Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

Rudy is Trump's personal lawyer.

Rudy was asked yesterday about the payments into Cohen's LLC account.

Rudy said he spoke to Trump the previous evening at 8:30pm and Trump told him that he didn't know anything about it.

Therefore, Trump is now on the record and has officially denied, via a statement from his personal lawyer, any knowledge of the payments.

Accept that the sides of Don's mouth don't know what the other half is saying any of the time. Don will say "He [Rudy] hasn't learned yet" and laugh with Rudy at his latest gag.

Professor Moriarty

This is the opening two paragraphs from an opinion piece by John Bolton in today's Washington Post (apart from a nod in the direction of Netanyahu's discredited "revelations" last week, the rest of the article is an argument for closer ties with Israel):

On Tuesday, President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the failed Iran nuclear deal. The president has famously referred to it as “the worst deal in history.” Its very premise has been betrayed by its own abysmal track record over the past two years.

The theory behind the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, was that the Iranian regime would, in the interests of its own people, trade its nuclear ambitions for economic incentives. But rather than focusing on behaving responsibly, Tehran has poured billions of dollars into military adventures abroad, spreading an arc of death and destruction across the Middle East from Yemen to Syria. Meanwhile, the Iranian people have suffered at home from a tanking currency, rising inflation, stagnant wages and a spiraling environmental crisis.

President Trump acted prudently. He spent more than a year studying the deal, soliciting information and assessments from within his administration, and consulting with our allies. He decided that this deal actually undermines the security of the American people he swore to protect and, accordingly, ended U.S. participation in it. This action reversed an ill-advised and dangerous policy and set us on a new course that will address the aggressive and hostile behavior of our enemies, while enhancing our ties with partners and allies.


Amazing how he can get away with this. He confirms that the reason The Donald is ditching the Iran deal is because of their military actions rather than any violation of the treaty. So it is the US who is breaking the treaty illegally. Not a murmur from the greasy and cowardly GOP.

jobbridge4life

markodaly wrote: »

Because he is a populist and his base, the working class blue collar Americans are sick of having to fight these stupid wars of the past. He is not Bush.

He has been consistent in all this. Even the Alt-Right are anti foreign interventions. What they actually want are all the troops to be brought home and protect their own border with Mexico and to hell with the rest of the world. That is their line of thinking. Its flawed of course but there is more nuance here.

Its better to have some sort of rational, or we could go all out Helen Lovejoy and proclaim that WWIII is upon us, but then that would make one look like an hysterical idiot.

Also, remember. Congress are the people who has to declare war, not the POTUS. But I suppose that is lost on the Kool-Aid drinkers.

That post, and the sum of your contributions have been riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods.

Can you please explain (having been asked now repeatedly) your claim that reinstating and expanding sanctions on a country on the other side of the world, with no known capacity to target US territory, designed to influence the actions of that country can in anyway be considered isolationism?

He is not Bush, he is not Obama, I don't think anyone here is under a misapphrension in that regard. He has appointed the worst war hawk of the Bush era as his national security advisor. He has ratcheted up US militarism abroad beyond Obama's level.

Your assertion that Trump's base is the 'blue collar' workers of America is not borne out by the evidence. Trump won the better off vote against Clinton, is supported by billionaires, the elite of the NRA and Christian evangelistic movement.

The last time Congress declared war was World War II, so while berating others about the need for rational thinking :rolleyes: and nuance you might do well to inform yourself on some facts.

Hande hoche!

I'm not surprised there is hardly a murmur from the GOP. Pretty much all the 2016 presidential nominees were against the Iran deal. The limited nuance was whether they would scrap it from the get go or wait for a reason to.

spacecoyote

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But rather than focusing on behaving responsibly, Tehran has poured billions of dollars into military adventures abroad, spreading an arc of death and destruction across the Middle East from Yemen to Syria. Meanwhile, the Iranian people have suffered at home from a tanking currency, rising inflation, stagnant wages and a spiraling environmental crisis.

You could literally lift out Tehran & Iran from his quote & replace it with Washington & America & it reads pretty much spot on:

But rather than focusing on behaving responsibly, Washington has poured billions of dollars into military adventures abroad, spreading an arc of death and destruction across the Middle East from Yemen to Syria. Meanwhile, the American people have suffered at home from a tanking currency, rising inflation, stagnant wages and a spiralling environmental crisis.

