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

peddlelies

He's bitter over the fact that the intelligence agencies went to town on his campaign in 2016, in a fraudulent manner(forging documents, dossier etc). He's such a narcissist he didn't want to admit Russia interference because it delegitimizes his election victory. He's weary of actual military threats like Russia, China etc so he panders to the leaders of those countries to avoid conflict.

There's multiple factors at play so I don't think it's as black and white as some make out, though clearly part of his thinking is that if a foreign nation do prop him up in 2020 he won't refuse that help, and his past statements on the matter certainly allude to that way of thinking. I don't agree with it but nothing will stop interference from invested parties if they wish to do it. He should publicly and lawfully take a hard stance against it but I don't think that's ever going to happen, and it's a valid point of criticism.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm going out on a limb here. I know this is absolutely out of left field.. but perhaps... and stick with me... just maybe... he is an utter moron? I mean objectively - what if the explanation here is his I.Q. is negligible. That would account for an awful lot of his behaviour.

Psychologists and such like speak about intelligence not just in terms of academic capability, but equally in terms of what they call Emotional Intelligence.

So Trump would probably measure between 4 and 6 out of 10 in terms of academic intelligence IMHO. In terms of emotional intelligence, I'd put him at somewhere between 0 and 3 out of 10, depending on the circumstances and the extent to which someone is there with a lasso and a gag to control him!

PopePalpatine

sid waddell wrote: »

Putin wants Trump in power. He's only using Sanders to split the Democratic party to grease the path for Trump.

Here's why Putin wants Trump and not Sanders. A Sanders administration would be competent for a start. It would not treat the European Union as an enemy. It would not be a haven of naked corruption and intent on destruction of the rule of law or widespread vilification of ethnic and sexual minorities. It would not fire anybody in the intelligence services who spoke up about Russian interference. It would mean the social liberals would be firmly in the ascendant. Because the US is still seen as the leader of the international community, it would dampen much of the momentum surrounding the worldwide far right that Russia depends on to create division in different countries. If Sanders won, it's likely you'd see the end of Bolsonaro in Brazil by 2022, Duterte in the Philippines would be gone by then also and UK public opinion might well swing against Boris Johnson. Nothing would kill the far right internationally than to see Trump as a loser. There would be the possibility of a domino effect. Trump is the spiritual king of the far right internationally and they would have a much harder time without him, and thus so would Putin.

A Sanders administration would also give further impetus to greener energy sources. Guess what makes up over 50% of Russia's exports and 70% of its government's revenue?

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

Trump is the biggest hope for the Dems of him losing the election. As the more Trump annoys and angers the general public, outside the GOP, the more will turn out to vote. Voter turnout will defeat Trump.

'twill matter sweet feck all if its not in the 4 or 5 States that matter from an Electoral College point of view.. e.g. a voter turnout of 99.9% in California or New York will do nothing more for Dems than a turnout of say 70%.

In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Florida,and extra 3%in the right places could move mountains.

aloyisious

peddlelies wrote: »

He's bitter over the fact that the intelligence agencies went to town on his campaign in 2016, in a fraudulent manner(forging documents, dossier etc). He's such a narcissist he didn't want to admit Russia interference because it delegitimizes his election victory. He's weary of actual military threats like Russia, China etc so he panders to the leaders of those countries to avoid conflict.

There's multiple factors at play so I don't think it's as black and white as some make out, though clearly part of his thinking is that if a foreign nation do prop him up in 2020 he won't refuse that help, and his past statements on the matter certainly allude to that way of thinking. I don't agree with it but nothing will stop interference from invested parties if they wish to do it. He should publicly and lawfully take a hard stance against it but I don't think that's ever going to happen, and it's a valid point of criticism.

Is most of what he says meant for himself so he can delude himself as to what is actually going on around him at a personal level, a form of protection from the reality of life outside Trump Towers?

Call Me Jimmy

Nody wrote: »

Well to bad your understanding is wrong; have a look at this where an actual lawyer goes through what happened in the case. Yes; it is that bad that the president and the DOJ are breaking up the justice system. Yes; the sentencing proposal was anchored within DOJ and yes even the judge ripped DOJ a new one on how the DOJ handled it. Oh and those people quitting happened to be among the best laywers in the country that were well respected and over 2000 prosecutors and all the federal judges are meeting to discuss how to handle it. But yea, clearly a minor issue here with only Trump tweeting or something.

