The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

[swilow]

ftfy swilow

I appreciate the refinement of my thesis there buddy

All politicians are liars. Pick your poison - someone that made a mistake (or purposefully lied depending on your interpretation or assumptions) about crowd numbers, or someone that lies about getting us into war which leads to the deaths of millions of people and the erosion of our human rights?
"BUT A LIAR IS A LIAR" - no they're fucking not. We like to ignore nuance here to prove our points.

False dilemma. It is not about choosing Clinton (which I assume you are implying) over Trumpy boy, as if her shittiness makes his appear less shitty. That's insane, delusional thinking right there. Nothing Clinton has done makes his lying acceptable in the slightest. If a president is willing to lie about something which can be independantly disproved (the photo's of his innauguration ffs- they don't lie), it shows that Trump holds his constituents in incredibly low regard. I don't know; I'm judging him for that and I think he's a total cunt.

Of course, you downplay anything that throws shade on Trump so I don't expect you to really see his flaws clearly. Oh well.

How about innocent until proven guilty?

Sure.

How about they illegally wiretapped him and still found no smoking gun and they're yet to even accuse him of a specific crime?

They are still investigating him, mate, howbow-dah? Lack of an accusation doesn't mean he is innocent.

Is Trump suing any of his accusers?

What are you basing your outlandish fantasies of him being a criminal on? Sensationalist reports from anonymous sources written by a provably dishonest media?

What are you basing your outlandish fantasy of me having an outlandish fantasy on? :D I'm not saying he is guilty; I don't know of course. But I'm willing to say that he is a fucking snake and I am pretty confident that he is involved in this business and will probably get impeached and hopefully jailed for this. I am saying that having judged his utter lack of character.

 

[zephyr]

OK cool so he hasn't lied about anything that matters and hasn't committed any crimes.

Why are some Democrats calling for impeachment?

Because the Democrats would think there is some chance of that happening given he is woefully inept at public speaking and a novice in office therefore could have been dumb enough to do something that will get him impeached.


His personality traits are no surprise, this is what he is like, it's not as if becoming the President would magically transform him I to a lovely gentleman who is above reproach and it's not as if any future gaffes from him about anything including dumb jokes about sexual assault will be enough to boot him out, keep being horrified at every faux pas he does, it's just him being an epic troll president, keeps his name in the headlines no effort required, no fucks given from him.

 

[JGrimez]

trying to factually desiminate these "vague rants" takes a much cooler and practiced hand than yours. i've only seen one or two people on this site alone who are capable of it.

There's rarely any facts in his rants which is why they're difficult to reply to. He's not some literary genius and he constantly throws insults and ad homs my way.

When i say grimez is a troll, this is what i'm talking about. Nobody wants to try having a mature discussion with someone that cannot or will not debate in good faith.

It's funny that I actually would like to discuss this in a mature way but you all are just moralizing.

"I don't even wait" - no consent

You can get unspoken consent.

"I don?t even wait. And when you?re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." - people don't say things like that about consentual affairs. It's not about them "letting" him - he's saying that they don't complain - which is yet another lie. He's been accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape by numerous women.

I think you're confused about what consent means. If someone lets you do something, they're ok with it. And sexual relationships generally involve a 'more masculine individual' making a move. Letting implies consent. Trump was bragging that famous, rich people are attractive. That's not news to anybody.... and neither is that some women love dominant males. (and nobody is in any position to moralize or judge what a women enjoys or wishes to do, or have done to her). Considering how many women Trump has probably been with, I'm actually surprised that there are no credible assault allegations against him. To me that proves that he treats women with respect, and is intelligent enough to know which women want and desire to be "grabbed". Are you all going to sit there and deny this reality? Or are you just going to call me a misogynist for pointing it out?

Nothing Clinton has done makes his lying acceptable in the slightest. If a president is willing to lie about something which can be independantly disproved (the photo's of his innauguration ffs- they don't lie), it shows that Trump holds his constituents in incredibly low regard. I don't know; I'm judging him for that and I think he's a total cunt.

I wouldn't say lying about crowd numbers is acceptable, but nobody gives a shit. Don't we remember that a journalist tweeted out a photo of Trump's inauguration crowd earlier in the day before everyone was there, and tried to pass it off as the final size? That shit went viral and spread fast. So it was the media that started this whole thing by LYING, it wasn't as if the admin just came out and started boasting about how they had the biggest crowd sizes. It's also very telling that this is one of the issues that people are still talking about. If this is one of the worst lies that his administration told, then I'm calling that a win.

