Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

The Nal

peddlelies wrote: »

His testimony and this article(or any I've just googled) say differently. Am I missing something?

Yeah its a very interesting case. He lied about it basically. Claims he swam home and went to bed when they couldn't get her out of the car. He himself claims he has no memory of escaping the car. No windows were broken. The car had not been opened after it hit the water.

The telling part for me is that he didn't call his lawyer. Hes next seen chatting casually to a couple in the hotel the next morning and then his cronies sprinted in and told him she had been found dead and they quickly came up with this bullshít story and the first thing he did was call a lawyer. And he had the cheek to turn up to the funeral in a neckbrace.

I'm 100% convinced that he wasn't in the car.

One for the weekend.

peddlelies

The Nal wrote: »

I'm 100% convinced that he wasn't in the car.

One for the weekend.

Ah so you're saying your opinion that he wasn't in the car might belong in a conspiracy forum. Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you were saying it about the other poster. Sad case either way.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Yes, I want to see Trump defeated, and am actively campaigning for one of the Democratic nominees.

Trump is up to 45% approval rating in the latest Gallop poll out today, a +5% increase. The economy is doing very well, unemployment is low, small business is thriving, the majority of people are paying less tax than they did a year ago. Anyone thinking Trump will be easily defeated in 2020 needs to wake the **** up.

Yes, attack Trump on policy but be sure you have alternative policy that sounds sensible, and can be implemented without bankrupting the country. The evidence is that sitting presidents get reelected in a good economy, there's absolutely no reason to suppose or hope this time will be any different.

If the answer to Trump pointing to the good economy, no new wars, ISIS decimated, lower taxes, no rockets fired by rocketman since 2017, etc. is "racist, sexist, homophobe", Democrats will lose in 2020.

Trump has done nothing to boost the US economy and is merely building up a bubble with tax cuts and pro-cyclical policies.

The same so called "strong economy" that he now proclaims is the exact same economy in which he claimed there were 95 million people unemployed.

But sure again, facts are irrelevant here, let bull**** reign.

Single polls are meaningless in terms of ascertaining approval rating. You have to look at the averages and they're not moving very much at the moment.

Nobody thinks Trump will be easily defeated. Fascists and crypto fascists generally make sure they win, by hook or by crook, and that is exactly what the US is dealing with now - an all out attack on democracy.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Nobody thinks Trump will be easily defeated. Fascists and crypto fascists generally make sure they win, by hook or by crook, and that is exactly what the US is dealing with now - an all out attack on democracy.

How can anyone engage with you on any topic if you're demonizing anyone who might have a different viewpoint? You are hysterical.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Trump has done nothing to boost the US economy and is merely building up a bubble with tax cuts and pro-cyclical policies.

It doesn't matter whether that's true or not (it isn't, for all it's flaws the Trump administration has been very business friendly, who do you think creates growth in an economy?). If the economy is strong sitting presidents typically get reelected, that is the reality. Tax cuts and reduced regulations have boosted small businesses in the US, that's the reality on the ground. Any attempts to roll that back will meet stiff resistance

I again wonder have you spent much time in the US as you seem quite unaware of the realities here. Your posts heavily feature the kind of outrage seen on Twitter (and social media in general) and does not reflect what most people in the US think, such hysteria is a lot less influential than you imagine.

DreamsBurnDown

peddlelies wrote: »

How can anyone engage with you on any topic if you're demonizing anyone who might have a different viewpoint? You are hysterical.

You get the feeling that being called a fascist is never far away with this poster. It's sadly the reality with the hard left, either old or new. No room for dissent, agree with us or you are the enemy. Eventually everyone becomes the enemy.

It's the primary reason the hard left have been reduced to a rabble in most modern democracies.

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

How can anyone engage with you on any topic if you're demonizing anyone who might have a different viewpoint? You are hysterical.

That's exactly what they are -

outright racism
vicious anti-Semitism
hate speech against Muslims
the Nazi-style separation of families and destruction of young lives as a result
failure to condemn Nazis
a concerted attack on gay and transgender rights
flagrant misogyny and attacks on abortion rights
attacks on press freedom
promotion of science denial and dismissal of the threat of climate change
ripping up hard-won diplomatic deals for kicks
being fooled and played by North Korea's dictator
massively increasing drone murders of civilians and suppressing information as to such
running foreign policy seemingly for the benefit of a hostile foreign power
attempting to destabilise the western post-WWII order
sharing nuclear secrets with the Saudis and assisting their war in Yemen
ramping up support for Israel's illegal colonial settlements in Palestine
court stacking to promote an ultra-corporate and conservative agenda
attacks on democracy via voter suppression
naked corruption and kleptocracy
a constant flood of industrial strength lies and propaganda
and so much more

That's political terrorism by any stretch of the imagination - the Republican party is by a distance the most dangerous institution in the western world.

