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

abff

I can’t remember which US president was subject to the original of this, but it’s never been more apt than over the last few years.

Q: How do you know when President Trump is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

I wish we could just ignore everything he says and hope that the lack of attention would discourage him. But I guess we need to keep calling him to account every time he tells a lie, although it seems like a pointless exercise because we’re either preaching to the converted or trying to communicate with the wilfully deaf.

Igotadose

abff wrote: »

I can’t remember which US president was subject to the original of this, but it’s never been more apt than over the last few years.

Q: How do you know when President Trump is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

I wish we could just ignore everything he says and hope that the lack of attention would discourage him. But I guess we need to keep calling him to account every time he tells a lie, although it seems like a pointless exercise because we’re either preaching to the converted or trying to communicate with the wilfully deaf.

I first heard it applied to realtors in the US, and politicians. Applies to Trump on nearly a per-announcement basis.

robinph

serfboard wrote: »

If you're thinking of Tim Berners-Lee that'd be the Web, ...

Think that a Leicester Poly student did a lot of the coding for him on her year placement.

duploelabs

USA hit 3 million cases today.

Literally and figuratively sickening

PropJoe10

duploelabs wrote: »

USA hit 3 million cases today.

Literally and figuratively sickening

Trump is convinced that they are well on top of it, though, and are just "putting out the embers when they arrive". Over 120,000 dead now as well, and projected to hit 200k by November if they don't change their approach. Dark, dark times.

salmocab

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Trump is convinced that they are well on top of it, though, and are just "putting out the embers when they arrive". Over 120,000 dead now as well, and projected to hit 200k by November if they don't change their approach. Dark, dark times.

It’ll be 135,000 in the next few days, they are one of the worst on a per capita basis.
My wife’s cousin is married to an American and I saw a post she had up on FB pleading with people to wear masks, saying a few things like we wear seatbelts and someone replied saying it’s not right that government make them wear seatbelts.
She’s actually a registered Republican from Florida and whilst I’ve never seen her post anything over the years one way or the other about Trump I’ve noticed lately she’s very much not at all happy with him, whether she was ever a supporter I don’t know but she’s definitely not now.

duploelabs

https://www.newsweek.com/devos-seriously-looking-withholding-funding-schools-refuse-reopen-1516195

Education secretary Betty DeVos is rumoured to withhold funding to schools who don't open fully

Itssoeasy

duploelabs wrote: »

https://www.newsweek.com/devos-seriously-looking-withholding-funding-schools-refuse-reopen-1516195

Education secretary Betty DeVos is rumoured to withhold funding to schools who don't open fully

Ah Betsy devos who makes Ben Carson look competent(just), despite the fact he as HUD Secretary during a congressional hearing tried to "reclaim my time" despite the fact a witness can't do that. Anyway that stimulus money the US governemnt gave out, it's seems Betsy devos got some of that money along with several other members of the administration. It's not even subtle at this stage.

Muahahaha

salmocab wrote: »

It’ll be 135,000 in the next few days, they are one of the worst on a per capita basis.
My wife’s cousin is married to an American and I saw a post she had up on FB pleading with people to wear masks, saying a few things like we wear seatbelts and someone replied saying it’s not right that government make them wear seatbelts.
She’s actually a registered Republican from Florida and whilst I’ve never seen her post anything over the years one way or the other about Trump I’ve noticed lately she’s very much not at all happy with him, whether she was ever a supporter I don’t know but she’s definitely not now.

Reminds me of that story from the US a few years ago about motorbikers protesting the government forcing them to wear helmets. Several hundred of them when on a ride out with no helmets on to prove a point. On the protest one of them crashed his motorbike, hit his head and died.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-rider-dies-protesting-motorcycle-helmet-law/story?id=13993417

New York Rider Dies Protesting Motorcycle Helmet Law
Police say the motorcyclist would have likely survived had he worn a helmet.

July 4, 2011— -- A New York man died Sunday while participating in a ride with 550 other motorcyclists to protest the state's mandatory helmet law.

Police said Philip A. Contos, 55, hit his brakes and his motorcycle fishtailed. Contos was sent over the handlebars of his 1983 Harley Davidson and hit his head on the pavement. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

The ride Sunday was organized by American Bikers Aimed Toward Education, known as ABATE, a group of motorcycling enthusiasts who lobby for motorcycle awareness and freedom.

