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

StringerBell

Stallingrad wrote: »

At this point the discussion has moved beyond Trump. He is capable of anything.

The real question is, When. Will. The. GOP. Act.

It will be after primary season if it ever does happen, but at this point I dunno. Sunk cost and all that, not sure they will be able to distance the party from the man after the last 3 years. They may as well stick with him at this point.

Not like people have long memories, they win in 2020 then great. They lose, they rebuild over the next 4/8 years and come again.

Stallingrad

At this point the discussion has moved beyond Trump. He is capable of anything.

The real question is, When. Will. The. GOP. Act.

StringerBell

peddlelies wrote: »

Please don't pretend both parties aren't at it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it

It's again disingenuous to pretend that one is as bad as the other.

Overheal

Here’s the first bit of it. It’s a large piece. Hard to do on the phone:

Trump’s calls with foreign leaders have long worried aides, leaving some ‘genuinely horrified’

Oct. 4, 2019 at 7:19 p.m. EDT

In one of his first calls with a head of state, President Trump fawned over Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling the man who ordered interference in America’s 2016 election that he was a great leader and apologizing profusely for not calling him sooner.

He pledged to Saudi officials in another call that he would help the monarchy enter the elite Group of Seven, an alliance of the world’s leading democratic economies.

He promised the president of Peru that he would deliver to his country a C-130 military cargo plane overnight, a logistical nightmare that set off a herculean scramble in the West Wing and Pentagon.

And in a later call with Putin, Trump asked the former KGB officer for his guidance in forging a friendship with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un — a fellow authoritarian hostile to the United States.

Starting long before revelations about Trump’s interactions with Ukraine’s president rocked Washington, Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders were an anxiety-ridden set of events for his aides and members of the administration, according to former and current officials. They worried that Trump would make promises he shouldn’t keep, endorse policies the United States long opposed, commit a diplomatic blunder that jeopardized a critical alliance, or simply pressure a counterpart for a personal favor.

“There was a constant undercurrent in the Trump administration of [senior staff] who were genuinely horrified by the things they saw that were happening on these calls,” said one former White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversations. “Phone calls that were embarrassing, huge mistakes he made, months and months of work that were upended by one impulsive tweet.”

But Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went beyond whether the leader of the free world had committed a faux pas, and into grave concerns he had engaged in a possible crime or impeachable offense. The release last week of a whistleblower complaint alleging Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rivals as well as the release of a rough transcript of the July call led to House Democrats launching an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

The Ukraine controversy has put a renewed focus on Trump’s unorthodox way of interacting with fellow world leaders in diplomatic calls.

Critics, including some former administration officials, contend that Trump’s behavior on calls with foreign leaders has at times created unneeded tensions with allies and sent troubling signals to adversaries or authoritarians that the United States supports or at least does not care about human rights or their aggressive behavior elsewhere in the world.

Joel Willett, a former intelligence officer who worked at the National Security Council from 2014 to 2015, said he was concerned both by the descriptions of a president winging it, and the realization that the president’s behavior disturbs and frightens career civil servants.

“What a burden it must be to be stuck between your position of trust in the White House and another obligation you may feel to the American people to say something,” he said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment Thursday or Friday.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump ally, said the president speaks his mind and diverges from other presidents who follow protocol.

Graham said he saw nothing distressing in the president’s July 25 call with Zelensky and said he expected it to be worse, partially given his own experience with Trump on the phone.

“If you take half of my phone calls with him, it wouldn’t read as cleanly and nicely,” he said, adding that the president sounded like a “normal person.”

everlast75

Leaks are coming out from the phone call to Putin. It's behind a pay wall but here are two quotes...

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1180265860566528001?s=19

https://twitter.com/ScottMStedman/status/1180265913855041541?s=19

[Deleted User]

duploelabs wrote: »

So how do you explain that you can win the election without the popular vote?

