Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Captain Obvious

We'll have to wait and see how Trump's vision of a space force compares to the one proposed by Congress

RIGOLO

Captain Obvious wrote: »

We'll have to wait and see how Trump's vision of a space force compares to the one proposed by Congress

Alot of serious debate currently about the lack of civility in politics and forums. 
Im always up for a joke , as you can tell from my name. 
I trust we are allowed to lighten the tone every so often , even if we have different convictions. 
given that we can poke fun, not in a mean spirited way but a fun way , I must say your post gave me an immense giggle.

Captain Obvious .. discusing a space force .. and you have a Storm Trooper of The Empire avatar... just think of Trump and his space force as The Rebellion..

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

My hatred of the man? What has that got to do with anything.

I apologise. After initial posting I realised it was an unsupportable statement, I edited while you were typing.

That's why I call it a nothing idea. No the idea itself, but rather that Trump has no knowledge of what it is, what it will cost, timelines, resources etc.

No disrespect, but the conversation seems to have gone:

"It's not necessarily a bad idea"
"It's a nothing idea"
"Well, there are plenty of competent people who think it's a good idea"
"Maybe, but Trump is behind it, and so his support is laughable"

This seems to be a case of arguing not the policy, but the fact that Trump supports it. This seems to be very similar to the position of the Republican party a couple years ago at the end of the Obama presidency. "To hell with the merits of the plan, let's just attack it because Obama is associated with it"

RIGOLO wrote: »

HUA !

I hate that term and it should be banned from use.

Leroy42

Its not that I don't like it because Trump supports it, I have expressed my agreement with his actions over NK for example, but that I simply do not believe the he has a policy on this. Space Force is about as far as his policy goes.

So when you are showing me the pros and cons, I am of the opinion that none of that is in Trumps thinking. He is simply looking for a soundbite, something to get the press talking. That is what I am talking about, and clearly haven't made that very clear so I can see why you think I am arguing just for the sake of Trump.

everlast75

@Manic.

In fairness, when you resort to defending Trump on the basis that people don't like him, and therefore their view is invalid, you're as bad as fox news. "If only the MSM gave him a break", or Scaramucci's "Donald is a counter puncher, that's why he is so rude".

I, along with others here, can differentiate between the man and his policies.

Re his policies; People in Flint still have no quality water. People in Puerto Rico have no power. There are over 2000 kids missing and he is banging on about a ****ing space force? So what if it has been mentioned for a number of years? Is it really the time and place is the question? Seriously?

You and others can bang on about policies all day long, about how he is a good republican President, much better than hillary would have been, and ignore that he contributed to Clinton campaigns before and was a registered Democrat at one stage. Go ahead. Ignore his u-turns, his flip flops and empty promises
(mexico will pay for the wall, eh?
Hillary is still walking around too you know!
And that swamp is murkier than ever!)

So that's my view on a professional level. That is not coloured by my dislike or otherwise of him. I believe that he is grossly incompetent. Full stop.

But since you brought it up, on a personal level - I'll tell you one thing, I despise the man. Heart on my sleeve. I have no problem saying it. I despise him because he is a bully, a racist, misogynistic, an agitator and a hypocrite.

Now - I challenge you or anyone else on here to dispute those facts about the type of man he is. I can refer to either video footage, his tweets or quotes from the News to back me up. The evidence is unequivocal.

So, now you know.

Ironically, and to your point, I believe it is his supporters that cannot differentiate between him and his policy. If he brought up Prima Nocta at a rally and told people he would want to enforce it, there would be cheers. Whatever he says, goes.

So, when you say others have no critical thinking, look at his rallies. You're actually talking about his fans.

Manic Moran

You and others can bang on about policies all day long, about how he is a good republican President, much better than hillary would have been, and ignore that he contributed to Clinton campaigns before and was a registered Democrat at one stage. Go ahead. Ignore his u-turns, his flip flops and empty promises (mexico will pay for the wall, eh? Hillary is still walking around too you know! And that swamp is murkier than ever!)

I guess I can, but you'll find I tend not to.

So, when you say others have no critical thinking, look at his rallies. You're actually talking about his fans.

I don't deny that. As I've said before, though, I don't see why the other side should be excused from it just because the one does.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

As I've said before, though, I don't see why the other side should be excused from it just because the one does.

"There are very fine people, on both sides"

Inquitus

Trump to get another Supreme Court pick - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44634176

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is to retire, giving President Donald Trump the chance to reshape the top US court for decades to come.

