The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

[JGrimez]

I reckon it had to be done to take the spotlight off their chosen candidate.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

We have an ever growing list of the Dems crying wolf when there is no wolf. This is just the latest episode, and with each round they are less and less believable. There will always be a chance at some point that something turns up to convict Trump of something, so long as the Sun continues to rise in the East there will be a chance. However, at some point people have to ask if this Dem leadership are actually leaders, or just bitter power grabbers.

A serious question I see on the horizon, specifically for the 2020 elections, is 'what have you done for me' being asked by the public.

We have a decades old issue of illegal immigration which Trump addressed and the Dems fought him on. Where is the outrage today? Was Trump actually in the wrong - if so why is this not still a main talking point? What solution have the Dems put forth? Was Trump right, and the problem is fixed, hence we don't hear about it anymore?

We have issues of the gov't spying on it's people going back thru Obama, I believe into Bush, perhaps back to Clinton? Have the Dems done anything to uncover this and address it? Ever? Because, Trump has. Actually, I did read an article the other day of how Obama praised the whistleblowers as being the only ones we can trust to uncover corruption and waste...and then he prosecuted more whistelblowers than any previous regime.

We've been climbing out of a recession since early Obama years. Trump's taking credit (rightly, or more often wrongly) for continued economic growth for our country. What, if anything, can the Dems hang their hat on?

Obamacare was forced upon America, many didn't like it but many did benefit. I honestly haven't seen Trump nor the Dems put forth anything beyond Trump's roll backs - neither side really giving us ideas forward.

Dems ran on 'impeach Trump', or in some districts it is 'impeach fo-fi'. That one campaign promise they have tried endlessly to fulfill and have come up empty every time. So, in looking back, why would I count on a Dem candidate to help the country move forward in the next term? Dems haven't done anything for the country, only fought to remove Trump.

Trump has done quite a bit. Many will agree, and others will disagree, if it was the right direction - fair enough, we all have different priorities. But at the end of the day, Trump has accomplishments, against a headwind like no other President has faced. And in the meantime the Dems have bupkis to show for their time in office. And I'm not even talking about Reps, as Trump is a blackhole stealing all the sunlight when it comes to who is doing what. I haven't heard or seen of Reps doing anything but hiding in the shadows this entire term. But this thread is about Trump. I see he can hold up a list of things he's done for America. And next to it, he can hold up a list of failed impeachment attempts by the Dems and nothing for the public.

I hope everyone sees what's going on here.

Indeed.

 

[JGrimez]

Trump turned out to be not as bad as his haters predicted and not as good as his supporters predicted. I see him as just another politician now but I think he is slightly less prone for war (currently). He hasn't started any new wars but he hasn't reversed any as promised. Sent more troops to Afghanistan. Also this nasty business with Saudi oil and trying to bait Iran into a war at the behest of Israel. Typical deep state stuff. I have a feeling Trump is resisting the big scenario but I don't think he has that much control over what's happening on the international stage.

It's perplexing to me how foreign policy/wars just always continue regardless of who's in charge, bolstered by the media, but said media is also rabidly anti-Trump. It really does seem like different factions within the government jockeying for position to lead us towards the inevitable.

 

[mal3volent]

We have an ever growing list of the Dems crying wolf when there is no wolf. This is just the latest episode, and with each round they are less and less believable.

You honestly believe that? This is not the Mueller investigation (I admitted democrats overplayed their hand with that). There is a ton of indisputable evidence, most provided by the White House itself.

There are witnesses...corroboration...records...and most importantly a coverup which shows there was corrupt intent.

Already there has been additional crimes, just since the recent revelations. Witness intimidation, death threats. These are serious things that we cannot tolerate. No matter what your politics are.

(Also the big difference in my mind is these are actions by the sitting US president, not a presidential nominee like in the Mueller probe. Also HRC has never been president, either (can I get a hallelujah) so anything she has done can't even begin to compare to this)

 

[TheLoveBandit]

You honestly believe that?

Yes. I honestly believe that. I have no love of Trump, any affection I show for him is more out of my dislike for those who hunt him endlessly without substance and just spite. I've watched it played out over and over and have yet to see hard proof of wrongdoing. It's continually been 'overplaying their hand' in my view. I accept that there are different interpretations to be made on 'facts', as we see over and over by both sides, but I've yet to see actual proof that I take as Trump did something wrong.

This is not the Mueller investigation (I admitted democrats overplayed their hand with that). There is a ton of indisputable evidence, most provided by the White House itself.

There are witnesses...corroboration...records...and most importantly a coverup which shows there was corrupt intent.

The witness wasn't there and admitted it is second hand info. There are questions being raised as to HOW this person would know information that does not pertain to their scope of work = access to leaked info is a problem, but I'll admit that is separate from the info being 'illegal' in content if that is the case. So far, I'm not seeing 'indisputable evidence' of wrongdoing. I'm seeing things that look bad and can be interpreted viewed as bad, but there is not a clear path of facts and illegal doings from A to B to C. There is assumptions and assertions, eerily similar to the Muellar situation, and to Kavanaugh, where the Dems are pointing and screaming foul, but a close look at the evidence does not show it.

The witness = wasn't there, is speaking from second hand info
corroboration = by whom? The Ukrainian guy who admitted he was just recycling what he read in the news?
records = which are you referring to? The transcript?
cover up = Do you mean the transcript that was shared? Or the whistle blower report that was shared? Or something else, something that is not within the President's right to restrict access to, even if it was his lunch menu and doesn't need safe keeping?

If you feel anything provided is 'indisputable evidence' I'd appreciate your view on it. I can admit when I'm wrong and would want to know how to correct my view.

Already there has been additional crimes, just since the recent revelations. Witness intimidation, death threats. These are serious things that we cannot tolerate. No matter what your politics are.

Woah, woah, woah. Witness intimidation? DEATH THREATS? This I've not heard of. Help?

 

[mal3volent]

Woah, woah, woah. Witness intimidation? DEATH THREATS? This I've not heard of. Help?

Video can be seen here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/almost-a-spy-transcript-of-trumps-remarks-at-private-un-event-about-whistleblower/2019/09/26/f85477fe-e0bb-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Article from:

Trump Suggests Executing the Whistle-Blower’s Sources Like “in the Old Days”

“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?”

www.vanityfair.com

I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that’s close to a spy,” Trump told staffers with the United States Mission to the United Nations this morning, according to the New York Times. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.” To be clear, that’s the president of the United States seemingly suggesting that the government execute the whistle-blower’s sources, which is how we used to “handle” things in the old days. He’s also claiming that the intelligence official who filed the claim against him—whose identity he does not know!—is “crooked,” a charge he upgraded from last week, when he was simply calling the unknown person a political hack.

Elsewhere during the remarks—during which, let‘s just repeat it for posterity, the president alluded to executing people for making him look bad—Trump reportedly again insisted, baselessly, that Joe Biden tried to have a Ukrainian prosecutor removed in order to protect his son. He also condemned the reporting around the whistleblower complaint and apparently called the media “scum” which tracks.

According to the Times, “some in the crowd laughed” as Trump discussed what he would like to do to the whistle-blower’s sources, which we assume preceded the thought bubble, “Holy shit, is this guy serious?”

 

[mal3volent]

So far, I'm not seeing 'indisputable evidence' of wrongdoing.

Trump leveraged tax payers money (Ukraine aid that includes missiles they need for their survival) to get dirt on Joe Biden, a political rival. The memo released by the White House confirms this. There have been several reports from the inside that confirm this.

Giuliani and Barr acted inappropriately as well. As did the acting DNI who went to the White House to ask permission to release a whistleblower report about wrongdoing in the White House.

When they found out about the whistleblower, they moved the call transcript and any relevant material to a separate location. A cover up. They were hoping they could keep the report buried until they could figure out a way to make the whole thing go away.

The President, his attorney, and the AG colluded with the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Joe Biden. Then the tried to cover it up. When it got out anyway, Trump went out in public and basically threatened the whistleblower and anyone who helped him.

 

[alasdairm]

^ in related news, trump's own acting director of national intelligence disagrees with him. testifyign before a house committee yesterday he stated that the whitleblower did the right thing:

I believe that the whistleblower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law...

Trump turned out to be not as bad as his haters predicted...

i don't hate trump - hate is an ugly emotion - but i don't respect him and have a big problem with many things he's done and said. he's turned out to be every bit as bad - if not worse - as i feared...

I see him as just another politician...

look at you! i saw him as just another politician when he began his campaign but i was told he was different. not a politician! a washington outsider! a swamp-drainer!

awesome that you've finally caught up

alasdair

 

[mal3volent]

Also...if the call was a "beautiful and perfect" according to Trump, why did they hide it in a code word protected server?

 

[alasdairm]

a private server? that's a criminal offense surely?



alasdair

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Even Republicans are getting behind this.

A first: Vermont GOP governor backs Trump impeachment probe

Vermont's governor has become the first Republican chief executive to support an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump but cautions that he wants to know more before any further actions are taken

abcnews.go.com

 

[JessFR]

If I were a republican I'd be very concerned that trump might fail disastrously, and take republican political prospects for the next decade with him.

Actually, while I'm not a republican it concerns me regardless, because I don't like the idea of either party getting too much power at any given time.

In my mind, Trump is not a republican. I think of Trump as independent. Who happens to be allied with the Republicans. In the same way as I see him as an atheist who just happens to be politically allied with the Christian right.

 

[JGrimez]

This is not the Mueller investigation (I admitted democrats overplayed their hand with that). There is a ton of indisputable evidence, most provided by the White House itself.

Democrats never learn, which is why they continuously fail. Why is everyone ignoring that the real scandal here involves Biden?

he's turned out to be every bit as bad - if not worse - as i feared...

How? Things haven't changed that much at all. If anything there's been less direct wars.
What were your predictions when Trump won?

look at you! i saw him as just another politician when he began his campaign but i was told he was different. not a politician!

He was literally not a politician. He had zero official experience in politics.

a washington outsider!

Washington hates him. He is an outsider. He managed to get Republicans to join forces with Democrats to resist him.

la swamp-drainer!

This is true I thought he would do better at cleaning up. Turns out it's just one deep state faction against the other.

awesome that you've finally caught up

The reasons that I now dislike him are way out of your frame of perception. I'd probably disagree on the reasons why you disapprove of him.

 

[mal3volent]

real scandal here involves Biden?

Right

 

[JessFR]

The one thing I'm happy about with Trump. Is that, we could have gotten someone as corrupt as him with just as much need for power, but smart and cunning enough to pull it off. Then we'd be in real trouble.

Fortunately we dodged a bullet and trump is so incompetent and out of touch with reality that he's all but certain to wind up exposing all his corrupt behavior. Probably through hastey and incompetent attempts to cover it up.

 

[JGrimez]

Corrupt how? What crimes do you think he has committed?

 

[Nicomorphinist]

Trump turned out to be not as bad as his haters predicted and not as good as his supporters predicted. I see him as just another politician now but I think he is slightly less prone for war (currently). He hasn't started any new wars but he hasn't reversed any as promised. Sent more troops to Afghanistan. Also this nasty business with Saudi oil and trying to bait Iran into a war at the behest of Israel. Typical deep state stuff. I have a feeling Trump is resisting the big scenario but I don't think he has that much control over what's happening on the international stage.

It's perplexing to me how foreign policy/wars just always continue regardless of who's in charge, bolstered by the media, but said media is also rabidly anti-Trump. It really does seem like different factions within the government jockeying for position to lead us towards the inevitable.

For some reason, American Democrats and the left-of-centre folks seem to be the biggest warmongers and Wall Street types. Not necessarily the rank & file all of them and all of the officials -- Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (Democrat - Hawai'i II. District) surely has given the establishment the vapours and a case of The Fear already.

It's more baiting Iran at the instigation of Saudi Arabia, isn't it? Even Netanyahu, who is on the right of Israeli politics has had his hot microphone and off-the-record comments about things like he knows that Iran wants nuclear weapons because of Saudi Arabia and other miscreants. . . . a lot of what people like Ahmadinejad in particular but a lot of the leaders have to say about Israel is for regional consumption and even after 40 years they still are not the leaders of the Islamic world to any real extent because of it. Back in 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini took over, the first morning one of the groups of people waiting to talk to him were the Chief Rabbis of Tehran, Shiraz and a number of other Jewish leaders and they were satisfied apparently and despite some shrinkage the country still has a larger Jewish population than any Near East or North African country and the second-largest in South Central Asia after India, whose public, politicians and government are now actually more pro-Israel than the United States.

