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

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
w01fg4ng said:
Trump would probably dissagree with you here. He was literally just bragging about how his tweets are changing the stock market.
Click to expand...

You must have missed my response to that one.


To be honest, I haven't moved on from the attack on Obama's birthplace. It left a bad taste in mouth that I won't soon forget.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm actually pleased to hear someone still cares. As I didn't pay enough attention to it, and it seems to have stuck with you, can you enlighten me on the following:
1 - was an official investigation done?
2 - if so what were the findings?
3 - if no investigation, why not?
4 - why did it drop from media attention?

I can relate to having a personal issue with such a claim (where were you born, btw?...j/k). Seriously, I can see taking offense to such a challenge - it's somewhat outrageous, is it not? Though, easier than 'collusion', it can be quickly addressed with the birth certificate, correct? Kind of like Trump's taxes....easy to show, no? Shut up the sheeple crying about unfounded issues with the facts and the documents that support those facts.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Birtherism went on for years after there was bipartisan agreement and verification of Obama’s place of birth. For years.

The Republicans kept the illusion going for a long time.
Click to expand...

Ah, if so, then I apologize to w0lf for my previous questions. As I noted, I tuned it out and didn't care. Though, for the past few years (since Trump came on the scene), I've not heard anything of it beyond the 'hey, Trump was an asshole about this' comments. So, is anyone still clamoring on about the actual birth certificate?

And if Reps dragged it out well past the provision of proof, then yeah, Dems have even better footing for harassing Trump beyond Mueller. Doesn't make it any more right to do so. That's the argument I keep hearing, isn't it? Just because one side does something doesn't make it right for the other? I'm more of an eye-for-an-eye person, and can carry a grudge, so I can see if that's the case then Trump's 8y in the White House will never be tranquil.
 
You were smart to see right through it that’s why you didn’t notice how bad it got which is totally ok. There’s a lot I don’t keep up with either.

It was a nasty racism-based shit storm.

You have a good point in saying that it doesn’t make it right. Very good point.
 
RE: Birtherism...

Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, usually known as Andy Martin (born 1945), is an American perennial candidate who has pursued numerous litigations.

The Nation, The Washington Post, and The New York Times identified him as the primary source of false rumors that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election (an allegation Martin had made as early as 2004). In a later interview with CNN, Martin explicitly abandoned this view and now asserts Obama's real father is not Barack Obama, Sr., but African American journalist Frank Marshall Davis.
Click to expand...
 
Captain.Heroin said:
In a later interview with CNN, Martin explicitly abandoned this view and now asserts Obama's real father is not Barack Obama, Sr., but African American journalist Frank Marshall Davis.
Click to expand...


Is this the guy?

2bds31.jpg
 
I'm really not sure I'd say the mueller report exonerated him. I will say as I've said previously that one of the things I took away from the report, having previously thought it could quite easily be true, is that it's probably not the case that there was any deliberate collusion by trump with Russia to manipulate the election.

I still wouldn't be totally stunned if we one day found out something to prove that he did. But I do think it's more likely than not that he didn't. Which is probably all that matters since it means it would never meet a criminal burden of proof.

But the report was also meant to investigate obstruction, and I'd say it found plenty of evidence of that.

And that's the thing, in real life, you can't just resist arrest or investigation, even if you're completely innocent. If you do, and you are indeed found innocent, you can still be found guilty of the separate crime of resisting arrest or obstructing justice. You've committed a real crime in reaction to one you were innocent of.

A president should never be allowed to obstruct an investigation into them. And something about trump that I've repeatedly feared, both about this subject and many others, is that he has only been as restrained as he has because of the extraordinary efforts of the people around him. People who keep winding up leaving or being made to leave, resulting in less talented alternatives.

Now in fairness, this is something that I think happens to a lot of presidents. Not just trump. The magnatude and extremes of what he's been unable to do are unusual, but a sudden reality check upon entering office probably isn't. I think a lot of presidents and politicians intended to deliver their policies not realizing how unrealistic they were.