Of course, you downplay anything that throws shade on Trump so I don't expect you to really see his flaws clearly.

This is just false. I disagree with him constantly and am vocal about it (last issues were the elephant trophies and ignoring Yemen War - also notice how my issues with him are based on policy and not irrelevant character flaws).

They are still investigating him, mate, howbow-dah? Lack of an accusation doesn't mean he is innocent.

Is Trump suing any of his accusers?

Nobody is acknowledging the reality of what's happening here.
Fruit from the poisonous tree.
Even if they did find something on Trump (and they couldn't even) the whole investigation is tainted.
You can't just wiretap an opposing candidate! Is anyone brave enough to admit how serious this is?

But I'm willing to say that he is a fucking snake and I am pretty confident that he is involved in this business and will probably get impeached and hopefully jailed for this. I am saying that having judged his utter lack of character.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

 

[JGrimez]

Trump is about to declassify the FISA warrant which will presumably be the nail in the coffin for his accusers.

As a desperate last move they're going to push for impeachment, saying that he's mentally unfit by offering the public transparency.

Let's just release it and see what all the hoo-ha is about

 

[JessFR]

I think you're confused about what consent means. If someone lets you do something, they're ok with it

I admit this honestly made me laugh a little. That's the kinda logic my brother uses to annoy me. Except he knows it's false.

Duress dude, duress! Not fighting back doesn't mean you're giving consent. Now look I get what you're saying here. You mean (or at least I really hope you mean) that they let him as in they clearly consent. But here's the problem...

You strike me as the kinda person who thinks lefty sexual politics where people virtually have to get a signed consent form to have consented to sex is all nonsense. And to be fair, to a degree it is nonsense. It's yet another good idea taken too far. But like anything there are two extremes it can come in.

The problem I think a lot of us have, myself included, is that the way trump talks pretty clearly reveals himself as someone who doesn't really care about consent at all.

It's all about context and subtlety. When trump said the word let, the context is pretty clearly meaning they let him as in they didn't resist. Or worse that they didn't resist hard enough to meet his definition of resist. The way he says all of it pretty unambiguously shows him as a man who doesn't really care about consent. He probably thinks all women would always consent to him.

But like with everything else, I don't expect you to see the reality of the situation.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

All politicians are liars. Pick your poison - someone that made a mistake (or purposefully lied depending on your interpretation or assumptions) about crowd numbers, or someone that lies about getting us into war which leads to the deaths of millions of people and the erosion of our human rights?
"BUT A LIAR IS A LIAR" - no they're fucking not. We like to ignore nuance here to prove our points.



How about innocent until proven guilty?
How about they illegally wiretapped him and still found no smoking gun and they're yet to even accuse him of a specific crime?
What are you basing your outlandish fantasies of him being a criminal on? Sensationalist reports from anonymous sources written by a provably dishonest media?
They haven't got shit and you all know it (or are dreading this inevitability)


It's cyclical because people refuse to answer my questions, they revert back to vague nothingness, and then I ask the same questions again.


A lot of people vocally oppose a lot of things. Did the SC picks say that they will work on policy to outlaw abortion? If so please present the evidence. Otherwise this is just wah-wah.
For eg removing taxpayer funding for abortions is not outlawing abortion.


FAKE NEWS - be more specific.
Ruining relations, how? With who? Is this about tariffs? Or is Trump sending us on a descent into war with our allies?
Nonsense, vague criticism that argues nothing.

Vague vague vague. Be more specific and I'll address them. But specificity exposes superficiality when it comes to criticizing Trump.

Not decent to the United States. Evening up the playing field isn't antagonizing allies.
Peace through strength - people do respect that.



Let's talk about the entire FBI top brass being fired... but nobody here actually cares to discuss the real and observable examples of the swamp-draining.... it's pretty sad coz some of us here are quite intelligent but we're too biased. We care too much about removing Trump (without justification) as opposed to learning the truth of what's happening.

I don't care if he finishes out his term or not, but I can tell you, of all of his policy that has passed, I've only thought about 5% of it would benefit the U.S. and its citizens at large. That's not based on bias, that's based on the things he has literally done.

Others such as Ali have posted huge lists of such policy, which are accurate, and I'm sure you've seen.

