Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 12:47pm

Its not whether she is or isn't, the point I was making was that she has not been convicted of anything and it seems that Trump supporters, Trump himself and the GOP, are very much against bring up any insinuations without total and complete evidence and almost a conviction.

So based on their own standards HC is perfectly clean. Same with Comey.

I am not saying they are, just that is it hypocritical to take a line that your feelings on one person is sufficient to have them cast as a crook or corrupt, but that when it comes to people that one feels are on 'your side' that is unfair and politically motivated and any concerns should be ignored.

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 12:48pm

peddlelies wrote: »

Obviously I agree with the above sentiment. Trump is a crook but seemingly so far even though he's cheated people out of money and has questionable financing he's done it in ways that he holds no actual legal accountability. A clever crook, if you will.

So I assume you voted for HC based on that belief!

everlast75 · 16-09-2019 12:49pm

There's always a tweet...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1173368423381962752?s=20

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/506198852933013504?s=20

serfboard · 16-09-2019 2:37pm

The gas thing with this attack on Saudi Arabia, is that the man who was itching for any excuse to attack Iran, now has one when he's in no position to do anything about it!

You'd have to feel sorry for poor John Bolton ... :rolleyes:

peddlelies · 16-09-2019 2:47pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

There's journalism malpractice at best- Nope! This is yet another incidence of ongoing attempts to undermine the power of the Media to do their jobs. You can't just throw out allegations of journalism malpractice, just because you don't like the result. By all means, critically assess the evidence and refute the conclusions; however, continued undermining of media reporting efforts, fostered and practiced by powerful people to hide their transgressions since forever, must be resisted! Without credible reporting, based on proper standards of journalistic integrity, 'We The people" would have our rights and lives destroyed by power- hungry individuals whose only interest is self- enrichment and self- aggrandizement.

Bit of an oversight, don't you think? Throw spaghetti at the wall...

"Editors' Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article."

TomOnBoard · 16-09-2019 3:36pm

Perhaps it was an oversight. Note, however, that once the paper noticed the 'oversight', it corrected the record. Now there''s a thought! When you make a mistake, or publish incorrect information, don't double down.... make a correction ... if everyone did that, we'd all be able to place greater trust in what we are being told. ..

peddlelies · 16-09-2019 3:59pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Perhaps it was an oversight. Note, however, that once the paper noticed the 'oversight', it corrected the record. Now there''s a thought! When you make a mistake, or publish incorrect information, don't double down.... make a correction ... if everyone did that, we'd all be able to place greater trust in what we are being told. ..

If Mollie Hemingway of the Federalist could get that information from the upcoming book in such a fast manner then the Times could have also. It's a huge detail that they omitted, but obviously it goes against their story, so why would they publish it? They are accusing or at the very least adding to the narrative that a sitting supreme court justice is a sexual predator, would it have been such an ask to be thorough when making such an allegation and to include all available details?

Time and time again the NYT's has published "bombshell" stories and omitted or buried key facts way down hidden near the end of articles, all in favour of liberal causes. Sorry, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt for one second. The damage is done now, I'm sure they're content with how things worked out. You don't have to be some Trumpbot to come to the same conclusion.

They didn't even mention the fact that the witness, Max Stier, was on the opposite legal team of Kavanaugh during the Lewinski scandal.

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1173528606787743751?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

peddlelies · 16-09-2019 4:04pm

everlast75 wrote: »

That's not the way it works, Tom.

If you get one thing wrong once every couple of months, you have an agenda, no credibility.

If you lie 10,000 plus times, that doesn't matter - MAGA!!!

Your inability to discuss a serious point or argument when it counters your point of view without blaring off into MAGA!! land insults is a sure fire insight into your intelligence. I won't say whether that's high or low intelligence, I'll just leave it at that.

everlast75 · 16-09-2019 4:04pm

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Perhaps it was an oversight. Note, however, that once the paper noticed the 'oversight', it corrected the record. Now there''s a thought! When you make a mistake, or publish incorrect information, don't double down.... make a correction ... if everyone did that, we'd all be able to place greater trust in what we are being told. ..

