The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

[JGrimez]

She was the significantly better candidate.

Better at rigging an election when nobody would vote for her. Go read the Clinton thread.
And better at getting CIA spies in China sprung and executed (read her emails)
Or better at colluding with Russians and blaming it on others.

Bernie sucks he's pro-war establishment and fiscally reckless
Thanks for the link but there's no need for the naughty words.
I'm just trying to find out why everyone hates Trump so much.
I don't even bust on Killary that badly and I literally think she's complicit in child trafficking (proven) and murder (speculation)

So the article says that they want to make cars that are safer and pollute less which is good.
Gas will cost more which I agree is bullshit. Why can't we have betters and cheaper fuel? I'm against this policy. (I don't think Trump is evil though)

Honestly I don't have an issue with grimes other than him dodging my questions for the most part. He brings a different view to the table, one I don't necessarily agree with, but one I respect regardless.

Which questions? If I didn't answer I missed them and I'll answer anything. Except combination to safe.

 

[JGrimez]

These are emotionally charged issues. Opposing sides of political, social and philosophical belief about how our societies should go forward in the future. You can't blame people for getting frustrated and upset and tired when it feels to them like people are advocating for a completely wrong position. It can get exhausting for everyone.

So what, I think that you all are "wrong" and there's wayyy more of you guys. I've said it before we all want basically the same things we just have different ideas about how to get there, and over the legitimacy of information that we're receiving.

People said the same thing about Obama (might be an atheist but pretends not to be) so trump's not the first.

Obama's probably a Muslim. I remember hearing him saying it once. Huma Abedin who worked in his admin had proven links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Valerie Jarrett to Iran. Also a Pakistani family led by Imran Awan had access to most of members of Congress' personal computers and was rumored to have been moving things to Pakistan IS. I don't know if Obama was directly involved with any of it but it happened under his watch.

but cyc is correct. trump dangerously escalated things in syria.

I explained how he didn't.

sometimes you seem unable to discuss trump without going straight to "but what about clinton?" or "but what about obama?". you definitely seem to rail against it and yet do it frequently.

I'll concede I probably do this a tad too much but most of the time it's warranted and used to describe context. We need to compare people's performance (and evidence of criminality) to decide who is a better candidate/employee/person etc

i idly wondered to myself if, as with so many things trump does, there would be a tweet of him criticising somebody else for doing exactly what he did. lo and behold!

OK I'll agree this is a bit of a "gotcha" so well done.
Again though, context. Trump's tweet was before the US were heavily involved in Syria.
This was Trump warning Obama not to get into the war in the first place.
Then when Trump took power, everyone who obstructed him was a Democrat.
So they weren't even mad at the strikes they just had to oppose as many of Trump's moves as possible and prevent him looking good.
I don't know what Trump's targets were in Syria. That whole situation is a big mess and we can blame Obama for that one. Under his watch terrorists nearly took over the government. It was actually Putin that saved Syria and decimated most of ISIS, with Trump finishing them off and then cutting the CIA funding. But the Dems do not want to give Trump any credit for helping end ISIS. Sec of State Clinton wrote in an email that they knew Saudi/Qatar were covertly funding ISIS - while she was also receiving tens of millions from them.... why was she getting money from sources also funding our enemy...
Anyway +1 for you

which trump do you side with jgrimez? doesn't it get confusing sometimes having to make excuses for trump and disagreeing with him on exactly the same issue?

I disagree with him here and there, I'm not "all in" by any means. I actually think he's just another Zionist puppet but "let's wait and see" and "so far so good".

link?

The idea of praising "human trafficking arrests" is just absurd.

i don't think that jgrimez is a troll - i think he is generally committed to his belief and he's not purely looking for a rise.

Guys, I'm standing right here 8)

 

[JessFR]

People said the same thing about Obama (might be an atheist but pretends not to be) so trump's not the first.

People say lots of things.

Obama MIGHT be an atheist. But on the whole I doubt it.

The difference is, there is evidence of Christian belief (such as going to church for example) in Obama in his adult life from before he started campaigning.

Near as I can tell, there's no evidence at all of Christian or in fact any theistic beliefs by trump in his adult life, until he started seriously running for president. Because of course he did.

So sure, trump might not be the first, it's not exactly something you can say for absolute certain. But I think it's pretty damn likely.

EDIT: oh and JGrimez, I'm not getting into Obama conspiracies, in this particular instance it doesn't even matter. Even if you were right that Obamas a Muslim, that would still rule him out as the first atheist president.

 

[Cyc]

Obama's probably a Muslim.

k I'm done here.

sup alasdairm

 

[JGrimez]

No refuting of what I said, just a kneejerk "must be a vast right-wing conspiracy". Guess what, not an argument. Refute the facts.
Nobody here even knows who the f**k Imran Awan is.... *yawn*
For the record I don't care what Obama's religious affiliation is, I care about which countries he allowed access to sensitive US data.