I'll throw a few out there just to humor you though:
-Betsy Devos, she's ruining our education system (not that it wasn't already in shambles) by favoring private education, which is clearly an attempt to undermine genuine, free education for the masses (i.e. keeping the masses stupid)
-Jeff Sessions, he hates pot, and drugs in general, and would be very happy to see 50% of the country detained in private prisons on the tax payers dollar
-Trump signed an executive order cutting international funds to any programs that even think about the word abortion. This policy is fact. I think it's wrong and amoral and a sign of things to come

There, three things, directly linked to Trump, which have legitimate evidence of moral crimes by my standards, and none of which have a thing to do with identity politics or immigrants. Now tell me, do you deny that these people and this executive order exist? Are they not evidence for me that Trump is doing the exact opposite of everything I believe this country should stand for?

I'll tack on the tax reform. It was a straight money grab by Trump and other wealthy people to further the gap between wealthy and the general population. It's 100% true, on paper, signed into law by Trump, that the tax reforms will only benefit the ultra-wealthy by the end of a decade. Now tell me how that helps me, or you, or really anyone below the top 5% of earners in the long run. How can you spin that as being a good thing for the American people, or even the broader country as a whole?

And if I recall correctly, you aren't American? How would you feel if someone who didn't win the popular vote came into your government, declared moral policy would be rolled back a century, and declared that the rich didn't need to pay taxes anymore but yours would be raised. Yes, I know it's hyperbolic, that in fact the wealthy will still pay taxes, just significantly less than they would in a system that is balanced proportionally by income. I'm trying to create a point, both that you can't be nearly as mad as us because his domestic policies don't effect you, and that you seem to view the very things I find immoral and abhorrent as being the second coming of Christ at times.

I don't understand how you can view any of these things as good. I'm basing my opinion on the exact same information available to you, facts, not media articles, things that Trump HAS done.

 

[alasdairm]

...something that doesn't even matter.

Repeating nonsense that nobody cares about...

if it doesn't matter and nobody cares about it, why did trump & spicer make such a huge deal of it? if it doesn't matter, why did the adminstration have the photos edited to try to make them look better? actions > words as you yourself have said.

and it is important because if the president willfully lies about something so trivial - not to mention so simple to disprove - it just sets the tone for his administration going forward.

Captain Delusional

for somebody who gets so bent out of shape by name calling, it's sad and hypocritical that you continue to do it.

Or it's the opposite, and it's difficult to find qualified and loyal employees...

really? in 2016 he was asked what criteria he'd use when it came to hiring. his response:

You need people that are truly, truly capable. And I think so much has to do with past history: how have they done, how has it all worked out, you understand what I mean by that perhaps better than anybody. And we have to get the best people. ? We need to get the best and the finest, and if we don?t we?ll be in trouble for a long period of time, and maybe never come out of it.

if that trump is correct, why does the other trump hire so many people who are corrupt, incompetent and/or immoral?

yet another example of trump disagreeing with you and himself.

Privacy should be for the people and transparency for the government employees - what we're seeing now is the other way around.

is this what you meant to write? i agree with you. the trump administration's record on transparency is pretty bad e.g.

• trump's availability to the press plummeted after the campaign and once he was in: "After making himself available to the press through July, Trump set a bar as the least transparent modern presidential candidate in modern history. He held no press conference until from July 2016 until January 11, 2017, released no tax returns, and made no proactive disclosures around transition or inauguration. He held his first and only solo presidential press conference on February 16, 2017."
• Secret waivers for administration officials, followed by the Office of Management and Budgets seeking to block the Office of Government Ethics from making a data call to obtain them.
• Keeping the White House visitor logs secret.
• Congress voted to remove an anti-corruption rule, which President Trump signed with fanfare, abandoning U.S. leadership on transparency of payments by the extractive industries to government.
• Secret gag orders to agencies
• A bans on recording at White House press briefing. No Wh.gov/live stream of briefing or archive of video on YouTube, as under the Obama administration. [Wh.gov/live, recorded briefings and YouTube all became functional later in 2017.]

(source: https://sunlightfoundation.com/tracking-trumps-attacks-on-transparency/)

alasdair

 

[invegauser]

There's rarely any facts in his rants which is why they're difficult to reply to. He's not some literary genius and he constantly throws insults and ad homs my way.

there's that phrase again, ad hominem. you use it like it's a life preserver when it fact you have done that more often than not in the last 24 hours to those here while using very lil facts.

i wasn't putting him on a pedestal. i could isolate anyone's way of thinking and opinion here to effectively show you that you are being too selective of what you expect from others opinions instead of taking it for what they mean, much like you expect of others to do when you speak, it's hypocritical. his was most ideal at that time and personally i think it is most accurate to how this presidency and subsequent way of life is going to be and he's not even american; i'm willing to bet i'm not the only one who agrees with much of the outlook he provided on the state of how this country is being ran.

yes, you can pick apart and choose what you want to hear, there is no doubt of this for any person alive, dead or yet to be born. but cherry picking opinions and facts of others doesn't make you anymore favorable in swinging anyone's opinions to your way of thinking and accepting trump as a great president. and it doesn't make you any more correct regardless of how many facts you toss down range (you still didn't learn anything from our exchange in the last week or two).

i was simply pointing out that last "vague rant" you quickly dismissed was deflecting on your part (much like trump is known to do) but you went ahead and proved me right with the above quote in your own words stating that facts are the only point to which an exchange of ideas could be met with.