Though a conservative, he has been a swing vote on many decisions including the 5-4 rulings that decided same-sex marriage and upheld Roe v Wade.

Republicans could confirm a conservative replacement as long as they maintain a simple majority.

Justice Kennedy will officially retire on 31 July, per his letter to Mr Trump.

Hande hoche!

Can see that giving him a boost among more conservative minded voters. Will nearly have as many justices picked as Obama in a quarter of the time.

aloyisious

If he had a "space force", and a base for it in space, could Don theoretically keep people up there who offended against his sense of being? Visualize's US space-force craft hovering over the US/Mexican border looking for illegals and invaders. In space there is no law - "beam them up, Jeff". I think Don is affecting my sense of what's possible.

Quin_Dub

Inquitus wrote: »

Trump to get another Supreme Court pick - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44634176

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Can see that giving him a boost among more conservative minded voters. Will nearly have as many justices picked as Obama in a quarter of the time.

Well - That will bring any evangelicals that whose support was waivering recently back on side fairly sharpish..

An open surpreme court pick more than anything else , will swing votes back to the GOP in November..

The timing of this has huge ramifications.

StringerBell

The timing of it is no coincidence either imo

Gwen Cooper

aloyisious wrote: »

If he had a "space force", and a base for it in space, could Don theoretically keep people up there who offended against his sense of being? Visualize's US space-force craft hovering over the US/Mexican border looking for illegals and invaders. In space there is no law - "beam them up, Jeff". I think Don is affecting my sense of what's possible.

I like that idea. It could become the new Australia - we will deport criminals up there and they build a new space colony where everyone will want to go on holidays in a few years.

Inquitus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Well - That will bring any evangelicals that whose support was waivering recently back on side fairly sharpish..

An open surpreme court pick more than anything else , will swing votes back to the GOP in November..

The timing of this has huge ramifications.

Agreed, it had quite an impact on getting the evangelical vote out for Trump in the 2016 election, it will definitely drive up Trump's required turnout in November.

Quin_Dub

Inquitus wrote: »

Agreed, it had quite an impact on getting the evangelical vote out for Trump in the 2016 election, it will definitely drive up Trump's required turnout in November.

It makes for an interesting tactical decision for both Trump/GOP and the Democrats..

Do the GOP delay the selection and hearings for the SCOTUS seat until after the mid-terms so they can use it to get votes or do they push to get it done ASAP.

The inverse applies to the Dems , do they fight really hard to delay and fillibuster the hell out of a vote in hopes that they win the majority in November and then force a moderate choice on Trump or do they just let it happen so that it's no longer an electoral tool for the GOP?

Inquitus

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It makes for an interesting tactical decision for both Trump/GOP and the Democrats..

Do the GOP delay the selection and hearings for the SCOTUS seat until after the mid-terms so they can use it to get votes or do they push to get it done ASAP.

The inverse applies to the Dems , do they fight really hard to delay and fillibuster the hell out of a vote in hopes that they win the majority in November and then force a moderate choice on Trump or do they just let it happen so that it's no longer an electoral tool for the GOP?

Personally I think they should delay as much as possible, this is a highly important SCOTUS pick and even if getting a Senate majority is not likely I still think they should fight to the last and hope, much like the GOP did with Garland even when they thought they would lose the election for POTUS!

Leroy42

no way they delay. This is about getting and maintaining control of SCOTUS for the next generation.

A new judge will be in place before the mid-terms

Leroy42

More winning!

GOP immigration bill goes down in flames in rebuff to Trump

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/27/trump-house-republicans-immigration-bill-678816

Whilst of course Trump will be out declaring what a great job he is doing in terms of the SCOTUS news, in reality that is all down to timing, he has no control over that. This is a serious set-back as yet again, despite his pleas and threats, Trump cannot get any legislation through the house.

Of course Obama suffered the same, the difference being that his party did not control the votes.

Gbear

I think this Supreme Court pick, more than anything else, could really split the country.

Trying to row back on abortion or gay marriage would create a huge rift across the country and in liberal states I could see massive pushback against this kind of regression. Maybe not quite secession but civil disobedience or states just ignoring federal law.

People aren't going to take having their rights removed lying down.

Itssoeasy

Just been reading the last few pages and the discussion about the so called Anti Trump posters which I'd probably be described as one by the pro Trump posters.

