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 VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 16/5/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
BonnieSituation

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes. Outside of Twitter, there is a clear lack of interest in this farce.

Why?

Because he will be acquitted.

63% of the American people want trump impeached and removed. People do care.

It is important for voters to see how their representation act during the historical process. It behooves the senators to behave in a way that the voters want. If they acquit, broadcasting the event may cause voters to vote out trump sycophants.

That's important.

Frankly, I can't tell whether you're frustrated because trump won't be impeached, or you're trying to discourage people from paying heed. The latter is a Republican strategy btw

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

I say this as a political anorak.

Most people do not talk about Trump. It is not a daily topic of conversation.

So those that believe this impeachment is historical or whatever are just deluded.

It is literally historical.

Ffs

[Deleted User]

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yes. Outside of Twitter, there is a clear lack of interest in this farce.

Why?

Because he will be acquitted.

I've relations in their 60s and 70s who don't even know how to use computers, much less Twitter, who are interested in the impeachment process. Fairly sure that they wouldn't be the only ones.

Ludo

hotmail.com wrote: »

I say this as a political anorak.

Most people do not talk about Trump. It is not a daily topic of conversation.

So those that believe this impeachment is historical or whatever are just deluded.

I politely disagree. I hear people talking about it regularly and the people would not be political anoraks. Just regular people with a passing interest in most current affairs. Depends on the people you associate with I guess.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

63% of the American people want trump impeached and removed. People do care.

It is important for voters to see how their representation act during the historical process. It behooves the senators to behave in a way that the voters want. If they acquit, broadcasting the event may cause voters to vote out trump sycophants.

That's important.

Frankly, I can't tell whether you're frustrated because trump won't be impeached, or you're trying to discourage people from paying heed. The latter is a Republican strategy btw

People will respond yes or no to polls. Polls don't convey level of interest.

The insistence that this is a historical process despite knowing that it will lead to an acquittal. I don't understand that position.

The Clinton impeachement was a farce in the late 90s and this is being repeated at the moment.

StringerBell

hotmail.com wrote: »

So you think that people other than political anoraks and Twitter posters (most people don't use twitter) are actually following this story?

This story has no economic implications for the public in America. No protests, terribly low viewing figures for the news channels, fatigue regarding Trump news, disillusionment with both parties, 50% of the electorate don't vote etc etc.

So that's a no then? You can't show your workings? No problem.

I didn't think you could bit just wanted to be sure.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

It is literally historical.

Ffs

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

aloyisious

Upforthematch wrote: »

Doesn't feel authentic when the pens are clearly being used for souvenir purposes.

AFAIK Don is keeping on with the custom in the Oval Office when signing important bills and the cabinet members or other persons present are given the pens as mementos of the day.

StringerBell

hotmail.com wrote: »

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

This is a very ironic post, surely you can see that even?

aloyisious

hotmail.com wrote: »

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

It seems Mitch sees it as important as he's prepared to spend time on it and not call it a hoax which he can ignore.

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

AFAIK Don is keeping on with the custom in the Oval Office when signing important bills and the cabinet members or other persons present are given the sharpies as mementos of the day.

Ftfy

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

Definition of historical;

1a: of, relating to, or having the character of history
historical data

b: based on history
historical novels

c: used in the past and reproduced in historical presentations

2: famous in history : HISTORIC sense

hotmail.com

StringerBell wrote: »

So that's a no then? You can't show your workings? No problem.

I didn't think you could bit just wanted to be sure.

I just offered the obvious. The starting point should be that half the American population don't vote in general elections and about 2 thirds don't vote in Mid Term elections.

So straight away, a large proportion of the population don't care.

hotmail.com

everlast75 wrote: »

Definition of historical;

1a: of, relating to, or having the character of history
historical data

b: based on history
historical novels

c: used in the past and reproduced in historical presentations

2: famous in history : HISTORIC sense

Oh maybe move on from a definition or whatever you hear on CNN.

If he is removed from office, I will take everything back.

If as expected he isn't removed from office, this embarrassing farce will be forgotten about, the same with every other Trump drama.

