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

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Below standard posts and responses deleted.

robinph

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Is it or is it not good for American citizens?

Charging mildly less for a medication which a lack of would mean I'd be dead within a couple of days is not good.

It's just very slightly less crap.

Carfacemandog

Lincoln Project with a second ad on Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell.

amandstu

Overheal wrote: »

How do you figure? Please explain your reasoning.

It was a joke. I was putting myself in loco Trumpi.

He has already railed against Mexican judges and the legal system in general ( except when it might serve his ends) and would doubtless attempt to discredit any case against his own good person.

Water John

Trump always wanted violence from the George Flloyd protests and when it really hasn't happened, he goes and manufactures it.

Overheal

:eek:

“The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, which runs the 40th president’s library near Los Angeles, has demanded that President Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) quit raising campaign money by using Ronald Reagan’s name and likeness”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/25/reagan-foundation-trump-rnc-quit-raising-money-off-ronald-reagans-legacy/

Where do you even begin with that!? I’d just resign already, f’n hell.

looksee

That's behind a paywall, but I gather he is selling commemorative coins with Reagan's image on them - is that the whole of the story? How does using Reagan's image promote Trump?

aloyisious

I'm looking at an MSN report about the U.S census being conducted now and how Trump has instructed that illegal immigrants are not to be included as participants in it. According to the report only congress has the authority to instruct on how the census is run and some persons/bodies are suing the Trump Admin in court to block his moves. As things go, I didn't know how far-reaching his move went until I read in another PART OF THE report that if the census was done the way Trump wanted it done, it would affect the number of seats some states have in the U.S Senate and House.

Texas, California and Florida would each lose a seat in the seating reconfiguration also under way if there was a reduced number of people recorded as living in those states, there being a resultant loss of voters. Alabama, according to the other part of the report, would be in a happier position. As clever as Trump is I doubt if he would have the cunning to have come up with the idea.

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — If President Donald Trump succeeds in getting immigrants in the country illegally excluded from being counted in the redrawing of U.S. House districts, California, Florida and Texas would end up with one less congressional seat each than if every resident were counted, according to an analysis by a think tank.

Without that population, California would lose two seats instead of one, Florida would gain one seat instead of two and Texas would gain two seats instead of three, according to the analysis by Pew Research Center. Additionally, the Pew analysis shows Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each keep a congressional seat they most likely would have lost during the process of divvying up congressional seats by state known as apportionment, which takes place after the U.S. Census Bureau completes its once-a-decade head count of every U.S. resident. The bureau currently is in the middle of the 2020 census.

It seems the people running the census have asked for an time-extension to March 2021 to conclude the census on the grounds that the virus has thrown the original end-date [pre Nov 2020] in doubt.

I don't know if the REPORT ACTUALLY HAS the facts all lined up correctly so I have to ask people in the U.S if it is true that some cunning person/s in the Admin are trying to play a game which could affect the electorate numbers in three states come Nov? Florida always seems to figure largely in U.S politics for one reason or another for legal reasons.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/politics/california-florida-texas-lose-house-seats-with-trump-order/ar-BB17baqA?ocid=msedgntp

Overheal

looksee wrote: »

That's behind a paywall, but I gather he is selling commemorative coins with Reagan's image on them - is that the whole of the story? How does using Reagan's image promote Trump?

It’s so cringeworthy. Very poor taste here’s the whole article as follows [emphases in original]:

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, which runs the 40th president’s library near Los Angeles, has demanded that President Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) quit raising campaign money by using Ronald Reagan’s name and likeness.

“It was simply handled with a phone call mid-last week to the RNC, and they agreed to stop,” Reagan Foundation chief marketing officer Melissa Giller said in an email Saturday.

What came to the foundation’s attention — and compelled officials there to complain — was a fundraising email that went out July 19 with “Donald J. Trump” identified as the sender and a subject line that read: “Ronald Reagan and Yours Truly.”

The solicitation offered, for a donation of $45 or more, a “limited edition” commemorative set featuring two gold-colored coins, one each with an image of Reagan and Trump. The coins were mounted with a 1987 photograph of Reagan and Trump shaking hands in a White House receiving line — the type of fleeting contact that presidents have with thousands of people a year.

“Friend,” the fundraising email purportedly from Trump said, “I just saw our new Trump-Reagan Commemorative Coin Sets and WOW, these coins are beautiful - I took one look and immediately knew that I wanted YOU to have a set. These aren’t any ordinary coins. They symbolize an important time in our Nation. This year, in addition to being re-elected as YOUR President, it also marks the 40th anniversary of our Nation’s 40th President, Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, we already sold out of the first batch we had in stock. But I liked these coins so much that I asked my team to rush order another batch for my TOP SUPPORTERS ONLY.”