The judge agreed with the revised memorandum sentence almost to a tee. She threw out the idea that the non-threat threat required more than double sentence.

If this was a heinous injustice, what's your take on why the judge didn't give a sentence closer to the initial recommendation? Why did she not correct it?

Call Me Jimmy

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A Sanders administration would also give further impetus to greener energy sources. Guess what makes up over 50% of Russia's exports and 70% of its government's revenue?

Don't forget, Putin wants Sanders to win to sow discord in the democratic party and ultimately end up with Trump. So democrats should vote for Bloomberg/Hillary.

I think that's the latest logic we're following, correct me if I'm wrong :P

BonnieSituation

RIGOLO wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of bluster and opinion recently about TRump being some kind of Russian or Putin stooge. One would have thought after Mueller fell on his face, the anti-TRumpers would have learned something. I guess not.

But its all just bluster and opinion.. none of it based in reality.

The reality is Lithuanians were cheering the increase and arrival of US troops and tanks to bolster their Baltic border with Russia.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/14/on-the-borders-of-putins-baltic-fortress-lithuania-cheers-the-build-up-of-us-forces-in-the-baltics/

So its all just baseless opinon thats been expressed in recent posts about TRump being Putins stooge. Just cos Putin may prefer to see TRump win, doesnt mean TRump is a puppet of Putins.

Meanwhile the Lithuanian vice minister of national defence is cheering the measures taking by TRump administration.



Trump has bolstered the US military levels on Russias border to never before seen levels from Lithuania stretching to javelin defense missile systems in the ukraine.

TRump?

looksee

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

The judge agreed with the revised memorandum sentence almost to a tee. She threw out the idea that the non-threat threat required more than double sentence.

If this was a heinous injustice, what's your take on why the judge didn't give a sentence closer to the initial recommendation? Why did she not correct it?

It doesn't really matter all that much what the lawyers said or did, or what the Judge decided; what matters is that the President of the United States saw fit to offer an opinion/ propose an action/ try and influence a matter that is before the courts.

Caquas

sid waddell wrote: »

It's literally a textbook definition of whataboutery.

A Taoiseach filling an Irish senate seat has no relevance whatsoever to the topic.

This is a truly astonishing assertion. Have you not heard of reasoning by analogy? Or reasoning by precedent, which is for lawyers.

By your logic, we should never draw any analogy between Irish and American politics (except I suppose on Paddy’s Day when the Irish turn up in Washington). So when we elect the Irish Trump, at least you won’t join the chorus of “I told you so”.

I’ll finish here. If other posters agree with you, I’ve been wasting my time.

looksee

Caquas wrote: »

This is a truly astonishing assertion. Have you not heard of reasoning by analogy? Or reasoning by precedent, which is for lawyers.

By your logic, we should never draw any analogy between Irish and American politics (except I suppose on Paddy’s Day when the Irish turn up in Washington). So when we elect the Irish Trump, at least you won’t join the chorus of “I told you so”.

I’ll finish here. If other posters agree with you, I’ve been wasting my time.

What you are doing is not reasoning, its whataboutery. How does saying that something happens in Ireland make any argument for something vaguely similar happening in the US? This is the Donald Trump thread, not the 'compare and contrast with Irish Politicians' thread. If you want to discuss Irish politicians, go start a thread about it.

Call Me Jimmy

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't really matter all that much what the lawyers said or did, or what the Judge decided; what matters is that the President of the United States saw fit to offer an opinion/ propose an action/ try and influence a matter that is before the courts.

Yea that's what I said, his influence failed and the system is unmoved. The sentence matters because if it was the crisis that we're told the judge would have given the proper sentence( or close to it) because it is their decision.

It seems Barr is saying something went awry at the DOJ, we'll see when he testifies. Bottom line is I don't think he acted because the president tweeted, in fact I believe him, it's not like he didn't know about Roger Stone or the president's feeling about any prosecution and sentence of him.

As we've seen in the instance with the FISA abuse, where the courts lambasted the FBI (or CIA?) there have been issues going the other way, where people in government are active against Trump and his associates.

sid waddell

I just stumbled upon this story. So much for a "strong economy", eh? The detachment in the US as a whole to this is astonishing. Is it any wonder people are turning to Sanders, who apart from Warren has been alone in recognising the utterly grotesque inequality that lies at the heart of US society?

