Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

1129130132134135326

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,333 ✭✭✭amandstu


    banie01 wrote: »
    For Blomberg's effort to wipe the fines to be "illegal" the GOP would have to make a very strong case that the fines were cleared in exchange for a vote for Biden.

    They would have to prove that the votes were bought.
    Rather than as appears to be the case, that Bloomberg is clearing the fines of felons to allow them to exercise their franchise for whichever candidate they choose.
    I think a case could be made that they were likely to be kindly disposed to their benefactor (then again Bloomberg should probably insert a clause that he expects repayment when the recipient has the funds and this is just to tide them over what he sees as unreasonably restrictions on their right to vote in a practical way)

    But will the Repubs call the case whatever just to delay and obfuscate?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,861 ✭✭✭Christy42


    banie01 wrote: »
    For Blomberg's effort to wipe the fines to be "illegal" the GOP would have to make a very strong case that the fines were cleared in exchange for a vote for Biden.

    They would have to prove that the votes were bought.
    Rather than as appears to be the case, that Bloomberg is clearing the fines of felons to allow them to exercise their franchise for whichever candidate they choose.


    You could say the same for a job. If a Trump employee got a bonus within the last few years is that a bribe? I mean, same difference.

    I mean Bloomberg has an idea many will want to vote Biden, that is why he is doing it but they are just as likely to avoid the Republicans who made up silly laws with the sole purpose of letting black people vote.

    It is worrying state of affairs in the US when encouraging people to vote is seen as a strictly democrat message.

    For their to be a slight case there would need to be some way for people to pass back that they voted Biden. Will some feel indebted to Bloomberg. Probably but surely you would feel the same if someone's charity bailed you out of a tough spot. Should we have no charities owned by slightly partisan people in case they make people feel indebted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Still waiting for Trump to name his USSC nominee, presumably he's following the "keep the audience anticipating" routine. If it's Amy Coney Barrett, she will have to recuse herself in any case taken about the vote outcome as he's made it plain that he wants her on the bench ASAP to ensure any USSC decision on an appeal to annul the vote result is in his favour. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. To do otherwise would be for the present bench to allow a perversion of the course of that which they hold dear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    amandstu wrote: »
    Has anyone an opinion on Bloomberg paying felons' fines.

    Is it an invitation to dispute the result (in Florida) in the courts?

    If Florida goes Democrat by a decent margin ,I'd say Trump's goose is cooked .

    Is the need for felons to pay off their fines to be able to vote naked vote suppression in the first place , but is Bloomberg's activity illegal too? (or can it be argued as such as a delaying tactic?)

    I'd say that Bloomberg's lawyers have gone through the paying-off debts and charitable deeds law lists for Florida to see if paying off others debts is licit or illicit and found it to be licit, even Christianly charitable to prevent recidivism.

    Allegedly Trump himself has done charitable payoffs for other persons which he did not personally gain from as a result, though it's not certain if these are urban legends or true. A good reputation does him no harm now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭Bozacke


    amandstu wrote: »
    Has anyone an opinion on Bloomberg paying felons' fines.

    Is it an invitation to dispute the result (in Florida) in the courts?

    If Florida goes Democrat by a decent margin ,I'd say Trump's goose is cooked .

    Is the need for felons to pay off their fines to be able to vote naked vote suppression in the first place , but is Bloomberg's activity illegal too? (or can it be argued as such as a delaying tactic?)
    So are you saying rich felons who can pay off their fines on their own, should be able to vote, like Stone, Flynn, Cohen and soon the Trump family, is ok? So if someone is wealthy enough or was able to successfully hide their stolen booty, can vote, but a poor felon who served his time, can’t vote?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Still waiting for Trump to name his USSC nominee, presumably he's following the "keep the audience anticipating" routine. If it's Amy Coney Barrett, she will have to recuse herself in any case taken about the vote outcome as he's made it plain that he wants her on the bench ASAP to ensure any USSC decision on an appeal to annul the vote result is in his favour. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. To do otherwise would be for the present bench to allow a perversion of the course of that which they hold dear.

    Do you think any potential justice that said they would recuse themselves would be the nominee? The pick was leaked so obviously right up till he announces at 5pm their time he could change it just to have a gotcha moment that would surely send his internet supporters into raptures but she has always been the front runner and obvious choice from the off. She will satisfy his evangelicals who he is beholden to more than any other group. Lagoa would be the smarter pick surely, and easiest to fast track but it has seemed pretty clear throughout who the top choice was.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,333 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Bozacke wrote: »
    So are you saying rich felons who can pay off their fines on their own, should be able to vote, like Stone, Flynn, Cohen and soon the Trump family, is ok? So if someone is wealthy enough or was able to successfully hide their stolen booty, can vote, but a poor felon who served his time, can’t vote?

    Seems clearly unfair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    amandstu wrote: »
    Seems clearly unfair.