"small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas."

 

[alasdairm]

There's rarely any facts in his rants...

something we can all agree on

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

The problem I think a lot of us have, myself included, is that the way trump talks pretty clearly reveals himself as someone who doesn't really care about consent at all.

I understand and respect your opinion, but it's not based on any evidence or fact.
Like I stated he has no credible sexual assault allegations against him. If Trump "doesn't really care about consent at all" (like a Harvey Weinstein for eg), we'd be seeing a long list of women who can claim they've been assaulted by Trump and can corroborate their stories. He actually does care about consent, and I can personally see how someone watching him or listening to his words can get a certain impression while the reality is the exact opposite. You're right I do not agree with the super lefty "sign a consent form" revision of sexual relationships. The way that some men and women consensually interact would give some of these leftists heart attacks. But again I will say, if 2 consenting adults engage in a practice that hurts your sensibilities - that's too bad, one has no right to judge (until someone complains or files a police report).

It's all about context and subtlety. When trump said the word let, the context is pretty clearly meaning they let him as in they didn't resist. Or worse that they didn't resist hard enough to meet his definition of resist. The way he says all of it pretty unambiguously shows him as a man who doesn't really care about consent. He probably thinks all women would always consent to him.

Sorry but that's a load of BS. You can be extremely sexually aggressive and still back off if a woman doesn't respond to your advances or says no. Then you stop. Very simple. I know this will shock some of you but it comes down to social intelligence and being able to read people. The ones who are bad at this end up with sexual assault allegations leveled against them, the ones who are good at this are Donald Trump.

But like with everything else, I don't expect you to see the reality of the situation.

I know exactly what you're saying and you know that I am in fact speaking of the reality. Maybe you're talking about how you'd like the world to be, I'm talking about how it is.

I don't care if he finishes out his term or not, but I can tell you, of all of his policy that has passed, I've only thought about 5% of it would benefit the U.S. and its citizens at large. That's not based on bias, that's based on the things he has literally done.

So I disagree with your assessment. And that's politics. We disagree. I find the vast majority of his policies are doing what's best for the interests of the American people (also without systematically slaughtering people overseas which is a bonus).

Others such as Ali have posted huge lists of such policy, which are accurate, and I'm sure you've seen.

A lot of what people post here is not accurate, this is the biggest problem we face in this forum (and politics in general) IMO.
I don't need to get into the countless examples of the MSM destroying their credibility. I'm not saying everything they publish is fake news, but everything (all media sources) require some pretty stringent fact-checking these days (and I am NOT talking about Snopes or Politifact).

I'll throw a few out there just to humor you though:

Humor me? This should be the basis of discussion in this thread.

-Betsy Devos, she's ruining our education system (not that it wasn't already in shambles) by favoring private education, which is clearly an attempt to undermine genuine, free education for the masses (i.e. keeping the masses stupid)

I don't know enough about this. I would appreciate some links explaining it (hopefully from as objective a source as possible).

Jeff Sessions, he hates pot, and drugs in general, and would be very happy to see 50% of the country detained in private prisons on the tax payers dollar

This is a nothing. Doesn't matter if Sessions hates cookies and pancakes, if he's not making wild rulings then it's irrelevant.
President Trump to Cory Gardner: Colorado?s legal marijuana won?t be targeted by Jeff Sessions, Justice Department - if this changes then you will have reason for concern. I doubt it will though, we forget (because media calls him a Nazi) but Trump is by far the most socially liberal president we've ever had.

Trump signed an executive order cutting international funds to any programs that even think about the word abortion. This policy is fact. I think it's wrong and amoral and a sign of things to come

Are you referring to the policy "which keeps foreign aid from going to groups that provide abortion services"?
There is arguably a more justifiable argument that abortion is amoral but let's not get into that. There is nothing wrong with halting taxpayer funding for abortions. Why are people conflating this with banning abortions? Biggest fake news headline. I have no problem with cutting taxpayer funding for abortions - many taxpayers are vehemently against abortion (with good reason) so it's fair that they shouldn't foot the bill.

