Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

aloyisious

JRant wrote: »

Fairly obvious I would have thought, seeing as this whole affair is based around the Ukarine and the reason(s) for withholding funds.

Its a pity that Don chose his private personal attorney [Rudy Giuliani] to set his Ukraine foreign policy in a completely unofficial way while on private visits to that country. Its a pity that he didn't use the Dept of State to translate his policy into official action on behalf of the US. It's a pity that by withholding the funds approved by the Senate [controlled by Mitch McConnell] and the House, he interfered with their actions without even having the courtesy to tell them that he had a problem with the value of the funding move.

As pointed out a few minutes ago at todays session in the House, Don had no problem with the funding for arms from the US to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. Don's sudden interest in the value of the funding only started this year when his presumed opponent in next year's US election is linked to alleged corruption in Ukraine.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-ukraine-anti-tank-missiles-sale-20180301-story.html Edit: apparently the Chicago Tribune has a firewall up which affects online readers.

SEPT 23 1989

pixelburp wrote: »

Trump will be remembered by dint of being a TV celebrity billionaire who ran a campaign on a whim, and ranted on social media throughout, picking open, loud fights with everyone. Not to mention cultivating a cult of personality that has arguably kept his base humming. Trump has not been a shrinking lily and the idea that he will fade into the background of history when he dies or steps down, is absurd. The man has pursued the limelight like a man demented.

The bookshelves will be full of memoirs, testimonials and autopsies over that time America voted a trust fund real estate blaggard as president. He's no Martin VanBuren...

How wrong can you be

History will be very kind to him

JRant

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah. It's hard to understand a case where the President tells another head of state to investigate their political rival or else no military aid package. Very confusing. Hard to understand. So many ways of looking at it. Amazing really.

It is hard when he never actually said that, strange I know. What we did get were mostly second hand accounts of what others presumed or assumed was going on.

JRant

aloyisious wrote: »

Its a pity that Don chose his private personal attorney [Rudy Giuliani] to set his Ukraine foreign policy in a completely unofficial way while on private visits to that country. Its a pity that he didn't use the Dept of State to translate his policy into official action on behalf of the US. It's a pity that by withholding the funds approved by the Senate [controlled by Mitch McConnell] and the House, he interfered with their actions without even having the courtesy to tell them that he had a problem with the value of the funding move.

As pointed out a few minutes ago at todays session in the House, Don had no problem with the funding for arms from the US to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018. Don's sudden interest in the value of the funding only started this year when his presumed opponent in next year's US election is linked to alleged corruption in Ukraine.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-approves-sale-anti-tank-weapons-ukraine/story?id=65989898

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-ukraine-anti-tank-missiles-sale-20180301-story.html

It is a pity, but shows his incompetence rather than anything else. None of the above warrant impeachment IMO.
I also think the whole Biden thing is laughable. Trump isn't worried about Biden, in fact I would say he hopes he gets the nomination. Because the sad fact of the matter is that Biden has completely lost the plot and should be moved out of the public spotlight by his family and friends. What's on show now is a sad shadow of his former self.

Christy42

JRant wrote: »

It is a pity, but shows his incompetence rather than anything else. None of the above warrant impeachment IMO.
I also think the whole Biden thing is laughable. Trump isn't worried about Biden, in fact I would say he hopes he gets the nomination. Because the sad fact of the matter is that Biden has completely lost the plot and should be moved out of the public spotlight by his family and friends. What's on show now is a sad shadow of his former self.

Having lost the plot seems to an advantage these days in politics. Go on bug mad rambles and everyone can pretend you said what they wanted you have said.

StringerBell

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh I'm not defending Trump. The usual response on here whenever you say anything different.

The media is giving the impression that this is historic and extraordinary. It's neither of those things - he will be president next week and no one will be affected by this.

Didn't say you were defending Trump. Generalisations do nothing to further the discussion either.

It is historic, it is extraordinary. Not sure how that has escaped you. Not many presidents get impeached like.... He is certainly cementing his place in history.

So no answer on the media that is pushing the narrative you claimed then?

relax carry on

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How wrong can you be

History will be very kind to him

What are you basing that on? What do you see as Trump's legacy?

TomOnBoard

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How wrong can you be

History will be very kind to him

Proper historical study, performed in accordance with established academic norms, will look at the Trump Presidency and will find no equivalence in terms of sheer lunacy until it reverts to the reign of George III in Great Britain at the cusp of the 18th into the 19th Centuries...

taytobreath

Quick question, what are the chances of Trump actually loosing his presidency.

rossie1977

relax carry on wrote: »

What are you basing that on? What do you see as Trump's legacy?