1. You only need a plurality, not a majority.
2. Gerrymandering implies intent.
3. Thousands upon thousands of elected positions are filled by people who run unopposed.
4. When typical turnout for a mid-term election is in the 30-40% range then a party only needs to get 20% of registered voters to vote for them and they have a majority.

Obviously the Republicans are masters of the other arts but have a look on Wikipedia for the strength of the parties by state. You can spot the years of the Contract with America and the Tea Party pretty clearly. Big gains such as those tend to ebb away slowly so a big push can give a decade of benefit.

Zubeneschamali

MadYaker wrote: »

How do you exaggerate a written transcript that’s been made public?

By repeating the crime on television from the White House lawn.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

Unopposed? Hardly with gerrymandering

So how do you explain that you can win the election without the popular vote?

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

I know ya, I don't disagree until the last bolded part. There's a vote next year, he's very likely going to lose. The day he refuses to give up power I'll agree with that sentiment. There's still a fully functional government in the US with unopposed opposition parties.

I respectfully don't agree with you.

His behaviour is worsening.

He is becoming more frantic.

6 months ago, if you were told the stuff he was doing now you wouldn't believe it. So what makes you think in 6 months it'll be the same.

I've made this analogy before. If you see a kid every 20 seconds slightly pushing a glass towards the edge of a table and you do nothing, so he does it again, and you do nothing, its a bit late wringing your hands when the glass is smashed on the ground. The damage has been done and you can blame the kid all you want - but the fact is everyone knew what was going to happen and they didn't stop it. They are responsible.

Whomever thinks this guy has the welfare of the U.S. at heart is completely delusional. He is only out for himself, and is prepared to use whatever he has at his disposal to save his hide.

And the glass is getting mighty close to the edge of the table.

peddlelies

duploelabs wrote: »

Unopposed? Hardly with gerrymandering

Please don't pretend both parties aren't at it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

I know ya, I don't disagree until the last bolded part. There's a vote next year, he's very likely going to lose. The day he refuses to give up power I'll agree with that sentiment. There's still a fully functional government in the US with unopposed opposition parties.

Unopposed? Hardly with gerrymandering

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

He's just doing it out in the open now to try to "normalise" it. Expect more of this tactic as the impeachment process continues. And the GOPs just let it all slide... This is how a Republic becomes a dictatorship.

I know ya, I don't disagree until the last bolded part. There's a vote next year, he's very likely going to lose. The day he refuses to give up power I'll agree with that sentiment. There's still a fully functional government in the US with unopposed opposition parties.

peddlelies

MadYaker wrote: »

How do you exaggerate a written transcript?

Simple really.

You were caught on the phone saying you were importing 1 kilo worth of marijuana.

I "read" from said transcript and say you said 10 kilo's worth.

MadYaker

peddlelies wrote: »

That's the point I'm making. Without Schiff's couple of mishaps there's literally no point of attack for Republicans since it's such a black and white slam dunk matter. Now they can make noise about him meeting prior with the whistle-blower or exaggerating Trump's phone call to try and change public opinion and impact a potential impeachment.

How do you exaggerate a written transcript that’s been made public?

TomOnBoard

listermint wrote: »

peddlelies wrote: »

That's the point I'm making. Without Schiff's couple of mishaps there's literally no point of attack for Republicans since it's such a black and white slam dunk matter. Now they can make noise about him meeting prior with the whistle-blower or exaggerating Trump's phone call to try and change public opinion and impact a potential impeachment.

They can't argue with him asking China on video.

Lost his mind.

He's just doing it out in the open now to try to "normalise" it. Expect more of this tactic as the impeachment process continues. And the GOPs just let it all slide... This is how a Republic becomes a dictatorship.

listermint

peddlelies wrote: »

That's the point I'm making. Without Schiff's couple of mishaps there's literally no point of attack for Republicans since it's such a black and white slam dunk matter. Now they can make noise about him meeting prior with the whistle-blower or exaggerating Trump's phone call to try and change public opinion and impact a potential impeachment.