The Onondaga chapter of ABATE has sponsored the helmet protest ride for the past 11 years every July 4 weekend. "ABATE is very saddened and still shocked about the fact that we've lost another rider in Philip and that our hearts go out to him and our prayers as well," Syracuse chapter president Christinea Rathbun told ABC News 9.

New York is one of 20 states that requires motorcyclists to wear helmets.

You couldnt make it up.

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

https://www.newsweek.com/devos-seriously-looking-withholding-funding-schools-refuse-reopen-1516195

Education secretary Betty DeVos is rumoured to withhold funding to schools who don't open fully

It seems to be confirmed as Trump Admin policy to get things back to "normal" while the virus is alive and well.

amandstu

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems to be confirmed as Trump Admin policy to get things back to "normal" while the virus is alive and well.

Can they push that through? How might that play out?

Will it develop into a blame game with the prize being victory in the 2020 election?

aloyisious

On the news for Roger Stone front, it seems Facebook has banned him from the site on the grounds he was using fake F/B accounts during the 2016 election campaign, on the linking between F/B and Instagram accounts and a disinformation network linked to the Proud Boys organisation. Given that it's the 2016 pre-election campaign, it's plain that it reaches way back but not acted on until now when the tide may have turned as far as internet platforms are concerned with Trump.

Trump will probably throw another wobbler at F/B via Twitter, if he wants to risk becoming what could be termed as a "non-person" there, to use colloquial language. Kayleigh's read on the report, if she was asked for a comment on behalf of Trump, could be good.

aloyisious

amandstu wrote: »

Can they push that through? How might that play out?

Will it develop into a blame game with the prize being victory in the 2020 election?

The USSC won't be available to take a hearing on it as Admin Policy so it will probably be able to stick, same way as the Admin is going after foreign college students attending college courses from outside classrooms or off campus for physical non-attendance there, cos they are doing the courses online.

There is a way of describing such activity in a sexist manner, so to speak

marno21

The Lincoln Project’s tagline of “Trump or America” when it comes to the election is becoming more accurate with every passing day. It’s not even incompetence, it’s zero competence.

The lack of people around here even attempting to defend this clownshow which descends into trolling is making this thread very readable for once.

Thankfully polling at present shows that a reasonable amount of people have woken up to the requirement for good governance.

aloyisious

The ruling by the USSC on whether the Trump tax returns should be made available to Congress and the Manhattan DA will probably be uppermost in Admin mind's today. If it's a Yes, how Trump chooses to respond personally will fill the pages. It might be another reason why Trump wanted his own person in SDNY DA's office.

Headshot

aloyisious wrote: »

The ruling by the USSC on whether the Trump tax returns should be made available to Congress and the Manhattan DA will probably be uppermost in Admin mind's today. If it's a Yes, how Trump chooses to respond personally will fill the pages.

What do the legal experts say on this? Will it be a loss for Trump?

TomOnBoard

Hopefully, today will be forever known as T5 day- TTTTT- on foot of a Supreme Court decision that releases his tax returns and a predictable Trump response... here's Fridays Sun headline.... hopefully...

Trump's Taxes Thursday Twitter Tantrum

StringerBell

What do you do if the SC do (as they should) say that subpoenas are valid in this case and Trump says **** you I'm not releasing them, and Barr says the President has the right to do as he see's fit?

Constitutional crisis or everyone just scratching their head and going, "okay............so what now then"?

How do you compel a man who has absolute no regard for the rules you play by if he loses?

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

What do you do if the SC do (as they should) say that subpoenas are valid in this case and Trump says **** you I'm not releasing them, and Barr says the President has the right to do as he see's fit?

Constitutional crisis or everyone just scratching their head and going, "okay............so what now then"?

How do you compel a man who has absolute no regard for the rules you play by if he loses?

If Barr did so, on behalf of Trump and not the U.S, the ball would be in the court of the USSC [no pun] as to what it should do with a U.S Attorney General who had advised "Mr President, you can ignore the USSC ruling". If Barr does so opine, does it constitute a clear contempt of US constitutional law and court rulings [orders] for which the USSC must call him to answer?

Take him out of the picture via a spell in clink for contempt and leave whomever Trump kicks upstairs to decide if he wants to tag along with Barr, remembering what happened to Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein under Trump? The present complement of USSC judges would have no choice but to take action against Barr for it [and their successors] to have any standing tall over any president and a bully-boy AG.

TomOnBoard

StringerBell wrote: »

What do you do if the SC do (as they should) say that subpoenas are valid in this case and Trump says **** you I'm not releasing them, and Barr says the President has the right to do as he see's fit?

