nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

TomOnBoard

MrFresh wrote: »

Wish I shared your confidence on that.

Well, there's a good point for a clear statement from Trump's supporters on what it would take to stop supporting him. Up to now, they haven't been fazed by facts such as:

Trump is an out and ou liar;
Trump has debased US political discourse like never before;
Trump has equivocated on censoring white supremacist / neo-nazi activity while constantly attacking immigrants and minorities;
Trump has a long history of cheating ordinary people to whom he owes money;
Trump has a long history of cheating banks and others through bankruptcies;
Trump misled the American people by saying he had no businesses interests in Russia while he was active!y trying to build a hotel there;
Trump tried to obstruct justice on at least 10 occasions according to Mueller, whose team were prevented from bringing charges by DoJ policy;
Trump is a serial philanderer and sometime rapist;
Trump cheats at golf;
Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a campaign finance fraud case;
Trump has surrounded himself with unqualified family members within his Administration;
Trump has alienated most if not all foreign friendly governments;
Trump has aligned himself with the most authoritarian world leaders who deal death and destruction to their enemies at home and abroad;
Trump is mentally ill, and unfit to be POTUS as advised by scores of mental health professionals;
Trump runs his family business like a Mafia Don;
Trump enriches himself every day through his businesses while POTUS;
Trump .......
........

So, if the list receives one other entry, such as:

Trump has been involved in the sexual assault/ molestation of underage girls,

Will that affect your ongoing support for Trump?

FartyBlartFast

Dog Man Star wrote: »

MrFresh wrote: »

Wish I shared your confidence on that.

To clarify: those on the fence will not vote for a man who had abused children.

They admired him having sex with pornstars, playboy models, "he's a man after all", Trump the alpha male.

Paying 13 year-old girls to suck him off may not be so glamorous. Not many of us are Playboy models, but a lot of us have young daughters. This will kill him, thank God. He's finished.

Trump was under investigation for rao9jng a 13 year old child in 2016, and it didn't turn his voters off though. And to be honest, anyone claiming to be one the fence in the wake of child concentration camps is in my opinion, not bei g truthful. That is the type of issue where you either cut all ties to the perpetrator, or decide to stick with them through whatever may come.

If they will stick by him through those issues, they will continue to do so even in the face of video evidence of him violently raping a preteen. I'm not saying that he has for the record, but if he did and it came out on video it would immediately be labelled as fake news by every single trump supporter still following him, and would be shrugged at by more or less everyone who still claims to be "on the fence".

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

So, how does this play out with the idea that AOC cost thousands of jobs?

https://twitter.com/mkink/status/1149287266046676993?s=19

It was horse-sh!t to begin with. Created by MAGA liars for the gullible idiots to spread on social media. It happens all the time. They know their audience.

Dog Man Star

MrFresh wrote: »

Wish I shared your confidence on that.

To clarify: those on the fence will not vote for a man who had abused children.

They admired him having sex with pornstars, playboy models, "he's a man after all", Trump the alpha male.

Paying 13 year-old girls to suck him off may not be so glamorous. Not many of us are Playboy models, but a lot of us have young daughters. This will kill him, thank God. He's finished.

FartyBlartFast

MrFresh wrote: »

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Your average Trump supporter cares little for Russian interference. Child molesting is a different story.

Wish I shared your confidence on that.

I have to agree with you unfortunately - their mixture of ignoring or gleefully cheering while young children are flung into concentration camps (and there is zero doubt anymore that they are just that) shows exactly how much they care about kids. Many of these children have also mysteriously disappeared in the interim.

I noticed a few posts up someone seemingly irritated that ICE are getting a lot of grief. This is exactly why they are, and why they deserve as much, not for "doing their jobs". Other incidents like the racist Facebook group of theirs with 10,000 members (ICE has about 20,000 employees) does not help whatsoever either.

20Cent

everlast75 wrote: »

So, how does this play out with the idea that AOC cost thousands of jobs?

https://twitter.com/mkink/status/1149287266046676993?s=19

Looks like she just saved the taxpayer billions. Nice one AOC.

everlast75

So, how does this play out with the idea that AOC cost thousands of jobs?

https://twitter.com/mkink/status/1149287266046676993?s=19

MrFresh

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Your average Trump supporter cares little for Russian interference. Child molesting is a different story.

Wish I shared your confidence on that.

Manic Moran

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Can we move this detailed tedious information to another thread please? It has little or nothing to do with Trump. It's bloody boring too.

"Before DHS, Border Patrol was under DoJ, with INS. Customs was Dept of the Treasury, as was the Coast Guard. Airport security standards were set by the FAA, railway security by the FRA."

I'm sorry you don't find it as fascinating as some other topics of conversation, I happen to think such things are quite interesting.

Further, if you go back to posts from earlier today, you'll also see that it's quite relevant to the current threads of discussion.

MadYaker

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Can we move this detailed tedious information to another thread please? It has little or nothing to do with Trump. It's bloody boring too.

"Before DHS, Border Patrol was under DoJ, with INS. Customs was Dept of the Treasury, as was the Coast Guard. Airport security standards were set by the FAA, railway security by the FRA."

I don't see why, it's relevant to the discussion re the DHS and I personally enjoy his insights in this thread, they're usually pretty informative.

Dog Man Star

MadYaker wrote: »

You can tell he's still worried about the lose ends and other investigations which have come out of Mueller's investigation. As soon as there was any whisper of Mueller appearing in front of congress he's straight on to twitter, clearly scared.

All this stuff with Epstien never got a similar reaction, which is why I suspect he doesn't have much to fear from that.

I beg to differ. The Epstein case is a bombshell to Trump. Epstein's arrogance is astonishing, cds labelled with child porn? One image of Trump will sink him for good. As I said yesterday, the Epstein case will explode over the next few weeks. There are potentially hundreds of girls involved, how many will identify Trump if he is involved? Hundreds. The backing of the FBI will give a voice to them. No question, Trump is fretting at this much more than Mueller.

There is still a solid chance Barr will block Mueller's hearing, if he can. Barr has hinted at it already.

Your average Trump supporter cares little for Russian interference. Child molesting is a different story.

MadYaker

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Some of the stuff Trump is spouting on Twitter today is beyond disturbing. He is completely and utterly mentally deficient.

You can tell he's still worried about the lose ends and other investigations which have come out of Mueller's investigation. As soon as there was any whisper of Mueller appearing in front of congress he's straight on to twitter, clearly scared.

All this stuff with Epstien never got a similar reaction, which is why I suspect he doesn't have much to fear from that.

everlast75

jm08 wrote: »

And unintended consequences which would put Mike Pence in the hot seat for potentially the next 9/10 years.

I've discussed this before.

Laurence Tribe had an idea. Move forward with an impeachment hearing in the House, giving Trump the right of reply and putting the House's powers at their strongest.

Educate the public, convict in the House but rather than move to the Senate for the vote, issue a *censure* from the House of Trump, stating publicly that there is no point putting it to the Senate as they won't do their job and convict.

You get the benefit of the hearing without the risk of a defeat in the Senate.

Manic Moran

pixelburp wrote: »

Considering the DHS is only approx. 20 years old and formed in the white heat of the 2001 attacks, I think it's perfectly valid to question and examine its ongoing role - as well as the cost to the tax-payer relative to effectiveness. If it's not doing its job - or is on a slippery slope towards being an extra-legal grouping - and if said job could be done by better coordination of existing departments - then why not abolish it?

The lack of co-ordination was precisely why it was decided to put all the different agencies revolving around domestic security under the one umbrella.

Before DHS, Border Patrol was under DoJ, with INS. Customs was Dept of the Treasury, as was the Coast Guard. Airport security standards were set by the FAA, railway security by the FRA. I couldn't tell you who did shore-side port security or buses. Intel and traditional counter-terrorism/counter-espionage came from DoJ, DoD, or the TLAs. Air marshals were either FAA or Treasury, depending on the year (Most recently before DHS, FAA). I'm sure there were other linkages.

Even with the best of intentions, it's no wonder that things were slipping through the cracks. DHS is the target of politicians not because of a lack of perceived need, but because they are responsible for immigration enforcement which is a political issue right now.

On my facebook feed today, people are complaining about the just-announced ICE operation targetting migrants who had been ordered deported by the court but had absconded, and they're not being very complimentary about ICE. If the argument has become that an agency is to be decried for enforcing the laws, then the argument as a whole has become invalid.

Dog Man Star

What struck me today was that Trump's admin are currently in court trying to end the Affordable Care Act without any remote idea of a replacement. Trump just wants to finish it. And to what end?

The notion of living in the US with a steady job in your local Target, but knowing that if you or your partner become ill, you would be financially crippled is so alien to anyone living in the majority of the western world. The contempt the wealthy have for normal joe soaps there is beyond disgusting.

None would vote for someone as aggressively against them as Trump without Fox News, pumping pro-Trump propaganda into their homes every night of the week.

Tucker Carlson 8pm
Sean Hannity 9pm
Laura Ingraham 10pm

Three hours of blaming immigrants and coloureds for your misfortune, while our hero Trump fights on.

And we thought
7:30pm Where In The World
8:00 pm Glenroe
was soul destroying

jm08

serfboard wrote: »

Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it?

It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.

And unintended consequences which would put Mike Pence in the hot seat for potentially the next 9/10 years.

FartyBlartFast

It's been interesting Wat hung this story unfold in the last few days. Both Trump and Bill Clinton have rushed out to get ahead of the story, which may well be telling in both cases.

The reactions however, are the most intriguing part, including in this thread. You have those on the left and in the centre whose opinion seems to quite simply be "whoever was involved needs to go down".

Meanwhile Trump supporters further off on the right have been using this as a reason why their political enemies should go to jail, but not those in their own circle. Before we even have many of the facts at hand - facts which keep breaking, such as Trump and Epstein apparently having a party at maralago some years back with just the two of them and 28 girls - they seem to have made their minds up that Trump is completely innocent and this is a conspiracy against him (while simultaneously not being a conspiracy against their political enemies who are definitely guilty in their minds).

It's very peculiar behaviour, but is also common place among Trump supporters who have frequently and increasingly been referred to as a cult. I had originally not understood why that term was used, but issues like this make it quite apparent.

PropJoe10

serfboard wrote: »

Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it?

It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.

You're not wrong on what would probably happen, but not starting impeachment proceedings just sends out the message that the President of the day can basically do whatever they want without any repurcussions.

Politics is totally broken in the US anyway. The two party system is a complete disaster. Never seen anything as divided in my life.

Gbear

serfboard wrote: »

Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it?

It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.

The process will have value. That's why there needs to be good messaging about this. They can have impeachment hearings without needing to hold a vote. It will put public attention on Trump's crimes and how he and the Republican party are undermining American Democracy

The Republican base are largely no hopers anyway, but only something like 3% of the public have read the Mueller report.

His testimony next week may well serve as a test bed for what impact, if any, holding broader public hearings on Trump and his stooges will have on public awareness and opinions about trump's unsuitability for office.

When the republicans have been shown to be happy to steal elections if they think they can get away with it and give foreign powers free reign to give them illegal aid in campaigns, why is it safe to assume that a traditional election campaign will work?

Even on a tactical level, getting him bogged down in a political process might hear fruit in hobbling his campaign.

Dog Man Star

serfboard wrote: »

Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it?

It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.

The impeachment process obliges public testimonies that they cannot achieve at the moment.

This chart of Nixon's approval from the beginning of the Watergate hearings will explain. His rating was higher than Trump's when hearings began:
Historical-Comparisons-Impeachment-fin-Watergate-Public-Opinion.jpg?fit=1080%2C905&ssl=1

Historical-Comparisons-Impeachment-fin-Watergate-Public-Opinion.jpg?fit=1080%2C905&ssl=1

serfboard

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Pelosi is one of the very few who is against impeaching Trump.

Although I'm not a fan of Pelosi, I don't think she's in the wrong here. What's the point in the House voting to impeach only to have the Senate block it?

It's gesture politics that will take up a huge amount of time and energy and achieve nothing.

Dog Man Star

everlast75 wrote: »

Unless talking in private isn't working.

But ffs- if they can't get along with prople in their own party, how can they be expected to get things done with the Republicans when in office?

Pelosi is totally in the wrong here. She has singled out the new members of the House, she is patronising in her tone to them. Pelosi is one of the very few who is against impeaching Trump. She is not holding him to account for political reasons and not upholding her oath to the American people.

Igotadose

Great interview by AOC at the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-on-the-2020-presidential-race-and-trumps-crisis-at-the-border

And, she's spot on about DHS. There were plenty of people objecting to it when it was formed in the wake of 9/11. It is, basically, a bandage on the incredible bureaucratic mess that was ICE and CPB and other organizations around 2001. But, it's still extrajudicial and out of control. I'd agree with abolishing it and placing 'law enforcement' like activities under the DOJ with congressional oversight.

Nice quote from AOC about Trump: "..it’s disappointing that the reason the President seems so immune from things that would have killed any other President’s career is because we expect so little of him. And we have accustomed ourselves to expecting so little of him that it’s normal to have someone who’s an accused rapist in the White House."

Has Trump ever given such a coherent interview? Ever?

pixelburp

Considering the DHS is only approx. 20 years old and formed in the white heat of the 2001 attacks, I think it's perfectly valid to question and examine its ongoing role - as well as the cost to the tax-payer relative to effectiveness. If it's not doing its job - or is on a slippery slope towards being an extra-legal grouping - and if said job could be done by better coordination of existing departments - then why not abolish it?

MrFresh

peddlelies wrote: »

I don't know do we?

She thinks that the DHS should be abolished, does that fix your needy semantic meter? Defend your golden girl to the hill, it's helping the Republicans because every time Trump makes a huge overstatement on things like security and the border, there's statements from Cortez and her ilk who the Republicans will point to. Pelosi knows there's no national support for the nonsense Cortez comes out with, that's why there's so much tension there. Any critism of Cortez, Omar and that group of Democrats is met with the race card.

Even if she had said it should be abolished, which she didn't, you haven't said what's wrong with that position.

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Trump really going on a twitter rant today... maybe his staff gave him too much sugar today ? Or figured out how to open the fridge ? Coca Cola can be very dangerous when consumed in large quantities #Sad #SpikedInsulinLevels

This is one I feel I've heard similar of before.

No, I didn’t use many banks because I didn’t (don’t) need their money (old fashioned, isn’t it?). If I did, it would have been very easy for me to get.

Midlife

peddlelies wrote: »

I don't know do we?

She thinks that the DHS should be abolished, does that fix your needy semantic meter? Defend your golden girl to the hill, it's helping the Republicans because every time Trump makes a huge overstatement on things like security and the border, there's statements from Cortez and her ilk who the Republicans will point to. Pelosi knows there's no national support for the nonsense Cortez comes out with, that's why there's so much tension there. Any critism of Cortez, Omar and that group of Democrats is met with the race card.

Should it be abolished though? I mean what's it doing these days? Just because it has the words 'homeland' and 'security' in the title, doesn't mean it's indespensible.

I gather generally that a government department set up to deal with international terrorist threats after 2001 is now dealing almost exclusivly with the southern border and illegal immigration.

Cody montana

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Some of the stuff Trump is spouting on Twitter today is beyond disturbing. He is completely and utterly mentally deficient.

Something big must be coming!

If this was someone relation, they’d be checking up on them.

EltonJohn69

Trump really going on a twitter rant today... maybe his staff gave him too much sugar today ? Or figured out how to open the fridge ? Coca Cola can be very dangerous when consumed in large quantities #Sad #SpikedInsulinLevels

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

If they are not talking together, then maybe the W/P is the best go-between possible, though washing the laundry in public will make Don and Co happy. There must be a better way to go for contact.

Unless talking in private isn't working.

But ffs- if they can't get along with prople in their own party, how can they be expected to get things done with the Republicans when in office?

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

You've been challenged on that DHS statement before, do we need to revisit that again?

I don't know do we?

She thinks that the DHS should be abolished, does that fix your needy semantic meter? Defend your golden girl to the hill, it's helping the Republicans because every time Trump makes a huge overstatement on things like security and the border, there's statements from Cortez and her ilk who the Republicans will point to. Pelosi knows there's no national support for the nonsense Cortez comes out with, that's why there's so much tension there. Any critism of Cortez, Omar and that group of Democrats is met with the race card.