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 VIII (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 23/9/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
lawrencesummers
RIGOLO

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

aloyisious

It seems that Speaker Pelosi and others have reached agreement that the Congress meeting will resume tonight once the CAPITOL is cleared. Read that as declared safe for normal activity to resume. Betty deVos former COS has said Trump should be removed from office via the constitution [presumably replaced by Pence]. For that, it'll be worth keeping an eye out for a meeting tonight of Trump Admin cabinet members and whatever congress members are needed to make the change. A group of Pro-GOP industrialists have apparently turned on Trump saying the 25th amendment should be activated to remove him from office. When the industrialists funding the party make such a declaration, the party would be stupid to ignore the statement.

Kermit.de.frog

There are republicans tweeting to have Trump impeached now.

The sense is the rubicon has finally been crossed.

Top democrats also calling for the 25th Amendment.

[Deleted User]

marno21 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346954970910707712

This fella is just completely ****ing nuts. If the 25th Amendment wasn't created for this, what on earth was it created for?

Why is everyone surprised, people have been saying that since before 2016 when he had the whole birther spiel on Twitter. It's not like the warning flags weren't there.

paul71

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did. What's being reported now is the activation of the entire DC Guard, as opposed to the partial activation which had been requested ahead of time and approved.

Technically, we invaded because they harbored terrorists and wouldn't hand them over. A distinction. That members of the Taliban, themselves, later started to use terroristic techniques was not relevant at the time.

I'll try again in three lines.
Planting bombs (or even threatening to plant bombs) for ideological goals = terrorism
Storming a legislative chamber =/= terrorism. A shooting offense, sure. But not terrorism.
It is possible for both conditions to happen simultaneously and to distinguish between them.

Umm. You have missed the last five or six pages of forceful discussion? To include my expressing unequivocal disapproval of the actions of the protestors both as to motivation and technique? What the hell more do you want for me to "take a stand"?

This is why I took a break from this thread. Heaven forbid I should have any form of partial disagreement or quibble, for fear I be branded an extremist/Trumpist/whatever-the-hell-you-genetically-disapprove of.

Again, I observe it is not enough that I condemn without any reservation at all the actions which occurred in DC, which I have explicitly done; I must also use the approved form of verbal description to do it, despite my belief that it is not applicable. And instead of simply disagreeing on the grounds of interpretation of a word which HAS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION (See sentence #1 for the Wiki entry for "Terrorism"), I am deemed to have lost credibilty, gone off the edge, become delusional, and become a mental gymnast, to quote other posters.

This is the standard of political discourse on Boards? You're no better than American politicians.

You earlier told someone to put their opinion up the 4th point of contact. Is that your standard?

Jmccoy1

That nutjob poor excuse of a president should be removed ASAP, and charged with incitement of sedition / insurrection.

Kermit.de.frog

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

That nutjob poor excuse of a president should be removed ASAP, and charged with incitement of sedition / insurrection.

Given the anger of certain republicans now it appears to be under serious consideration that this man needs to be removed now.

signostic

Should not someone from justice, CIA or FBI knocking on the White House door at this stage or surely at least four men in white coats.

Kermit.de.frog

CNN reporting that a close source in the White House says President Trump is now "out of his mind".

He can't perform basic duties.

BonnieSituation

Gael23 wrote: »

Treason charge for Trump?

David Axelrod has just said on CNN that a GOP source/colleague of his has stated that the President is out of his mind".

Invoking the 25th is being discussed!!!

boardise

frag420 wrote: »

They are making up for lost Thyme...:pac:

Quite a sage remark if I may say so.

dark crystal

Jmccoy1 wrote: »

That nutjob poor excuse of a president should be removed ASAP, and charged with incitement of sedition / insurrection.

Along with all the Republican senators who promoted the stolen election lie to the deluded MAGA loons and attempted to overturn a democratic election.

Manic Moran

paul71 wrote: »

You earlier told someone to put their opinion up the 4th point of contact. Is that your standard?

Close. I told him/her that the amount of credibility I cared about from him/her could be placed up a fourth point of contact upon being informed by that person that (s)he believed I lacked any.

Since I have no credibility in that person's eyes, the statement obviously is meaningless.

As to that person's opinion on the issues, I have addressed it separately.

theguzman

Will this be start of the Second American Civil War?

Podge_irl

Manic Moran wrote: »

They did. What's being reported now is the activation of the entire DC Guard, as opposed to the partial activation which had been requested ahead of time and approved.

Technically, we invaded because they harbored terrorists and wouldn't hand them over. A distinction. That members of the Taliban, themselves, later started to use terroristic techniques was not relevant at the time.

I'll try again in three lines.
Planting bombs (or even threatening to plant bombs) for ideological goals = terrorism
Storming a legislative chamber =/= terrorism. A shooting offense, sure. But not terrorism.
It is possible for both conditions to happen simultaneously and to distinguish between them.

Umm. You have missed the last five or six pages of forceful discussion? To include my expressing unequivocal disapproval of the actions of the protestors both as to motivation and technique? What the hell more do you want for me to "take a stand"?

This is why I took a break from this thread. Heaven forbid I should have any form of partial disagreement or quibble, for fear I be branded an extremist/Trumpist/whatever-the-hell-you-genetically-disapprove of.

Again, I observe it is not enough that I condemn without any reservation at all the actions which occurred in DC, which I have explicitly done; I must also use the approved form of verbal description to do it, despite my belief that it is not applicable. And instead of simply disagreeing on the grounds of interpretation of a word which HAS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION (See sentence #1 for the Wiki entry for "Terrorism"), I am deemed to have lost credibilty, gone off the edge, become delusional, and become a mental gymnast, to quote other posters.

This is the standard of political discourse on Boards? You're no better than American politicians.

