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

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
THE NATIONAL SOCIALISTS ARE CAUGHT LYING ON TAPE, thank you Omarosa!



https://www.thedailybeast.com/omaro...-sanders-agreeing-with-trumps-lies?ref=scroll

With Bob Woodward’s new book climbing the best-seller charts ahead of its official release this week and all of Washington still obsessing over that anonymous op-ed in The New York Times, it’s possible Omarosa Manigault Newman is starting to feel a little left out.

The author of Unhinged returned to The View on Monday morning armed with yet another secret audio recording that she says was made inside the White House. Introduced by Whoopi Goldberg as someone who went from one of Trump’s “biggest defenders to one of his biggest nightmares,” Manigault-Newman came out swinging against the president.

“You cannot silence someone when they're coming forward to expose corruption,” she said of the Trump team’s arbitration action against her. “I'm going to keep on fighting.”

And yet as eager as Manigault Newman has been to trash her former boss now that she’s out of the White House, The View’s co-hosts did not let her off the hook for being his staunch defender in the past. Abby Huntsman asked why she stayed in her job so long if she was so “miserable” and Sunny Hostin called out her hypocrisy of praising Trump’s supposed inclusiveness in the past and now labeling him a “racist.”

In reference to the alleged “N-word” tape, Manigault Newman said, “I don't hold the tape. I've heard the tape. They've been talking about releasing it. I suspect they're going to release it around the midterms.” She did not disclose who she meant by “they.”

“I was in a toxic relationship with Donald Trump and I regret that I was so complicit,” she added. “You know, Hillary Clinton was robbed and I was a co-conspirator in that robbery. And I will regret that for the rest of my life, that I was a co-conspirator along with the rest of the folks who helped this con man get into office.”

It wasn’t until later in the show, after Manigault Newman reiterated who she believes wrote the Times op-ed (Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff Nick Ayers) and shared the code texts she and her White House colleagues would use to mock the president (#TFA for “25th Amendment” and the orange emoji), that she brought out the new tape.

“When Donald Trump got bored, which was very often because his attention span was very short, he would sometimes try to figure out what meetings were taking place in the White House and he would crash those meetings,” she explained. In this particular meeting, which she said occurred in October of last year, Trump was “still talking about Hillary Clinton.”

“I think Hillary is getting killed now with Russia. The real Russia story is Hillary and collusion,” Trump can be heard saying on the tape before arguing that the Clinton campaign made an illegal campaign finance violation by allegedly spending $9 million on a report to prove he had colluded with Russia. After getting affirmation on that claim from Hope Hicks, he adds, “So the whole Russia thing I think seems to have turned around, what do you think, Sarah?”

“Absolutely,” Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders replies, dutifully.

“You knew he wasn't telling the truth but folks still cheered him on,” Goldberg said. “You said that lying is second nature in the White House and you had to repeat everything he said. So, do you think y'all knowingly lied to the American people?”

“Oh absolutely,” Manigault Newman said. “I would have left that meeting where you just heard Donald Trump discuss how to obstruct justice by going through a law firm so that he could protect whatever crime and he was insinuating that Hillary did this. We now know that he did that with the National Enquirer and possibly Stormy. We would have to go out and repeat verbatim what you just heard, that Hillary Clinton was involved with the Russia collusion, that she was engaged in some criminal activity. Because he said it, we would repeat what the president said.”

“We would go out as you heard Hope Hicks, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and repeat those lies,” she continued. “She would repeat those lies from the podium in the press room.”
 
If Trump actually shifted 10 million from FEMA to ICE after we lost 3000 people in Puerto Rico last year, he is putting the entire east coast in danger.https://splinternews.com/dhs-transferred-10m-from-fema-to-ice-for-detention-cen-1828985356
The screenshot is of poor quality but you can find it on the guy’s Twitter.



That's horrifying, if true. It's a reflection of what trump stands for, and what his priorities are.

I hope everyone out there in the face of that hurricane takes care and stays safe.
Trump's stripped funding from emergency services to build internment camps for children.
But not a fascist eh? :\

Scary stuff.
 
Last edited:
he is putting the entire east coast in danger.

His hotel in DC won't be effected, so I figure he doesn't really give a shit about anyone else.

