US Politics The 2020 Trump Presidency Thread

[mal3volent]

Conservatives weaponize the FBI, DOJ and abuse the FISA court with fake evidence to wiretap their opponents' campaigns?

Try again...

no I guess conservatives are perfect because you are one

fair and balanced as usual.

 

[JGrimez]

I'm not even a conservative.
I'm just telling you who's worse.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

yeah it's almost like the same shit conservatives do when there's a democratic president

Out of curiosity, can you cite examples? You know, of conservatives not caring about truth or justice, and just looking to lie about Obama? The only one that comes to mind for me was the petty shitstorm about his birth certificate, and the frequent statements about his being Muslim (I have no idea if he was or not, only that his policies benefited Muslim terrorists globally). But yeah, any examples you have along these lines? Against any Democratic president?

no I guess conservatives are perfect because you are one

He never made any comment of being perfect, nor that conservatives are perfect. You're moving the goalposts on this one. The point was unfounded statements against Trump (you do recall HE is the thread topic, no?). And for the past few years in this forum, anyone making a statement like yours would have been shut down for 'whataboutism'. Glad we don't have that anymore.

 

[mal3volent]

The only one that comes to mind for me was the petty shitstorm about his birth certificate, and the frequent statements about his being Muslim (I have no idea if he was or not, only that his policies benefited Muslim terrorists globally).

So you take away the biggest one with his birth certificate. A huge segment of Republicans openly questioned the legitimacy of the President himself. That stoked some pretty deeply embedded racism throughout the country, which led to all kinds of conspiracies on Facebook, I'm sure you remember.

It's so interesting to me that someone as intelligent as you still would say something like "I have no idea if he was or not" , when he clearly WAS. Another bullshit untruth (and this will get two birds stoned at once) , was his PASTOR in Chicago who they tried to make out was some monster. Did you hear what I said? Pastor. They tied him to a Pastor, made him guilty of the things his Pastor said, then said he's not actually Christian !

But I suppose it could all be a hoax. Just pretended to be Christian to get elected, all the while being secretly Muslim.

But yeah, any examples you have along these lines? Against any Democratic president?

Republicans said Clinton wasn't fit to be President based on his marital indiscretion when we all know Trump has done the same thing. oh but it was because he did it as President right? Well what about Trump using Bill's accusers against Hillary in the debates? When he has just as many or more than Bill?

Do you think Republicans would have branded the Russia Hoax as a Hoax if Clinton has been elected under the same circumstances? Lmao. Republicans are better politicians then democrats, they would have had her impeached in under six months. Who knows, maybe she'd be in jail by now?

What about when Congress fucked Obama over Merrick Garland ? That was a pretty shitty thing to do. They did that just to hurt Obama's legacy.

And for the past few years in this forum, anyone making a statement like yours would have been shut down for 'whataboutism'. Glad we don't have that anymore.

What are you even implying with this?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

What are you even implying with this?

I'll start with an apology. I was feeling pretty froggy yesterday in general.

No insult was intended, it was actually a positive reflection albeit worded poorly. In recent years, if someone was in a thread and tried to compare the topic to something comparable - for example, a thread on President X got a reply saying Pres X does this but it isn't as bad as Pres Y - the reply would be effectively shunned for 'whataboutism'. IMO, comparing two relevant points should be acceptable and encouraged as part of discourse, and I viewed the 'whataboutism' claims as a means to try and shut down discussion or stifle it. Yes, points can be evaluated on their own merit (is something right or wrong can stand without comparison to different people's application or behaviour in similar situations), but doing so limits the focus to person A doing something right or wrong and ignores the hypocrisy and double standards of person B doing similar and being worse/better in the situation, or the public being more accepting/shaming of person B. Bottom line, I like the ability to respond as you did. I think it is a healthier discussion.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

It's so interesting to me that someone as intelligent as you still would say something like "I have no idea if he was or not" , when he clearly WAS.