What does Trump, the apex of corporate kleptocracy, have to say about this? The answer is nothing, this type of inequality is exactly what he wants to exaggerate.

Nearly 40% of Americans can't cover a surprise $400 expense

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cover-a-surprise-400-expense/

17% of U.S. adults are unable to pay all of their bills in full every month, according to the Fed data.

A quarter of Americans skipped necessary medical care in 2018 because they couldn't afford the cost.

aloyisious

sid waddell wrote: »

I just stumbled upon this story. So much for a "strong economy", eh? The detachment in the US as a whole to this is astonishing. Is it any wonder people are turning to Sanders, who apart from Warren has been alone in recognising the utterly grotesque inequality that lies at the heart of US society?

What does Trump, the apex of corporate kleptocracy, have to say about this? The answer is nothing, this type of inequality is exactly what he wants to exaggerate.

Nearly 40% of Americans can't cover a surprise $400 expense

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cover-a-surprise-400-expense/

17% of U.S. adults are unable to pay all of their bills in full every month, according to the Fed data.

A quarter of Americans skipped necessary medical care in 2018 because they couldn't afford the cost.

I'll hazard a guess that the apex will say those who cant afford to pay their bills are failures who are not working hard enough and "socialism" will not be let get a foothold in the US like it has in Europe. The reaction to medicare for all is an example of that mindset.

aloyisious

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yea that's what I said, his influence failed and the system is unmoved. The sentence matters because if it was the crisis that we're told the judge would have given the proper sentence( or close to it) because it is their decision.

As we've seen in the instance with the FISA abuse, where the courts lambasted the FBI (or CIA?) there have been issues going the other way, where people in government are active against Trump and his associates.

So are you happy that the sentence the judge handed down to Roger Stone was a reasonable sentence and that she was not swayed by either the original DOJ sentence advice or the remarks of President Trump in the making of her decision?

With reference to your "people in government are active against Trump and his associates" do you have in mind those in the DOJ who opposed the presidents attempt to influence the judges decision and who walked away from the DOJ publicly in opposition to the attempt or do you have in mind those referred to as "the deep state"?

Maybe I misunderstood the first part of yours above when I took it to be a criticism of Don's attempt to influence the judges sentencing decision.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Trump is ripping the US democracy apart. He is ripping apart the FBI,CIA, the judicial system. He has completely (or better said greatly enhanced) the partisan nature of House and Senate. He has weakened Nato and alliances.

People don't believe the media, and are willing to believe whatever they are told once that comes from their guy.

It isn't Trump in particular that Russia wants, he is simply the perfect option to get the outcome they want.

A divided US is far easier to take on than a focused US. A US with no strong allies, and a weakened Europe due to lack of alignment with the US.

Yep! Trump is the guy who starts s fight in a bar and then nicks everyone's wallet while it's all kicking off.

And as for Rigolo, when you can't even see that Trump by any objective means, is not only ignorant but wilfully stupid, you are not living in the real world as no amount of facts will convince you otherwise. It is for that reason i made the comparison to flat earthers.

The belief that this amoral bully has empathy or concern for anyone else in this world apart from *most* of his immediate family is shockingly naive. Reminds me of this saying...

"The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept voting for the axe because its handle was made of wood and they thought it was one of them."

everlast75

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yea that's what I said, his influence failed and the system is unmoved

You're claiming that because the judge wasn't influenced, there is no need to worry while failing to see that objectively, it is outrageous that a President should actively *try* to interfere in the adjudication of justice, a role played by the judiciary. The judiciary must remain independent - it is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

everlast75

In the online version of pinching myself to make sure I'm awake... is... is everyone else seeing this?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1231345462793441280?s=19

Before his followers revel in my "lib tears", i can assure you that I'm not a liberal and I'm not crying. (It's the "go to" response when a follower has no ****ing clue how else to defend an action they otherwise cannot)

I am aghast however and the glimpse into this guy's psyche that retweeting this reveals. It's mental institution stuff.

aloyisious

The swings & roundabouts of federal law. An Administration Agency took assisting illegal aliens cases against US citizens who were leaving food & water in the Arizona desert for the illegal border crossers to prevent people dying there. The judges threw out the prosecution cases accepting the defence offered that those leaving out the food & water were following their religious ethics as allowed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The act was originally brought in with almost unanimous vote in Washington in the 90's under Clinton and was used by other religious believers to stop the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/22/religious-freedom-law-thwarting-trump-curtailing-i/

StringerBell

Caquas wrote: »

Don’t strain your brain.