It cautioned: “I’ve authorized a very limited production of these iconic coins, which is why I’m ONLY offering them to our top supporters, like YOU. This offer is NOT available to the general public, so please, do NOT share this email with anyone.”
Proceeds from the coin sales went to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising operation that benefits both the Trump campaign and the RNC.

The joint committee website, where the coins were for sale, noted: “The President only authorized the production of 5,000 sets of these iconic coins, which is why we’re ONLY offering them to our TOP supporters.”


In the 1990s, both Reagan and his wife Nancy signed legal documents that granted the foundation sole rights to their names, likenesses and images. Of course, there are countless photos and videos of Reagan that are in the public domain. But the foundation claims power to block them from being used for commercial purposes and political endorsements. When Reagan Foundation officials were made aware of the Trump email solicitation, they decided “within seconds” to put a stop to it, said Giller.

Athough the RNC accepted the foundation’s demand regarding the fundraising emails, “we still have a lot of additional work,” Giller said. The foundation is looking into how many people might have seen the email and how many of the coin sets were sold, and may still decide to get lawyers involved, she added.

Frederick J. Ryan Jr., who chairs the Reagan Foundation board, is also publisher and CEO of The Washington Post. He declined to offer a comment for this column.

This isn’t the first time the 45th president has traded on the name or likeness of the 40th, who is revered among conservatives, for his own purposes. In July 2019, he shared as “Cute!” a fake quote by Reagan that was making its way around social media. According to the apocryphal story, Reagan upon meeting Trump supposedly said: “For the life of me, and I’ll never know how to explain it, when I met that young man, I felt like I was the one shaking hands with the president.”

Trump continued to spread the made-up quote, even though Joanne Drake, the chief administrative officer of the Reagan Foundation, had already told the fact-checking website PolitiFact that Reagan “did not ever say that about Donald Trump.”

Relations between the Trump family and the Reagan Foundation have generally been cordial. Last November, Donald Trump Jr. appeared for a lecture and book-signing at the Reagan Library, for which the foundation charged admission. The event sold out.

“President Reagan was a proud Republican and supporter of a party that has carried on his fight for conservative principles of economic opportunity and limited government. His likeness is used by thousands of Republicans each year who gather around the country for ‘Reagan Dinners,’ and his library regularly hosts debates for our presidential candidates," RNC communications director Michael Ahrens said in an emailed statement. "Given that the Reagan Foundation just recently hosted the Trump family to raise money for its organization and has not objected to us using President Reagan’s likeness before, their objection came as a surprise. Even though we believe our use of the image was appropriate, we will stop emailing this fundraising solicitation as a courtesy.”

As of Saturday afternoon, it appeared that the coin sets were still available on the joint fundraising committee website.

Nancy Reagan, who died in 2016, was leery of those who invoked her husband’s name, even in efforts to pay tribute to him. In 2003, for instance, she publicly opposed a push by conservative House Republicans to replace Franklin D. Roosevelt’s profile on the dime with an image of Reagan, who by then was nearing the end of his battle with Alzheimer’s disease.

“While I can understand the intentions of those seeking to place my husband’s face on the dime, I do not support this proposal and I am certain Ronnie would not,” the former first lady said. “When our country chooses to honor a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another.”

Nancy Reagan, who died in 2016, was leery of those who invoked her husband’s name, even in efforts to pay tribute to him. In 2003, for instance, she publicly opposed a push by conservative House Republicans to replace Franklin D. Roosevelt’s profile on the dime with an image of Reagan, who by then was nearing the end of his battle with Alzheimer’s disease.

“While I can understand the intentions of those seeking to place my husband’s face on the dime, I do not support this proposal and I am certain Ronnie would not,” the former first lady said. “When our country chooses to honor a great president such as Franklin Roosevelt by placing his likeness on our currency, it would be wrong to remove him and replace him with another.”

Nancy Reagan understood that a president’s place in history is precious, unique and vulnerable to the opportunism of those who claim to follow in his footsteps. It is not hard to imagine what she would have thought of the “iconic” coins that Trump has been hawking.

looksee

Thanks for that quote Overheal. True, there is no barrel he will not scrape the bottom of!

salmocab

That’s so badly worded that I actually believe Trump wrote it.

briany

Man, pro-Trump voices have really gone to ground in light of Trump's terrible leadership through Covid and the BLM protests. Are there any prominent political commentators out there who think the man is doing a fine job and deserves reelection in November?