Trump's stripped funding from emergency services to build internment camps for children.
But not a fascist eh? :\

This is *exactly* why I call the Trump Administration a national socialist regime. Only Omarosa has demonstrated any semblance of possessing a soul or any degree of remorse.
 
yep - from that article, looks like trump should be congratulated for continuing the excellent work by obama which kicked off the current upward trend after the recession in 2010:

MW-GP705_CES050_MG_20180907113324.png


Actually by definition that would be bigotry as Mexican is not a race as we've discussed ad nauseum. That's the only legitimate example. Are you going to hold that one comment over Trump as a reason to hate him, assassinate his character and consider him unqualified for the presidency? If that's your reason then you should hate Hillary more for calling black youth "super predators" which is actually a racist comment. Will you state that Hillary is at least racist, if not more racist than Trump?

we disagree here. i've given you many, many examples which you just reject. that's the only one you agree is legitimate.

the clinton "super predator" comment is not quote as simple as you would like to make out. you're implying - and trump has actually tweeted - that she said "African-American youth are 'superpredators'." well, of course, she never actually said that and it takes a pretty biased (fancy? :) ) reading to get there from what she actually did say:

but i understand that "hillary clinton called african-american youth 'superpredators'" is a more impactful, media friendly soundbite, particularly when taken out of context.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
the clinton "super predator" comment is not quote as simple as you would like to make out. you're implying - and trump has actually tweeted - that she said "African-American youth are 'superpredators'." well, of course, she never actually said that and it takes a pretty biased (fancy? :) ) reading to get there from what she actually did say:

but i understand that "hillary clinton called african-american youth 'superpredators'" is a more impactful, media friendly soundbite, particularly when taken out of context.

alasdair

To me it seems like you're doing what you criticized me for: being an apologist for racism, because you prefer a certain candidate.
I'd respect you more if you came out like invegauser and said yeah Hillary is also racist.
Your double standards invalidate your accusations against Trump, proving you don't actually care about racism, only attacking him.

Yes the Mexican judge comment was the only one that I admitted was offensive, or that I could see how it would be misconstrued as racism. All the other examples I easily explained were not racism, but if someone wants to believe something then they're not going to listen to logic, or they'll feign being offended by something. Also I'll repeat - you continue to ignore all the demonstrable actions, along with respected members of minority communities stating that Trump isn't racist. Why do you do this? What do you say to intelligent, educated black people that categorically state that Trump isn't a racist? Or just ignore them?

And it's very easy to say that Hillary Clinton wasn't being racist with her "super predators" remark, but you didn't even try to offer an alternative explanation as to the intention of that comment.
How about the 90's anti-crime legislation she helped push through that destroyed countless black families?
Or trying to pander to African-Americans by lying in a radio interview that she keeps a bottle of hot sauce in her purse all the time?
Or how about her mentor being an ex-high ranking member of the KKK?

DOUBLE STANDARDS.

This is *exactly* why I call the Trump Administration a national socialist regime.
The amount of lies and unsound reasoning that one needs to categorize Trump as a Nazi is staggering.

Only Omarosa has demonstrated any semblance of possessing a soul or any degree of remorse.
lol

FLASHBACK: Omarosa Was Fired or Tossed From Govt. Positions Under Clinton? FOUR Different Times

@JoeConchaTV said:
Raise your hand if you knew that Omarosa was fired from the Clinton White House not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times before. Have barely seen anything on this: ?She was asked to leave as quickly as possible, she was so disruptive.?
 
The amount of lies and unsound reasoning that one needs to categorize Trump as a Nazi is staggering.

lol
1. Attempts to coerce the market into benefiting the state (Step below the State capitalism of China)
2. Extremely nationalist platform with scapegoat bonus
3. Disdain for the political system
4. Opposition to globalism
5. Protectionist policies

What more do you need?
 
^Heheh

lol
1. Attempts to coerce the market into benefiting the state (Step below the State capitalism of China)
2. Extremely nationalist platform with scapegoat bonus
3. Disdain for the political system
4. Opposition to globalism
5. Protectionist policies

What more do you need?
I mean, seriously...

I wouldn't call him a Nazi, but he's definitely fascist in ideology.