I don't understand your logic. The very definition of achieving political goals is surely intimidating and occupying a legislative chamber that was about to certify a political situation in order to achieve a different one? There were suspect packages in the building. They broke police lines to break in. They broke physical infrastructure to break in. You are relying on the idea that they would not actually have ever become violent based on nothing at all. So they broke the rules up and until breaking into the house chamber but they wouldn't have done anything to the people inside had they still been there?

Definition of terrorism from a google search:
terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

That is exactly what happened surely?

I would agree that the bombing in Nashville wasn't terrorism as it had no obvious political goal. This is textbook.

Kermit.de.frog

No one is afraid to speak out anymore. It's coming from leaders and countries mentioning Trump specifically.

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1346929675281559554

Shelga

Presume it would be section 4 of the 25th amendment which would be invoked, which allows other officials to declare that the president is unfit to lead. It has never been used, although other sections of the 25th have.

I think it requires the votes of two-thirds of both houses- is this really likely to happen? Wouldn’t it just inflame the angry mob so much more?

All they have to do is get through the next 14 days...

Widdensushi

theguzman wrote: »

Will this be start of the Second American Civil War?

Yes, the side with the nuclear codes and submarines will win.

RobAMerc

so if he is removed and Pence steps up, is there time before the 20th for Pence to pardon Mr trump of all his actions ?
Am I reading too many conspiracy theories ?

froog

Shelga wrote: »

Presume it would be section 4 of the 25th amendment which would be invoked, which allows other officials to declare that the president is unfit to lead. It has never been used, although other sections of the 25th have.

I think it requires the votes of two-thirds of both houses- is this really likely to happen? Wouldn’t it just inflame the angry mob so much more?

All they have to do is get through the next 14 days...

the big worry would be trump starting a war with iran. it's most definitely not beyond the realms of possibility with the latest uranium enrichment news.

paul71

Manic Moran wrote: »

Close. I told him/her that the amount of credibility I cared about from him/her could be placed up a fourth point of contact upon being informed by that person that (s)he believed I lacked any.

Since I have no credibility in that person's eyes, the statement obviously is meaningless.

As to that person's opinion on the issues, I have addressed it separately.

You do lack credibility and about 15 people have stated that by pointed out simple facts to you.

There are bombs being planted by right wing terrorists right now in Washington. Terrorist organisations that are armed to the teeth, have a history of members murdering people.

When that was pointed out to you you made a strawman argument trying to distinguise between crime and terrorism and responded to a poster by telling them in a thinly veiled way to "stuff their opinion up their arse".

I say that to clarify the meaning of "4th point of contact" as used by you, so everyone knows the standard of your post.

aloyisious

froog wrote: »

the big worry would be trump starting a war with iran. it's most definitely not beyond the realms of possibility with the latest uranium enrichment news.

I'd imagine that if Trump indicated he had some thoughts about using military force of any kind against Iran, any military officer who refused to recognize the request would probably get the medal of freedom from a grateful nation.

030802

Trying to focus on a sliver of positivity for the future, as previously stated, Biden's statement was excellent. The headbangers take far too much of our outraged time. Play it again before you go to bed in a rage.

Water John

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd imagine that if Trump indicated he had some thoughts about using military force of any kind against Iran, any military officer who refused to recognize the request would probably get the medal of freedom from a grateful nation.

Some reports are that there has already been push back on Trump's more dangerous notions since the election. Carl Bernstein has hinted at same.

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No one is afraid to speak out anymore. It's coming from leaders and countries mentioning Trump specifically.

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1346929675281559554

Coveney's tweet got a mention to round off CNN's spot on world leaders reactions.

LuckyLloyd

030802 wrote: »

Trying to focus on a sliver of positivity for the future, as previously stated, Biden's statement was excellent. The headbangers take far too much of our outraged time. Play it again before you go to bed in a rage.

Yeah it was strong and eloquent, the perfect pitch and tone for the moment. Biden isn’t perfect, but he has a wealth of experience and is steady as they come.

JohnFalstaff

Twitter have suspended Trump's account, unfortunately it is only for 12 hours.

Manic Moran

paul71 wrote: »

You do lack credibility and about 15 people have stated that by pointed out simple facts to you.

No, about fifteen people have disagreed with me. Only one has told me I have no credibility.

There are bombs being planted by right wing terrorists right now in Washington. Terrorist organisations that are armed to the teeth, have a history of members murdering people.

When that was pointed out to you you made a strawman argument trying to distinguise between crime and terrorism

With respect, I do not believe it is a 'strawman' to distinguish between criminal acts which are defined as terrorism and those which are not.

At the time this whole argument started, with this post, https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115830237&postcount=8486, the issue was the disturbance at the capitol. The bomb at the RNC (The first, evidently of several) was not yet a factor. The only thing we were discussing was the crowd.

and responded to a poster by telling them in a thinly veiled way to "stuff their opinion up their arse".

I say that to clarify the meaning of "4th point of contact" as used by you, so everyone knows the standard of your post.

I didn't think it was veiled at all, but it wasn't their opinion I told them I didn't care for; it was their position of what they considered me as a person. The opinion is fine, held by multiple here, and I have argued it.

[edit]Upon reflection, this is being interpreted a bit too individually. I would say that the fourth point of contact reference should apply to anyone who thinks I have no credibility because I have a narrower definition of terrorism, not just the one poster I replied to)[/edit]

banie01

Twitter have locked Don's and the POTUS accounts for 12hrs!

TheIrishGrover

If the GOP wants to have any credibility in the short term they are going to have to throw him under so many busses that the 39A from Ongar will be the last to hit him

one armed dwarf

They say one more infraction will get him a perma ban

Why is this more shocking to me than the riots, I can't say