You give me too much credit. I've said before I never really paid much attention to politics until 2016. I'd heard some of the noise against Obama, but never paid enough attention to look into where the truth really lay. I'm even worse for knowing what happened under presidents before him. It was only recently I actually cared enough to want to understand where truth lay on most political statements, and how I've arrived at such a loathing for MSM with their lack of truth. Personally, I hate liars. While I give a lot of benefit of the doubt for ignorance (a requirement, given how much ignorance I will admit to myself), I cannot stand those who knowingly and intentionally issue false statements (hence my tremendous grudge regarding the Kavanaugh hearings), and I try to correct those who perpetuate them through ignorance. If, however, it remains a subject I am ignorant on, I'll state my opinion at most while welcoming any correction so I can know the truth.

 

[mal3volent]

Nancy Pelosi leads warnings against Trump's hydroxychloroquine use amid fears for 'morbidly obese' president


The President's decision to take the controversial drug has been labelled as 'reckless' and potentially 'dangerous'

Nancy Pelosi today led the warnings against Donald Trump's "dangerous" behaviour after he admitted taking the controversial malaria drug hydroxychloroquine in a bid to stop contracting coronavirus.


Speaking at a press conference on Monday, the US President told how he has been taking the drug once a day "for about a week and a half", despite repeated warnings from US public health officials that its effect remains largely unknown, and that it should only be given in a hospital or research setting.


Mr Trump, who has pushed hydroxychloroquine publicly on several occasions as a potential cure for coronavirus, told reporters on Monday: "I started taking it, because I think it's good... I've heard a lot of good stories."


But his comments prompted a chorus of alarm, with Ms Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, raising concerns for the "morbidly obese" president amid the unproven treatment of the drug against Covid-19.

Nancy Pelosi leads warnings against Trump's hydroxychloroquine use amid fears for 'morbidly obese' president — Evening Standard

Nancy Pelosi today led the warnings against Donald Trump's "dangerous" behaviour after he admitted taking the controversial malaria drug hydroxychloroquine in a bid to stop contracting coronavirus.

apple.news

 

[mal3volent]

Trump ‘surprised’ Barr sees no criminal probe into Obama, Biden

President Trump said Monday that he was “surprised” by Attorney General William Barr’s statement that he doesn’t anticipate a criminal investigation into former President Obama or former Vice Presi…

thehill.com

Trump 'surprised' Barr sees no criminal probe into Obama, Biden

President Trump said Monday that he was “surprised” by Attorney General William Barr’s statement that he doesn’t anticipate a criminal investigation into former President Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden.

“I think if it was me, they would do it. I think for them, maybe they’re not going to,” Trump told reporters Monday afternoon when asked about the attorney general's comments. “I’m surprised because Obama knew everything that was happening.”

“I think it’s just a continuation of a double standard. I am surprised by it,” the president continued.

 

[Juniper Bruhmomentius]

'morbidly obese' president


​

 

[TheLoveBandit]

But his comments prompted a chorus of alarm, with Ms Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, raising concerns for the "morbidly obese" president amid the unproven treatment of the drug against Covid-19.

Ha. Like she gives a sht about him. She'd probably pop some champagne if he keeled over dead, especially from taking the medicine he preached people can/should take. At least they can't call hypocrisy on him for that count.


Speaking of Pelosi, and by extension the House,

Dems tell Supreme Court of 'ongoing' new impeachment inquiry in effort to obtain Mueller materials

House Democrats told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are again in the midst of an "ongoing presidential impeachment investigation" as part of their "weighty constitutional responsibility" – and, the Democrats argued, redacted grand-jury material from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe must be turned over as a result.

Top Democrats have repeatedly suggested since President Trump was acquitted on two articles of impeachment in February that they might initiate new impeachment proceedings. In their brief with the Supreme Court, which seeks testimony, exhibits and transcripts, the Democrats promised that leaks won't be a problem, owing to their "special protocols" that will ensure "secrecy."

"The [House Judiciary] Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial," the Democrats told the nine justices on Monday. "If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment."
...