Its pretty much a perfect parallel, but I'm guessing the irony would be wasted on Mr Bolton

Leroy42

markodaly wrote: »

Because he is a populist and his base, the working class blue collar Americans are sick of having to fight these stupid wars of the past. He is not Bush.

He has been consistent in all this. Even the Alt-Right are anti foreign interventions. What they actually want are all the troops to be brought home and protect their own border with Mexico and to hell with the rest of the world. That is their line of thinking. Its flawed of course but there is more nuance here.

Its better to have some sort of rational, or we could go all out Helen Lovejoy and proclaim that WWIII is upon us, but then that would make one look like an hysterical idiot.

Also, remember. Congress are the people who has to declare war, not the POTUS. But I suppose that is lost on the Kool-Aid drinkers.

Trump stated to Reporters yesterday

“I would advise Iran not to start their nuclear programme," Mr Trump told reporters at the start of a cabinet meeting in Washington when asked about the possibility of Iran once again trying to develop a weapon. “I would advise them very strongly. If they do there will be very severe consequences.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-latest-updates-rouhani-threat-macron-a8343856.html

So is your position that this isolationist POTUS is going to somehow take action against Iran by doing nothing?

Mr.Micro

spacecoyote wrote: »

You could literally lift out Tehran & Iran from his quote & replace it with Washington & America & it reads pretty much spot on:

But rather than focusing on behaving responsibly, Washington has poured billions of dollars into military adventures abroad, spreading an arc of death and destruction across the Middle East from Yemen to Syria. Meanwhile, the American people have suffered at home from a tanking currency, rising inflation, stagnant wages and a spiralling environmental crisis.

Its pretty much a perfect parallel, but I'm guessing the irony would be wasted on Mr Bolton

That appears to be the American economy... War and more war, weapons and destruction, so long as it's thousands of miles away. No chance then of affecting the US way of life with displaced peoples, immigrants, suffering and all the horrors of war.

markodaly

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Can you please explain (having been asked now repeatedly) your claim that reinstating and expanding sanctions on a country on the other side of the world, with no known capacity to target US territory, designed to influence the actions of that country can in anyway be considered isolationism?

You mean withdrawing from an international agreement. Hmmm, let me think on that one.

Your assertion that Trump's base is the 'blue collar' workers of America is not borne out by the evidence. Trump won the better off vote against Clinton, is supported by billionaires, the elite of the NRA and Christian evangelistic movement.

Yes, that is how he lost the rust belt..

oh..
wait...

In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Here is the definitive article on how Trump won the election, appropriately titled, "Education not income predicted who would vote for Trump"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

Those facts eh. Scary things when they dismantle an argument.

The last time Congress declared war was World War II, so while berating others about the need for rational thinking :rolleyes: and nuance you might do well to inform yourself on some facts.

Ah some more facts.

Like when Congress passed the Iraq resolution which authorised miliatary action in Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Or when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force which authorised military action against those responsible for 9/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Or when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which authorised military use for the Gulf War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991

Or when Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which escalated the use of military force in Vietnam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution


See technically the USA has not declared 'war' on anyone since declaring war on Romania in WWII. However, my point was lost on you. The President cannot authorise unilateral military action alone, it has to get congress to vote on it, as I have demonstrated above. Be it war or military engagement, Congress are the people to authorise this, not the POTUS.

markodaly

Leroy42 wrote: »

So is your position that this isolationist POTUS is going to somehow take action against Iran by doing nothing?

They don't have to do anything. Israel will be more then happy to do it for them.
What are people automatically taking his word as Gospel now?

wes

US government can't help itself. In any civilized country John Bolton would be in prison for war crimes, and yet the war monger is back, trying to start another Middle Eastern war. The US already brought complete chaos to the region with the Iraq war (a war that lead to the creation of ISIS). I can only imagine that we will get a group that is far worse than ISIS, if there is another Middle Eastern war.

I wonder if the US will take some responsibility for all the refugees that will result from another illegal war of aggression, or will they engage in there typical racism and blame the refugees for the terrorism that there wars helped cause? Will the US finally take some responsibility for there actions?

everlast75

I can't believe these large multi nationals who deposited sums into Essential LLC could not find anyone who would not need 3 or more tries to draft even a semi-plausible explanation for their involvement with Cohen.
It was like they panicked - but why did they not have one prepared when they knew this was going to come out as they already spoke to Mueller's team months ago?
It's laughable

jobbridge4life

markodaly wrote: »

You mean withdrawing from an international agreement. Hmmm, let me think on that one.