Overheal

briany wrote: »

Man, pro-Trump voices have really gone to ground in light of Trump's terrible leadership through Covid and the BLM protests. Are there any prominent political commentators out there who think the man is doing a fine job and deserves reelection in November?

You still have Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, etc.

valoren

A latest tweet re Portland now posits Fox News as part of the "lamestream media" and they have "really checked out".

Never thought I'd see the day Trump turns of Fox News. When Fox is no longer deemed a reliable source of news for true believers then it will likely drive them towards the toxic fringe outlets.

Christy42

valoren wrote: »

A latest tweet re Portland now posits Fox News as part of the "lamestream media" and they have "really checked out".

Never thought I'd see the day Trump turns of Fox News. When Fox is no longer deemed a reliable source of news for true believers then it will likely drive them towards the toxic fringe outlets.

Likely the point. Fox are massively massively biased but are not full cult blown worshipping of Trump. People can only be allowed news sites which are 100% pro Trump at all times. This most of times business is not good enough.

Christy42

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Trump yet again demanded Russia be let into G7 and Germany said no this time

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-g7-summit-russia-germany/germany-rejects-trumps-proposal-to-let-russia-back-into-g7-foreign-minister-idUKKCN24R0T9

Which is interesting (beside the obvious puppetry mastery Putin has over Trump) in context of US not wanting a pipeline from Russia to Germany (nordstream) to be completed with companies being threatened with sanctions.

And also interesting as some very pro Russian arguments from Trump after the publication of Russian bounties on US troops. Whatever his claims of not being told before, he knows now and obviously couldn't give an f about US military deaths from this.

Nody

Christy42 wrote: »

And also interesting as some very pro Russian arguments from Trump after the publication of Russian bounties on US troops. Whatever his claims of not being told before, he knows now and obviously couldn't give an f about US military deaths from this.

Two mistakes with your thought process there; first of all you assume he cared before and that after speaking to Putin and Putin telling him it was a lie that he'd trust his own intelligence agencies over Putin. Since Trump believes he's a great judge of character so when Putin (via a translator) said no he knew Putin was not lying (being such an great judge of characters and being so intelligent etc. as he sees himself and as he's never wrong either there's no worries of self doubt).

Itssoeasy

I see GOP senator and big trump ally tom cotton has been quoted as saying slavery was "a necessary evil" to build America. I mean jesus h Christ what a thing to say on the record in 2020. You'd think that politicians of all kinds would keep well clear of saying anything like what he said.

Edit: to be fully clear he said that the founding fathers said it was and he quoted them but still why would you quote the founding fathers of the United States on that topic in 2020 ?

pixelburp

A name like Tom Cotton feels curiously unfortunate or potentially uncomfortable if it has its origins with cotton farmers. Cos then there's an stickier and even more repugnant context to his comments.

Nothing new about this sort of view though: even our next door neighbour has its share of otherwise learned individuals who would defend the British Empire as a net positive on the world, trying to reframe subjugation as enlightenment or benevolent authoritarianism. The White House itself was built with slaves and recall justification from those who claimed the indentured were treated well.

Christy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see GOP senator and big trump ally tom cotton has been quoted as saying slavery was "a necessary evil" to build America. I mean jesus h Christ what a thing to say on the record in 2020. You'd think that politicians of all kinds would keep well clear of saying anything like what he said.

Edit: to be fully clear he said that the founding fathers said it was and he quoted them but still why would you quote the founding fathers of the United States on that topic in 2020 ?

Weirdly he was arguing against slavery being a more central part in history lessons and yet calls it neccesary.

Quin_Dub

pixelburp wrote: »

A name like Tom Cotton feels curiously unfortunate or potentially uncomfortable if it has its origins with cotton farmers. Cos then there's an stickier and even more repugnant context to his comments.

Nothing new about this sort of view though: even our next door neighbour has its share of otherwise learned individuals who would defend the British Empire as a net positive on the world, trying to reframe subjugation as enlightenment or benevolent authoritarianism. The White House itself was built with slaves and recall justification from those who claimed the indentured were treated well.

Christy42 wrote: »

Weirdly he was arguing against slavery being a more central part in history lessons and yet calls it neccesary.

His argument is one of those contorted "The founding fathers said it so it is canon and not to be questioned" thing that the GOP and the Constitutional Originalists get themselves wrapped up in.

Basically , back in the day Washington ,Jefferson or one of those described Slavery as "A necessary evil" on the road to building the bastion of equality and fairness that is the United States.

So , because one of the untouchables said it , it cannot and will not be subjected to any questioning or modern review. So you now have a US Senator in 2020 saying that Slavery was "necessary"

Just exposes the utter inanity of the whole "originalist" argument.