 

[JessFR]

No refuting of what I said, just a kneejerk "must be a vast right-wing conspiracy". Guess what, not an argument. Refute the facts.
Nobody here even knows who the f**k Imran Awan is.... *yawn*
For the record I don't care what Obama's religious affiliation is, I care about which countries he allowed access to sensitive US data.

I don't recall anyone saying vast. But regardless, we are allowed to refuse to argue it.

I wouldn't care even if he was a Muslim. There are reasons I'm not exactly the world's biggest Obama fan, but it's not because of his religion.

It's because of his administration's blatant disregard for the law .

 

[Sturnam]

The Pentagon has "lost" $20 trillion of tax dollars and so far Trump is the ONLY person that has attempted to track it all down, so he's doing more than most.
I've repeated this many times and no posters here have agreed that this was a good move.

This was definitely a good move. We spend wayyy more on defense than we need, and much of it is probably mismanaged. I can only hope that the congressional republicans are as motivated to reduce military waste spending as they are for social services spending.

Also, if we want to track down the mismanaged funds and get them in line, why did Trump request an additional $56 billion in Pentagon spending? Is that how we audit organizations now, by giving them extra money to lose?

 

[JGrimez]

Also, if we want to track down the mismanaged funds and get them in line, why did Trump request an additional $56 billion in Pentagon spending? Is that how we audit organizations now, by giving them extra money to lose?

I dare say they will do a better job of keeping track of funds from now on ($15,000 for a toothbrush?)

The military still needs to be funded. I'd prefer if the US removed almost all of their overseas bases but that's not going to happen anytime soon, so the military needs to be well-maintained at least.

Also this money goes to indirectly safeguard all other states that are under protection of the US (but we still need as much transparency as possible without endangering national security - and that's the excuse for a lot of these bullshit black-ops)

 

[zephyr]

Those military bases are needed as leverage and having some influence in the areas they are in, like the kid who wants your lunch money.



Btw, the whole Obama Muslim thing was a big thing when he ran for president, I dunno in what context or whatever, maybe just the rumour mill trying to scare easily scared people from voting him in as theres always the whole muslims are terrorists thing to throw around at elections. Trump used the Muslim fear too and some idiots use that fear here.

 

[JGrimez]

This is going to sound conspiratorial to some but I think the Islamic terror threat has mostly been fabricated/orchestrated, mostly by smaller factions of the US intel agencies along with the agency of an unnamed Zionist state. They need an "enemy" at all times. "War on Terror" how long could that moneymaker go on for? Islamic terror exists and continues to grow as long as the necessary conditions exist, so who is keeping their countries in perpetual war? Who is selling them all their weapons? Do those weapons manufactures have a vested interest in keeping certain states and groups fighting with each other? Which country benefits from keeping Islamic states and groups in perpetual sectarian conflict? We were funding Al-Qaeda (70s Afghanistan vs Soviets), then they become the #1 enemy for "carrying out 9/11" and now we are funding them again in Syria... Doesn't make sense (makes $ tho)

Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

We know for a fact that a large chunk of Hillary's campaign was funded by the brutal Saudi & Qatari regimes, who were executing gay people and stoning rape victims. How could one willingly accept money from these groups and why would they want to?

 

[JGrimez]

Got any collusion?

Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...rump_and_russia_i_searched_for_two_years.html

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, 'Fear,' he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.

"So let's set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren't the president's reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?" Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward.

"I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard," Woodward answered. "And so you know, there we are. We're going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don't know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case."

"But you've seen no collusion?" Hewitt asked again to confirm.

"I have not," Woodward affirmed.

Hewitt would once again ask Woodward about collusion at the conclusion of the interview.

"Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?" Hewitt asked.

"That is correct," Woodward said.

 

[JessFR]

That is not itself proof no collusion happened.

Personally I tend to believe that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election, but that said I'm somewhat doubtful that Trump was knowingly a part it in a collusive way.

Additionally, even if Russia did attempt to influence the election, that doesn't mean they were successful. I'm inclined to acknowledge trumps election as legitimate.

I still hate the guy of course, the sooner he's out of office the better. I'm just saying that no evidence found by woodward doesn't prove conclusively collusion didn't happen. And that I tend consider trumps victory legitimate.

Of course if it turns out there was collusion, if trump knew about it he should be impeached at once.

And even if he didn't know about it, if there was interference and it were reasonably likely that it made the difference between his victory and his defeat, a new election should be held immediately (with Trump allowed to run again to secure legitimate victory) But I doubt that's the case.

 

[JGrimez]

I'm inclined to acknowledge trumps election as legitimate.

Didn't take long

 

[JessFR]

I've never suggested otherwise. I can hate the guy but still think he was legitimately elected.

