2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

PropJoe10

2u2me wrote: »

Which threads on boards have the most name calling?

The Donald Trump thread(s) and the Gemma thread, and not by the 'Trump supporters'.

Nah, the Trump supporters are too busy defending Trump's absolutely disgraceful language on Twitter to actually get around to insulting anyone, most likely. That has to be a full-time job.

kowloon

The real push for separate air forces was a post Great War movement. You have the UK going in for a separate Air Force in 1918, but it was ahead of its time. Their planning for strategic bombing was based on France being the aggressor because the airc raft of the time weren't up for the task of getting any further into the continent.
It really heated up in the 20s/30s, one of the main figures being an Italian general (Douhet).
By the time they enttered The Second World War the USA had pretty much accewpted that the USAAF was more than just another section of The Army, so you see Hap Arnold getting a seat at the taable of the Joint Chiefs of Staff even though he was suboordinate to George C. Marshall.

My issue with Space Force is that it's more pressure to militarise space. I mean it was happening before but establishing Space Force is like the starter pistol for a new arms race.

francois

2u2me wrote: »

TDS is a actually pretty evil; it gets otherwise good and moral people to think and act like children.

Trump's Deranged Supporters?

TheRepentent

francois wrote: »

Trump's Deranged Supporters?

yeah it's the polite version of Trumptards:p

MadYaker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As I have stated, I am not accusing him of anything. I am discussing the accusations that have already been made against him by others in the articles I provided. In an article already linked (I'll link it again in this post), it is claimed his friend John Hynansky received $20 million from OPIC (a US government institution). Again, I don't know weather the loan was paid back, I could be all above board and legal etc etc.



https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/biden-delaware-way-graft/

If there's something illegal happening here why haven't Trump and Barr gone after Biden? Where's the investigation? There's only 2 possible options,

1: Trump is protecting them

2: Nothing illegal happened

Which do you think is more likely?

jamule

MadYaker wrote: »

If there's something illegal happening here why haven't Trump and Barr gone after Biden? Where's the investigation? There's only 2 possible options,

1: Trump is protecting them

2: Nothing illegal happened

Which do you think is more likely?

but but but Obamagate...

ohnonotgmail

a new anti-trump ad. Not a lincoln project one this time
https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1284388595961180160

Trump attracts the finest people

https://twitter.com/ReesusP/status/1281991108361256961

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

Very concerned with Biden’s kid’s business dealings. Have you any concerns at all about Ivanka Trump securing extensive trademarks in China whilst working as a White House advisor?

We were discussing the Bidens corruption allegations.

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

We were discussing the Bidens corruption allegations.

Yes and he put them in perspective.

The Senate has known about Biden's boast about the prosecutor Shokin and the IMF loan for almost an entire year now (At least), and yet, they have not lifted half a finger to explore this alleged corruption. Why do you think that is?

TheRepentent

Overheal wrote: »

Yes and he put them in perspective.

The Senate has known about Biden's boast about the prosecutor Shokin and the IMF loan for almost an entire year now (At least), and yet, they have not lifted half a finger to explore this alleged corruption. Why do you think that is?

no corruption ?

extra gravy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a new anti-trump ad. Not a lincoln project one this time
https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1284388595961180160

Trump attracts the finest people

https://twitter.com/ReesusP/status/1281991108361256961

Those women are hideous. It's a wonder he hasn't retweeted it.

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

We were discussing the Bidens corruption allegations.

Right, and now I’m bringing up Trump’s children and the corruption allegations against them. Do they bother you at all?

Do you hold Presidential candidates to higher standards than the actual president?

duploelabs

Overheal wrote: »

Yes and he put them in perspective.

The Senate has known about Biden's boast about the prosecutor Shokin and the IMF loan for almost an entire year now (At least), and yet, they have not lifted half a finger to explore this alleged corruption. Why do you think that is?

Because they sent Rudi to dig up the alleged evidence

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

Right, and now I’m bringing up Trump’s children and the corruption allegations against them. Do they bother you at all?

Do you hold Presidential candidates to higher standards than the actual president?

I dont know anything about corruption allegations regarding Trumps children. What specifically are the allegations?

Overheal

TheRepentent wrote: »

no corruption ?

See that's my thinking too, especially given that Congress was aware of the goings on when it happened, as was the IMF and the EU. washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/correcting-media-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. The $1 billion in loan guarantees was essential leverage because the Ukrainian government needed the credit line to underwrite its budget. At stake was not just Shokin, but a broad package of reforms, including a shake-up of the cabinet, sought by Western powers.

The U.S. ambassador at the time, Geoffrey Pyatt, along with then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, were key champions of the policy at the day-to-day level. Shokin was considered a close associate of Poroshenko, so his removal required a lot of work. “He’s was completely Poroshenko’s creature,” recalled one former U.S. official involved in Ukraine policy.

Pyatt kicked off the effort with a speech on Sept. 24, 2015 in which he blasted Shokin for “openly and aggressively undermining reform” and having “undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.” In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Oct. 8, Nuland declared: “The Prosecutor General’s Office has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.”

So it was certainly brought to the attention of these Republicans who served on this committee in 2015 during the 114th Congress:

Bob Corker, Tennessee (Chairman)
Jim Risch, Idaho
Marco Rubio, Florida
Ron Johnson, Wisconsin
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Cory Gardner, Colorado
David Perdue, Georgia
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Rand Paul, Kentucky
Rob Portman, Ohio
John Barrasso, Wyoming

All an investigation would show now is that they knew all this back when it happened. It's Trumpworld that tried to spin this all in 2019 as a news shock scandal.

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I dont know anything about corruption allegations regarding Trumps children. What specifically are the allegations?