Water John

Generally the same type think the world was made in 7 days about 4,000 years ago.

Cody montana

pixelburp wrote: »

A name like Tom Cotton feels curiously unfortunate or potentially uncomfortable if it has its origins with cotton farmers. Cos then there's an stickier and even more repugnant context to his comments.

Nothing new about this sort of view though: even our next door neighbour has its share of otherwise learned individuals who would defend the British Empire as a net positive on the world, trying to reframe subjugation as enlightenment or benevolent authoritarianism. The White House itself was built with slaves and recall justification from those who claimed the indentured were treated well.

Ironic that his name is cotton.

amandstu

Has Mitch McConnell been asked to comment?

Can this Senator be removed from the Republican party?

Here is his quote:

"As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as [Abraham] Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction."

Sounds like he was agreeing with their "assessment".

Sean.3516

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see GOP senator and big trump ally tom cotton has been quoted as saying slavery was "a necessary evil" to build America. I mean jesus h Christ what a thing to say on the record in 2020. You'd think that politicians of all kinds would keep well clear of saying anything like what he said.

Well he's right. But you have to put him into context rather than just quoting him saying slavery was a "necessary evil". Necessary for what exactly?

He's saying that slavery had to be tolerated early on in order to preserve the union of the country. Fact check: True. That's not even a value judgment on slavery. It's an objective fact.

If there had been a concerted effort to abolish slavery in 1776 or in subsequent decades, the South (as well as middle states like Pennsylvania) would have pulled out and formed a separate republic, the North wouldn't have been capable of forcing them back in. In that case, slavery could have been maintained in those states for a lot longer than it was since there would have no impetus for the Civil War 80 years later when only the South still had slavery.

Jefferson (and other Founders) knew slavery was wrong and had to be ended and also knew that it was never going to happen in their lifetimes. The Constitution may not have prohibited slavery but it certainly got the ball rolling on the process of ending it. For example it banned the importation of more slaves after 1808. The 3/5ths Compromise limited the ability of the slave states to count their slave populations to have outsized representation in Congress. The South would have dominated every election otherwise.

Cotton wasn't saying that slavery was good at the time. He specifically said it was an "evil". He's saying that compromises had to be made in order to preserve a country that would eventually abolish slavery.

Igotadose

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well he's right. But you have to put him into context rather than just quoting him saying slavery was a "necessary evil". Necessary for what exactly?

His context: He's against the 1619 project. That's all. Proposed a bill banning federal funding for schools that teach it. Seems pretty far overreach, and just dog-whistling

He's saying that slavery had to be tolerated early on in order to preserve the union of the country. Fact check: True. That's not even a value judgment on slavery. It's an objective fact.

If there had been a concerted effort to abolish slavery in 1776 or in subsequent decades, the South (as well as middle states like Pennsylvania) would have pulled out and formed a separate republic, the North wouldn't have been capable of forcing them back in. In that case, slavery could have been maintained in those states for a lot longer than it was since there would have no impetus for the Civil War 80 years later when only the South still had slavery.


Jefferson (and other Founders) knew slavery was wrong and had to be ended and also knew that it was never going to happen in their lifetimes. The Constitution may not have prohibited slavery but it certainly got the ball rolling on the process of ending it. For example it banned the importation of more slaves after 1808. The 3/5ths Compromise limited the ability of the slave states to count their slave populations to have outsized representation in Congress. The South would have dominated every election otherwise.

Cotton wasn't saying that slavery was good at the time. He specifically said it was an "evil". He's saying that compromises had to be made in order to preserve a country that would eventually abolish slavery.

The 1619 project is an attempt to provide other historical interpretations of the role of Slavery in the US to be taught in schools that Cotten is against. Cotten himself did not say "slavery was a necessary evil." He said, "As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction."

Trashing the 1619 Project is just tGOP dog whistling at the Federal level. Hopefully Cotten's obvious racism precludes him from being the POTUS nominee in 2024 for the GOP

Midlife

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well he's right. But you have to put him into context rather than just quoting him saying slavery was a "necessary evil". Necessary for what exactly?

He's saying that slavery had to be tolerated early on in order to preserve the union of the country. Fact check: True. That's not even a value judgment on slavery. It's an objective fact.

If there had been a concerted effort to abolish slavery in 1776 or in subsequent decades, the South (as well as middle states like Pennsylvania) would have pulled out and formed a separate republic, the North wouldn't have been capable of forcing them back in. In that case, slavery could have been maintained in those states for a lot longer than it was since there would have no impetus for the Civil War 80 years later when only the South still had slavery.