But some people here want to gaslight and pretend that reality isn't reality.

hill16bhoy

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

You get the feeling that being called a fascist is never far away with this poster. It's sadly the reality with the hard left, either old or new. No room for dissent, agree with us or you are the enemy. Eventually everyone becomes the enemy.

It's the primary reason the hard left have been reduced to a rabble in most modern democracies.

I find it interesting that as somebody who claims to be actively campaigning for a Democrat, you seem to have a tendency to use distinctly right-wing reactionary framing and language - certainly so far in your contributions, all your criticism has been of "left-wing" politics, and full of the sort of big, grand, high on generalisations but low on specifics statements that one might expect on Fox News.

Here, for instance, you label me as "hard left" without any evidence whatsoever.

I can only assume that it's Joe Manchin you're campaigning for.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

That's exactly what they are -

Like I said, you're hysterical. You shouldn't be allowed to go around calling actual real world political parties terrorist organisations just because you disagree with them.

MadYaker

peddlelies wrote: »

Like I said, you're hysterical. You shouldn't be allowed to go around calling actual real world political parties terrorist organisations just because you disagree with them.

He can post whatever he likes once it's within the rules of the forum. For some people who have been on the receiving end the entire US government is a terrorist organisation. They've terrorized people and supported real terrorists all over the world so it's not much of a stretch, but it is a stretch I'll grant you that. Besides right wingers love labelling people as terrorists. Trump himself does it on twitter. Go read some right wing subreddits and they'll tell you all muslims are terrorists.

DreamsBurnDown

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Here, for instance, you label me as "hard left" without any evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is in your posts, the hysteria is that of the hard left. Are you seriously suggesting that demonizing all conservatives is not hard left?

I am a moderate centrist Democrat, pro business and conservative on most economic issues, liberal on most social issues. I am like the majority of Americans, and my posts reflect that.

Sadly the hard left now regard centrist moderate Democrats as the enemy. Luckily for now at least the hard left is still a small minority, so there is hope for 2020.

peddlelies

MadYaker wrote: »

He can post whatever he likes once it's within the rules of the forum. For some people who have been on the receiving end the entire US government is a terrorist organisation. They've terrorized people and supported real terrorists all over the world so it's not much of a stretch, but it is a stretch I'll grant you that. Besides right wingers love labelling people as terrorists.

No sorry, that's a complete cop out. There needs to be a line in the sand if you want decent discussion here. If you said the US engaged in terrible war behavior over the decades I'd agree but he's talking about a political party and labeling them a terrorist organisation not the US as a whole. It's radical hyper partisan nonsense, one look at his posting history will tell you that.

MadYaker

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

The evidence is in your posts, the hysteria is that of the hard left. Are you seriously suggesting that demonizing all conservatives is not hard left?

I am a moderate centrist Democrat, pro business and conservative on most economic issues, liberal on most social issues. I am like the majority of Americans, and my posts reflect that.

Sadly the hard left now regard centrist moderate Democrats as the enemy. Luckily for now at least the hard left is still a small minority, so there is hope for 2020.

I would take hard left to mean communism or socialism. I haven't heard the poster in question spouting such views. Hating the republican party doesn't make someone hard left, its just an opinion. It just means they hate the republican party. You made a leap of faith there to get to your conclusion which is something that happens to often on politics these days. Or at least a political discussions anyway.

rossie1977

peddlelies wrote: »

Two opinion pieces aren't going to convince anyone. There's a reason why conservatives call the New York Times a liberal outlet, that's because they lean liberal, and in my opinion have become far more slanted in the past three years.

They haven't endorsed a Republican since 1956.

Which means what exactly. Endorsing Democrats and being liberal are not same thing. Bill Clinton and Carter were been strong southern conservatives. Obama wasn't liberal, Hillary isn't liberal.