Maybe all this bullshit with him buddying up with Putin is to get his guard down so Trump can launch his Blitzkrieg. In December.
 
lol
1. Attempts to coerce the market into benefiting the state (Step below the State capitalism of China)
2. Extremely nationalist platform with scapegoat bonus
3. Disdain for the political system
4. Opposition to globalism
5. Protectionist policies

What more do you need?

1. Heaven forbid leaders should do what's best for their own country. "coerce the market" lol what bullshit.
2. By enforcing immigration laws?
3. Disdain for corruption - the system allowed him to take back the country from globalist criminals.
4. See above - fuck Globalism AND Nazism.
5. See #1

To answer your question - a lot more than that.

Dictator...he even lets propaganda fake news continue to spew lies on the daily...

@mitchellvii said:
President Trump, at the 600 day mark of his presidency, is the most accomplished President in history, already delivering on over 70% of his campaign promises and record basically EVERYTHING.

And yet, according to #FakePolls, only 28% of voters "trust" Trump.

Think about that.

@mitchellvii said:
The latest poll from Quinnipiac claims voters trust the #Media 2:1 over Trump. Trump has fulfilled more campaign promises in his first 600 days than any President in history.

Meanwhile the Media has a 10% approval rating and lies constantly.

I think Quinnipiac is toilet paper.

mitchellvii said:
THINGS AMERICA DOESN'T WANT (ACCORDING TO POLLS):
1) To impeach Trump.
2) Higher taxes.
3) Fewer jobs.
4) More illegals.

And yet, these same polls claim that America, by large margins, wants to elect Democrats who would do exactly those 4 things.
 
Jgrimez I'm already aware of the fundamental differences in our views, but I'm curious. Should a leader "do what's best" for his country at the expense of humanity?
 
Jgrimez I'm already aware of the fundamental differences in our views, but I'm curious. Should a leader "do what's best" for his country at the expense of humanity?

No that could be fascism. If you can point me towards any of Trump's policies which can honestly be classed as fascist, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Also why do the Left have such a massive problem with phantom fascism thesedays, but not with communism? (more brutal and responsible for more death)
 
Also why do the Left have such a massive problem with phantom fascism thesedays, but not with communism? (more brutal and responsible for more death)
Because it's not so fantastic when extreme nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. When in history have tariffs been beneficial?

Try to call someone fascist based on one policy is ridiculous it's the series of actions and beliefs he has espoused. Even if he and his supporters don't want to call it fascism his administration is characterized by radical nationalism, protectionism, attempts to subvert and take power away from the legislative and judicial branches (authoritarian), expansion of military, and Presidential/executive interference in the market.

Edit: Also his attacks on the media are only a result of his inability to control or win favor with them. If he could control the media in the same manner as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or China, I'm sure he would.
 
Because it's not so fantastic when extreme nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. When in history have tariffs been beneficial?

certainly not the late 1920s...

this article from that notorious source of liberal biased fake news (blah blah etc) fortune.com -

Did Trade Tariffs Cause the Great Depression?

Donald Trump stunned the world last Thursday with his reportedly impulsive announcement of steep U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum. Stock markets responded by dropping sharply around the world ? and that was before Trump doubled down by threatening to impose tariffs on European cars.

Both stock markets and economists tend to loathe tariffs, which hamper the basic efficiency of the market, rarely accomplishing more than saving a few jobs in exchange for higher prices across the entire economy. One illustration of this that?s not as widely known as it should be is the role of tariffs, specifically a set of rules known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, in triggering the Great Depression.

Obviously, the causes of the Depression are still hotly debated, and popular understanding centers on the 1929 stock market crash, while the somewhat more informed will cite excessive easy credit and misguided tight monetary policies by the Federal Reserve. Smoot-Hawley wasn?t signed into law until June 17, 1930, when stocks had already plunged from 1929 peaks, so it?s often seen as a secondary factor.

But a closer look shows that timeline is misleading. In a 1979 National Review analysis of the causes of the Depression reprinted by the Cato Institute, author Alan Reynolds argued that Smoot-Hawley was an ongoing drag on the economy. More than that, though, he thought it substantially contributed to the stock market collapse of 1929, because traders saw it coming.