They can't argue with him asking China on video.

Lost his mind.

peddlelies

mcmoustache wrote: »

Exactly. All of this obfuscation about the whistle-blower, the form, the second hand info, Schiff and whatever other made up controversy they come up with is nothing but a distraction.

That Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a political rival is established.

That's the point I'm making. Without Schiff's couple of mishaps there's literally no point of attack for Republicans since it's such a black and white slam dunk matter. Now they can make noise about him meeting prior with the whistle-blower or exaggerating Trump's phone call to try and change public opinion and impact a potential impeachment.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now, what does it mean 'to make something up':

Am I the only one who had a chuckle at a Trump supporter asking this?

The dictionary entry for this should simply say, " see [Trump, Donald] "

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

Exactly. All of this obfuscation about the whistle-blower, the form, the second hand info, Schiff and whatever other made up controversy they come up with is nothing but a distraction.

That Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a political rival is established.

He's asking China, England, Australia and he won't stop. He is getting more and more brazen.

I watch all his supporters rationalise each latest outrage. They shift the goalposts.

But the breakaway will happen. The walls are closing in.

I don't care if he takes down Biden and Schiff. It'll be worth it

mcmoustache

20Cent wrote: »

Schiff is immaterial since trump admitted himself that he did it.

Exactly. All of this obfuscation about the whistle-blower, the form, the second hand info, Schiff and whatever other made up controversy they come up with is nothing but a distraction.

That Trump asked a foreign power to investigate a political rival is established.

20Cent

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol, you can't be serious :pac: For heaven sake, Schiff says:

Now, what does it mean 'to make something up':

So can you quote, precisely, which portion of the call it is where Trump is suggesting to Zelensky that he would like him to concoct or fabricate 'dirt' on Biden?

Because all I (and most people I would hope) see is that Trump mentions the Biden situation, and tells him that people are talking about it, about how he bragged and then says: "if you can look into it" - at no stage did he say anything that could be reasonable inferred as him wanting Zelensky to 'make up dirt' - that's bull and that Schiff had to resort to doing that, speaks volumes, and that people have the audacity to suggest that 'nothing of substance' was changed by parsing the call in that way, also speaks volumes quite frankly.

Schiff is immaterial since trump admitted himself that he did it.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You mean this post where you quoted all the times you had asked me a nonsense question, which I'd already addressed, and which you got a dozen thanks for? Yeah, maybe ask me a reasonably logical question next time, which has at least some semblance of rationale to it, and then I'll very likely reply to it. You have to remember though, I don't buy into 99% of the crap you folks do (or at least which most of you seem to) and so even though you might think the questions you're aiming at me seem reasonable, and have merit, in the real world, outside of leftist circles, they generally don't.

Ok, so can you answer why they decided to move it then? And no, you never addressed it

Outlaw Pete

You mean this post where you quoted all the times you had asked me a nonsense question, which I'd already addressed, and which you got a dozen thanks for? Yeah, maybe ask me a reasonably logical question next time, which has at least some semblance of rationale to it, and then I'll very likely reply to it. You have to remember though, I don't buy into 99% of the crap you folks do (or at least which most of you seem to) and so even though you might think the questions you're aiming at me seem reasonable, and have merit, in the real world, outside of leftist circles, they generally don't.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol, you can't be serious :pac: For heaven sake, Schiff says:

Now, what does it mean 'to make something up':

So can you quote, precisely, which portion of the call it is where Trump is suggesting to Zelensky that he would like him to concoct or fabricate 'dirt' on Biden?

Because all I, and most people I would hope, see is that he mentions the Biden situation, that all of people were talking about it, about how he bragged and then says: "if you can look into it" - at no stage did he say anything that could be reasonable inferred as him wanting Zelensky to 'make up dirt' - that's bull and that Schiff had to resort to doing that, speaks volumes, and that people have the audacity to suggest that 'nothing of substance' was changed by parsing the call in that way, also speaks volumes.