 

[JGrimez]

I've never suggested otherwise. I can hate the guy but still think he was legitimately elected.

Unfortunately many others still don't.

Timeline of Accomplishments
https://www.promiseskept.com/timeline/

 

[spacejunk]

k I'm done here.

sup alasdairm

*sigh* i know right?

was hoping you might stick around - your posts in ce&p were always great - but yeah, i get it

it's quite fascinating to look at the discussions in this subforum pre-2016, especially in regards to right-leaning american posters.
the lurch to the far right in the past 2 years is one of the most disturbing things i've ever witnessed. as detestable as putin is, his role in radicalising a particular demographic of americans into fragmenting and damaging their own country is pretty impressive, from a psycho;logical warfare perspective.

honestly, it would be hilarious if it wasn't so downright depressing...

indeed.
when you look at the way mussolini carried on, it all seems rather comical now - puffing out his chest and strutting around as though he were some kind of tough guy - but at the time, i'm sure he was rather threatening to many of the people he ruled over.

of course, things didn't work out so well for "il duce" - as i'm sure they won't for "ill douche" donald. we've finally reached the 'good bit' of the trump presidency - the bit where he destroys his party and his legacy
(lol - j/k. "legacy" :D) because he's too stubborn and narcissistic and dim to do anything other than what he's doing - which is what he's always done; con people, talk it up, fuck it up, lose all the investors' money (which wasn't the point this time around...) and retreat into a storm of litigation as once again, everything he touches turns to shit.

he's like a character from some poorly scripted 1960s cartoon - he never learns, never develops, never grows, and talks like drunken preschool kid who's crapped himself.

since trump's messy downfall started in earnest a couple of months ago - specifically, when michael cohen's loyalty came into question i've been pretty fascinated with american political news.

trump seems like a man who takes prestige and social status really seriously - even when it's totally shallow and tacky. that's who he is, and why he will fight to the bitter end to try to prove a point which is ...a barefaced lie anyway.

US politics has always been a bit of a novelty sideshow for many non-americans to observe passively over the years, but since it's become this super trashy postmodern hybrid of soap opera, reality tv, mafia drama and revenge porn - it is a bit like driving by a car accident; you want to avert your eyes, but it's too hard to ignore.
i'm looking forward to the next phase most of all; it will be very, very interesting to see how trump copes with the transition from the white house to the big house.

from big brother to american idle to whatever the fuck they're passing off as entertainment these days, i've always found reality tv to be the most mundane and boring load of shit imaginable.
but i guess i'm finally getting it now, right? it's as if "reality television" mutated like a weird virus that has turned reality into a really trashy television show.
it's sick, but i can't get enough of it. trash-o-rama

 

[CFC]

k I'm done here.

sup alasdairm

Aw, common man, it's just some words, and he has a right to his opinions even if they are bonkers

Stick around, I've been reading your posts from waaay back while going through the archive, and I must say I like reading your stuff.

 

[spacejunk]

opinions are one thing, but if someone can't debate in good faith - it's a waste of time to discuss anything with them.

i think the key is to engage those who are worth debating. as i've stated previously, the ignore feature is a valuable tool. use it - i do!

i'd rather just continue to discuss the issues of the day with the folks who are open to sharing ideas and having a good-natured discussion.

having come across (and enjoyed) lots of Cyc's old posts in recent times, it's really nice to see him posting, and i hope that's not the last of them.

 

[JGrimez]

Where's the dirt?

Bill Mitchell:

Trump is the most vetted POTUS ever.

The DNC dug dirt on him for 3 years.
The RNC dug dirt on him for 2 years.
Mueller dug dirt on him for 1 year.
He was spied on with the highest level FISA warrant possible.

No dirt.

Think about that.

 

[JessFR]

I think we have different ideas about what qualifies as dirt.

The problem is trump has introduced a new age in politics. It used to be that a lie in politics was only a lie if you could prove it. Now it's never a lie at all. Now we live in an age where trump has forever changed politics by showing everyone that, it actually doesn't matter how much evidence there is. It doesn't matter if you say something that barely withstands basic logic or if you say something completely different than you said only a week ago on record.

You can literally just say a falsehood and repeat it, and a significant portion of the public will accept it. They'll rationalize what they can and just outright ignore the rest.

Clinton got in trouble cause he told the people he did not have relations with Lewinsky. Then he tried to back out of it when it was shown to be dishonest.

If only he'd realized that what he should have done was just deny he ever said it and called any evidence that he did a fabrication by the fake news media.

Id say that what trump has done was political genius if I thought it was his advanced intention. Turns out you can literally just raise the standard of proof indefinitely until nothing can be proven ever. And so as a result, everything is a question of what you'd prefer to believe. So you can literally erase mistakes people saw you make from history by forever increasing the standard of evidence that your mistake even happened. It's quite terrifying.