Jefferson (and other Founders) knew slavery was wrong and had to be ended and also knew that it was never going to happen in their lifetimes. The Constitution may not have prohibited slavery but it certainly got the ball rolling on the process of ending it. For example it banned the importation of more slaves after 1808. The 3/5ths Compromise limited the ability of the slave states to count their slave populations to have outsized representation in Congress. The South would have dominated every election otherwise.

Cotton wasn't saying that slavery was good at the time. He specifically said it was an "evil". He's saying that compromises had to be made in order to preserve a country that would eventually abolish slavery.

Rubbish tbh.

Necessary for what? The bastion of morality and fairness that is modern America?

Do you think black communities would agree with the assessment that the ends justified the means.

That's what is essentially being said. Slavery was a necessary evil. It was terrible but worthwhile because the USA is so great.

Firstly, is Tom Cotton is in a position to declare 'worth it really though'

Secondly, slavery was necessary to abolish slavery is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

Sean.3516

Igotadose wrote: »

His context: He's against the 1619 project. That's all. Proposed a bill banning federal funding for schools that teach it. Seems pretty far overreach, and just dog-whistling


The 1619 project is an attempt to provide other historical interpretations of the role of Slavery in the US to be taught in schools that Cotten is against. Cotten himself did not say "slavery was a necessary evil." He said, "As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction."

Trashing the 1619 Project is just tGOP dog whistling at the Federal level.

The 1619 Project is trash. It's straight up bad history. It not only said that America's entire history can be understood as an effort to exploit blacks but that America's primary motivation for breaking away from Britain was to maintain the institution of slavery. Both those things are false. One crazy article drew a link between Excel software used by modern businesses and the record keeping practices of slave owners.

Many historians including Pulitzer Prize winners like Gordon Wood and James McPherson have trashed it so it's not just Tom Cotton.

They were literally forced to print a retraction saying rather than being a primary motivation for (all) colonists, protecting slavery was a motivation for (many) colonists, which is strange considering the British Empire pro slavery at the time.

Of course it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Igotadose wrote: »

Hopefully Cotten's obvious racism precludes him from being the POTUS nominee in 2024 for the GOP

Care to explain how Tom Cotton is an obvious racist?

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The 1619 Project is trash. It's straight up bad history. It not only said that America's entire history can be understood as an effort to exploit blacks but that America's primary motivation for breaking away from Britain was to maintain the institution of slavery. Both those things are false. One crazy article drew a link between Excel software used by modern businesses and the record keeping practices of slave owners.

Many historians including Pulitzer Prize winners like Gordon Wood and James McPherson have trashed it so it's not just Tom Cotton.

They were literally forced to print a retraction saying rather than being a primary motivation for (all) colonists, protecting slavery was a motivation for (many) colonists, which is strange considering the British Empire pro slavery at the time.

Of course it shouldn't be taught in schools.


Care to explain how Tom Cotton is an obvious racist?

See you spout all these same talking points as tom cotton and his allies about how the project is trash but don’t actually say how it is so, which screams of parroting of said talking points without any true understanding of the grist of the material or any independent critical thought. Your only evidence is theirs: and it’s a retraction they happily issued so they are providing the best evidence available to people that is open to change subject to our best understanding of the slavery era.

Sean.3516

Midlife wrote: »

Necessary for what? The bastion of morality and fairness that is modern America?

Well considering that America is a bastion of morality and fairness, yes.

Midlife wrote: »

Do you think black communities would agree with the assessment that the ends justified the means.

I imagine many wouldn't. But not because Cotton is wrong. Because of their own historical ignorance.

Midlife wrote: »

That's what is essentially being said. Slavery was a necessary evil. It was terrible but worthwhile because the USA is so great.

That's not what he said. Nobody knew in 1787 that the US would turn out so great. But anti-slavery Founders at the time knew that in order to eventually end slavery, the slave states would have to be kept in the union so the influence of the anti-slavery states in the more powerful North would eventually allow it to be stamped out. This couldn't happen if the South was a separate country.

Midlife wrote: »

Firstly, is Tom Cotton is in a position to declare 'worth it really though'

I'd imagine he knows more about the subject than the average black person in America.

Midlife wrote: »

Secondly, slavery was necessary to abolish slavery is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

Again you're being deliberately obtuse.
Slavery wasn't necessary to abolish slavery. Tolerating slavery at the time while taking concrete steps like banning the importation of slaves etc. was necessary so slavery could be abolished later.

It would have been a lot easier for the South to secede and keep their slaves in 1787 than it was when they tried in 1861 as we found out.
The point isn't that the means were good because the ends were good. The point is that the means were in fact the only means available at the time. And also the ends are pretty damn good.