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

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

Far from desensitised, I feel there is almost unanimity regarding the terror and panic of Trump on here. I'm just saying I don't agree with it and many others don't.

I'd have used the word disgust instead of terror or panic when it comes to Trump and the failure he has been in measuring up to most of his predecessors.

hotmail.com

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd have used the word disgust instead of terror or panic when it comes to Trump and the failure he has been in measuring up to most of his predecessors.

Not enough bombing for your liking? His two immediate predecessors sanctioned untold bombings. That must cause disgust?

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

So again I just think as an observer that nothing has really changed to peoples daily lives. Sure the impeachment is already forgotten. We were told on here how historical it was.

Far from desensitised, I feel there is almost unanimity regarding the terror and panic of Trump on here. I'm just saying I don't agree with it and many others don't.

It is like the frog in pot being slowly boiled, he doesn't know he is. Every day a new norm is dismantled piece by piece. Regulations been torn up, treaties burned, alliances dismembered. That is just on the normal policy stuff, read The Bomb by Edward Bauer or Command and control, there is a reason why the doomsday clock is as close to midnight as it has ever been, and it has nothing to do with Bernie Saunders , AOC or the likes.

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not enough bombing for your liking? His two immediate predecessors sanctioned untold bombings. That must cause disgust?

And Trump has doubled down on it and hidden any oversight so the military are unrestrained from murder, just like the Soleimani assassination, but that was in the open.

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not enough bombing for your liking? His two immediate predecessors sanctioned untold bombings. That must cause disgust?

There is an anomaly between the words "sanctioned untold bombings", don't you think, when one looks at the record of Dons team for bombings? But I forgot, Don took that off the public access list so no one can see it without his permission.

Edit: As for terror, I'd say "yes, you're right on that word but in the wrong scenario. I'd say its applicable to the people in the towns on the receiving end of the payloads and missiles.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Wait what...


You hide cauliflower for your spouse's dinner?

Are you serious....

This sort of stuff is on kids not grown adults or pets who won't take their pills

The word "hide" is only used in the headline, not the quote. Why do people eat cauliflower and cheese? Is it usually because they want to mask the taste of the cheese or because they want to blunt the deliciousness of the cauliflower?
FFS there's a man-child in the oval office and people are wasting time on stories like these that when the headline is using a figure of speech to make the story worse and then certain types can say "See! They're deranged!".

hotmail.com

FrostyJack wrote: »

And Trump has doubled down on it and hidden any oversight so the military are unrestrained from murder, just like the Soleimani assassination, but that was in the open.

This is an American trait to hide their dirty work. This isn't unique to Trump. US foreign policy is the one constant that never changes.

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just have a different view. Trade wars often happen. This isn't new. Tax breaks to the rich. Wow.. we've never seen that before. A president helping wealthy schools. Hadn't even heard that but it isn't exactly earth shattering. America is an unequal society.

The environmental stuff was bound to happen under any Republican that got elected. That's because that's what the people, or at least half or so of them, want.

Trump had campaigned on more infrastructural changes and he hasn't even done that. No wall built.

So again I just think as an observer that nothing has really changed to peoples daily lives. Sure the impeachment is already forgotten. We were told on here how historical it was.

Far from desensitised, I feel there is almost unanimity regarding the terror and panic of Trump on here. I'm just saying I don't agree with it and many others don't.

Reads like desensitisation to me, to be honest. Plus ca change you argue, but I argue in return that the manner and degree of Trump's changes are more extreme and pronounced than the usual you would otherwise shrug shoulders over. I agree America is an unequal society and harbour no lust to live there, particularly as vested interests are now more embedded than ever. Murders happen every day, doesn't make their frequency, or scale when on a massive scale, any less shocking. So it goes with economics or social change.

Shít happens undoubtedly, but that shouldn't preclude from the ability or worth of observing when said shít is particularly bad. Scale counts, and Trump's tenure feels particularly egregious or pronounced. Mixed with his vulgar, course approach to politics that detonates every political norm in the country. But we've been here before and come to no agreement so hey ho. You argue Trump has had no "substantive" effect, despite the outsized evidence, while insinuating delusion or obsession on his personality from those that do. Plus ca change there too I guess, ha.