There, three things, directly linked to Trump, which have legitimate evidence of moral crimes by my standards, and none of which have a thing to do with identity politics or immigrants. Now tell me, do you deny that these people and this executive order exist? Are they not evidence for me that Trump is doing the exact opposite of everything I believe this country should stand for?

Thank you, finally!
I'm actually really glad you did that because I have no major problems so far with anything that you've just mentioned (I'll need to look into the Devos issue but I dare say the narrative has been spun while ignoring any benefits that may arise from said alleged policy).

I'll tack on the tax reform. It was a straight money grab by Trump and other wealthy people to further the gap between wealthy and the general population. It's 100% true, on paper, signed into law by Trump, that the tax reforms will only benefit the ultra-wealthy by the end of a decade. Now tell me how that helps me, or you, or really anyone below the top 5% of earners in the long run. How can you spin that as being a good thing for the American people, or even the broader country as a whole?

There are many benefits to tax breaks including financial relief for the poorest Americans - why does everyone keep saying this will only benefit the rich? Do you have a source for that claim that it will only benefit the ultra-wealthy by the end of the decade? Can you offer a list of positives or benefits that will arise from the tax breaks? It's important to weigh up all pros and cons and then decide whether the policy will be beneficial overall. Coz so far all I've heard from working Americans is that they're pleased with the tax reform (as I would be).

And if I recall correctly, you aren't American?

I'm a US citizen I've said this many times, and plan to relocate back there soon.

How would you feel if someone who didn't win the popular vote

I'd be appalled if LA, NYC & Chicago were deciding who the POTUS should be.

came into your government, declared moral policy would be rolled back a century, and declared that the rich didn't need to pay taxes anymore but yours would be raised. Yes, I know it's hyperbolic, that in fact the wealthy will still pay taxes, just significantly less than they would in a system that is balanced proportionally by income. I'm trying to create a point, both that you can't be nearly as mad as us because his domestic policies don't effect you, and that you seem to view the very things I find immoral and abhorrent as being the second coming of Christ at times.

I think they should abolish income tax altogether as it's mostly it's a big scam (look at how much gets misappropriated). Politicians are notoriously fucked with handling tax money, I don't think anyone would disagree with this (apart from the ones arguing for higher taxes SMH talk about Stockholm Syndrome). I have a massive problem with huge corporations skirting the law to avoid paying their fair share. I'm not going to blame Trump for creating that system, but by the end of his term(s) if this hasn't changed at all, then I could lay some blame on Trump for not helping to fix the problem (just like I blame Obama for the GFC and not holding anyone accountable or attempting to reform the system).

I don't understand how you can view any of these things as good. I'm basing my opinion on the exact same in
formation available to you, facts, not media articles, things that Trump HAS done.

You honestly can't understand? I thought I was making some simple, salient points from a contrasting point of view. But I do thank you for engaging in a mature and detailed discussion based on policy.

if it doesn't matter and nobody cares about it, why did trump & spicer make such a huge deal of it?

Because the entire legacy media was lying in order to try and deligitimize the presidency, right off the bat. I don't blame them for getting defensive, yes they made a mistake with the numbers, but people expect an admin to make mistakes. As long as it's petty mistakes that aren't getting people killed or us into war, then it's no big deal. If it was an honest mistake, do you honestly have a problem with it? Or are you convinced that it was a conscious lie (the purpose of which makes no sense because they were going to eventually get fact-checked).

if it doesn't matter, why did the adminstration have the photos edited to try to make them look better? actions > words as you yourself have said.

I don't believe this, sorry. Source?

iand it is important because if the president willfully lies about something so trivial - not to mention so simple to disprove - it just sets the tone for his administration going forward.

I agree with this in principle, but are you going to deny that the MSM circulated that half-full crowd under false pretenses? At least be honest about what happened and instigated the whole incident. If it was an honest mistake, I don't care at all. If it was a concerted lie - different story, I disagree with them doing that as they didn't need to to refute the fake news, and it just made things worse.

for somebody who gets so bent out of shape by name calling, it's sad and hypocritcal than you continue to do it.

Why didn't you call him out for insulting me in the previous post? Did I instigate the insult or did I merely call him what he called me?
Calling me out is the definition of cry-bully.
I've stated that I will refrain from insulting anyone as requested under the rules - but if someone does that to me then I'll respond in kind. Fair? Easy to avoid, just don't insult me..

if that trump is correct, why does the other trump hire so many people who are corrupt, incompetent and/or immoral?