NY Times probably haven't endorsed a Republican candidate since Eisenhower because the Republican candidates were awful in the case of Trump, Bush Jr or Nixon or clearly compromised like Reagan.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Which means what exactly.

Reagan won his re-election 525 to 13 in electoral votes, only losing one state. They still endorsed the Democrat. That in itself tells me all I need to know.

rossie1977

138 administration officials of the Reagan team were either investigated, indicted or convicted of crimes...the most of any President in US history

Reagan himself let Oliver North take the fall for Iran Contra when it was obvious the whole affair started at the top.

Times were right not to endorse him.

peddlelies

rossie1977 wrote: »

Times were right not to endorse him.

Your opinion. Ronald Reagan is historically well regarded.

Every administration has scandals, especially those over 8 years.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

peddlelies wrote: »

Your opinion. Ronald Reagan is historically well regarded.

Every administration has scandals, especially those over 8 years.

and george bush won easily in 1988 too and he was linked to iran contra.
reagan was a great president and since him the quality has been very low until trump arrived.
so much in common.

DreamsBurnDown

rossie1977 wrote: »

Which means what exactly. Endorsing Democrats and being liberal are not same thing. Bill Clinton and Carter were been strong southern conservatives. Obama wasn't liberal, Hillary isn't liberal.

Subdivide liberal in terms of economic policy and social policy. Literally all Democratic and Republican politicians up to recently were classical liberals in terms of the economy, they supported the capitalist system, a free market economy, private property, the rule of law, etc. That is only now changing in the US as there are a group of Democrats who define themselves as Democratic Socialists (AOC, etc). While DSA is not a political party, it's goals are well documented, they want to see capitalism abolished and the government basically take over everything. In this regard they are no different to any other true socialist party globally. How much influence they will have over the Democratic party remains to be seen.

Social liberalism is where the parties are divided and are becoming more divided. But social liberalism is a sliding time scale, Carter, Clinton, Obama and HRC were all socially liberal in their time, and certainly more socially liberal than Republicans. As time goes on the general public are getting more socially liberal, this is why Republicans increasingly come second in relatively wealthy states such as CA and the north east, where economic issues are not as much of a concern and social issues get more attention (relatively).

SeamusFX

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

You mean the way white women voted for Clinton when it was well established he was a similar womanizing scumbag? Or the women who voted Ted Kennedy into office in MA for five terms, after he left a woman to die in the car he drove into a lake, and didn't report it for nine hours? Clinton is still held in high regard by most Americans, even though he was accused of rape and by today's standards had non consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky. Trump hasn't been accused of rape, which Bill Clinton was. I assume you believe Juanita Broaddrick? If you don't then we have to discount all those who have accused Trump of inappropriate behavior, as most of them have far less evidence than Ms Broaddrick.

The evidence is that American voters have long given up expecting morality or ethics from their politicians, and actually find it quite ridiculous for one side to claim the high moral ground while ignoring indiscretions on their own side. The three Virigina Democrats are still in office and their indiscretions (sexual assault and wearing blackface) have been swept under the carpet.

The problem with these discussions is the conformation bias of those who can't see or at least admit that Trump (when it comes to sexual morality) is no different to those they hold in higher regard, JFK, Ted Kennedy, Clinton, etc. If we are going to demand moral behavior from our politicians we have to be at least consistent.

You said Trump hasn’t been accused of rape, but that’s not true, there are several different rape accusations against Trump. I find it funny that you know about Juanita Broadrick, but you don’t know about the rape accusations against Trump, I guess that’s because Fox doesn’t talk about those. There are 3 claims of rape against Donald, including Katie Johnson, who dropped the charges due to death threats and his ex-wife Ivana who swore under oath. None of these accusations have been proven, but Ms Broadrick’s claims are just as questionable. Finally, as bad as Clinton and the Kennedys were, Trump’s list is much longer and even if it was just “locker room” talk, the perception is far worse.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sexual-assault-allegation-alva-johnson-claims-women-how-many-accused-kiss-a8796851.html?amp

everlast75

https://twitter.com/KannoYoungs/status/1116795166226927616?s=19

Opening encouraging people to break the law.

Impeachment should be a slam dunk.

I don't want to hear the Reps ever call themselves again, the party of law and order.