Posters here are outraged about what (they mistakenly think) Blagojevich did with Obama’s Senate seat. I try to educate them and I also point to what the caretaker Taoiseach did with a Senate vacancy here.

But hey, nothing to see here, move along now.

So.....they need to be outraged at everything that is potentially outrageous and comment on them all in a thread about the Donald Trump presidency regardless of relevance before commenting on something Donald Trump presidency related?

K.

Call Me Jimmy

aloyisious wrote: »

So are you happy that the sentence the judge handed down to Roger Stone was a reasonable sentence and that she was not swayed by either the original DOJ sentence advice or the remarks of President Trump in the making of her decision?

With reference to your "people in government are active against Trump and his associates" do you have in mind those in the DOJ who opposed the presidents attempt to influence the judges decision and who walked away from the DOJ publicly in opposition to the attempt or do you have in mind those referred to as "the deep state"?

Maybe I misunderstood the first part of yours above when I took it to be a criticism of Don's attempt to influence the judges sentencing decision.

Yes, I think the judge was not swayed. If congress and the executive can have wars of words without either losing any power or legitimacy, I don't see why the judiciary will just roll over especially when it seems they are held in the most high esteem of three. Again, I think it's bad for the country and doesn't help his own situation for him to tweet about cases.

To be honest, my biggest bias is not pro Trump, it's anti-establishment. I hear a lot of sea change even on the democratic side since 2016 who realise that Bernie will face the same kind of opposition Trump got. Sure he couldn't get past the establishment in the democratic party last time, imagine what'll happen when the bureacracy and top level intelligence and military people hear him saying he wants to go against their whole philosophy to pay for healthcare and college for all including welcoming the immigrants of the world. It won't be pretty.

Basically there is a sandbox within which the candidates of both parties have been playing in. There's selective pressures that usually ensure the only people who get near the top are essentially pre-vetted allowing very little real change to happen either from the left or the right. I think the internet has changed the situation where there isn't such control of the narrative, so you get Trump and Bernie, AOC etc. and we are seeing what happens when candidates offer genuine change.

aloyisious

Robert O'Brien [the US National Security Advisor] is not surprised if Russia is trying to help Bernie Sanders election as he honeymooned in Moscow while Marc Short [Mike Pence's COS] says THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE that Russia is trying to help his election. Figure's, doesn't it.

aloyisious

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Yes, I think the judge was not swayed. If congress and the executive can have wars of words without either losing any power or legitimacy, I don't see why the judiciary will just roll over especially when it seems they are held in the most high esteem of three. Again, I think it's bad for the country and doesn't help his own situation for him to tweet about cases.

To be honest, my biggest bias is not pro Trump, it's anti-establishment. I hear a lot of sea change even on the democratic side since 2016 who realise that Bernie will face the same kind of opposition Trump got. Sure he couldn't get past the establishment in the democratic party last time, imagine what'll happen when the bureacracy and top level intelligence and military people hear him saying he wants to go against their whole philosophy to pay for healthcare and college for all including welcoming the immigrants of the world. It won't be pretty.

Basically there is a sandbox within which the candidates of both parties have been playing in. There's selective pressures that usually ensure the only people who get near the top are essentially pre-vetted allowing very little real change to happen either from the left or the right. I think the internet has changed the situation where there isn't such control of the narrative, so you get Trump and Bernie, AOC etc. and we are seeing what happens when candidates offer genuine change.

I'll be happy if Don resists any urge he feels, and any advice urging him, to give Stone a presidential pardon. That way I'll see him as vindicating the judge's reasoned sentence-tariff and the independence of federal judges, plus the fact that the appointment of USSC judges is by way of a political decision process. They're two things not deep state, something Don should appreciate.

volchitsa

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

so you get Trump and Bernie, AOC etc. and we are seeing what happens when candidates offer genuine change.

What genuine change is Trump offering?

I know he said he would provide healthcare etc, stop mines from closing down etc, but in practice he has basically given tax cuts to the rich, and been happy enough with this to boast about it, so it's not like he's desperately trying to bring change but is being prevented from doing so. He'd be the first to complain if his ground breaking changes were being blocked by Congress, and there's been very little sign of this happening.