I've gone over his appointments before. I will wait to see how they perform under their new boss. "Immoral/incompetent" is too vague and "corrupt' can be proven in a court of law with evidence so I'm open to seeing that and rallying against anyone engaged in government corruption. Also what you're ignoring here is the difference between hiring for business and politics. The stakes are much higher now and it is far easier to find someone to fill a position in the private sector. Looking at how things are improving, I'd say that Trump's hiring (and firing) practices are fine for the time being.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/tracking-trumps-attacks-on-transparency/

Thanks for the link, if this is all true I'd have an issue with it, unless some of it was done for temporary protective or security purposes (withholding White House visitor logs for example).
But I am very anti the removal of government transparency so I will look into this.

there's that phrase again, ad hominem. you use it like it's a life preserver when it fact you have done that more often than not in the last 24 hours to those here while using very lil facts.

Bullshit, why do you have to lie? Show me where I ad hom'd someone recently, and then look at SJ's posts directed at me - FULL OF THEM. There's no denying this, I've been very patient (coz I'll get banned otherwise).

personally i think it is most accurate to how this presidency and subsequent way of life is going to be and he's not even american

Lol coz I think he speaks complete nonsense and is rarely right about anything.

"small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas."

He can't differentiate between a social program and a socialist government.
I've read enough of his seething, repetitious and mentally-masturbatory rants to know that he has very little insight to offer, at least in regards to the Donald Trump presidency and the current US political climate.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

NPR is my favorite news source and the one I feel has the least bias these days. I also like the BBC but they're quite a bit biased so I'll try and simply use NPR for these.

Devos tried to remove student loan protections:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...er-for-defrauded-students-to-seek-debt-relief

Students are some of the most taken-advantage-of social group in the country when it comes to loans and she wants to be sure they can't be protected from shady practices, which I'm sure we can all agree is not in the interest of students at large.

Rollbacks on university sexual misconduct enforcement:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...pullback-on-campus-sex-misconduct-enforcement

Not sure why she even wants to do that.

Article about her confirmation which details her views on education:
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...s-secretary-of-education-confirmation-hearing

She believes public school funds should be reallocated to private institutions under the guise of 'choice'. I'm all for sending your kid to a charter or magnet school (I attended a magnet school myself) but it's your damn dollars that are gonna pay for it if you want that extra stuff, all this reallocation of funds would do is further destroy the viability of public schooling and create a wider gap between those who can afford to send their kids to pay-to-attend institutions and those who are forced to send their kids to ever worsening public schools.


In regards to Jeff Sessions, sure he hasn't succeeded in doing anything yet, but he definitely would if he could:
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/04/575679429/attorney-general-rescinds-obama-era-marijuana-guidelines

And I'm sure he has a hand in the Trump Admin.'s policies regarding the opioid crisis, which seeks enforcment rather than treatment, and certainly doesn't address WHY people use opioids:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...focus-on-opioid-law-enforcement-not-treatment


I'm sure I can find more if you want.


I also believe in the ending of income taxes, there's a number of ways the government could much more effectively earn income, such as taxing pot, heroin, LSD, etc. instead of SPENDING to keep those drugs illegal. If we are to live in a system that has income taxes, then I want the wealthy to shoulder the brunt of it. If you're earning more than 100k/year, you don't need anymore. I'm not talking total-communism where we take everything past that, I just think anything past the base 100k/year should be more heavily taxed, say, 30%. As in, you get to keep that first 100k, but if you earn 200k, you only get 170k/year total after tax. I think that's pretty damn reasonable, and certainly it's logical. It's even fair I'd venture to say.

I did see tax breaks on my paychecks when I was earning ~20k/year, which amounted to about 8 dollars per paycheck. Whoopie, I can buy an extra six-pack to drink away my sorrows about how little I earn. So I guess that's good? I'll be earning ~50k/year at my new job, and I'm sure I'll see more like 20 bucks back per paycheck or something. But the fact of the matter is, the tax breaks for anyone earning less than six-figures ends after a decade, so if you do know any working class folks excited about the tax breaks, well... clearly they didn't research the whole tax reform code, because they're gonna have one less six pack per week in ten years, and I doubt they'll be happy about that.


For the record, I do understand why you believe what you believe Grimez, but I don't believe you reached your conclusions via logic.