That's not the way it works, Tom.

If you get one thing wrong once every couple of months, even if you correct your story, you have an agenda and no credibility.

If you lie 10,000 plus times, never apologise for getting things wrong, just double down - that doesn't matter - MAGA!!!

everlast75 · 16-09-2019 4:29pm

peddlelies wrote: »

Your inability to discuss a serious point or argument when it counters your point of view without blaring off into MAGA!! land insults is a sure fire insight into your intelligence. I won't say whether that's high or low intelligence, I'll just leave it at that.

I am drawing a comparison here between those who defend Trump (or otherwise in your case, as it appears of late that you have had a change of heart albeit with a momentary lapse of what sounds like an admiration of him not going to jail for his misdeeds) and attack the press, and the complete BS sandwich they are prepared to swallow when the mistakes or out and out lies that come out of his mouth.

There are strict libel (or liable as DTJ called it yesterday in a tweet) laws in the U.S. The press are open to be sued where they get things wrong and they do get sued, and rightly so. If the NYT f'd up then they should be called on it. Trump however is completely free to spout thousands of lies from the bully pulpit and not one Trump supporter will acknowledge it. It's hypocrisy of the highest level.

Forgive me if that frustration bubbles over in the odd post.

The fact remains that there was no proper investigation into credible allegations against a SC nominee and now the issue has come back to haunt him.

Again - I don't agree he should be called a rapist, but I do believe that there should be a full investigation of someone who will hold a lifetime tenure in the highest Court in the land. Surely that is something that makes sense and should not be up for debate.

peddlelies · 16-09-2019 4:34pm

everlast75 wrote: »

I am drawing a comparison here between those who defend Trump

Who mentioned Trump? We were talking about Kavanaugh and the NYT article and I was trying to debate my point of view on the matter.

All you accomplish with such posts is killing the ability to have a decent discussion. I don't know if that's your intention, I suspect it is. Congrats, you accomplished it.

everlast75 · 16-09-2019 4:43pm

peddlelies wrote: »

Who mentioned Trump? We were talking about Kavanaugh and the NYT article and I was trying to debate my point of view on the matter.

All you accomplish with such posts is killing the ability to have a decent discussion. I don't know if that's your intention, I suspect it is. Congrats, you accomplished it.

Would you ever wind your neck in? Seriously, try not to seek offence where there is clearly none.

You ask "Who mentioned Trump?" Well, we are in a Trump thread, talking about a Trump appointed nominee, someone that Trump has defended from the start, someone Trump tweeted about recently saying that the Department of Justice should come to Kavanaugh's aid and who Trump said should sue those making allegations against him. Is that enough of a connection?

In relation to the point I was making, you said the NYT had an agenda, and that it doesn't matter if they make a correction on their story. I'm pointing out that sometimes journalists get things wrong but there is a remedy for that. I am also making the point that Trump and his supporters love to spout hatred of the free press and I find it annoying that those supporters who do (you can insert current or former self here) do so willingly, whilst have no issue whatsoever that 45 is a prolific liar.

That's it. That's the point I'm making. I'm not shutting down debate or dragging the debate off topic at all.

peddlelies · 16-09-2019 4:56pm

I was making a valid point about the NYT's key omission and you come out with your MAGALOLOL nonsense reply because, according to you, Trump is in the white house. By that logic we cannot debate any topic relating to the Trump Presidency because orange man bad. Well we can, we just need to make sure to throw in a few Trump insults and it might be passable for your standards.

I get it, no need to write paragraphs explaining yourself comrade.

isohon · 16-09-2019 6:00pm

Trump's base is pretty captive I think we all agree that. We also know that it is stuck around the level it is at. So approaching it from the mercurial and utterly self-interested nature of Trump I guess it comes down to something of a gamble for him.

Does he repudiate his longstanding and oft proclaimed aversion to war in the middle east (notwithstanding his occasional outbursts of violent rhetoric) hoping that the country will rally around the flag and its President, but risking the part of his base that is very isolationist and decidedly anti-war?