Fonny122

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh maybe move on from a definition or whatever you hear on CNN.

Its very hard to consider your arguments to be in any way honest when you want to discuss words while simultaneously pretending the definition of those words are irrelevant.

Dictionaries are not CNN either, but you already knew that.

Itssoeasy

Lev parnas it's reported by NBC news says that president Donald trump was "fully aware and consented" to attempts to coerce Ukraine. Well Mr Parnas will need to have the receipts to show that. I await to what he says on MSNBC later tonight tomorrow morning.

aloyisious

Robert Hyde is back in the news. The Connecticut GOP have [today] said they returned him his electoral deposit money and have asked him stand down from his attempt to run for congress as a GOP candidate. It seems the FBI and federal prosecutors are interested in talking to him about his recently revealed messages to Lev Parnas to see if Mr Hyde was referring to the former US ambassador to Ukraine. If the GOP have only acted over the past few hours against his attempt to run for office as one of its candidates, I think its safe to assume he was not under any rumoured form of psychological medical treatment which might have had repercussions on his election chances at the time the news about his reported activities in Ukraine became public.

Fonny122

They've stood by Trumps punt less crimes. They stood by Duncan hunter for his crimes up until he was found guilt. They stood by Roy moore despite his lack of shame for being a pedophile. And they actually put up four convicted criminals for election in the 2018 midterms.

That they immediately drop kicked Hyde out of the party today makes it look increasingly like he was indeed organising a hit on a US ambassador, which is chilli g but actually not surprising with this iteration of the Republican party, to be blunt. Neither was Matt Shea who they recently kicked out for plotting domestic terrorism, though they stuck with him until the evidence became too much to deny.

I wonder what other Hyde texts etc are in there that we don't yet know about.

Manic Moran

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just offered the obvious. The starting point should be that half the American population don't vote in general elections and about 2 thirds don't vote in Mid Term elections.

These figures are incorrect.

You're looking at 58.6% in 2008, 62.2% in 2012, and 60.2% in 2016 on a nationwide basis. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/324206-new-report-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012

The mid-terms are indeed lower, but not that low.

48.5% in 2010, 41.9% in 2014 and 53.4% in 2018.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-election-turnout.html

However, if your overall point is that folks need to invest themselves more in the voting process, I fully agree with you.

Ludo

hotmail.com wrote: »

I just offered the obvious. The starting point should be that half the American population don't vote in general elections and about 2 thirds don't vote in Mid Term elections.

So straight away, a large proportion of the population don't care.

Maybe a large proportion dont care as you say...In that you may well be right.

BUT if the 40/50/60% of those who actually do vote care then it is very very relevant. Those who vote are the ones who matter and they tend to take at least a passing interest in these things.

It also doesn't make it a farce if he is acquitted. It will matter how the senate handles it all. If they whitewash the whole thing then that wont look good and that would be a farce. Proper trial with witnesses and evidence will make it harder for the dems to keep this as an issue.

Christy42

It is historical. Whether or not 20% or 50% of people care.

I note Guiliani is still in position. Is this an admission that he was going it alone and that letter is accurate? He should have been fired if he wasn't telling the truth about representing Trump personally.

Hyde is early enough in the campaign season that they can nominate someone else. Moore was too late and was his own issue by himself anyway. The situation with Hyde seems likely to involve more people so cutting him loose may serve the greater good* by cutting him loose and trying to save whoever else knew about it. They may try and claim medical issues but that seems unlikely given the timing.

*Good as defined by whatever is best for the Republican party.

Brian?

hotmail.com wrote: »

Using different pens! It's like a sketch.

The process is pointless. The lack of interest in this farce outside in the real world isn't reflected by the media.

Every recent president has done it, except Trump of course.

The first bill he signed he just his Sharpie as normal, even though the souvenir pens were laid out.

Traditionally each pen is given to someone who has sponsored the bill or who had a large part to play in its creation. It’s a nice tradition to recognise people who’ve worked hard on something.