Englo

aloyisious wrote: »

I had some thoughts about that. If he's not re-elected, pull the federal staff & private caterers etc out of the House if he refuses to leave, cut off all facilities, oil, gas, electricity, water, catering - no deliveries and put security on all entrances so no one enters. As he'd no longer be president, his ex-administration team would have their W/H security passes cancelled.

Is this Ronny Jackson a USN Admiral?

The problem is... Who enforces that? Especially if/when he as the President immediately declares the result void and that he will be staying as president due to it being 'rigged', and when the DOJ and over half the Senate stand behind him in doing this.

Who forces him out in that situation, honestly? Remember that he is literally above the law, and cannot be touched by it and has 52 senators who voted to acquit him despite them even saying he was guilty but they just refused to hold him accountable for it.

Englo

hotmail.com wrote: »

Not enough bombing for your liking? His two immediate predecessors sanctioned untold bombings. That must cause disgust?

What in the name of God are you taking about? Bombings went way, way up under Trump... and then they cut off public access to it.

Remember when this guy was supposedly going to be all about transparency in government?

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is an American trait to hide their dirty work. This isn't unique to Trump. US foreign policy is the one constant that never changes.

So it okay as other presidents bombed before? The reason we know how many bombings were done under Obama is because the administration was transparent, maybe not perfectly, but at least gave the pretence. I have told you before, in order for a strike to take place lawyers had to be consulted, now no one does. Tomorrow it could be your house, who would complain, the "liberal media"? Take a few minutes to think about what that means. Imagine you were born in the middle east.

Call Me Jimmy

FrostyJack wrote: »

So it okay as other presidents bombed before? The reason we know how many bombings were done under Obama is because the administration was transparent, maybe not perfectly, but at least gave the pretence. I have told you before, in order for a strike to take place lawyers had to be consulted, now no one does. Tomorrow it could be your house, who would complain, the "liberal media"? Take a few minutes to think about what that means. Imagine you were born in the middle east.

Got a good article on this by any chance? Interested, not challenging.

FrostyJack

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Got a good article on this by any chance? Interested, not challenging.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1043084

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/02/trump-impeachment-civilian-casualties-war/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/trump-civilian-casualties-rule-revoked.html

Sorry can't add hyperlinks on my phone. This should give you the jist.

Outlaw Pete

FrostyJack wrote: »

The reason we know how many bombings were done under Obama is because the administration was transparent ...

Oh please, let's not rewrite history. I have condemned Trump on this forum for reversing the Obama executive order with regards to Drone strike deaths (and I still think he was wrong to do it) but the Obama administration was only transparent on the number after years of being pressured and the number wasn't released until just four months before the 2016 election took place!

There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama embraced the US drone programme, overseeing more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed in those countries, according to reports logged by the Bureau.

The use of drones aligned with Obama’s ambition to keep up the war against al Qaeda while extricating the US military from intractable, costly ground wars in the Middle East and Asia. But the targeted killing programme has drawn much criticism.

The Obama administration has insisted that drone strikes are so “exceptionally surgical and precise” that they pluck off terror suspects while not putting “innocent men, women and children in danger”. This claim has been contested by numerous human rights groups, however, and the Bureau’s figures on civilian casualties also demonstrate that this is often not the case.

The White House released long-awaited figures last July on the number of people killed in drone strikes between January 2009 and the end of 2015, an announcement which insiders said was a direct response to pressure from the Bureau and other organisations that collect data. However the US’s estimate of the number of civilians killed – between 64 and 116 – contrasted strongly with the number recorded by the Bureau, which at 380 to 801 was six times higher.

That figure does not include deaths in active battlefields including Afghanistan – where US air attacks have shot up since Obama withdrew the majority of his troops at the end of 2014. The country has since come under frequent US bombardment, in an unreported war that saw 1,337 weapons dropped last year alone – a 40% rise on 2015.

Afghan civilian casualties have been high, with the United Nations (UN) reporting at least 85 deaths in 2016. The Bureau recorded 65 to 105 civilian deaths during this period. We did not start collecting data on Afghanistan until 2015.