Hey Pete,

Since you're back. Do you mind engaging with both Everlast and I on the questions we asked before?
You seem to be adroit and articulate at answering questions, like above.
And since we're on the topic of fabrication, How's that search for Obama's birth certificate going?

Outlaw Pete

TomOnBoard wrote: »

He changed nothing of substance, but made clearer some of the Mafia Don innuendo that Trump was engaging in with Zelensky.

lol, you can't be serious :pac: For heaven sake, Schiff says:

"I want you to MAKE UP DIRT on my opponent, understand, lots of it"

Now, what does it mean 'to make something up':

So can you quote, precisely, which portion of the call it is where Trump is suggesting to Zelensky that he would like him to concoct or fabricate 'dirt' on Biden?

Because all I (and most people I would hope) see is that Trump mentions the Biden situation, and tells him that people are talking about it, about how he bragged and then says: "if you can look into it" - at no stage did he say anything that could be reasonable inferred as him wanting Zelensky to 'make up dirt' - that's bull and that Schiff had to resort to doing that, speaks volumes, and that people have the audacity to suggest that 'nothing of substance' was changed by parsing the call in that way, also speaks volumes quite frankly.

26000 Elephants

In hindsight, Schiffs joke about "I'll repeat this only 7 times" was an underestimate.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

When Schiff presented the substance of the transcript at the hearing, he characterised the thrust and tone of the transcript in a way that covered the call without simply reading out the whole transcript which would have taken 10 to 20 minutes. That is a perfectly reasonable approach for him to take on the interests of clarity and brevity. He changed nothing of substance, but made clearer some of the Mafia Don innuendo that Trump was engaging in with Zelensky.

That is untrue.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/fact-check-adam-schiff-trumps-ukraine-call/index.html

"...Schiff's remarks did make it easy for viewers to get confused. He did not make clear which words he was taking directly from Trump's comments in the rough transcript, which words were his own analysis, and which words were meant to be the comedic "parody" he later said he was intending.
At some points, Schiff's words strayed quite far from what the rough transcript showed Trump saying."

For example

Schiff: "You're going to love him (Giuliani). Trust me. You know what I'm asking? And so I'm only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I asked."

Analysis: Trump did not tell Zelensky not to call him again until he had done what Trump asked, nor did he say "you know what I'm asking?" The call ended on a positive note, with Trump saying of Zelensky's request for a visit to Ukraine, "Okay, we can work that out," then adding, "I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time."

Schiff: "This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all."

Analysis: This concluding quote may have further confused viewers. Schiff suggested here that he had just provided listeners with what "the president says," though he had added in things that Trump did not actually say.

Trump said in the call, "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are." Trump then said of the US-Ukraine relationship: "I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine."

Schiff: "I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that."

Analysis: Here's where Schiff veered quite a distance from what the rough transcript says.
Trump did not repeat a demand related to a political opponent "seven times," according to the rough transcript. He told Zelensky three times that he would get his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to call Zelensky.

You conveniently left out the preceding paragraph in that CNN fact check which said:

"We can't endorse Trump's claim that Schiff "lied," since Schiff introduced his comments at Thursday's committee hearing by saying he would be outlining "the essence of what the president communicates," not providing "the exact transcribed version of the call." And it's important to note that we do not even have an "exact transcribed version" of the call -- the rough transcript released by the White House cautions explicitly that it is "not a verbatim transcript."
"

Schiff presented the essence of what the President communicates. The way Trump communicates is just like the kind of thing John Gotti used to do and the groundwork by his minions makes it very clear what threats are intended. ... like "Nice place you have here... shame if anything happens to it"

A Mafioso crime boss is in the White House. Schiff has a responsibility to get the dirty crooked lot of them self-serving kleptocrats out of there ASAP before they turn the USA into a kleptocracy just like Putin''s Russia..

26000 Elephants

peddlelies wrote: »

"Jesus" my arse, he's not above criticism, just like Trump..

Absolutely. But get a grip on some relativitity. Whether he spoke to him or not is a minor detail in the overall context of this enormous scandal. It doesnt really do anyone any favours to try and focus on this detail, when the other more substantive issues are strobing around you like its 2am at an illegal rave and all your world is spinning.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

When Schiff presented the substance of the transcript at the hearing, he characterised the thrust and tone of the transcript in a way that covered the call without simply reading out the whole transcript which would have taken 10 to 20 minutes. That is a perfectly reasonable approach for him to take on the interests of clarity and brevity. He changed nothing of substance, but made clearer some of the Mafia Don innuendo that Trump was engaging in with Zelensky.

That is untrue.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/fact-check-adam-schiff-trumps-ukraine-call/index.html

"...Schiff's remarks did make it easy for viewers to get confused. He did not make clear which words he was taking directly from Trump's comments in the rough transcript, which words were his own analysis, and which words were meant to be the comedic "parody" he later said he was intending.
At some points, Schiff's words strayed quite far from what the rough transcript showed Trump saying."

For example

Schiff: "You're going to love him (Giuliani). Trust me. You know what I'm asking? And so I'm only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I asked."

Analysis: Trump did not tell Zelensky not to call him again until he had done what Trump asked, nor did he say "you know what I'm asking?" The call ended on a positive note, with Trump saying of Zelensky's request for a visit to Ukraine, "Okay, we can work that out," then adding, "I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time."

Schiff: "This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all."

Analysis: This concluding quote may have further confused viewers. Schiff suggested here that he had just provided listeners with what "the president says," though he had added in things that Trump did not actually say.

Trump said in the call, "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are." Trump then said of the US-Ukraine relationship: "I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine."

Schiff: "I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that."

Analysis: Here's where Schiff veered quite a distance from what the rough transcript says.
Trump did not repeat a demand related to a political opponent "seven times," according to the rough transcript. He told Zelensky three times that he would get his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to call Zelensky.

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

When Schiff presented the substance of the transcript at the hearing, he characterised the thrust and tone of the transcript in a way that covered the call without simply reading out the whole transcript which would have taken 10 to 20 minutes. That is a perfectly reasonable approach for him to take on the interests of clarity and brevity. He changed nothing of substance, but made clearer some of the Mafia Don innuendo that Trump was engaging in with Zelensky.

That is untrue.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/fact-check-adam-schiff-trumps-ukraine-call/index.html

"...Schiff's remarks did make it easy for viewers to get confused. He did not make clear which words he was taking directly from Trump's comments in the rough transcript, which words were his own analysis, and which words were meant to be the comedic "parody" he later said he was intending.
At some points, Schiff's words strayed quite far from what the rough transcript showed Trump saying."

For example

Schiff: "You're going to love him (Giuliani). Trust me. You know what I'm asking? And so I'm only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways. And by the way, don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done what I asked."

Analysis: Trump did not tell Zelensky not to call him again until he had done what Trump asked, nor did he say "you know what I'm asking?" The call ended on a positive note, with Trump saying of Zelensky's request for a visit to Ukraine, "Okay, we can work that out," then adding, "I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time."

Schiff: "This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there's nothing the president says here that is in America's interest after all."

Analysis: This concluding quote may have further confused viewers. Schiff suggested here that he had just provided listeners with what "the president says," though he had added in things that Trump did not actually say.

Trump said in the call, "I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are." Trump then said of the US-Ukraine relationship: "I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine."

Schiff: "I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though. And I'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Understand? Lots of it, on this and on that."

Analysis: Here's where Schiff veered quite a distance from what the rough transcript says.
Trump did not repeat a demand related to a political opponent "seven times," according to the rough transcript. He told Zelensky three times that he would get his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to call Zelensky.