I'm not convinced any of the worthier considerations will get a peek in.

serfboard · 16-09-2019 6:27pm

isohon wrote: »

Does he repudiate his longstanding and oft proclaimed aversion to war in the middle east (notwithstanding his occasional outbursts of violent rhetoric) hoping that the country will rally around the flag and its President, but risking the part of his base that is very isolationist and decidedly anti-war?

Why should the US get involved at all?

The Saudis have plenty of kit that they've bought off the Yanks to launch an attack themselves.

Problem is, I'm guessing, that the Iranians too have plenty of kit that they've bought off the Chinese or the Russians with which to defend themselves. The only way that the Saudis can truly give a bloody nose to the Iranians is with American involvement.

Zubeneschamali · 16-09-2019 6:35pm

serfboard wrote: »

Why should the US get involved at all?

To goose Trumps poll numbers.

Look at the effect of Gulf War 1 on George H. W. Bush's numbers:

isohon · 16-09-2019 6:42pm

serfboard wrote: »

Why should the US get involved at all?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/141604554855825408

BonnieSituation · 16-09-2019 6:46pm

isohon wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/141604554855825408

I love that there's always a Trump criticises Trump.

Maybe we should analyse them and predict where it's gonna go next cos as sure as night follows day he's been inadvertently bang on about his own presidency.

TomOnBoard · 16-09-2019 7:53pm

peddlelies wrote: »

What's your definition of crook? She certainly sold out the state department during her time in office and has been involved in several scandals during her Political career involving money.

She certainly sold out the State Dept... Did she? What legitimate enquiry has been undertaken and has found evidence of that claim? I know of none.

peddlelies wrote: »

Comey acted in unprecedented ways during his tenure as FBI director. He recommended not filing charges against Clinton when the FBI has no precedent to make such recommendations.

Comey was a sanctimonious AH. However, he has not been shown to have broken any laws or committed any crimes. His July 2016 presser was on the edge of acceptability and was certainly unusual. However, he has stated that he took the decision to announce the findings of the FBI investigation because he felt that the Democratic A.G.was too close to Hillary, and he believed that he needed to do it to avoid the taint of undue influence being subsequently levelled by the Republicans against the DoJ. In this regard, it must be noted that Comey was a registered Republican at the time, and not a Dem. He made it clear that, following investigation, Clinton had been found to have not committed any crime, but had been guilty of extreme carelessness. You will recall that Comey took another 'unprecedented' step in October by writing to Congress to advise that the closed e-mail investigation was re-opened on foot of many thousands of e-mails having been found on Anthony Wiener's laptop. The media storm that was created by this letter created massive doubt about Hillary and may well have been the single greatest reason for her election loss.

peddlelies wrote: »

McCabe is currently being charged

Entirely untrue as at this date! Mc Cabe has been investigated by the IG and charges have been recommended following repeated demands from Trump that he should also be locked up. However, the Grand Jury was re- convened last Thursday and NO indictment has been handed down. Now, given that it is said of Grand Juries in the US that any prosecutor could get them to indict a ham sandwich, one wonders why no indictment has issued. So, although charges may yet be brought, none have been approved by a Grand Jury.

peddlelies wrote: »

and other higher ups like Strzok were kicked out so they are not above scrutiny, not at all. You don't have to be a "Trump supporter" to come to that conclusion. Same applies for other Government institutions like the CIA.

Strzok has indeed been kicked out. He is currently sueing the DoJ for an illegal firing. Mc Cabe has similarly brought a lawsuit against the DoJ for the manner of his firing. And indeed, no-one should be above scrutiny, and there's a lot of scrutiny going on. So long as that scrutiny is accompanied by fair investigation that is not totally pre-empted and pre-judged by the Bully-Boy in Charge, we should all welcome that.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-09-2019 8:18pm

8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A.

Investigators demanded the president’s personal and corporate tax returns as they examine hush money paid to Stormy Daniels.