I suppose I'll have to take that back over to the Mueller thread or start a new impeachment thread. I mean, the first one went so well!

 

[mal3volent]

Ha. Like she gives a sht about him. She'd probably pop some champagne if he keeled over dead

Trump would do the same if the reverse happened, don't you think?

I figure Trump is obese but maybe not morbidly so due to his height. He does wear roomy suits though, hard to tell. I would be more interested to know his blood pressure and cholesterol etc.

I suppose I'll have to take that back over to the Mueller thread or start a new impeachment thread. I mean, the first one went so well!

Dems always make the mistake of appointing centrist Republicans to positions like these from fear that if they appointed one of their own, the other side would complain. Backfired with Merrick Garland and Mueller... Republicans still cried and Dems got watered down results.

Mueller was pretty infuriating to me just because I don't like fence sitting. Spent all that time and then lose the backbone to make a judgment one way or the other is the worst possible outcome imho. That was his job and he didn't do it.

 

[Xorkoth]

Dems tell Supreme Court of 'ongoing' new impeachment inquiry in effort to obtain Mueller materials

At this point it's hard to believe they're going to try again. I agreed with the first attempt, but it failed. At this point it will just create additional division and lack of trust and further the partisan divide. And why would anyone expect a different outcome?

 

[JGrimez]

Israelis didn't like Obama but he continued the US policy of giving them billions of dollars while also overseeing the destabilisation of Syria and the rise of ISIS. I don't know if he's Muslim or not but Sheriff Joe Arpaio found 9 points of forgery on Obama's long-form birth certificate. Also government entities illegally hacked into the Hawaii Department of Health records from 2008-2011 until months before Obama's birth cert was released. Obama went after Arpaio and managed to get him jailed. Obama also got Dinesh D'Souza jailed after he produced an unflattering doco about him. If Trump did anything close to that his detractors would have a fit. They act like Trump is as bad as Obama while ignoring how bad Obama was.

 

[cduggles]

Trump Demands Churches Reopen

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-05-22/trump-demands-states-open-houses-of-worship-threatens-to-override-governors

The president delivered an unspecific threat to 'override' governors who do not comply.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP on Friday said he considered places of worship essential and demanded their immediate reopening, threatening to "override" governors who have imposed coronavirus-related restrictions that prevent them from resuming operations.

"Today I am identifying houses of worship churches, synagogues and mosques as essential places that provide essential services," Trump said in prepared remarks from the White House briefing room. "Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential but have left out churches and other houses of worship – it's not right – so I'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential.

"I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now. If there's any question, they're going to have to call me. But they're not going to be successful in that call," the president added.

At the conclusion of his brief comments – after which he left without taking questions – the president ominously implied there would be consequences for states that do not abide by his direction.

"If they don't do it, I will override the governors," he said, without indicating what form that might take.

(Article continues at link above).

Way to play to the base. What’s he going to do? He doesn’t have much authority here.

 

[alasdairm]

i'd be interested to hear the thoughts of any bluelighters who'd describe themselves as trump supporters on his performance as president with regard to the covid situation, the george floyd case and the events precipitated by the case.

i know its easy to be in a bubble and i'd appreciate a different perspective.

alasdair

 

[JGrimez]

Trump's in a tough position to say the least.
I don't agree with how he handled covid but I think he was lied to by advisers about the actual virus.
He should've passed on their "official" recommendations, should've also brought in other independent health professionals to state their opinions and then made recommendations to the people to slightly adjust their behavior without recommending the enforcement of new rules which would severely hurt the population in a myriad of other ways.
It's easy to blame the states and the media for the covid situation, but you still have to hold him responsible for federal guidelines.

George Floyd happened independently of Trump - why aren't liberals holding the Minnesota politicians to account?
IMO what Trump should've done is very swiftly addressed the nation and stated that the full weight of the executive will be going into trialing and prosecuting the officers involved.

Some people think all of this happened organically, it didn't. Trump now needs to go after the ones fomenting civil unrest.