Pakistan was the hub of drone operations during Obama’s first term. The pace of attacks had accelerated in the second half of 2008 at the end of Bush’s term, after four years pocked by occasional strikes. However in the year after taking office, Obama ordered more drone strikes than Bush did during his entire presidency. The 54 strikes in 2009 all took place in Pakistan.

Strikes in the country peaked in 2010, with 128 CIA drone attacks and at least 89 civilians killed, at the same time US troop numbers surged in Afghanistan. Pakistan strikes have since fallen with just three conducted in the country last year.

Obama also began an air campaign targeting Yemen. His first strike was a catastrophe: commanders thought they were targeting al Qaeda but instead hit a tribe with cluster munitions, killing 55 people. Twenty-one were children – 10 of them under five. Twelve were women, five of them pregnant.

duploelabs

Hey Pete, is trump telling the truth when he said that Roger Stone never worked on his campaign?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1232395209125707776?s=19

PropJoe10

duploelabs wrote: »

Hey Pete, is trump telling the truth when he said that Roger Stone never worked on his campaign?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1232395209125707776?s=19

I love the way that he always puts stuff that he feels is important in inverted commas, while having no idea what doing that actually means.

Igotadose

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is an American trait to hide their dirty work. This isn't unique to Trump. US foreign policy is the one constant that never changes.

So, by that reasoning, you're o.k. with the bombing policy of the two administrations prior to Trump?

StringerBell

The funny thing at this stage is I don't even know why they bother laying ground work, it has been shown time and again it isn't necessary. Just pardon him and get it over with, nobody is going to stop you or even put up a faint resistance. Your supporters don't care what you do and you have successfully made the Republican party your bitch. Nobody else is going to buy the bull**** and in all honesty nobody else actually matters so why bother?

Just get on with it, continue to sodomise the rule of law and the principles the country was founded on, rule your adoring fans.

aloyisious

Englo wrote: »

The problem is... Who enforces that? Especially if/when he as the President immediately declares the result void and that he will be staying as president due to it being 'rigged', and when the DOJ and over half the Senate stand behind him in doing this.

Who forces him out in that situation, honestly? Remember that he is literally above the law, and cannot be touched by it and has 52 senators who voted to acquit him despite them even saying he was guilty but they just refused to hold him accountable for it.

The law. Remember the new president will have been sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts, a public statement that the USSC is behind him/her and Don is NOT above the law [except in his mind] and those who lie about him being above the law. The Secret Service and Washington PD do the demarcation-line work outside the White House. An enforced diet for Don would do him no harm, no more ordered-in burgers.

Trump has no power to declare the peoples vote-verdict on him to be void. That's [IMO] the action of dictators. The US itself has initiated actions which ended with the removal [sometimes abruptly] of dictators from head of state positions by citizens.

The thoughts that the GOP Senate members would line themselves up in front of Don to defend him to the end is [IMO] laughable. I reckon it'd be more messages from the Hill "You're on your own, sonny"

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

The law. Remember the new president will have been sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts, a public statement that the USSC is behind him/her and he is NOT above the law [except in his mind] and those who lie about him being above the law. The Secret Service and Washington PD do the demarcation-line work outside the White House. An enforced diet for Don would do him no harm, no more ordered-in burgers.

Trump has no power to declare the peoples vote-verdict on him to be void. That's [IMO] the action of dictators. The US itself has initiated actions which ended with the removal [sometimes abruptly] of dictators from head of state positions by citizens.