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/5Q8stc

Igotadose · 16-09-2019 8:29pm

Hey, but he can still award the Presidential Medal of Freedom. To a baseball player friend of his, Mariano Rivera: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/461614-trump-awards-yankees-legend-mariano-rivera-the-medal-of-freedom

rocksolidfat · 16-09-2019 8:33pm

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/republican-2020-challengers-op-ed-canceled-primaries/index.html

It looks like a few potential Republican challengers are not happy about the GOP's decision to forego rigging the primaries, and instead just outright cancelling them, including in states like North Carolina where it is outright illegal to do so at this point in time.

I can't help but notice that I have not heard one single person here, on Twitter or elsewhere, who had issue with the Democratic primaries being 'rigged' in 2016 say so much as a single word about this.

peddlelies · 16-09-2019 8:44pm

rocksolidfat wrote: »

I can't help but notice that I have not heard one single person here, on Twitter or elsewhere, who had issue with the Democratic primaries being 'rigged' in 2016 say so much as a single word about this.

Trump is the incumbent and has an 88% approval rating with Republican voters. Anyone running against him won't make double digits. They're in it for the money and notoriety.

In 2016 Pres Obama was leaving office after 8 years. The match up between Clinton and Sanders was highly competitive. It's a significant difference.

TomOnBoard · 16-09-2019 8:54pm

peddlelies wrote: »

rocksolidfat wrote: »

I can't help but notice that I have not heard one single person here, on Twitter or elsewhere, who had issue with the Democratic primaries being 'rigged' in 2016 say so much as a single word about this.

Trump is the incumbent and has an 88% approval rating with Republican voters. Anyone running against him won't make double digits. They're in it for the money and notoriety.

In 2016 Pres Obama was leaving office after 8 years. The match up between Clinton and Sanders was highly competitive. It's a significant difference.

I think there's a lot of similarity with the 2012 Dem primary and convention. IIRC, 4 states cancelled Dem primary processes then as well, with Obama as the incumbent being considered to be unopposed in those states. Overall, Obama had approx 80% of Dem votes at that time, with a few 'Birthers' challenging him, as well as a prisoner serving 17 years in jail. ..

Zubeneschamali · 16-09-2019 8:56pm

peddlelies wrote: »

Trump is the incumbent and has an 88% approval rating with Republican voters. Anyone running against him won't make double digits.

Unless he gets hauled off in handcuffs or a padded ambulance before election day. No harm positioning yourself to run instead of Pence.

rocksolidfat · 16-09-2019 9:52pm

peddlelies wrote: »

Trump is the incumbent and has an 88% approval rating with Republican voters. Anyone running against him won't make double digits. They're in it for the money and notoriety.

I'm not sure what that proves? Don't forget Donald Trump won the 2016 GOP primaries. Don't forget that 15 months before the election, he was also polling at 1% - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-surges-lead-gop-pack-new-2016-poll

There is no reason that someone polling at 1% should not be allowed run against Trump in the GOP primaries if they want to, all this is doing is robbing American's of their constitutional rights, and robbing the voters of different options. They could always cancel in March/April next year if no other eligible candidates are able to make the ballot, but this is very different - this is not allowing anyone the chance to make the ballot at all. Bush Jr. was primaried in 2004, as was Obama in 2012, so why are the Republicans so afraid of democracy now, in 2019/2020?

In 2016 Pres Obama was leaving office after 8 years. The match up between Clinton and Sanders was highly competitive. It's a significant difference.

The thing is, this argument doesn't hold true - a little over year out from the 2016 election, Clinton was polling at 75%, more than 60% above Sanders in second place. Carrying on this logic, the Democrats should have just cancelled the 2016 primaries outright and given the nomination to Clinton in autumn 2015.

That wouldn't exactly be fair on Sanders whose movement picked up a huge wave of support, and which now has two of the three main frontrunners this time around (him & Warren, third being Biden) having used 2016 as a launch-pad of sorts, which would not have been possible had the 2016 Democrat primaries been cancelled. More importantly, it would not be fair on the American people and it would be an affront to the concept of democracy. And it is no different just because the Republicans are the ones doing so now.