There are quite a few truth be told, but here’s one example: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ivanka-trump-trademarks-china-20190121-story.html

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

Because they sent Rudi to dig up the alleged evidence

At least he came back. Rest in Peace to those people Trump sent to Hawaii, they were never heard from again.

“I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they’re finding,” Trump told host Meredith Vieira.

“You have people now down there searching, I mean in Hawaii?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” he replied. “And they cannot believe what they’re finding.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgoizJ_yPc

So much he said in that interview aged terribly edit: So, soooooooooo much didn't age well. /sips tea

Tell me how

Overheal wrote: »

So much he said in that interview aged terribly edit: So, soooooooooo much didn't age well. /sips tea

'We have huge deficits, huge unemployment, huge problems, and we are not respected. I would run a great country. The world laughs at us, they won't be laughing if I am President"..........

Overheal

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Myyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Goddddddddddddd

ohnonotgmail

I saw that rubio tweet a few minutes ago. A total shocker.

Danzy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I saw that rubio tweet a few minutes ago. A total shocker.

How is it a shocker?

Cody montana

Overheal wrote: »

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Myyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Goddddddddddddd

I shouldn’t laugh!

ohnonotgmail

Danzy wrote: »

How is it a shocker?

you dont know? do they all look alike to you as well as rubio?

timsey tiger

Tell me how wrote: »

'We have huge deficits, huge unemployment, huge problems, and we are not respected. I would run a great country. The world laughs at us, they won't be laughing if I am President"..........

Well, he got that bit right at least, we're crying not laughing.

Overheal

Report put showing right wing terrorism has spiked 300% since trump took office

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/right-wing-domestic-terrorism-has-increased-by-more-than-300-since-trump-took-office-report/

Igotadose

Overheal wrote: »

Report put showing right wing terrorism has spiked 300% since trump took office

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/right-wing-domestic-terrorism-has-increased-by-more-than-300-since-trump-took-office-report/

Worth reading, esp. the data on how the #IMPOTUS admin prioritizes (preempts is the word they use) investigating Islamic terrorism cases over right-wing ones.
Who would've suspected that?!

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Report put showing right wing terrorism has spiked 300% since trump took office

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/right-wing-domestic-terrorism-has-increased-by-more-than-300-since-trump-took-office-report/

I think the article is very badly written. The grammar and structure are poor. It doesn't define what right wing terrorism is, it simply puts the term in "". The article argues that the Las Vegas shooting was a "right wing" shooting, thereby bumping up the numbers. The thing is, there is no known motive for the shooting (AFAIK) so how can we say it was right wing or not? If anything, I would say it was left wing if it was in response to gun control.


Just to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, there has been no terms defined here & I'm not 100% familiar with the Las Vegas case.

Igotadose

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think the article is very badly written. The grammar and structure are poor. It doesn't define what right wing terrorism is, it simply puts the term in "". The article argues that the Las Vegas shooting was a "right wing" shooting, thereby bumping up the numbers. The thing is, there is no known motive for the shooting (AFAIK) so how can we say it was right wing or not? If anything, I would say it was left wing if it was in response to gun control.


Just to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, there has been no terms defined here & I'm not 100% familiar with the Las Vegas case.

The Las Vegas case was a shooter from a hotel window blasting down onto an outdoor concert. It was the largest in US history for a lone shooter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock

The original report is better; basically, law enforcement in the US is all over it if it's an "Islamist" attack, but not as interested if it isn't. Despite the fact that the "Islamist" attacks are much fewer and far between.

https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2020/07/09/domestic-terror-in-the-age-of-trump/



What the article says pretty clearly, is that this incident is NOT included in the USG statistics as 'right-wing' terrorism because the shooter did not have a right wing manifesto so he didn't meet the USG requirements for the shooting being labeled as such. Other analysts in the media have looked at it and said he clearly was a right-wing gun-nut, but as the article says "But, because Paddock lacked any explicit right-wing organizational affiliations and because he did not leave behind a manifesto after he shot nearly 900 people, the government declined to assign him any ideological motivation."

Overheal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think the article is very badly written. The grammar and structure are poor. It doesn't define what right wing terrorism is, it simply puts the term in "". The article argues that the Las Vegas shooting was a "right wing" shooting, thereby bumping up the numbers. The thing is, there is no known motive for the shooting (AFAIK) so how can we say it was right wing or not? If anything, I would say it was left wing if it was in response to gun control.


Just to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, there has been no terms defined here & I'm not 100% familiar with the Las Vegas case.

So you’re not arguing either way but are out to delegitimize this report because, first and foremost, the law and crime blog that shared it has in your opinion poor grammar and sentence structure? Meanwhile suggesting the LV shooter was left wing with an incredulous rationale while openly admitting you have little familiarity about the Las Vegas massacre, and therefore are just conjuring wild conjecture to try and attack this report. Not arguing either way indeed.

Maybe when you build up a credibility on this thread of supporting your own claims with evidence we will take your criticism more seriously. Until then.

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Trump calls people names and you don't say a word.

Stranger on the Internet calls Trump a name and you whinge about it.

Again making things personal and not engaging in what I was talking about.

You're incorrect. I was one of Trump's most vocal haters even before he stood for election while he was just a socialite in NY. If you were a fan of Jon Stewart also you'd understand.

The only 'whinging' I was doing further explaining a post I was questioned about. It's rather childish of you to take this route.

I've seen many contributions from you before on these boards. It seems you are a fan of this childish name calling. Perhaps you're one that would like it to continue. Good for you.

If there are two teams on a pitch, I'm on one team, and one of the opposing players does something stupid I'm not going to chastise them, I'm going to chastise my own team mate when they do something stupid. I hope you understand this.