 

[JessFR]

You talk about the need for evidence a lot, innocent until proven guilty. In many contexts that's a good thing, but I think it's worth noting, that we the voters don't actually require evidence. In democratic countries like America, the leader is empowered by the consent of the people, who reserve the right to withdraw that consent for any reason at every election. We need evidence to impeach and prosecute trump for crimes against the United States yes, but we don't need proof beyond reasonable doubt to decide not to allow him to remain president. None of us require a criminal standard of evidence to believe he shouldnt remain president.

I believe trump has committed sexual offenses. I wouldn't go so far as to call him an outright rapist, but I see sufficient evidence to think if all the facts were known that he'd be liable for prosecution. Now, yes we do need evidence if we want to see him prosecuted for that. But we need no evidence to withdraw support for him to remain president.

Now, of course we should have our own standards of evidence for determining the competence and effectiveness of the president. Although we're not required too, we should try and have good reasons for wanting to get rid of a president. But my point is that those reasons do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The standards of evidence to deprive someone of their freedom should indeed be very high. But the standard of evidence to deprive someone of their office as president should probably be pretty low. There are several hundred million people who could be president. Why should the American people tolerate any less than the best? And I think the best shouldn't have anyone accusing them of assault. Let alone a dozen.

Sadly I'd say that at the last election both candidates were closer to representing the worst. But I don't have supported Hilary Clinton to want to see trump out of office.

 

[invegauser]

Show me where I ad hom'd someone recently

Stop pretending

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Nobody is acknowledging the reality of what's happening here.

Sounds like a Democrat to me

None of that is true because you can't deny evidence

Captain Delusional

You're just generalizing and making assumptions to reinforce your preconceived belief.

What are you basing your outlandish fantasies

because people refuse to answer my questions

Nonsense, vague criticism that argues nothing.

nobody here gives a shit because they don't want to discuss it

Ironic because it is you who is actually reframing it

Sorry but that's a load of BS

I know this will shock some of you but it comes down to social intelligence and being able to read people

bullshit, why do you have to lie

He can't differentiate between a social program and a socialist government

I've read enough of his seething, repetitious and mentally-masturbatory rants to know that he has very little insight to offer

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Stop pretending

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Nobody is acknowledging the reality of what's happening here.

Sounds like a Democrat to me

None of that is true because you can't deny evidence

Captain Delusional

You're just generalizing and making assumptions to reinforce your preconceived belief.

What are you basing your outlandish fantasies

because people refuse to answer my questions

Nonsense, vague criticism that argues nothing.

nobody here gives a shit because they don't want to discuss it

Ironic because it is you who is actually reframing it

Sorry but that's a load of BS

I know this will shock some of you but it comes down to social intelligence and being able to read people

bullshit, why do you have to lie

He can't differentiate between a social program and a socialist government

I've read enough of his seething, repetitious and mentally-masturbatory rants to know that he has very little insight to offer

Agreed.

 

[spacejunk]

Show me where I ad hom'd someone recently

I understand and respect your opinion, but it's not based on any evidence or fact.

The most pathetic thing is that i only has to read the first line of one of your posts to answer that.
It makes me think "troll".

It's why i stopped engaging - and i'd encourage others to do the same.
We can have constructive conversations if we ignore time-wasters. That's what i post here for - to discuss politics, not to try to understand or force myself to be heard above obsessive, fanatical voices.

 

[JGrimez]

Guys, go research what an ad hom is, please.
And stop falsely accusing me, do I look like Judge Kavanaugh?
"Captain Delusional" is the only one and that was a direct reply to him calling me delusional - Mr Crybully.
Saying that I think someone's opinion is wrong - or that they're lying - isn't an ad hom.
Also btw I'm not saying that I have a problem with people throwing insults - I just wish it was allowed both ways.
Remember I'm the one who got called out for it - not the one that insulted me first. Let's just play fair - if you let it slide for one person let it slide for all. So far I think we've done ok at being as civil as possible to one another while still throwing the occasional jab for humor or emphasis.

You talk about the need for evidence a lot, innocent until proven guilty. In many contexts that's a good thing, but I think it's worth noting, that we the voters don't actually require evidence.

Are you being serious? Let's just make up accusations based on nothing then.
If you don't require evidence to come to a conclusion which will influence your vote - then you should be placed into the people who are not allowed to vote that you were arguing for.

but we don't need proof beyond reasonable doubt to decide not to allow him to remain president. None of us require a criminal standard of evidence to believe he shouldnt remain president.

So you think Trump shouldn't be president, but you can't offer evidence as to why. You can't remove an elected president because you don't like him.