Rjd2 · 16-09-2019 9:53pm

rocksolidfat wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/republican-2020-challengers-op-ed-canceled-primaries/index.html

It looks like a few potential Republican challengers are not happy about the GOP's decision to forego rigging the primaries, and instead just outright cancelling them, including in states like North Carolina where it is outright illegal to do so at this point in time.

I can't help but notice that I have not heard one single person here, on Twitter or elsewhere, who had issue with the Democratic primaries being 'rigged' in 2016 say so much as a single word about this.

Those three lads would still lose even if Trump pulled out. :pac:

Weld is decent enough, but brought little of value to the 2016 campaign and I don't see where he can get the numbers.

Other 2 less said the better especially Walsh who is just grifting.

I was hoping Amash would run and challenge him but looks like he will be the Libertarian nomination.

Its a reminder to those who those who wonder why the GOP are so loyal to Trump, they have literally nobody else right now who could win an election even if Trump resigned tomorrow.

Leroy42 · 16-09-2019 10:01pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Those three lads would still lose even if Trump pulled out. :pac:

Weld is decent enough, but brought little of value to the 2016 campaign and I don't see where he can get the numbers.

Other 2 less said the better especially Walsh who is just grifting.

I was hoping Amash would run and challenge him but looks like he will be the Libertarian nomination.

Its a reminder to those who those who wonder why the GOP are so loyal to Trump, they have literally nobody else right now who could win an election even if Trump resigned tomorrow.

None of that is relevant. The point being made is that Trump, and his supporters, made a big deal out of how 'badly' Sanders was treated. That HC was the anointed one by the DNC big wigs and that the party didn't play fair.

So, yet again when talking about Trump, they are shown to be hypocrites because now there is no need for fairness or openness as obviously Trump would win so no point.

rocksolidfat · 16-09-2019 10:02pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Those three lads would still lose even if Trump pulled out. :pac:

Weld is decent enough, but brought little of value to the 2016 campaign and I don't see where he can get the numbers.

Other 2 less said the better especially Walsh who is just grifting.

I was hoping Amash would run and challenge him but looks like he will be the Libertarian nomination.

Its a reminder to those who those who wonder why the GOP are so loyal to Trump, they have literally nobody else right now who could win an election even if Trump resigned tomorrow.

You say that, but Mercer and Koch money tends to go a long, long way post Citizens United - and especially with Cambridge Analytica at play. I am very confident that no matter who was put up in 2016 from the Republicans would have won the overall election, which is why they can primary-in, primary-out their politicians who stop towing the line so easily: their voters are largely not voting for the politician, but for the party. In fact they are not really even voting for the party, but for the brand.

Don't forget that Trump was supposed to be the most unelectable person to ever run for office by a long, long way and was also supposed to be so hated by Republicans that millions would not vote for him, or would vote against him... didn't work out that way. It wouldn't have either for Cruz, Rubio, Jeb, Ryan, you name it.

The Cambridge Analytica (owned by a die hard Republican nutjob called Robert Mercer, and ran in part by Steven Bannon at the time) barrage of fake news would have been insurmountable on it's own, and yes even if Bernie Sanders won. Had he been the 2016 nominee, the same people who shout about Clinton would instead be shouting about Sanders being a Communist Zionist child molester who has child sex dungeons in the basements of union offices, and who is very unwell with some unknown disease. I don't say that with a shred of humour by the way, and cannot recommend The Great Hack as to exactly why.

aloyisious · 16-09-2019 11:50pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A.

Investigators demanded the president’s personal and corporate tax returns as they examine hush money paid to Stormy Daniels.

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/5Q8stc

Don will muddy the waters, lawyer up and tweet something along the lines that its more of the Democrat witch-hunt against him. Cyrus R is a Democrat and son of a Democrat [Cyrus B] who served under Pres Johnson & Pres Carter. The 2020 election will probably be over before the returns see the light of day in a court which allows them into evidence unfortunately. Maybe Don will ignore the best of advice and let rip instead, giving something away.

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Comments