Constitutional crisis or everyone just scratching their head and going, "okay............so what now then"?

How do you compel a man who has absolute no regard for the rules you play by if he loses?

I think that in the Mazar's and Deutche Bank case, the issue revolves around whether the House Committee on Oversight (and others) can subpoena records from Trump's accountants and bankers. They're not seeking anything from Trump personally. So, if the SCOTUS finds in favour of the House, then the subpoena would be served on Mazars and DB, and Trump could no longer instruct them to withhold.I

The other case that has been bound up in Trump v Mazars is what started out as Trump v Vance. This is also a case involving Mazars, but it related to the County of New York's DA seeking records to put before a Grand Jury.

While a win for the House may result in the records getting out into the public domain, if Vance wins, there's no such likelihood, as Grand Jury proceedings are confidential, and remain so unless an indictment ensues. Much depends on what Vance is after. If Trump himself is a target of Vance's investigations, then its unlikely any indictment of him would result while he remains in the White House. If others are targets, and Trump's records are germane to an investigation of others, then Trump himself could be not be identified, even if he was disguised an an unindicted co-conspirator in any other indictments. I could easily see Trump kids and other officers of Trump businesses being the subject of Vance's investigations, and although the Charity case per se is done and dusted, if shenanigans made their way into New York tax returns then the whole lot would be exposed. And indeed, there are any number of other possible angles that Vance is pursuing that we are not even aware of. Remember, Michael Cohen and Alan Weisselberg have had lots of time to tell their stories to whomever may be focussed on them, in order to lessen likelihood of charges being brought against them. They are both heavily exposed, having been up to their necks in Trump businesses for years.

It should be interesting. I could see a win/loss for Trump here. He could win against the House and lose against Vance. If that happens, nothing will see the light of day until after November, so the political 'damage' will be minimal. Indeed, if he wins against the House, he can frame it as proof that the do-nothing Democrats have been out to get him all along and the Supreme Court has proven it to be so. If Vance wins, Trump won't be overly bothered right now, as the information won't be getting out any time soon, unless it leaks...

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

On the news for Roger Stone front, it seems Facebook has banned him from the site on the grounds he was using fake F/B accounts during the 2016 election campaign, on the linking between F/B and Instagram accounts and a disinformation network linked to the Proud Boys organisation. Given that it's the 2016 pre-election campaign, it's plain that it reaches way back but not acted on until now when the tide may have turned as far as internet platforms are concerned with Trump.

Trump will probably throw another wobbler at F/B via Twitter, if he wants to risk becoming what could be termed as a "non-person" there, to use colloquial language. Kayleigh's read on the report, if she was asked for a comment on behalf of Trump, could be good.

I saw an article yesterday (can't find it now) saying that Barr was begging Trump not to pardon or commute Stones sentence as he reckons the DOJ will just down tools en masse in protest.

Stone is due to hand himself in on the 14th so watch for Trump in the next few days..

However if the SC go against him on the tax stuff he may be a little distracted.

aloyisious

Sad to say that another U.S citizen and serving member of the U.S military, Lt Col Alex Vindman is retiring from the service having fallen victim to the Trump gang. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/key-impeachment-witness-vindman-resigns-army-citing-trump-bullying-intimidation-n1233176

ECO_Mental

Really looking forward to today and getting the SCOTUS opinions. I think Trump will loose them all but as another poster said that might not be the end of it..... Trump and Barr and shown total disregard for the Law but luckily its his accountants that have to provide them and a ruling from SCOTUS does not get any higher so I cant see how they wont comply.

What will they show:cool:

They will show I think he is nowhere near a Billionaire, does he own any of his properties. Where is his income coming from? Obviously he is cheating on his taxes but that will take a while to sort out and he will be years defending that.

No doubt there is some wire fraud in there also but again that will take a while to put a case together...

So Trump will be spending the rest of his life hopefully in prison...but for the foreseeable future in courts being prosecuted from all angles.

That saying I have been disappointed in Justice served in the USA, there is one rule for the likes of him and for others who crossed the street wrong and get the **** kicked out of them by an out of control police state

pixelburp

The timing could be spectacular if his tax returns were forced into the public domain; a good October Surprise because I'd reckon the only things they're hiding is that he's not remotely wealthy as he claims, and maybe some shadier sources of income from his post 2008 days.