Honestly it is a pity you didn't think about it beyond the word 'international'. The mere fact that it is in a international agreement does not making withdrawing an isolationist move. Most especially when the consequence of withdrawing is actually the ratcheting up of American interference abroad, in the form of increased sanctions on a country half the world away; when the President himself stated he thinks he can get a better deal; when the evidence used to justify this decision came entirely from a foreign ally and actually conflicted with the USA's own analysis; and when the same President is increasing US military activities oversees.

Can you explain how you align all the above with Trump's rhetorical support for isolationism, and why in light of the above you see this as an isolationist move? (Beyond the word international)

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, that is how he lost the rust belt..

oh..
wait...

I am aware that Trump won the election and the manner of his very weak victory. That he won states considered the rust belt does not prove that he won the working class, or the lower income vote, as in fact the links you provide below demonstrate.

markodaly wrote: »

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Here is the definitive article on how Trump won the election, appropriately titled, "Education not income predicted who would vote for Trump"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

Those facts eh. Scary things when they dismantle an argument.

See, in those it clearly states that it was not income but education that predicated a vote for Trump, I am not at all sure why you think that this disproves my point, which is that Trump won the better off vote. He did, Hillary won lower income segements. But thanks for driving my point home,

BTW there is no such thing as a 'definitive article' on why/how Trump won. Here for instance we have a study indicating that it was racial concerns that motivated Trump voters...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115

markodaly wrote: »

Ah some more facts.

Like when Congress passed the Iraq resolution which authorised miliatary action in Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Or when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force which authorised military action against those responsible for 9/11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Or when Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which authorised military use for the Gulf War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_1991

Or when Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which escalated the use of military force in Vietnam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution


See technically the USA has not declared 'war' on anyone since declaring war on Romania in WWII. However, my point was lost on you. The President cannot authorise unilateral military action alone, it has to get congress to vote on it, as I have demonstrated above. Be it war or military engagement, Congress are the people to authorise this, not the POTUS.

And yet, this President, and former Presidents have very clearly committed the US to go to war without first seeking the approval of Congress. Your point was that we should all chill because it will be Congress not the President who initiates a war. The facts very clearly do not bear out your point whatsover.

Cheerful Spring

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note##

This isn't AP Newswire.

Please don't just copy/paste from Twitter and elsewhere

Thanks

Fair enough I know not to now. Just thought some people be interested to know what was happening, but this site is not for that!

Cheerful Spring

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That post, and the sum of your contributions have been riddled with inconsistencies and falsehoods.

Can you please explain (having been asked now repeatedly) your claim that reinstating and expanding sanctions on a country on the other side of the world, with no known capacity to target US territory, designed to influence the actions of that country can in anyway be considered isolationism?

He is not Bush, he is not Obama, I don't think anyone here is under a misapphrension in that regard. He has appointed the worst war hawk of the Bush era as his national security advisor. He has ratcheted up US militarism abroad beyond Obama's level.

Your assertion that Trump's base is the 'blue collar' workers of America is not borne out by the evidence. Trump won the better off vote against Clinton, is supported by billionaires, the elite of the NRA and Christian evangelistic movement.

The last time Congress declared war was World War II, so while berating others about the need for rational thinking :rolleyes: and nuance you might do well to inform yourself on some facts.

Donald is ditching the deal as he has a longstanding relationship with the Rothchild family. It the Rothchild family who bailed out Donald out in the 80's when he was going bankrupt over the Atlanta Casinos, he owes them. Donald will always side with the Zionists. His daughter even married Jared Kushner. The Kushner family are close friends of Netanyahu. There is a reason all the people getting jobs at the White House are Neocons ( they are all deeply friendly to Israel interests in the region)

Mr.Micro

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Donald is ditching the deal as he has a longstanding relationship with the Rothchild family. It the Rothchild family who bailed out Donald out in the 80's when he was going bankrupt over the Atlanta Casinos, he owes them. Donald will always side with the Zionists. His daughter even married Jared Kushner. The Kushner family are close friends of Netanyahu. There is a reason all the people getting jobs at the White House are Neocons ( they are all deeply friendly to Israel interests in the region)

Donald had better be careful who he goes to bed with. The Neocons leave a nasty side effect.