The thoughts that the GOP Senate members would line themselves up in front of Don to defend him to the end is [IMO] laughable. I reckon it'd be more "You're on your own, sonny"

Just goes to show how important it is to regain the Senate as they've backed trump and not the law once before.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/what-if-he-wont-go/606259/

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

Just goes to show how important it is to regain the Senate as they've backed trump and not the law once before.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/what-if-he-wont-go/606259/

Yes, it would be nice to [by citizens votes] deprive Don's swamp-dwelling pals of their home in the Senate. I just can't see them doing a sit-in there ala Don supposedly might in the White House. It's more probable that he'd walk out with his head and ego held high, denying the reality of his departure.

kilns

I see Trump has tweeted about the Coronavirus (spelt it wrongly) and basically said nothing to see here and insinuated that it was a media conspiracy by the "fake news media" to get him and ruin the stockmarket. Then you go to Fox News and there is barely a mention of it. I know Americans live in a bubble and dont really know about the outside world and the news coming from it but that is shameful from FOX

It really is irresponsible for the President of the United States to act in such a manner. Ironically this could be his downfall, if it really hits the US it will devastate them if restrictions are put place and his precious economy will suffer as a result. The Dow has already had its biggest 2 day dip ever in the last two days.

Interesting how it will develop

one armed dwarf

I was actually counting on his status as a germaphobe to maybe guide him to make a better decision here. Foolish of me.

These conspiracies are popular though. I saw on BBC articles on the virus a lot of upvoted comments claiming the BBC were making things up to discredit the Brexit project, as if that begins to make any sense.

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

Hey Pete, is trump telling the truth when he said that Roger Stone never worked on his campaign?

He said Stone wasn't working for the campaign, clearly referring to the the time period in question which the charges relate to: 2016/2017. Stone was given the elbow back in Aug 2015 as he was trying to use Trump's run for office for his own personal interests. Watch Get Me Roger Stone for evidence of that and despite a film crew following him around him during those very early days of the Trump campaign, there's still no footage in it of him either speaking on the phone with Trump, discussing campaign matters with him, much less him having meetings with him or members of the Trump campaign and so when Trump says Stone was only involved early on and did a little consulting work, that seems about right tbf, and the record of payments to him back that up as there were none after July 2015.

Not suggesting Stone didn't still have Trump's ear (and that of many on the Trump campaign either) he clearly did, but he's a friend of Trump and that's what the guy's about anyway, trying to inject himself into presidential campaigns whenever he can. He's been doing that since Nixon ran for office. He even has a giant Nixon tattoo on his back. Most of the Trump campaign hated Stone, Lewandowski in particular. Doesn't excuse how he was subsequently treated by the DOJ mind but that's what happens when you're seen as being on the side of Donald Trump and said to be guilty of a process crime. They were a little nicer McCabe for some reason.

I think ultimately it's a testament though to Trump's character that despite his occasional fallings out with Stone over the years, some of it played out in the media, he was there for him when it mattered and he was being mistreated by Clinton loyal legal eagles within the DOJ. Barr was right to call out their lack of integrity and abuse of power and the judge's sentence vindicates him doing so, over the top and all as it still is. The swamp is swampery than I think anyone really knew but as Barr says: These things take time.

Call Me Jimmy

Igotadose wrote: »

So, by that reasoning, you're o.k. with the bombing policy of the two administrations prior to Trump?

I'll answer for myself, in these types of situations it isn't that it's ok for Trump to do x, it's when it is presented as evidence of Trump being uniquely evil and dangerous. It's pointing out that something isn't exclusively Trump, it's been with the US for many years prior.

The best example of this was the hysteria over Trump 'separating families' in 'cages' built by the Obama administration which Obama did until he was stopped by the courts.
Complex situations where both had their reasons that weren't evil and both can be criticised for where it went wrong. But the narrative that most people got was 'Trump Hitler wants immigrants families in prison and anyone who says different is a fascist'.

Englo

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

IThe best example of this was the hysteria over Trump 'separating families' in 'cages' built by the Obama administration which Obama did until he was stopped by the courts.

Ignoring the fact that Trump ran on a platform of anti corruption, isolation is and ridding American politics of its bad elements to change it forever - something which Trump supporters go out of their way to pretend was never the case these days - if this is the best example you have, you might want to rethink your mindset because it's flat out untrue.

That policy was specifically enacted by the Trump administration. They went across media bragging about how much tougher they were and about deterrence, over and over. If you don't believe me, here is Trumps chief of staff at the time John Kelly doing exactly that at 6:15 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIpTWHbxxSw

Blitzer: if you get some young kids who manage to sneak into the United States with their parents, are DHS personnel going to separate the children from their moms and dads?