FrostyJack

SeamusFX wrote: »

You said Trump hasn’t been accused of rape, but that’s not true, there are several different rape accusations against Trump. I find it funny that you know about Juanita Broadrick, but you don’t know about the rape accusations against Trump, I guess that’s because Fox doesn’t talk about those. There are 3 claims of rape against Donald, including Katie Johnson, who dropped the charges due to death threats and his ex-wife Ivana who swore under oath. None of these accusations have been proven, but Ms Broadrick’s claims are just as questionable. Finally, as bad as Clinton and the Kennedys were, Trump’s list is much longer and even if it was just “locker room” talk, the perception is far worse.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sexual-assault-allegation-alva-johnson-claims-women-how-many-accused-kiss-a8796851.html?amp

You got in before me. I seen a great tweet the other day replying to Don Jr who was praising his father, to paraphrase it said something like "this is the guy that raped your mother".

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

You mean the way white women voted for Clinton when it was well established he was a similar womanizing scumbag?

As much as this isn't about Bill Clinton's or anyone else, they never said kill the family of terrorists, bring back torture, lock up political opponents, beat up protesters and other such charming things during the campaign. To ignore them and vote for him because you think he will fix the economy, which wasn't broken, or because too many Mexicans were in Michigan, proves they were deplorable or have no grasp of reality. I reckon it was a 50:50 split.

DreamsBurnDown

SeamusFX wrote: »

You said Trump hasn’t been accused of rape, but that’s not true, there are several different rape accusations against Trump. I find it funny that you know about Juanita Broadrick, but you don’t know about the rape accusations against Trump, I guess that’s because Fox doesn’t talk about those.

Here we go again with Fox News I accept the point that Trump has been accused of rape however.

Trump is a sleazebag, I am not defending him, but those who denounce his sexual adventures over the years, while turning a blind eye to Clinton etc. are simply hypocrites. My actual point is that most Americans these days don't care about such matters, numbed from years of scandals from both sets of politicians.

"Katie Johnson" is not a real name, she has never come public and never appeared in court. All we have is the word of Lisa Bloom who has a bit of a checkered career to say the least. Ivana made her allegation during divorce proceedings, and later retracted them saying she didn't mean rape literally or legally. It is not unusual for such allegations to be made during divorce proceedings. Not sure who the third allegation is, among the dozens of accusations of sexual wrongdoing made against Trump, most of whom disappeared after the election.

With all allegations I think we should look for evidence before believing something just because someone said it or wrote it, as who knows the motivation of those making the accusation (Michel Avenatti springs to mind). The difference with Juanita Broaddrick is that there were witnesses who saw her distressed and bruised after the encounter. Remember she was a Democrat who wanted to volunteer for Clinton's campaign so clearly had no ax to grind against Clinton, and has stuck to her story up to the present.

It's all relative of course, and all of them are scumbags, but the allegation from Broaddrick has at least some supporting evidence.

FrostyJack

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Subdivide liberal in terms of economic policy and social policy. Literally all Democratic and Republican politicians up to recently were classical liberals in terms of the economy, they supported the capitalist system, a free market economy, private property, the rule of law, etc. That is only now changing in the US as there are a group of Democrats who define themselves as Democratic Socialists (AOC, etc). While DSA is not a political party, it's goals are well documented, they want to see capitalism abolished and the government basically take over everything. In this regard they are no different to any other true socialist party globally. How much influence they will have over the Democratic party remains to be seen.

Social liberalism is where the parties are divided and are becoming more divided. But social liberalism is a sliding time scale, Carter, Clinton, Obama and HRC were all socially liberal in their time, and certainly more socially liberal than Republicans. As time goes on the general public are getting more socially liberal, this is why Republicans increasingly come second in relatively wealthy states such as CA and the north east, where economic issues are not as much of a concern and social issues get more attention (relatively).

You must only get your news from Fox or some other such hard right media. The Social Democrats like AOC don't want to "abolish" capitalism, the platform the use is to raise all boats, the common good. As they constantly keep getting labelled as such on one side of the media and by Trump himself some people actually believe it. Things like free education are not "communist" ideas they are practical ideas in a modern capitalist society. The same people that argue socialism is a negative also profess to love the military, police force, farm subsidies, churches being tax exempt etc which are all socialist polices.

DreamsBurnDown

FrostyJack wrote: »

As much as this isn't about Bill Clinton's or anyone else, they never said kill the family of terrorists, bring back torture, lock up political opponents, beat up protesters and other such charming things during the campaign. To ignore them and vote for him because you think he will fix the economy, which wasn't broken, or because too many Mexicans were in Michigan, proves they were deplorable or have no grasp of reality. I reckon it was a 50:50 split.