    Seems clearly to work as designed and suppress the vote of one or two demographics.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,333 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Seems clearly to work as designed and suppress the vote of one or two demographics.
    Don't follow US politics closely enough to comment really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Do you think any potential justice that said they would recuse themselves would be the nominee? The pick was leaked so obviously right up till he announces at 5pm their time he could change it just to have a gotcha moment that would surely send his internet supporters into raptures but she has always been the front runner and obvious choice from the off. She will satisfy his evangelicals who he is beholden to more than any other group. Lagoa would be the smarter pick surely, and easiest to fast track but it has seemed pretty clear throughout who the top choice was.

    Put like that, no one would be silly enough to say so in advance, given how Trump went on a rant about Comey and how if he'd known what Comey would do, he wouldn't have appointed him, same way he ranted about his last A.G when he recused himself. Once the chosen appointee has been approved by the senate, the president can do zilch about it and her decisions.

    There is one thing about Trump; that he makes decisions at his own though level and not what would be logical. I expect him to nominate her but also wouldn't be surprised if he NOMINATED a different person instead for his own purposes on advice from his kith and kin where it comes to a judge holding her views about what U.S civil society should have as its ethical civil rights base sitting on the USSC bench.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Don Trump Jnr seems to be advertising for able-bodied people to join an army to provide security for the election centres on the basis that the radical left will intimidate people going to vote and steal the election from the GOP. Strange times indeed if the presidents son is recruiting a private army on his father's behalf where it comes to the election process. News media sources report he's posted advertising videos for the "army" on facebook and twitter.

    I presume it might be part of his father's argument with both platforms and their monitoring and deleting misguided items where it comes to the election and its process, maybe even linked with the DOJ [AG] efforts to change the law on platforms right to monitor and adjudicate on matter posted on their platforms so they must do as Trump wants.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Don Trump Jnr seems to be advertising for able-bodied people to join an army to provide security for the election centres on the basis that the radical left will intimidate people going to vote and steal the election from the GOP. Strange times indeed if the presidents son is recruiting a private army on his father's behalf where it comes to the election process.

    The only ones doing this are Trump supporters though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,173 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Don Trump Jnr seems to be advertising for able-bodied people to join an army to provide security for the election centres on the basis that the radical left will intimidate people going to vote and steal the election from the GOP. Strange times indeed if the presidents son is recruiting a private army on his father's behalf where it comes to the election process. News media sources report he's posted advertising videos for the "army" on facebook and twitter.

    I presume it might be part of his father's argument with both platforms and their monitoring and deleting misguided items where it comes to the election and its process, maybe even linked with the DOJ [AG] efforts to change the law on platforms right to monitor and adjudicate on matter posted on their platforms so they must do as Trump wants.
    Saw one of those twitter videos

    He seems to enjoy his cocaine does Jnr


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,432 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Still waiting for Trump to name his USSC nominee, presumably he's following the "keep the audience anticipating" routine. If it's Amy Coney Barrett, she will have to recuse herself in any case taken about the vote outcome as he's made it plain that he wants her on the bench ASAP to ensure any USSC decision on an appeal to annul the vote result is in his favour. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. To do otherwise would be for the present bench to allow a perversion of the course of that which they hold dear.

    Confirmed as nominee. Trump and McConnell barely waited for RBG to be cold in the ground before nominating a replacement. Ugh.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/26/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-nominee/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_medium=social&utm_term=image&utm_content=2020-09-26T21%3A10%3A10


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,064 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Distasteful to nominate Barrett and RBG not even buried.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,939 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Am I right in understanding that she has only been a judge for a couple of years? Surely the idea of a Supreme Court is to provide decisions based on knowledge, experience and wisdom, all of which take more than a couple of years to acquire.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,366 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    looksee wrote: »
    Am I right in understanding that she has only been a judge for a couple of years? Surely the idea of a Supreme Court is to provide decisions based on knowledge, experience and wisdom, all of which take more than a couple of years to acquire.

    She’s only been a judge since 2017. I will say at least she has some practical experience unlike some of trumps picks for judges who were woefully under qualified. And I agree that it’s very poor form to announcing a pick and the woman not even buried but sure why would that matter to the GOP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,366 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    listermint wrote: »
    Irish person in mad culture war vindictiveness shocker.


    Facebook needs to be broke up , pronto. It's destroying global dialogue.

    I deactivated my Facebook account nearly five years ago and it was one of the best things I ever did. It’s a landfill of ****e.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,015 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    ..and you believed it?

    No I didn't believe it but I do believe she hated him and I wouldn't be too worried about respecting someone who hates you


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,365 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    looksee wrote: »
    Am I right in understanding that she has only been a judge for a couple of years? Surely the idea of a Supreme Court is to provide decisions based on knowledge, experience and wisdom, all of which take more than a couple of years to acquire.

    She won't even have the distinction of having been the least experienced judge at the time of nomination to this Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas had been a judge for less than 16 months when Bush I nominated him! It could have been even more farcical then that as well. He had made the shortlist for a previous nomination a year earlier after only being a judge for 4 months:
    President George H. W. Bush originally considered appointing Clarence Thomas to Brennan's seat, but decided that Thomas did not have enough experience as a judge.

