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

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

Here is her reply...

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg?s=20

Can't seem to see that tweet, what did she say? Hopefully it's driving Trump up the walls :pac:

[Deleted User]

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Can't seem to see that tweet, what did she say? Hopefully it's driving Trump up the walls :pac:

Read her About.

everlast75

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Can't seem to see that tweet, what did she say? Hopefully it's driving Trump up the walls :pac:

She changed her twitter header to

"A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend."

serfboard

circadian wrote: »

Roma Downey is from Derry and one of the very few people Trump follows on twitter. Strange world!

She's very religious and is presumably popular with the evangelical set, which Trump will need to get re-elected.

I'd say personally, he has no time for that stuff, but his base loves it. The two Mikes, Pence and Pompeo, are fundamenalist Christians as well - proof that Trump is doing God's work.

Itssoeasy

serfboard wrote: »

She's very religious and is presumably popular with the evangelical set, which Trump will need to get re-elected.

I'd say personally, he has no time for that stuff, but his base loves it. The two Mikes, Pence and Pompeo, are fundamenalist Christians as well - proof that Trump is doing God's work.

That's the lead actress in the touched by an angel show isn't it ? If it's the same person then she and her husband made a show called the bible which from watching it and watching the behind the scenes parts, it wasn't time consuming process on writing a script as they just used the bible.

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

She changed her twitter header to

"A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend."

Quality

26000 Elephants

Picking (and losing) fights with precocious teens is only a distraction - the other news today is that Trump has now paid the $2 million in damages he was assessed by a NY judge, for misusing money in a charity Trump controlled.
Extraordinary punishment for a sitting president.

He stole money from his own charity. He has to ask permission before he can work for a charity again. Yet he remains as president.

Water John

So we can officially call Trump, a fraudster then?

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

So we can officially call Trump, a fraudster then?

He agreed to a settlement , presumably without an admission of guilt so we probably can't "officially" call him a fraudster yet.

Let's be honest though - It's not his first "settlement" where he has been accused of fraud - remember Trump University?

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He agreed to a settlement , presumably without an admission of guilt so we probably can't "officially" call him a fraudster yet

"Under a previously agreed part of the settlement, Trump admitted he misused funds, paid back the cost of purchasing the portrait, and agreed to restrictions on any new charity he might start in the state of New York. Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, were ordered to attend mandatory training sessions on nonprofit management."

Sounds pretty fraud-y to me.

aloyisious

FOX Business had a report on the settlement which showed that the Trump Foundation assets of US $1.78 Million [shut down by the court] were also to be handed over to the 8 charities in addition to the 2 Million. There were addition reimbursements included in the settlement for his portrait, plus champagne and sports gear bought at a charity event.

The foundation was fined US$ 2.500 after it donated US$ 25.000 to the election campaign of Pam Biondi for Florida AG in 2013 while she was allegedly deciding on whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University, which she eventually decided not to follow through on.

Billy Mays

everlast75 wrote: »

"Under a previously agreed part of the settlement, Trump admitted he misused funds, paid back the cost of purchasing the portrait, and agreed to restrictions on any new charity he might start in the state of New York. Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, were ordered to attend mandatory training sessions on nonprofit management."

Sounds pretty fraud-y to me.

A first family America can truly be proud of

aloyisious

There are two issues now which could determine Don's future. One is the court case over the Washington Trump hotel, the use of it by foreign heads of state & Govt people while they are doing business with Don & the US Govt. His lawyer was at pains to tell the judges hearing the case that Don was not serious when he said the emolument clause in the constitution did not apply to him, the judges seemingly at odds over Don's statement. If the court finds against Don, he'll probably go to the USSC. EDIT: it might explain why the Trump Hotel chain is reportedly putting that hotel up for sale: if it's not part of the Trump business, it could abruptly end the emolument case as the prosecution may try to close the case as it would no longer be relevant if the hotel was no longer owned by the Trump chain.

The second issue is that in both the Senate and Congress, the GOP & the Dems have agreed on the future funding of the Govt for Dec to avoid a Govt shut-down. All they have to do is sign on the deal and sent the bill on to Don for his signature. Now that's where the uncertainty lies: will Don pull another "I'm not happy with that, I'm not signing it" stunt and threaten to shut down the Govt again till he get's his way [whatever that is].

aloyisious

For the financial & business market, the NY branch of the Fed is to make US$ 553 Billion available for re-purchasement by businesses there. I'm reading that word to mean buy-back of shares allowing the businesses a free-er hand where it comes to control of Co stocks and shares. The sum includes the last Fed release of funds US$75 billion.

Not really a surprise, given his need for good news in the polls, Don has signed off on a US/China trade deal and stopped the application of the Dec tariffs he had intended to apply to Chinese goods. Putting this alongside the MCUS deal, it should help settle any nerves in the market and give him cause to tell people how good he is for the US.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

For the financial & business market, the NY branch of the Fed is to make US$ 553 Billion available for re-purchasement by businesses there. I'm reading that word to mean buy-back of shares allowing the businesses a free-er hand where it comes to control of Co stocks and shares. The sum includes the last Fed release of funds US$75 billion.

Not really a surprise, given his need for good news in the polls, Don has signed off on a US/China trade deal and stopped the application of the Dec tariffs he had intended to apply to Chinese goods. Putting this alongside the MCUS deal, it should help settle any nerves in the market and give him cause to tell people how good he is for the US.

The Fed's been injecting liquidity into the 'repo' market for awhile this year. That has nothing to do with purchasing shares, it's about offering credit and paying for it overnight. Do you have a link to the report you've quoted? That amount seems like more than has been done this year.

everlast75

From Barb McQuade, a fantastic listing of the paltry excuses for Trump's behaviour and the facts that counter them

Defense 1: Trump did nothing wrong.

Response: Trump hit the trifecta of impeachable conduct by subverting an election, seeking foreign influence, and putting personal interest ahead of national interest. And he obstructed Congress by refusing to produce any witnesses or documents

Defense 2. No harm occurred because the military aid went through.

Response: The aid went through only after Trump was caught. In the meantime, months of delay cost Ukraine lives in its war with Russia. US credibility was harmed and moral authority to fight corruption was eroded.

Defense 3: Because aid went through, no misconduct was committed.

Response: Bribery occurs upon demand for a personal favor in exchange for performance of an official act. If you offer a cop $20 to get out of a traffic ticket, even if he declines, you have still committed bribery

Defense 4: Abuse of power is not even a crime.

Response: Impeachable conduct may be criminal conduct, but need not be. A president could be impeached if he watched TV all day and failed to fulfill his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Defense 5: There’s nothing wrong with asking for an investigation.

Response: If this were legitimate investigation, you wouldn’t need to send your personal lawyer and his henchmen to do it. Witnesses say Trump didn’t want investigation, just announcement of investigation.

Defense 6: There was no quid pro quo.

Response: Read the transcript! Trump’s request for a “favor” is strong evidence, corroborated by witness testimony, of months-long scheme to get Zelensky to “go to the mic” and announce Biden probe. Aid was leverage.

Defense 7: As VP, Biden held up aid as leverage to get rid of the Ukrainian public prosecutor.

Response: It is appropriate for a president or VP to take action to advance the interests of the nation. Trump was advancing his personal interests.

Defense 8: Teatimony is hearsay.

Response: Rules of Evidence don’t apply. Also, call summary, Sondland testimony are non-hearsay. Trump has barred direct witnesses. You can’t have it both ways. If they had information favorable to Trump, you can bet we would have heard from them.

Defense 9: It happens all the time. Get over it.

Response: Trump sought foreign influence in our election and harmed national security by delaying aid designed to fight Russia, our adversary. We don’t have to accept it. We deserve better.

Defense 10: Impeachment would un-do an election.

Response: All impeachments un-do elections. Constitution permits impeachment if president is unfit to serve. When rigging an election is involved, elections are ineffective for removal. Impeachment is not to punish but to protect.

Defense 11: Impeachment proceedings are moving too fast.

Response: This impeachment has moved slower than Bill Clinton’s and on pace with Richard Nixon’s. For a president who presents a clear and present danger to national security, removal is urgent and can’t come soon enough

Defense 12: We need to hear from the whistleblower.

Response: The whistleblower was a tipster, whose tip led to the investigation. Tipsters do not testify at trial, the witnesses do. We have a duty to protect whistleblowers to encourage them to use proper channels to report abuse

26000 Elephants

everlast75 wrote: »

"Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump, meanwhile, were ordered to attend mandatory training sessions on nonprofit management."

You would have thought their father could have taught them all they need to know about running a business without making a profit?

FatherTed

Christy42 wrote: »

Genius response.

To show how prediciable Trump is and how easy it is to frustrate him here is CNN predicting Trump being annoyed at losing to a 16 year old

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/11/politics/greta-thunberg-donald-trump/index.html

It's a bit.... ironic... him telling her to chill out when he's the one who tweets 200 times a day and is an old man scolding a 16 year old.

Meanwhile, he invites an anti-semite to the White House Hannukah party and thanks Melania for the wonderful Christmas decorations.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/donald-trump-robert-jeffress

everlast75

A question posed by a former state prosecutor..

What do ye think?

Hypothetical: if Bolton testified, “I spoke to the President directly and he said, ‘Screw Ukraine, either they announce a bogus investigation on the Bidens to help me in the election or else they don’t get foreign aid’” - would Republicans turn on Trump?

FatherTed

everlast75 wrote: »

A question posed by a former state prosecutor..

What do ye think?

Hypothetical: if Bolton testified, “I spoke to the President directly and he said, ‘Screw Ukraine, either they announce a bogus investigation on the Bidens to help me in the election or else they don’t get foreign aid’” - would Republicans turn on Trump?