Agree with most of that, but I was responding to the question why women would vote for a man who was a known sexual predator. Obviously they turn a blind eye, as was done with Clinton.

The economy was broken and is still broken for many, especially in the rust belt. The failure to respond to it, or at least address it, is the reason the country was vulnerable to Trump getting elected. Think of it in the same terms as Brexit, the left behind in the modern economy who end up hating politicians of all parties.

DreamsBurnDown

FrostyJack wrote: »

You must only get your news from Fox or some other such hard right media. The Social Democrats like AOC don't want to "abolish" capitalism, the platform the use is to raise all boats, the common good.

Really? I'll let them speak for themselves. It may well be that AOC does not embrace all this platform, but this is their leadership speaking.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17509604/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america

FrostyJack

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

It's all relative of course, and all of them are scumbags, but the allegation from Broaddrick has at least some supporting evidence.

Trump has openly admitted it on tape for crying out loud. He just grabs them. That is when he isn't walking in on teenagers getting undressed, again on tape. His own wife has said he does it. We know of at least 2 glamour models he has had affairs with, it isn't rocket science. I don't think anyone is defending Bill Clinton here, everyone knows he is a creep, whether he actually raped someone is debatable, but he definitely had affairs. Bringing him up is blatant whataboutry from someone who claims they don't like Trump, must do better.

DreamsBurnDown

FrostyJack wrote: »

Trump has openly admitted it on tape for crying out loud. He just grabs them. That is when he isn't walking in on teenagers getting undressed, again on tape. His own wife has said he does it. We know of at least 2 glamour models he has had affairs with, it isn't rocket science. I don't think anyone is defending Bill Clinton here, everyone knows he is a creep, whether he actually raped someone is debatable, but he definitely had affairs. Bringing him up is blatant whataboutry from someone who claims they don't like Trump, must do better.

Nobody cares in this day and age about people having affairs, don't know why you are ever bringing it up. The issue is non consensual sex or rape. What Trump said on the tape is that if you are rich and famous women just let you grab their *****. Whether you object to that morally or I object to that morally is irrelevant, it's a reality (of that generation at least) that cannot be denied, even though it's disgusting.

It's not whataboutery to highlight hypocrisy, there are plenty people in the US who voted for Clinton and won't have a bad word said about him. This is not about defending Trump, it's about how most people in the US at least don't care about politicians sex lives, unless there is actual evidence of a crime.

By the way it's possible to have views without watching Fox News, it's such an infantile response.

FrostyJack

DreamsBurnDown wrote:

What Trump said on the tape is that if you are rich and famous women just let you grab their *****. Whether you object to that morally or I object to that morally is irrelevant, it's a reality (of that generation at least) that cannot be denied, even though it's disgusting.

No what he is saying he is just grabbing women, no matter how rich you no woman likes being grabbed by a 70 year old creep. If he said women threw themselves at him, that would be different, he says he just grabs them. Saying it is par for the course for his generation is outrageous, it is the same as I said above, boys will be boys. I have been in 100's of locker rooms and listened to every manor of outlandish claim by guys and never heard anything remotely as rapey as that, and this was from a "successful" businessman not the local Don Juan.

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

By the way it's possible to have views without watching Fox News, it's such an infantile response.

You said Trump never was accused of rape, the only why anyone who has an opinion on the subject is if they totally avoid all other forms of political media or deliberately being misleading.

It's not whataboutery to highlight hypocrisy, there are plenty people in the US who voted for Clinton and won't have a bad word said about him. This is not about defending Trump, it's about how most people in the US at least don't care about politicians sex lives, unless there is actual evidence of a crime.

You brought it up here, a place where no one said Clinton is a saint, so the only reason you could have brought it up was to defend Trump or people who voted for him by saying, hey look over there, other people are bad too, which is textbook whataboutry.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KannoYoungs/status/1116795166226927616?s=19

Opening encouraging people to break the law.

Impeachment should be a slam dunk.

I don't want to hear the Reps ever call themselves again, the party of law and order.

Gives one a tendency to say: Ah, so that's why she had to go. If there's proof recorded then it can conceivably be obtained and shown to the public without hindrance.