Kelly: we have tremendous experience in dealing with unaccompanied minors. We turn them over to HHS and they do a very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with their parents or family members in the United States. Yes, I am considering in order to defer more dangerous movement along this terrible dangerous network, I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He said Stone wasn't working for the campaign, clearly referring to the the time period in question which the charges relate to: 2016/2017. Stone was given the elbow back in Aug 2015 as he was trying to use Trump's run for office for his own personal interests. Watch Get Me Roger Stone for evidence of that and despite a film crew following him around him during those very early days of the Trump campaign, there's still no footage in it of him either speaking on the phone with Trump, discussing campaign matters with him, much less him having meetings with him or members of the Trump campaign and so when Trump says Stone was only involved early on and did a little consulting work, that seems about right tbf, and the record of payments to him back that up as there were none after July 2015.

Not suggesting Stone didn't still have Trump's ear (and that of many on the Trump campaign either) he clearly did, but he's a friend of Trump and that's what the guy's about anyway, trying to inject himself into presidential campaigns whenever he can. He's been doing that since Nixon ran for office. He even has a giant Nixon tattoo on his back. Most of the Trump campaign hated Stone, Lewandowski in particular. Doesn't excuse how he was subsequently treated by the DOJ mind but that's what happens when you're seen as being on the side of Donald Trump and said to be guilty of a process crime. They were a little nicer McCabe for some reason.

I think ultimately it's a testament though to Trump's character that despite his occasional fallings out with Stone over the years, some of it played out in the media, he was there for him when it mattered and he was being mistreated by Clinton loyal legal eagles within the DOJ. Barr was right to call out their lack of integrity and abuse of power and the judge's sentence vindicates him doing so, over the top and all as it still is. The swamp is swampery than I think anyone really knew but as Barr says: These things take time.

So is that a yes or no?

aloyisious

There's a developing story on MSN and in the media and that is that the Trump campaign is suing the NYT for libel over a 2019 opinion column, "The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo" by Max Frankel.

The campaign's legal adviser claims the statements [in the Op-Ed piece] were "100 percent false and defamatory" and the Times "was aware of the falsity at the time it published them." The Times published the Op-Ed in March 2019. However it seems the Campaign suit against the Times claims the Times must've known the *March 2019* op-ed was false because of what was in the *April 2019* Mueller report."

I looked for details on when the Mueller report was released and it was in April. It seems leaks from the report to the media didn't start until 04 April 2019. I have to presume that the Trump campaign legal team know what they are about and have something which will help it convince a court that the NYT knew in March the Op-Ed was false because it knew of the Mueller report contents before the report was issued in April by the DOJ.

Another thing is that if the Trump team are basing their case on what's in the Mueller report, it can mean the team have complete faith in the report versus the opinion-piece in the NYT and that can rebound on any claims from Don himself that the report is a Clinton product.

Leroy42

My read of it would be that either the particular journalist or the NYT itself has something they are working on and getting close and this is a shot across the bows.

Why now? March 19 column and they are bringing it back up now? To what end? It is either a distraction or an attempt to get of ahead of something.

TomOnBoard

The relevant dates are:

22nd March: Mueller presented his report to DoJ
24th March: Barr produced his infamous 'nothing to see here' 4-page so-called 'Summary'
27th March: NYT printed the Op-Ed in question.

So, if we had never seen the albeit partly redacted Mueller Report in April, we wouldn't know how flagrantly Barr had done a 'whitewash' on 24th March. This whitewash has been repeated many times, in complete denial of the actual Report's contents and conclusions, throughout the Twilight Zone that is Right Wing propaganda dissemination, including even by a few characters on here.

The Op-Ed did not go along with the Barr whitewash, and clearly did not believe Barr. It made statements that were clearly at odds with the whitewash. So, this case could only be seen to have merit IF the Barr whitewash becomes accepted as incontrovertible fact as at 27th March, which is clearly ridiculous given what we know was contained in the final report.

I don't think Barr will be particularly happy that his whitewash may now become involved in a court case a year down the road, where any self- respecting NYT defence team will argue that it was a tissue of lies.