Cheerful Spring

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Donald had better be careful who he goes to bed with. The Neocons leave a nasty side effect.

With Donald, you have to follow the money to know who he is allied with. He appointed Wilbur Ross United States Secretary of Commerce.

Who is Wilbur Ross?
In the late 1970s, Ross began his career at the New York City office of N M Rothschild & Sons, where he ran the bankruptcy-restructuring advisory practice.

This group bailed out Donald when nobody else would, he paid and bought for.

mcmoustache

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

With Donald, you have to follow the money to know who he is allied with. He appointed Wilbur Ross United States Secretary of Commerce.

Who is Wilbur Ross?
In the late 1970s, Ross began his career at the New York City office of N M Rothschild & Sons, where he ran the bankruptcy-restructuring advisory practice.

This group bailed out Donald when nobody else would, he paid and bought for.

This might sound like some conspiracy theory but, unsurprisingly with Trump, it's not.

Trump can be bought with anything although he seems to prefer roubles these days.

Professor Moriarty

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

With Donald, you have to follow the money to know who he is allied with. He appointed Wilbur Ross United States Secretary of Commerce.

Who is Wilbur Ross?
In the late 1970s, Ross began his career at the New York City office of N M Rothschild & Sons, where he ran the bankruptcy-restructuring advisory practice.

This group bailed out Donald when nobody else would, he paid and bought for.

So how about this swamp? How's the draining going? The Donald having any luck with that?

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So how about this swamp? How's the draining going? The Donald having any luck with that?

Yup just hire a few more Rothschild employees and it will be about done......

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

Yup just hire a few more Rothschild employees and it will be about done......

It would seem that there was an unfortunate mistake made by The Donald's speechwriter. 'Repopulate' was replaced by 'Drain'. Could happen to anyone.

Cheerful Spring

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So how about this swamp? How's the draining going? The Donald having any luck with that?

Silly people believed that only.

Chips Lovell

Hi everyone,
Despite repeated mod warnings, they're not being heeded.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Everyone else, please take a minute now to read the charter.

This is a place for discussion. Jokes, one liners, links dumps and copy/pastes of Twitter posts don't belong here.

Some posts deleted. The topic of the thread is Donald Trump's presidency. If you wish to discuss the war Syria, Israel and Iran, start another thread.

As the charter says:

Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it.

Please note that word "discuss". Just dumping links or one liners isn't what this forum is for.

Thank you

everlast75

Trump's latest tweet is back to him being his juvenile, name calling self.

Chuck Schumer, the target of the tweet, simply replied, quoting DJT's tweet, with #BeBest.

Maybe Melania needs to have a word in her hubby's ear.

Itssoeasy

So I see the trump play book is being used well on Fox News today to denigrate a person who many people see as an honest man in John McCain for giving in when tortured in Vietnam.

Also the second one was to blatently lie about DACA. It seems that the GOP senator in question seemed to think that DACA was an invite for people to bring their kids here illegally in the future.

I know Ireland has many issues which are serious and need to be addressed but feck me compared to America we as a country aren't that bad. Our politics is heated at times but never like America. Anything I've read or watched of American politics from the 1970's and 1980's shows the two parties wanted to get their agenda through but I doesn't seem there was a deep seethed nastiness to it.

It seems really toxic and nasty now. A win for one side is seen as a defeat for the other side. I think trump is the zenith of what seems to have been happening in the USA for a few years.

Professor Moriarty

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see the trump play book is being used well on Fox News today to denigrate a person who many people see as an honest man in John McCain for giving in when tortured in Vietnam.

Also the second one was to blatently lie about DACA. It seems that the GOP senator in question seemed to think that DACA was an invite for people to bring their kids here illegally in the future.

I know Ireland has many issues which are serious and need to be addressed but feck me compared to America we as a country aren't that bad. Our politics is heated at times but never like America. Anything I've read or watched of American politics from the 1970's and 1980's shows the two parties wanted to get their agenda through but I doesn't seem there was a deep seethed nastiness to it.