That said, I don't believe he'll comply. This administration has been a sequence of cases where it simply goes "no, not going to" in regards complying with the norms of democracy, and nobody has stepped up to hold his / their feet to the fire. Maybe rejecting the highest court in the land will turn heads, but enough to cause groupings to act upon it? No chance, and then witness the pivot by Tucker Carlson and the ilk to attack the "liberal" Supreme Court, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Timberrrrrrrr

pixelburp wrote: »

The timing could be spectacular if his tax returns were forced into the public domain; a good October Surprise because I'd reckon the only things they're hiding is that he's not remotely wealthy as he claims, and maybe some shadier sources of income from his post 2008 days.

That said, I don't believe he'll comply. This administration has been a sequence of cases where it simply goes "no, not going to" in regards complying with the norms of democracy, and nobody has stepped up to hold his / their feet to the fire. Maybe rejecting the highest court in the land will turn heads, but enough to cause groupings to act upon it? No chance, and then witness the pivot by Tucker Carlson and the ilk to attack the "liberal" Supreme Court, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Can you imagine the attack ads from the Lincoln project and similar entities? They would hammer him all day every day about how he has been ordered by the highest court in the land to release his tax returns but still refuses to do so, what is he hiding etc.

pixelburp

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you imagine the attack ads from the Lincoln project and similar entities? They would hammer him all day every day about how he has been ordered by the highest court in the land to release his tax returns but still refuses to do so, what is he hiding etc.

Won't matter a jot. The cognitive dissonance mixed in with sunk-cost is a heady stew that has maintained his base throughout this administration. Up is down and I'd be confident that his supporters will simply pivot to whatever narrative Fox News decides the SCOTUS conforms to - if they decide he needs to reveal his tax returns (I'm undecided, personal wealth is touchy point for many. Money talks after all). Fox will likely speak of Deep State probably, maybe sick the dogs on Ginsburg, given she's a darling of the American Liberal.

Timberrrrrrrr

pixelburp wrote: »

Won't matter a jot. The cognitive dissonance mixed in with sunk-cost is a heady stew that has maintained his base throughout this administration. Up is down and I'd be confident that his supporters will simply pivot to whatever narrative Fox News decides the SCOTUS conforms to - if they decide he needs to reveal his tax returns (I'm undecided, personal wealth is touchy point for many. Money talks after all). Fox will likely speak of Deep State probably, maybe sick the dogs on Ginsburg, given she's a darling of the American Liberal.

I agree but those supporters will never change no matter what, stick an R next to any name and they will vote for them, its the undecided voters that the ads are aimed at and if you put the idea in Joe six-packs head that Trump has cheated on his taxes while they slave away all day then they will not vote for him.

pixelburp

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree but those supporters will never change no matter what, stick an R next to any name and they will vote for them, its the undecided voters that the ads are aimed at and if you put the idea in Joe six-packs head that Trump has cheated on his taxes while they slave away all day then they will not vote for him.

But in the long term it's another small, hairline crack in normalcy of American democracy. Quin Dub shared that polling that showed 91% support with Republicans regarding Trump's performance. Now maybe that's just public bluster against the private rejection in a polling booth but if one half of the American voting public would support the brazen rejection of the rule of law... where does the country go from here? Democracy in America becomes increasingly untenable when its people (potentially) shrug off Trump deciding he can ignore the SCOTUS.

Leroy42

pixelburp wrote: »

Won't matter a jot. The cognitive dissonance mixed in with sunk-cost is a heady stew that has maintained his base throughout this administration. Up is down and I'd be confident that his supporters will simply pivot to whatever narrative Fox News decides the SCOTUS conforms to - if they decide he needs to reveal his tax returns (I'm undecided, personal wealth is touchy point for many. Money talks after all). Fox will likely speak of Deep State probably, maybe sick the dogs on Ginsburg, given she's a darling of the American Liberal.

A perfect example being the Russia bounty story. Whether or not ones believes he was told or not, the fact he has done nothing at all since, not even a speech to say he was going to hold Putin to account, shows that there really is nothing his supporters will not tolerate.

It shows up the hypocrisy of their demand for patriotism and respect for the anthem and flag and paying dues to the military. All falls a bit flat when they not really too concerned about the service men and women being targeted by a foreign power.

Wonder what those two guys with the 'Rather be a Russian than Democrat' feel about themselves now?

banie01

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Can you imagine the attack ads from the Lincoln project and similar entities? They would hammer him all day every day about how he has been ordered by the highest court in the land to release his tax returns but still refuses to do so, what is he hiding etc.

The President of law and order...
Disregarding the ultimate arbiter of law and order!