I believe trump has committed sexual offenses. I wouldn't go so far as to call him an outright rapist, but I see sufficient evidence to think if all the facts were known that he'd be liable for prosecution. Now, yes we do need evidence if we want to see him prosecuted for that.

This makes zero sense. You see sufficient evidence that there might exist sufficient evidence? Based on what?
Which accuser do you consider the most credible?

But we need no evidence to withdraw support for him to remain president.

If that's your stance then I reiterate that you shouldn't vote.

The standards of evidence to deprive someone of their freedom should indeed be very high. But the standard of evidence to deprive someone of their office as president should probably be pretty low. There are several hundred million people who could be president. Why should the American people tolerate any less than the best? And I think the best shouldn't have anyone accusing them of assault. Let alone a dozen.

Let me remind you those accusations either went nowhere or were thrown out. He was never convicted of anything even remotely close to assault and has never settled out of court.
So what you're saying is that if someone is President, a dozen or so people could fake some assault allegations and that would be sufficient to remove them as President?
'Evidence' is not some right-wing buzzword, it's how we logically decide whether someone is talking shit or not.

For the record, I do understand why you believe what you believe Grimez, but I don't believe you reached your conclusions via logic.

Thanks for the links, I will do some reading and try to see what's going on there.
Without knowing too much about Devos I do think she was placed into her position because she can be trusted, not necessarily because she's the best person for the job. Unfortunately that's what it has come to at this point with so many DC snakes in the grass all trying to take down a democratically-elected president in what basically amounts to a coup. I do agree that the US education system shat itself a long time ago so I'm not blaming Trump for the current state of affairs like many others are wont to do - but education is definitely an important issue.

 

[invegauser]

@spacejunk: agreed

i think trump needs a hobby or a dog, something that might build some character.

if he turns that financial manipulation into a focus to help the american economy, i think he could take a huge chunk out of the national debt and start making progress that could help those who are the backbone of this country to be in a place where they are productive instead of surviving in it.

more wishful thinking maybe.

 

[JessFR]

I'm gonna assume in good faith here that you just honestly misunderstood what I'm saying rather than doing so on purpose.

I'm not saying people shouldn't want evidence in their decision making about who to vote for. I'm saying they don't need evidence beyond reasonably doubt. There are different standards of evidence for different situations. One standard of evidence in US law is known as a preponderance of the evidence, used in civil trials. That standard only requires that you believe an assertion is more likely than not. More than 50% likely to be true.

I'm arguing that that's a standard appropriate for evaluating who should be president. The lowest standard. Because losing an election deprives you of nothing you didn't start with, you're trying to gain enormous power.

Voters are not obligated nor should they be to use the highest standard of evidence in deciding who to vote for. The costs of mistake are too great. If you're gonna be president, it should be more likely than not that you've done nothing wrong, and I'm saying on that standard I feel trump fails miserably. One of the worst presidents in recent memory by this standard.

You seem to think all evidence in all situations has the same standard, evidence beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. But that's not true either in the legal system or elsewhere.

There are many standards of evidence, and for becoming president I don't think the evidence of wrongdoing should be very high for determining if they should be elected or not. We don't have a shortage of people who want the job.

Most presidents and even more presidential candidates have managed to not have a dozen women accuse them of assault. And with trumps personality and what he's on record as saying, by a preponderance of the evidence I think it's more likely than not that he is guilty. And that's perfectly valid enough reason to not vote for him and to want to see him out of office.

 

[JGrimez]

Considering how badly some people want Trump to be removed - and how they could do so with a legitimate, credible sexual assault allegation.......... WELL WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY?

How's that for reasonable doubt? Honest question - where are the credible accusations?? JUST REMOVE THE RAPIST IF HE'S A FUCKING RAPIST.

 

[JGrimez]

The Latest: Kim says summit with Trump stabilized region
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/09/18/latest-kim-says-summit-with-trump-stabilized-region.html

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un says his June summit with U.S. President Donald Trump has stabilized the regional security situation.

South Korean media pool reports say Kim made the comment during a meeting with South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

The reports say Kim thanked Moon for brokering his summit with Trump in Singapore.

The leaders of the two Koreas had their first in-depth talks in Pyongyang on Tuesday. The talks are to continue Wednesday and Moon is expected to return to Seoul on Thursday.

Kim Jong Un has agreed to allow Nuclear inspections, subject to final negotiations, and to permanently dismantle a test site and launch pad in the presence of international experts. In the meantime there will be no Rocket or Nuclear testing. Hero remains to continue being returned home to the United States. Also, North and South Korea will file a joint bid to host the 2032 Olympics. Very exciting!