My issue with Trump is that his policies and agenda as President isn't built on any foundation of a moral compass or any direction. From reading back in history about former US Presidents you can see some type of moral compass and belief system. They were Republican or Democrat for easily identifiable reasons. They all weren't perfect by any means, but they had a vision for the country. Trump's vision for the United States starts and ends with how can it benefit him.

The one personality trait you appear to need to be US President is a thick skin as it's a very powerful job but a very stressful job. I mean look at Obama and his hair colour in 2008 to 2016. Trump hasn't got a thick skin and is very reactionary to a perceived personal slight against him.

There was the case of the gold star family who he attacked. If you compare it to Bush 43 and the mother of the soldier who camped outside his home in Texas. Bush was being personally called out and didn't attack the mother.

I'm sure there are policies and laws that US presidents have made where people didn't like them but could they say that the president of the day didn't do it for genuinely held beliefs ? Not to the degree that Trump does it. Trump doesn't have any genuine held beliefs and he is not a conservative in any shape or form.

Nox

Manic Moran said … Saying more attention to space has become more and more important, note how Obama in his last defense bill started to emphasise space operations. 

Yeah … to monitor 'global warming'.

Hande hoche!

Will be interesting to see what Jeff Flake does with regards his recent statements on judicial appointments.

Itssoeasy

Nox wrote: »

Manic Moran said … Saying more attention to space has become more and more important, note how Obama in his last defense bill started to emphasise space operations. 

Yeah … to monitor 'global warming'.

And you don't think global Warming is an issue that NASA should be involved in the monitoring of ?

Manic Moran

Nox wrote: »

Manic Moran said … Saying more attention to space has become more and more important, note how Obama in his last defense bill started to emphasise space operations. 

Yeah … to monitor 'global warming'.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-signing-20161223-story.html
President Obama has signed legislation that, by striking a single word from longstanding U.S. nuclear defense policy, could heighten tensions with Russia and China and launch the country on an expensive effort to build space-based defense systems.

In the meantime, an upset in New York as a 28-year old Bernie Sanders follower just beat out Crowly, a 10-term veteran tipped as a future Speaker of the House in the Democratic primary. She had no support from the Democratic party. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44625617

The irony is that this seems that the leadership of the Democratic party is getting it from both sides. Conor Lamb won by positioning himself (in a swing state) as being against Pelosi and the more liberal wing. Ocasio-Cortez won (in a coastal very D State) by being even more to the left than Pelosi et al.

spacecoyote

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1012060376643637254?s=19

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1012035439803461634?s=19

Tons of these kind of things going around Twitter around McConnell setting the precedent with the blockage of prior nominations in election years so will be interesting to see how it plays out

Itssoeasy

spacecoyote wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1012060376643637254?s=19

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1012035439803461634?s=19

Tons of these kind of things going around Twitter around McConnell setting the precedent with the blockage of prior nominations in election years so will be interesting to see how it plays out

Yeah, this could be interesting. The GOP in the Senate can and will say it's obstruction, but that point falls down when it was they themselves who as you say set the precedent. McConnell may have harmed the chances of Trump getting a conservative Supreme Court Justice confirmed.

metaoblivia

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah, this could be interesting. The GOP in the Senate can and will say it's obstruction, but that point falls down when it was they themselves who as you say set the precedent. McConnell may have harmed the chances of Trump getting a conservative Supreme Court Justice confirmed.

Republicans are fairly transparent about setting up rules meant for the other side. They have no intention of following this rule themselves and have the power to push a candidate through. They'll hold off until fall to try and ride the wave of support from their base, who are thrilled by this. But make no mistake - this is going to anger and rile up the Democrat base as well.

November will be interesting.

BonnieSituation

spacecoyote wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1012060376643637254?s=19

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/1012035439803461634?s=19

Tons of these kind of things going around Twitter around McConnell setting the precedent with the blockage of prior nominations in election years so will be interesting to see how it plays out

As if the GOP won't railroad this through. Precedent is there for them to ignore.

Manic Moran

This is precisely the situation which was warned about when the Democrats attempted to block Gorsuch. There is no telling how hard to the right the next nominee shall be, and I don't see how the Ds can stop it. I don't see any percentage in Congress waiting until after the elections. They can do what they want now, and the court seat is going to be far longer term than the next election cycle.

EdgeCase

It’s a pity the judge couldn’t hold off retiring until after November.