His argument is compelling ? and, as an indicator of the possible fallout of the Trump tariffs, scary.

Smoot-Hawley, Reynolds points out, passed the House in May 1929, and stocks were battered every time the act moved through the legislative process. On Oct. 23 of that year, a Wednesday, it became clear the tariffs would be much broader than first believed.

The very next day, of course, was Black Thursday. Markets dropped 9% in a day and kicked off a yearslong stock meltdown.

As Reynolds sums up, ?market participants do not wait for a major law to pass? before retrenching their positions. In 1929, they were right to sell. Smoot-Hawley ultimately raised tariffs on tens of thousands of products, and trade policy analyst Bill Krist points out that by the end of 1934, global trade had tanked by 66% from 1929 levels.

The parallels to the current moment are distressing. The Trump tariffs are not in effect yet, and so far they are officially limited to steel and aluminum. But in coming days, stock traders will be acting on their beliefs about what the future will bring. There are signals, just as there were in 1929, that tariffs could expand from their modest start ? U.S. trade partners have already said they will retaliate if tariffs go into effect, while President Trump posits that ?trade wars are good.?

Even if we accept arguments like Reynolds?, tariffs were just one factor in the Depression, and most of the others aren?t substantial now. But history has provided us with a strong cautionary lesson about the real impact of tariffs, and the stock market is likely to heed it.
 
Because it's not so fantastic when extreme nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. When in history have tariffs been beneficial?

Ask China.
They started it with slapping tariffs on the US and have gotten away with it for a very long time.
They refuse to drop theirs so Trump has temporarily implemented some against them.
The US will easily survive but China needs the US as their major trading partner.
All it is is pressuring them to drop their tariffs and it will work.
The Germans were smart and (after a bit of huffpuffing) instantly relaxed their tariffs on car imports.

Try to call someone fascist based on one policy is ridiculous it's the series of actions and beliefs he has espoused. Even if he and his supporters don't want to call it fascism his administration is characterized by radical nationalism
What makes nationalism "radical" and how do any of Trump's policies impose this? (*waits for enforcing immigration laws*)

attempts to subvert and take power away from the legislative and judicial branches (authoritarian)
REALLY? I want to hear all about that one...

Presidential/executive interference in the market.
What did he do precisely and what was the effect?
What's the difference between "interference" and enacting policy?

I'll point out that you're throwing out vague buzzwords, I'm open to hearing honest criticism of Trump's policies.

Also his attacks on the media are only a result of his inability to control or win favor with them. If he could control the media in the same manner as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or China, I'm sure he would.
lol Obama spied on reporters and invoked the Espionage Act (more than all other presidents combined) to target journalists and whistleblowers.
Trump isn't even doing that and he's getting fucking creamed by almost everyone in the media.
Trump probably does have the power to co-opt the media but he's not doing so.
The best that he has is Twitter (which is run by liberal collaborators) and Fox News, which simply treats him fairly, a far cry from state-run television.

Obama was FAR more of an authoritarian if we're being honest (go read the 2012 NDAA).
It's funny that people aren't mad at Obama for consolidating all this power, they're mad at Trump for democratically-assuming it.
 
It's the lowest weekly jobless claim level in 49 years.
Was expected to be over 210K. It might get to sub-200K
49 years ago the population was significantly lower too.
This story was featured on the second page of CNN Money 8(

Canada said they're ready to strike a deal on NAFTA. Finally.
China's feeling the pain too.
US is doing fine - they are now the world's largest oil producer (last time was the 70's). Obama's biggest success as president was in fact getting out of the way of the oil industry to allow them to exploit the land for oil, fracking and natural gas - against the environmentalists' advice. Energy sector is where a lot of his economic growth came from. Trump's just capitalizing on it further, with more deregulation.
 
I thought you agreed that it's important to protect the environment? Or am I remembering that wrong? I know you deny climate change, but I thought I remembered that you agree we should cut pollution and protect the environment. If it is important, then don't you think allowing the oil industry to "exploit the land" might not be worth the cost? There are more important things than short-term money. Protecting the environment trumps everything else in the long-term. If we don't do that, future generations will curse us for our folly, and they'll be right to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top