It seems really toxic and nasty now. A win for one side is seen as a defeat for the other side. I think trump is the zenith of what seems to have been happening in the USA for a few years.

I think the danger is that The Donald isn't the zenith, that he is only the start of a greater polarisation.

Sonics2k

Giuliani’s Law Firm Undercuts His Statements as They Part Ways

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-resigns-law-firm-greenberg-traurig.html

Guiliani looks to still be Trumps lawyer, for now.

markodaly

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The mere fact that it is in a international agreement does not making withdrawing an isolationist move.

Like when he withdrew from TPP, TTIP, The Paris Accords? They are all along the same vien, an isolationist America First policy.

Those wishing for war will be left disappointed.

I am aware that Trump won the election and the manner of his very weak victory. That he won states considered the rust belt does not prove that he won the working class, or the lower income vote, as in fact the links you provide below demonstrate.

I never mentioned anything about income as the term working class is never related to Income, it is related to the type of work people do.

noun
1.
the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work

That type of work is one where you need not to have a college degree. Trades people are regarded as working class, but they can earn a great wage, would be one example.

The mere fact that he won the old rust belt, is a clear indication on where the swing was. Ironically, these are states that Sanders did very well in as well during the Democratic primary. These are people who wanted something different, not more of the same in Bush or Clinton.

There was no major swing of those with income towards Trump, as numbers look similar to those that voted for Romney and McCain as simply they are not enough of these people to push him over the line. So you have to look at those that changed their vote and they were the working class people of the rust belt states.

See, in those it clearly states that it was not income but education that predicated a vote for Trump, I am not at all sure why you think that this disproves my point, which is that Trump won the better off vote.

Again, look at the swing and the level of education of the voters behind the swing. If you want to move goal posts, fine by me but I wont be playing the whack a mole with you.

BTW there is no such thing as a 'definitive article' on why/how Trump won.

Nate Silver would know a thing or two about elections but I am sure you know better. Did you do a jobbridge as a pollster?

And yet, this President, and former Presidents have very clearly committed the US to go to war without first seeking the approval of Congress.

Its is OK, to admit you are wrong.

When did this president and other presidents explicitly commit to war by bypassing congress? Links please!!

Your point was that we should all chill because it will be Congress not the President who initiates a war. The facts very clearly do not bear out your point whatsover.

It is a point on the division of powers in the US government that is lost on many people. Trump is not Putin or Xi Jinping. He is not a dictator.

As I am 100% correct, a president cannot by himself declare war(or authorised extended military engagements as they are technically known as now). This is just a fact. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

If Trumps true aim was to launch an Iraq style invasion of Iran, he will HAVE to go through Congress. This is just again a fact.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

If Trumps true aim was to launch an Iraq style invasion of Iran, he will HAVE to go through Congress. This is just again a fact.

It’s the way you capitalised the HAVE that’s so winning.

The US hasn’t had a fully congressional vote on war since Korea. The president just launches missiles, or sends in the forces and tells them later.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s the way you capitalised the HAVE that’s so winning.

The US hasn’t had a fully congressional vote on war since Korea. The president just launches missiles, or sends in the forces and tells them later.

Oh christ, I have already explained this in another post above.

Actually you are wrong anyway, it was declaring war against Romania in WWII, every other engagement was not 'technically' a declaration of war but authorised military engagements.

And yes, Congress voted on them tall from Korea, to Vietnam, to Gulf War I , Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, my point stand, Congress will have to vote on it if we are going to see any large engagement of American forces in Iran.

I know facts are inconvenient to some, but them the facts.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

Oh christ, I have already explained this in another post above.

Actually you are wrong anyway, it was declaring war against Romania in WWII, every other engagement was not 'technically' a declaration of war but authorised military engagements.

And yes, Congress voted on them tall from Korea, to Vietnam, to Gulf War I , Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, my point stand, Congress will have to vote on it if we are going to see any large engagement of American forces in Iran.

I know facts are inconvenient to some, but them the facts.

<SNIP>

And you are wrong. A congress that ratified a war would debate and vote on the war before it happened, not just rubber stamped post facto or ore facto agreement likevtge 2001 AMUF. The Roman imperial senate did as much.

In theory congress can declare war without the president being involved at all and even if he is opposed to the war (with a super majority). In practice it’s an imperial presidency that invades as it sees fit.