Republican historians have Trump bottom 3-5 all time, that's before impeachment.

marno21

This carry on from Doug Collins is just pathetic. Himself, Nunes, Jordan and co are absolute wastes of space.

The GOP are beyond saving. It's a full blown cult now.

Stacksofwacks

That was an amazing speech by the Majority leader Steny Hoyer, you could hear a pin drop

Larbre34

marno21 wrote: »

This carry on from Doug Collins is just pathetic. Himself, Nunes, Jordan and co are absolute wastes of space.

The GOP are beyond saving. It's a full blown cult now.

Yep, one that however makes it stronger than at anytime in modern history.

Jeff2

It is ironic they keep saying no one is above the law.

US diplomate wife legs it from UK after killing a biker.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-northamptonshire-50030750

drunkmonkey

taytobreath wrote: »

Quick question, what are the chances of Trump actually loosing his presidency.

About 0 if your referring to the current shenanigans.

sid waddell

Goebbels must be smiling in his grave at the carry on of the Republicans

sid waddell

Republicans seem Heil-ly angry at their mafia tactics receiving scrutiny

Ludo

Impeached.

Now carry on as normal..meaningless.
Oh it says one republican votes yes to impeach...uh oh he is in trouble....probably a mistake though,

drunkmonkey

Went nearly straight down party lines. Turkeys just voted for Christmas. There was no way he couldn't be impeached if it's a straight forward numbers game. Why is there only 1 independent vote counted, is there only 1?

sid waddell

Tulsi Gabbard voted "present".

She really does make it obvious what she is.

Pathetic.

marno21

230 yea, 197 nay (with 195 Republicans and 2 Democrats, van Drew NJ and Peterson MN). Tulsi Gabbard voted present.

marno21

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Went nearly straight down party lines. Turkeys just voted for Christmas. There was no way he couldn't be impeached if it's a straight forward numbers game. Why is there only 1 independent vote counted, is there only 1?

Yes, only one. Justin Amash from Michigan who resigned from the Republican Party in July.

Stacksofwacks

Tulsi is a fox news vixen

Sheeps

I'm predicting that Trump will now win the 2020 elections.

Stacksofwacks

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm predicting that Trump will now win the 2020 elections.

by a landslide, sadly

StringerBell

Well him being an incumbent would kinda give him a decent shot alright, though whether he wins or loses anybody expecting it to be anything other than very very close is setting themselves up for a fall imo

Historic, extraordinary moment this evening in the US. Not every day you see a President impeached. That's next to his name in history forever now.

Of course the Senate will not remove, Moscow Mitch has already confirmed as much but this was the right thing to do. Get the trial out of the way quickly, the tactics will backfire I think because even when they find him not guilty they have already overplayed their hand by saying he isn't going to be removed regardless. In essence it gives the Democrats easy campaign ad fodder about kangaroo courts, abandonment of oath of office and how they acted in the interests of the nation, defending the constitution when they knew the potential political cost to themselves because it was the right thing to do.

You can't say there is no way we will remove, refuse to allow witnesses testimony etc or even simply refute any evidence with actual evidence of a counter narrative and claim there is any merit in the "vindication" of the president.

AllForIt

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm predicting that Trump will now win the 2020 elections.

I think this will go down as the lamest impeachment attempts ever.

Ordinarily you'd think impeachment proceedings would be fun to follow for the drama but god this one isn't even worth following.

As for 2020 there isn't a hope in hell any Democrat is going to beat him, or anyone, and neither is there any doubt he'll win again. Rather like Brexit there seems to be a cohort of people who are completely detached from the reality of what is happening and what is going to happen.

everlast75

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm predicting that Trump will now win the 2020 elections.

Other than a poor attempt to wind people up, and "liked" by those who would prefer not to debate the issues, please provide the basis for that forecast.

everlast75

For prosperity...


https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1207488734146580481?s=19

Manic Moran

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The democrats have a good few ex service members in their ranks it seems.

Not that many, simply because the percentage of people in the US population who are veterans is small to begin with (About 7%). There are currently 96 Congresscritters with military experience, down six from the previous congress. 43 have combat tours under their belt. That said, the number of Democrat veterans in Congress about reflects the national population, whilst Republicans are double-strength compared to the national average.



Of these 96, 30 are Democrat, 66 are Republican. An impressive enough 48 of them are War on Terror veterans. Six of the 19 veteran Senators are Democrat, making 13 GOP veteran Senators, 24 D Representatives, 53 are Republican.

The breakdown by branch is 50 Army, 13 Squids, 17 Zoomies, 17 of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, and 1 Coast Guard.