Stallingrad

That Lev Parnas interview was astonishing, in a normal democracy that would be that for the President, but just another stain in a sea of stains. If this doesn't give pause for GOP senators on impeachment there is no hope. The Republican party must realise they have attached themselves to something that will only sink them. Do any of them have the guts to say enough is enough?

Brian?

hotmail.com wrote: »

I say this as a political anorak.

Most people do not talk about Trump. It is not a daily topic of conversation.

So those that believe this impeachment is historical or whatever are just deluded.

You’re a politics anorak and think impeachment isn’t historical and is surprised by the document being signed with different pens?

This is the 3rd time ever a President has been impeached. How is that not a historic event? Whether the general public pay attention to it is irrelevant, it’ll be cited as a rare occurrence in future.

Penn

Stallingrad wrote: »

That Lev Parnas interview was astonishing, in a normal democracy that would be that for the President, but just another stain in a sea of stains. If this doesn't give pause for GOP senators on impeachment there is no hope. The Republican party must realise they have attached themselves to something that will only sink them. Do any of them have the guts to say enough is enough?

No. Not in an election year. Some of them will note how troubling the accusations are, but how it's being used by the Dems for political purposes because of the election, therefore nothing should happen and Trump should be given 4 more years. The rest will just scream about the Dems and say Trump did nothing wrong at all.

Unfortunately, it's starting to seem like the Dems went for impeachment too early. Had they had the chance to hold more hearings about these allegations in the House, it could have bolstered their case. Now if the Senate votes against impeachment and the Dems try again with this new information, it's going to look like they failed the first time so are trying again, or at least that's how it'll be framed. The story being pushed to the public will be about the Dems trying again, not what Trump is likely guilty of.

everlast75

hotmail.com wrote: »

Oh maybe move on from a definition or whatever you hear on CNN.

If he is removed from office, I will take everything back.

If as expected he isn't removed from office, this embarrassing farce will be forgotten about, the same with every other Trump drama.

Um, that was from a dictionary. The thing that tells us what words mean?

Stallingrad wrote: »

That Lev Parnas interview was astonishing, in a normal democracy that would be that for the President, but just another stain in a sea of stains. If this doesn't give pause for GOP senators on impeachment there is no hope. The Republican party must realise they have attached themselves to something that will only sink them. Do any of them have the guts to say enough is enough?

I treat him the same way I treat Cohen.

Bring the receipts, or else take a hike. He is out to save his own skin and is only doing so because he was caught.

I genuinely hope he has the paperwork to back it all up.

Stallingrad

everlast75 wrote: »

I genuinely hope he has the paperwork to back it all up.

Like messages implying the assassination of a US Ambassador by US citizens, that sort of thing?

duploelabs

Penn wrote: »

No. Not in an election year. Some of them will note how troubling the accusations are, but how it's being used by the Dems for political purposes because of the election, therefore nothing should happen and Trump should be given 4 more years. The rest will just scream about the Dems and say Trump did nothing wrong at all.

Unfortunately, it's starting to seem like the Dems went for impeachment too early. Had they had the chance to hold more hearings about these allegations in the House, it could have bolstered their case. Now if the Senate votes against impeachment and the Dems try again with this new information, it's going to look like they failed the first time so are trying again, or at least that's how it'll be framed. The story being pushed to the public will be about the Dems trying again, not what Trump is likely guilty of.

The Parnas documentation was included in the evidence of the articles of impeachment, he and his lawyer said they're under deadline the night before they conducted the Maddow interview.

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

I say this as a political anorak.

Most people do not talk about Trump. It is not a daily topic of conversation.

So those that believe this impeachment is historical or whatever are just deluded.

If that's the case in reality, and I think it is very largely the case among his supporters, nobody should be complaining about comparisons to 1930s fascism then, because that's exactly what happens when fascism takes hold.

Hoop66

hotmail.com wrote: »

I say this as a political anorak.

Most people do not talk about Trump. It is not a daily topic of conversation.

So those that believe this impeachment is historical or whatever are just deluded.

Page 1 of every major news organisation yesterday.