Call Me Jimmy

volchitsa wrote: »

What genuine change is Trump offering?

I know he said he would provide healthcare etc, stop mines from closing down etc, but in practice he has basically given tax cuts to the rich, and been happy enough with this to boast about it, so it's not like he's desperately trying to bring change but is being prevented from doing so. He'd be the first to complain if his ground breaking changes were being blocked by Congress, and there's been very little sign of this happening.

You'd want to be blind not see so I'm skeptical it's worth mentioning: bringing China's all but-kinetic-war into the public consciousness, not getting dragged into regime change war in Syria (which is painted as letting Putin run amok, yet before Trump every democrat to tee would not have fallen for that crap). Not buying into the Iran deal,economic nationalism, border security etc etc.

none of that is a judgement of the policies themselves. My point is, if Bernie doesn't row himself in he's gonna face the same crap as Trump.

Aside: Although I think Bernie will be a lot more establishment than he initially said because he went with the democrats after they stiffed him. Last time he understood you need effective border policy if you are going to provide free healthcare and college for all, but he's gone towards the AOC end of the spectrum, he's even admitting now that healthcare for all is a high bar and a strong negotiating position that he likely won't get done the way he wants. Softening the language and expectations etc.

EltonJohn69

Prediction: With the corona virus about to become an epidemic, the 2020 election will be canceled.... Trump stays in office

volchitsa

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

You'd want to be blind not see so I'm skeptical it's worth mentioning: bringing China's all but-kinetic-war into the public consciousness, not getting dragged into regime change war in Syria (which is painted as letting Putin run amok, yet before Trump every democrat to tee would not have fallen for that crap). Not buying into the Iran deal,economic nationalism, border security etc etc.

none of that is a judgement of the policies themselves.

None of that is relevant to what he promised American voters in their own lives (healthcare for example) and in most cases it's not even accurate - for instance one of the Obama administration's biggest failures was their lack of energy in Syria precisely because they were afraid of getting dragged into a regime-change scenario. Instead they waited until the original secular opposition had been worn down before they got involved, by which time the Islamists had filled the power gap.

As for what the democrats "would have done", well that's pure speculation and whataboutery.

So maybe you could give it another go and actually answer the question this time?

Manic Moran

I've heard it said a few times from a number of US mouthpieces in passing that the country's infrastructure was crumbling and in desperate need of rebuilding or modernisation to manage to larger numbers. Watching this video, I hadn't realised just how bad the problem was, thinking it was merely grumbling from commuters; obviously caveats apply as being one source, but the numbers and scale thrown around is eye watering. It's sometimes remarkable the country is regarded as top of the heap, as much of its internal economy often appears barely above Third World.

It's something I've said several times about California. It's a magnificent edifice, on an incredibly unstable foundation and it's all about to come crashing down.

That said, most infrastructure (roads, public transport, water, etc) are the problems of the States, not the Federal government. I've been here in Texas a little over a year, and I'm astounded at the level of infrastructure construction which is going on right now. (Granted, I'm also a little surprised that a lot of it hasn't been constructed earlier). The primary exceptions are the interstate system and the navigable waterways, which are the Federal Government's bailiwick. I think many of the States have forgotten this and are only taking the effort to upgrade infrastructure if the Feds will foot most of the bill.

Although an economic stimulus is certainly something the Feds can do by spending cash for infrastructure (Those billions being spent on the border wall are going into the US economy somewhere, for example), the States need to stop relying on the feds for the funding thereof in order to get their infrastructure back up to spec. It's not D.C.'s problem that the California water system is running on 1960s population specifications.

Call Me Jimmy

volchitsa wrote: »

None of that is relevant to what he promised American voters in their own lives (healthcare for example) and in most cases it's not even accurate - for instance one of the Obama administration's biggest failures was their lack of energy in Syria precisely because they were afraid of getting dragged into a regime-change scenario. Instead they waited until the original secular opposition had been worn down before they got involved, by which time the Islamists had filled the power gap.

As for what the democrats "would have done", well that's pure speculation and whataboutery.

So maybe you could give it another go and actually answer the question this time?

Not a hope

volchitsa

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Not a hope

So Trump has brought no genuine change then. Not for ordinary Americans.