No. They simply don't care. In fact they would double-down and say Bolton is unstable/deceitful/jealous etc.

26000 Elephants

everlast75 wrote: »

A question posed by a former state prosecutor..

What do ye think?

Hypothetical: if Bolton testified, “I spoke to the President directly and he said, ‘Screw Ukraine, either they announce a bogus investigation on the Bidens to help me in the election or else they don’t get foreign aid’” - would Republicans turn on Trump?

It would have no impact. We are in a post reality world: whatever has caused GOP stalwarts like Graham to inexplicably and unquestioningly back Trump needs to be dealt with first. Otherwise, it will just go on, regardless of any outrages that occur.

spacecoyote

Absolutely, McConnell was on with Hannity & stated that they will co-ordinate directly with the White House. And their position is identical to the presidents position, so not even a hint at impartiality or an effort to actually treat this as a fair trial/hearing:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1205311801212190727

FatherTed

26000 Elephants wrote: »

It would have no impact. We are in a post reality world: whatever has caused GOP stalwarts like Graham to inexplicably and unquestioningly back Trump needs to be dealt with first. Otherwise, it will just go on, regardless of any outrages that occur.

It's because they have power and they don't want to let it go at any cost. They've sold their beliefs, morals, integrity for the sake of power.

But I'm guessing the Dems would more or less do the same anyway.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

A question posed by a former state prosecutor..

What do ye think?

Hypothetical: if Bolton testified, “I spoke to the President directly and he said, ‘Screw Ukraine, either they announce a bogus investigation on the Bidens to help me in the election or else they don’t get foreign aid’” - would Republicans turn on Trump?

Nope, not a chance. You would just have Bolton torn apart for being an unhinged, unreliable loon and he would lose his retirement speaking plans and cushy conservative gigs.

StringerBell

FatherTed wrote: »

It's because they have power and they don't want to let it go at any cost. They've sold their beliefs, morals, integrity for the sake of power.

But I'm guessing the Dems would more or less do the same anyway.

Hopefully they will in the future anyway.

amandstu

StringerBell wrote: »

Hopefully they will in the future anyway.

Seems like democracy is a lost cause for the foreseeable future.

The cancer has spread to the centre of the power that was supposed to protect it.

George Orwell,how's it going?

Stallingrad

The divide just keep getting bigger, there is only one person driving this, with the GOP firmly in step, too terrified to speak up, while the party sinks ever deeper knowing without their leader they are finished, making it harder with each passing each day to emerge. It's a depressing picture, and the outcome is almost too terrible to consider.

America is being tested, more so than any time in its history, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a walk in the park by comparison. Hyperbole? A year ago, maybe, now not at all.

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

For the financial & business market, the NY branch of the Fed is to make US$ 553 Billion available for re-purchasement by businesses there. I'm reading that word to mean buy-back of shares allowing the businesses a free-er hand where it comes to control of Co stocks and shares. The sum includes the last Fed release of funds US$75 billion.

Not really a surprise, given his need for good news in the polls, Don has signed off on a US/China trade deal and stopped the application of the Dec tariffs he had intended to apply to Chinese goods. Putting this alongside the MCUS deal, it should help settle any nerves in the market and give him cause to tell people how good he is for the US.

Those share buybacks are why the Dow is doing well, this is further juking the stats so the Trump administration can say that the economy is doing well (hint: it isn't)

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

The Fed's been injecting liquidity into the 'repo' market for awhile this year. That has nothing to do with purchasing shares, it's about offering credit and paying for it overnight. Do you have a link to the report you've quoted? That amount seems like more than has been done this year.

Bloomberg HD Sky channel 502. This is another link I got from the Net.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-12/fed-to-adjust-limit-for-some-daily-overnight-repo-operations. Just copy and re-open on another page if it doesn't open for you here.

Bloomberg have a cookies notice on it when it opens but it doesn't stop reading the content online.

If it doesn't work, try this. Fed Aims Half-Trillion Dollar Funding Hose ... - bloomberg.com
Ignore the yahoo item at top of page and open the Bloomberg one under it.

aloyisious

Simple question to the GOP Senators: All your president had to do was say to his AG "I have been told that high profile US citizens have been involved in deals with a Ukraine firm and that one of the citizens has boasted that he got the corruption prosecutor fired for looking into the firm's affairs. I want you to contact the Ukraine AG, inform him of the story, ask him if he is aware of it and tell him the US will assist at formal inter-state level if they might wish to talk to any US citizen/s". Tell him I have instructed you to keep me updated on the matter and Ukraine's response". Now why do you think your president did not do that instead of launching a private investigation by his lawyer into another country's internal business?

What Don and Rudy hatched up and went forward with, private investigation wise, was totally unnecessary and avoidable. All else followed on from their joint actions.