 

[JGrimez]

Democrat messaging:

-If Trump does nothing to stop the Democrat riots, he's weak and ineffective
-If Trump takes actions to stop the Democrat riots, he's a brutal dictator.

Did people forget that Barack Obama condemned rioters and supported the deployment of National Guard to quell civil unrest on multiple occasions? Was that “fascism” or “martial law” ...?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Trump Demands Churches Reopen
...
Way to play to the base. What’s he going to do? He doesn’t have much authority here.

There's not a lot of difference in contact between going to church and going to Home Depot / Lowes / Grocery store. Many states were already moving back towards re-opening. I agree he has no authority on this (that's been made fairly clear by the lockdown enforcement by governors), though I'll note it is a demand, not a command, as it comes without authority. Yes, pandering to the base, but also something states should already be considering given the other loosening of restrictions that have been going on, no?

 

[TheLoveBandit]

i'd be interested to hear the thoughts of any bluelighters who'd describe themselves as trump supporters on his performance as president with regard to the covid situation, the george floyd case and the events precipitated by the case.

i know its easy to be in a bubble and i'd appreciate a different perspective.

alasdair

I'll bite.

COVID:
Bluster and Bravado showing cluelessness at first when saying it's nothing and will blow over.
Smart move closing international travel, despite being called racist for it.
Bluster and Bravado showing cluelessness when voicing authority the states had, not him, in regards to civilian restrictions.
Good working with the states to ensure none were caught short in preparation for worst cases (providing unused naval hospitals, helping set up additional sites)
Summary - Bluster and Bravado give him a spotlight, but when rubber hits the road he's doing what he can and letting others do their duty.

FLOYD:
Let the states handle it, it is their responsibility first and foremost.
Muster the Nat'l Guard in preparation is smart, for when the governors ask for help if needed.
Bluster and Bravado claiming to send the Nat'l Guard in without request from governors to retain spotlight and set the stage for a win-win-win* on his part. Legally, he actually CAN do this if the states fail to provide for the safety and well being of it's citizens.
Labeling ANTIFA a terrorist organization....I'm leery of it. I believe the FBI has already been outlining ANTIFA activity for years as terroristic, but to cue up an investigation into citizens an an effort to curb a nebulous organization ... to me, that's opening a door to 4th Amendment violations, McCarthyism, and other concerning aspects. I'd prefer if the FBI did it's job in watching and shutting down dangerous citizens (under ANTIFA label or not) rather than making a public notice for people hunting with shaky definition and criteria. I think Trump made a mistake on this one, and at best he can choose to pretend he didn't say it while the FBI does it's job. More likely, he gave Democrats more talking points against his re-election.



*Win-win-win = He has offered to quell the riots if the states can't. If the states say 'no thanks' and fail, it gives Trump another platform for re-election and extending exec power. If the states say 'no thanks' and solve their own riots, he will take credit for pushing them towards that end. If the states ask for his help, he gets more proof that he can keep American's safe, fodder for re-election and extended power.

I need to pause for a moment and address 'extended power'. I asked elsewhere if the use of executive orders to enact laws is an over reach and got no answer. I became aware of the practice a conservatives railed about Obamacare, though I am certain earlier presidents (both parties) used executive orders as well. But Obama used them and was heavily criticized for it by the right, and by Trump who now uses the executive orders himself. Nobody chooses to relinquish authority. But I wonder how Trump will operate going forward (assuming re-election). Will he continue to push for more presidential power, or allow the position to be reigned in. I don't think he's capable of the latter, but an awareness of precedent and what it lays out for the future (of any president, of any party) is dangerous, IMO. It parallels my concern for the liberals who cry for more and more gov't control over citizen's lives (gov't programs, social safety net and the criteria to qualify for it)....and I want to ask, would you want Trump, or another president like him, to HAVE that control?

 

[alasdairm]

I'll bite

it wasn't a trap i'm genuinely interested.

thanks for the post.

alasdair