would be out on your ear in double-quick time and your company would be in serious legal hot water. It is an appalling precedent to set for an individual, never mind a whole country.

Stallingrad

check_six wrote: »

Imagine you were in charge of a twitter account for some kind of business and produced a similar stream of nonsense. You would be out on your ear in double-quick time and your company would be in serious legal hot water. It is an appalling precedent to set for an individual, never mind a whole country.

Indeed, and where are Twitter on this? The endless bullying, mocking and name calling, never mind the stream of proven lies, do they have no charter? He has made the platform a toxic cess pit.

duploelabs

Stallingrad wrote: »

Indeed, and where are Twitter on this? The endless bullying, mocking and name calling, never mind the stream of proven lies, do they have no charter? He has made the platform a toxic cess pit.

Twitter are lauding him as he promotes bots, which in turn adds their user figures, and their bottom line.

There in no social responsibility with them, or any social media company

pixelburp

check_six wrote: »

Imagine you were in charge of a twitter account for some kind of business and produced a similar stream of nonsense. You would be out on your ear in double-quick time and your company would be in serious legal hot water. It is an appalling precedent to set for an individual, never mind a whole country.

Heck. As I've said before, the language of this president is expressly against the charter of this very forum. "Mini Mike"? Between that and his general ignorant vulgarity, nicknaming and other nonsense is banned and with good reason. Yet this is the rhetoric of a 73(?) year old President of the US so we find ourselves discussing language ordinarily absent from here. We're all more mature than the sitting President, think about that.

PropJoe10

pixelburp wrote: »

Heck. As I've said before, the language of this president is expressly against the charter of this very forum. "Mini Mike"? Between that and his general ignorant vulgarity, nicknaming and other nonsense is banned and with good reason. Yet this is the rhetoric of a 73(?) year old President of the US so we find ourselves discussing language ordinarily absent from here. We're all more mature than the sitting President, think about that.

Yep. I'm pretty sure that if any mere mortal spewed that level of nonsense, hatred and conspiracy theories from their account, Twitter would look at suspending them.

Gwen Cooper

Hope Hicks is returning to the White House - this time as Jared's aide.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1227970960256651264

aloyisious

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Hope Hicks is returning to the White House - this time as Jared's aide.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1227970960256651264

So is Hope "leaving" her position as Executive Vice President and Chief Communications Officer for Fox Corporation or only coming back after a spell of R&R, as it were, away from Don & Co?

pixelburp

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Yep. I'm pretty sure that if any mere mortal spewed that level of nonsense, hatred and conspiracy theories from their account, Twitter would look at suspending them.

Oh totally, as Stringbell said Twitter is entirely culpable here too, but it's either avarice or moral cowardice that prevents them from acting on a well earned ban. As you yourself say, ordinary Joes are banned for less. I do kinda feel for Twitter, a little anyway: could you imagine the storm that'd come down on their shoulders if they dropped the hammer? Conservatives already plead liberal bias in (social) media, Trump being banned would be their Pearl Harbour moment. Whether it was earned or not would be irrelevant. The service is a joke as it stands, banning a political figure would be a watershed moment.

Gwen Cooper

aloyisious wrote: »

So is Hope "leaving" her position as Executive Vice President and Chief Communications Officer for Fox Corporation or only coming back after a spell of R&R, as it were, away from Don & Co?

There's a speculation that she's coming back to WH because of Trumps rapid mental decline. Lots of people who are usually well informed are talking about it, but I didn't look into it enough to believe it yet. Wouldn't be surprised though.

BloodBath

Stallingrad wrote: »

Indeed, and where are Twitter on this? The endless bullying, mocking and name calling, never mind the stream of proven lies, do they have no charter? He has made the platform a toxic cess pit.

In fairness it was always a toxic cesspit full of virtue signalling douche bags and trolls. Trump fits right in.

PropJoe10

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh totally, as Stringbell said Twitter is entirely culpable here too, but it's either avarice or moral cowardice that prevents them from acting on a well earned ban. As you yourself say, ordinary Joes are banned for less. I do kinda feel for Twitter, a little anyway: could you imagine the storm that'd come down on their shoulders if they dropped the hammer? Conservatives already plead liberal bias in (social) media, Trump being banned would be their Pearl Harbour moment. Whether it was earned or not would be irrelevant. The service is a joke as it stands, banning a political figure would be a watershed moment.

Yep, they're in a pretty difficult position for sure, but he needs to be stopped from retweeting absolute crap from right-wing conspiracy websites. Using Twitter to spread that absolute nonsense to over 70 million people is incredibly dangerous and they should be taking a look at that.

looksee

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-blasts-trumps-tweets-stone-case-impossible-job/story?id=68963276&cid=clicksource_4380645_2_heads_hero_live_hero_hed

Bill Barr says Trumps tweeting is making it impossible for him to do his job - won't Trump be thrilled about that!

In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

Barr’s comments are a rare break with a president who the attorney general has aligned himself with and fiercely defended. But it also puts Barr in line with many of Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill who say they support the president but wish he’d cut back on his tweets.

aloyisious

Senator Grassleys response to Don tweeting a copy of a Fox News "story" about members of the Stone trial jury having a political bias when they made their verdict ""I'll leave it up to a judge to decide whether a juror is biased or not," Senator Chuck Grassley told Reuters. This after Don had attacked the judge hearing the case.

Lindsay's comment is to his usual level of double-speak, he hoped the court would take the jury allegations seriously if the report was accurate, calling it "not fair.". Lindsay, as it's chair, dismissed the idea of the Senate Judiciary committee investigating the President's comments. Bill Barr has agreed to testify before a House judiciary committee panel next month, according to it's chair, Jerry Nadler.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1228023660457480194?s=19

Another quid pro quo.

Lol - he's making it impossible for Republicans to defend him. He's flagrantly and openly abusing his power and they have to try defend it.

And as for Barr, the only reason he's miffed at trump is because Trump isn't keeping quiet, which makes it harder for him to do his bidding without scrutiny.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1228023660457480194?s=19

Another quid pro quo.

Lol - he's making it impossible for Republicans to defend him. He's flagrantly and openly abusing his power and they have to try defend it.

And as for Barr, the only reason he's miffed at trump is because Trump isn't keeping quiet, which makes it harder for him to do his bidding without scrutiny.

I'd say sentences 2 & 3 were not from Dons hand/mouth. though the bit about the lawsuits might be how he'd style an order to a staffer. I agree on the reason BB is miffed and it shows a degree of power that he can tell off Don through the media, something both will understand. National security [edit] if only.

looksee

And as for Barr, the only reason he's miffed at trump is because Trump isn't keeping quiet, which makes it harder for him to do his bidding without scrutiny.

I don't think there is the smallest doubt about that. Trump might want to consider that, having refused to impeach him, the Republicans' way of removing him without getting egg on their faces might be a lot less desirable than impeachment.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/169112620039811073?s=19

Happy 7th birthday to this tweet.

Forever impeached. Forever a hypocrite.