    Clearly the extra year made all the difference!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,201 ✭✭✭Man with broke phone


    Great that Trump is chosing a woman for the judge job. Media will paint it as a bad thing though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Chuck Schumer starting the counter-attack on the nomination to the senate by letting the voter know the nominee has chosen to reduce Obamacare healthcare options to public, women's right to choice on reproduction, labor unions. LGBT civil rights including marriage [which his daughter availed of]. Given the current Covid-19 epidemic in the U.S, with Trumps campaign against Obamacare coming to the USSC, Schumer is making a blunt appeal to the voter depending on Obamacare for health insurance cover to go straight to their U.S senators and pressure them to vote against Trump's nominee on the basis that she will be a danger to their health and wellbeing in a vote on the issue before the USSC if she is voted on to its bench.

    Trump has messed up badly by not getting his and the GOP act together [in a coordinated manner] on a replacement healthcare act, instead just winging it on a bluff. The other issues she also has stated personal opinions against reduce the existing civil rights of the voters enhanced by prior USSC decisions without harming her, or others, religious belief rights under the constitution.

    I don't particularly trust the two GOP senators who've said they wont support the nominee by voting for her. One used a senate voting manoeuvre to get around her promise not to vote for Trump on a past issue and yet succeed in ensuring Trump got the benefit of an extra vote by standing aside [pairing with] when a democratic senator wasn't in the chamber to vote on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Great that Trump is chosing a woman for the judge job. Media will paint it as a bad thing though.

    Wrll Trumps zealots painted it as a bad thing when Biden chose a woman as V.P!


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,348 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Turns out Trump respects women, have you seen his wife? Amazing

    Have you seen his wife? She hates him! She certainly doesn't respect him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,015 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Detritus70 wrote: »
    I respect her hugely for that. Personally I discount anyone as a person who supports Trump. And I believe it is the duty of any decent, honest person with a shred of integrity to resist him in any way possible.

    Ive yet to meet a Trump voter in person but I was in the UK for brexit and I imagine its similar in the sense that once you got past the BS with a brexiter it was really about racism which as you say should be resisted in any way possible


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Both votes were absolutely decided by feelings rather than facts.

    Unfortunately too when you get down to it a large contingent of voters, for various reasons other than them just being "bad people" feel negative toward immigrants and people of different colour/creed.

    That is exploited and used to stoke up emotion, generally fear and that will drive people to the polls out of a sense of self preservation for their way of life.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,438 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Both votes were absolutely decided by feelings rather than facts.

    Votes often are decided by feelings rather than facts, to be fair, or at least feelings are considerable component, and politicians who discount them do so at their peril. Obama rode to office on a message of hope and change, but anybody who took the time to really step out and think critically could tell that a U.S. president is not a genie who can make sweeping changes to a nation overnight. That's usually a gradual thing. But it was still a message that made people feel good. Feelgood factor and charismatic people are big things in electoral success, from what I can see. Not to say this was all Obama had, but he knew that there were two sides to the coin.

    Facts can sometimes even be downright detrimental. Who, for example, in the rust belt states or coal country of the U.S. wanted to hear that their towns were in an irreversible decline without their traditional industries which probably weren't coming back, ever. That has statistics to back it up. There is less demand for coal and less people needed to mine it, and it's cheaper to manufacture cars overseas or with robots, but this is a bitter pill to swallow. And it shows remarkable detachment for a politician to say, "Well, maybe you can retrain?" to someone whose identity is based on, "My daddy was a coal miner and so was his daddy and so was his daddy."


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Both votes were absolutely decided by feelings rather than facts.

    Unfortunately too when you get down to it a large contingent of voters, for various reasons other than them just being "bad people" feel negative toward immigrants and people of different colour/creed.

    That is exploited and used to stoke up emotion, generally fear and that will drive people to the polls out of a sense of self preservation for their way of life.


    Of course racism played a role, but why did Obama win two elections before Trump? Were the racists fine with a black man as president but an old white women was where they drew the line. :confused:

    The major parties in both the UK and America have failed the people with their brand of neo liberal politics thus it was always possible that something like Trump or Brexit could happen.

    Trump obviously is Zombie Reganism on steroids and Brexit will be a ****show, but nonetheless blaming xenophobia is giving those whether it is corporate dems/republicans,,,Blairism etc a pass they don't deserve for laying the groundwork for Brexit and Trump.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    This is coming up again today

    https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1310244614910033920

    That was 20th March.

    On 7th Feb he was telling Woodward how deadly the virus was. Its almost funny watching conservatives completely sell themselves out (again) defending him the last couple of weeks or so.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Absolutely, apologies if it wasn't clear most elections, referendums, votes in general are decided by feelings. I meant to highlight only how incredibly obvious both the US presidential election and brexit in 2016 are as examples of that.

    As to why Obama won two elections, and Hilary couldn't win. Trump won with less votes than Romney lost by previously. It's not that the racists tolerated a black man presidency for some reason. They voted against him, more people "didn't like" Hilary in 2016 so didn't vote for her, still didn't vote trump for the most part just abstained or abstained by voting for a third party. Feelings over facts

    Obama was swept in during his first election because of feelings also, the feeling that he would bring real change. The desire to believe what he was selling rather than critically analysing whether he could possibly deliver this or not. It doesn't just go one way.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement