• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The 2020 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
87195844_146654966419628_4963584783616573440_n.jpg
 
^ indeed.

obama, gw, bill clinton and reagan had 8 years in office. right now, trump has had 3. presidents tend to do most of their pardoning towards or at the end of their time in office. until trump is out of office, comparing these numbers is specious (but i suspect you know that).

also, your number for trump is incorrect. it should be 35 (source: the u.s. justice department)

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
presidents tend to do most of their pardoning towards or at the end of their time in office. until trump is out of office, comparing these numbers is specious
Click to expand...

Agree on the specious part. But we also know why Presidents to it at the end of their terms...no blowback. Trump's heading into re-election, and I can't fathom why he's doing this now.

Related reading - List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the president of the United States it links to pages for each President, outlining specifically who they pardoned (this page only provides a short 'top' list).
 
alasdairm said:
^ blagojevich was convicted of extortion to do with state funds being directed towards a children's hospital and race track.

trump used funds - in part raised in the name of military veterans - from his charitable foundation (a "shocking pattern of illegality") to, among other things, pay for his campaign, pay business debts and buy a portrait of himself.

they're peas in a pod. he's corrupt and, with these pardons, he's normalizing white-collar crime.

in a speech to supporters in virginia beach in january 2016 trump claimed "i am the law and order candidate".

he's a sick joke at this point.

alasdair
Click to expand...

All that law and order, plagiarized Nixon-circa-late-1960s bullshit only applies if you're don't have money or connections, or haven't been blessed with the opportunity to commit war crimes overseas lol
 
Roger Stone shouldn't be locked up. He's a political prisoner. Kinda like when they threw Dinesh D'Souza in jail for making that doco that made Obama look terrible.

But they will never just say we're throwing you in jail based on your political opinions since the state will look terrible and make the imprisoned appear dignified. That's why people are often brought in on trumped-up charges or receive a disproportionate punishment for a relatively minor crime.
 
JGrimez said:
Kinda like when they threw Dinesh D'Souza in jail for making that doco that made Obama look terrible.
Click to expand...

Was that the one that depicted Obama as the Mau Mau avenger? Lol.

There was always that tension in right-wing thought during the Obama years, between Obama the Secret Muslim (which got more play IMO) and Obama the Godless Anti-Imperialist Commie Scum, which I mostly associate with Glenn Beck. IIRC D'Souza's hot take fell more into the latter category
 
Xorkoth said:
So obstructing federal investigations and lying to the FBI isn't a crime anymore?
Click to expand...

It's more nuanced than that. Clinton, Abedin, Mills did the same thing (lied to FBI) and nothing happened to them. The FBI was engaging in unlawful activity and their investigation into Trump and Co. was politicized and compromised. So even if he was guilty of that in this case he shouldn't serve that much time. It's obviously political. The FBI fucking covered up for Hillary committing crimes that should've potentially seen her hanged for treason.
 
alasdairm said:
d'souza pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions. i guess that's ok too...

alasdair
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. Show me someone else who received a similar punishment for the same crime. Rosie O'fucking Donnell admitted to the same shit.
 
JGrimez said:
The CIA said that they were "highly confident" that the Crowdstrike report was correct while the NSA had "moderate confidence" in the report. So nobody official ever assessed the evidence.
Click to expand...
It's kind of amazing to see you describe the two most well-funded intelligence agencies in the world evaluating the evidence and then say "nobody official evaluated the evidence". Like, why bother debunking you? You debunked yourself.

You think the CIA and NSA would express confidence in an unsupported report? It's all a lie because the DNC wants to have some privacy?

But again, par for the course wrt Trump supporters and facts.
 
atara said:
It's kind of amazing to see you describe the two most well-funded intelligence agencies in the world evaluating the evidence and then say "nobody official evaluated the evidence". Like, why bother debunking you? You debunked yourself.

You think the CIA and NSA would express confidence in an unsupported report? It's all a lie because the DNC wants to have some privacy?

But again, par for the course wrt Trump supporters and facts.
Click to expand...

You're continuing to make yourself look ignorant. The NSA and CIA did not assess the evidence. The server is the evidence. Ask yourself why the DNC did not hand over their "hacked" server to the FBI? I'll tell you why because it probably wasn't hacked (not in the sense that they claimed anyway. Not from outside Russians).

They hired a private company to look at the server and then write a report for the intel agencies which the media and politicians then lied about saying that "all 17 agencies" agreed with the report. That wasn't even true yet was repeated ad nauseum by people like Killary (this is an example of propaganda).

It's also amusing that you somehow equate well-funded with being honest. Are trying to say that the NSA and CIA have a track record of honesty?

The fact is that there is no evidence that Russians hacked the DNC server. And if you're going to try and insult me by calling me a Trump supporter (when I've routinely said I'd prefer Gabbard, a Democrat) then I can say that you are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
 
alasdairm said:
but a few days ago: Trump Quietly Slashes Pay Raise for Federal Workers

he cited "serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare" in justification of the move.

so which is true? best economy in history or serious economic conditions?

more lies.
Click to expand...

Both can be true = while the public economy is going gangbusters, Trump wishes to tighten gov't spending and reduce waste. One way to do that is to have a disincentive for lifelong gov't workers with a pay freeze and encourage them to find private sector employment if they are so damn hard to fire.

Ok, I'm talking out my ass on this. I just figured I'd try to come up with anything that can make sense of it, but it's all bs. Cheers!
 
edited by mod
JGrimez said:
You're continuing to make yourself look ignorant. The NSA and CIA did not assess the evidence. The server is the evidence.
Click to expand...

The report about the server is also "the evidence". If it were falsified, people would know. It's not easy to hide that kind of thing.

And yes, the DNC needs to keep their internal communications private more than the average person. They are a political agency; even their informal discussions are potentially damaging. It's not unreasonable to want to control your own data.

Are trying to say that the NSA and CIA have a track record of honesty?
Click to expand...

On average, yes. If a person lies five percent of the time, we call them dishonest. The CIA runs a relatively effective intelligence operation (by the standards thereof; intel-gathering is generally overrated) and occasionally adds misinformation to their benefit.

There's no cui bono here. The CIA has every incentive to find the truth in this case. If they uncovered misconduct by CrowdStrike, it would be a huge political win.
if you're going to try and insult me by calling me a Trump supporter (when I've routinely said I'd prefer Gabbard, a Democrat)
Click to expand...
I have no reason to care what you claim to believe... If you are supporting Trump, I can call you a Trump supporter. I'm not going to insult you at all, because that's not allowed here.

But I can describe you: you are a Trump supporter -- you support the fantasy world he depends on...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top