There also is some element of self-defence in what Israel does do -- they get this little piece of the Levant with no oil under it and the neighbours wont leave them alone. Their strongest critics, well look at a map, the whole Near East and North Africa, Pakistan also is run by off-the-charts Israel haters and anti-Semites, all that adds up to almost a billion people and probably well over 100 times the land area. Certainly a huge percentage of the oil and natural gas and even more before the giant deposits in the US, Canada, Brazil and Madagascar were discovered relatively recently. I know about the awful refugee camp situation going back to 1948 and the other indignities faced by Palestinians, but in addition to the other chunks west of the Jordan they have their own country already -- it is called The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and their King and others unwillingness to step up to the plate is something one never hears about, not since the situation they helped form exacerbated the middle stages of the Lebanese Civil War. That two-state solution has been around since before Israel was a country -- it is called Revisionist Zionism and was the founding principle of Likud, the party of Netanyahu amongst others, and the ideology goes back to the days of Herzl at the very beginning. Of course the British government selling both groups a pig in a poke in 1917 didn't help.

Then Saudi Arabia's hydrocarbon blackmail makes it necessary, so Washington and Wall Street thinks, to deal with these folks led by Mr Bone Saw and they want to kill Shi'ites and others at every opportunity, government newspapers serialise The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem about as regularly as a lot of newspapers do restaurant reviews. It is truly awful and there are plenty of Muslims and Arabs upset about it too. It really is a shame that their malfeasance gets one of the world's great religions (Islam) and great civilisations (Arabs) painted with the same bloody, oily brush in the view of the majority of voters who don't do their homework.

Warts & all, I think the only thing President Trump did as far as imperialism, well the kinetic imperialism that blows shit up and kills people, was that missile/drone strike on Syria based upon shaky, tendentious evidence, and apparently has the attitude "Jesus Christ, I'm not doing that again" he should have been consistent and not been cowed and brought all of those 2000 troops home. That was the whole idea of the Islamic State of Iraq & al-Sham to lure Western and especially US troops in to kill them, so the US would kill all but 5000 or 14 400 or something of them, thereby catalysing the Apocalypse. How much better is Saudi Arabia, whose policy in the southern Arabian peninsula is actually to kill every last Houthi, who are five-imam Shi'ites and at home answer disent with swords in public and bone saws behind closed doors? Their buddies al-Qaida joined the cause a long time ago, and the Saudi's interest in the war in Syria is that not only are there 12-imam Shi'tes to kill, but Alawites plus Maronite, Orthodox, Jacobite, Chaldean, Armenian and other Christians, Yazidis, Druze, 7-imam Shi'ites, moderate and secular Sunnis, fire-worshippers, all sorts of folks . . .

It also makes more sense that Iran, being concerned about Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan and others in that neighbourhood would find being a quarter-turn of a screwdriver from the bomb rather than sinking money into building them right away to be more sensible. Israel I think has the fourth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world now and certainly the most diverse -- why lob a 15 kilotonne bomb at them and get your whole country vitrified and turned into a car park? The Iranian government may have some loons in it, but they are not stupid. Unlike Saudi Arabia they actually have a Western style constitution and elections, after a fashion, and so forth. That things don't change very fast is partly the extra hierarchy atop the system, the Expediency Council and so forth, and having 70-85 per cent of the population on the Big O and other narcotics.

 

[Nicomorphinist]

Corrupt how? What crimes do you think he has committed?

Can they impeach someone for what they did before being elected anyways? The timing on this had more to do with the Democratic primary as some of those candidates, anti-establishment ones especially, have come out against it as a waste of time and resources some time ago. They want to try to get rid of those candidates. There is also the anti-Russian part of it. There is a species of anti-Trumpers who have it in for all Slavonic peoples it seems -- HRC also mentioned Macedonian "hackers" and additional "fake news" people in Croatia, his wife is a Slovene and ex-wife was a Czech . . . and what exactly did Trump actually do? He smoothed over relations because Russia has a lot of nukes too, and have to deal with a lot of the same terrorists the US does.

 

[JGrimez]

^Saudi and Israel are covert allies especially militarily in the region. Israel would love for Saudi to handle Iran. Iran was sternly warned by the USA, Saudi and others to behave. Then all of a sudden they decide to attack a tanker at sea and now the oil fields. I don't buy it. It's typical deep state tactics using false flag to bait them into a conflict

Israel recently found oil in the Golan which they seized from Syria and are annexing. One of the companies drilling there has ties to Dick Cheney and I believe the Kushner's IIRC.

 

[Deleted member 521610]

i wonder what the chances are if all the low iq trump voters would start a modern day american civil war vs the democrats if he was impeached. Probably very low but not impossible of happening. i think it he will be found not guilty and win a second term with even more votes.