And its certainly something I could believe of trump with his level of self confidence.
 
well put (as usual) jess.

it seems that trumps obstruction troubles would have been a lot worse if not for principled - or at least pragmatic - staff who refused to do certain things trump instructed them to do.

it's a little comical to me when people suggest that trump should get some kind of credit for hiring those people in the first place :)

alasdair
 
JessFR said:
But the report was also meant to investigate obstruction, and I'd say it found plenty of evidence of that.

And that's the thing, in real life, you can't just resist arrest or investigation, even if you're completely innocent. If you do, and you are indeed found innocent, you can still be found guilty of the separate crime of resisting arrest or obstructing justice. You've committed a real crime in reaction to one you were innocent of.
Click to expand...

Something to point out to the Trump supporters among us, is that even if there was no crime, obstruction can still be a charge. Meaning, no 'collusion' does not imply no obstruction. Case in point, investigation of a burned down house. If you bulldoze it before the investigation is complete, you can be charged with obstruction, even if the fire was an accident.

Even with that, it can be very hard to accept obstruction if the investigation was falsely created. I think the obstruction still applies, but it is even harder to justify. Out of curiousity, why wasn't obstruction brought for charges? I'd point that at Jess, as the only one I know of among us willing to read the damn report. (Yes, I gave up).

JessFR said:
a sudden reality check upon entering office probably isn't. I think a lot of presidents and politicians intended to deliver their policies not realizing how unrealistic they were.

And its certainly something I could believe of trump with his level of self confidence.
Click to expand...

His self confidence is higher than most. However, I can't name any other person who'd run for the White House and not been a career politician who would know the difficulties of such a position or trying to get things accomplished in politics. For all Trump's negotiating skills and business acumen (HA!) there is a big leap between that and trying to work within our two party system, especially at the highest level. I'd say a reality check is an understatement, and his would be much larger than for any other candidate.

alasdairm said:
it's a little comical to me when people suggest that trump should get some kind of credit for hiring those people in the first place
Click to expand...

Something about a stopped clock twice a day, or blind squirrels and nuts comes to mind.
 
The reason no charges were brought from my understanding is that mueller found that as a matter of law he was unable to legally indict the president.

That impeachment is the legal process to bring a president up on charges. And that as he couldn't indict him while he was president, he felt the fundamental purpose of the investigation was to collect as much evidence as possible as he was instructed to, to provide to congress for them to decide what to do, and presumably to aid in an indictment were one to happen upon leaving office.

So, there was never a chance of mueller indicting him.
 
i don't think the investigation was falsely created in the first place.

even if you believe the original russia dossier was bogus, it's my understanding that it may not have been the origin of the fbi's investigation (the fbi was already investigating reports from an australian diplomat in london who claimed a trump campaign staffer leaked that the russians had promised the trump campaign dirt on hillary).

look at that alongside the trump tower meeting and there's already enough troubling smoke there (trump jr. admitted that goldstone said the russian government was involved and the meeting was to get "dirt on Clinton") to warrant further investigation...

alasdair
 
I don't think it was falsely created either, but honestly I don't really care. What matters is that it be conducted fairly. And I believe it absolutely was. Even if it was originally setup with ulterior motives, the president should have nothing to fear from a fair investigation. Unless of course the presidents crooked. But then this is a president who has undermined the legitimacy of the system he's supposed to serve repeatedly.

And if this were a witch hunt, it wouldn't have come back how it did.

But this is typical trump. The investigation is a witch hunt, until he thinks it clears him. The election is rigged, until it elects him.
 
Trump legacy:

No collusion, no obstruction. No impeachment.
No wall.
No infrastructure deal.
No amnesty for DACA generation.
No promises kept.
No one original in cabinet left.
No bipartisan support.
ADDS TRILLIONS TO DEFICIT
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Trump legacy:

No collusion, no obstruction. No impeachment.
No wall.
No infrastructure deal.
No amnesty for DACA generation.
No promises kept.
No one original in cabinet left.
No bipartisan support.
ADDS TRILLIONS TO DEFICIT
Click to expand...

what a load of anti trump bul i bet u cant back one of those fake news facts up!
 
Pete556 said:
what a load of anti trump bul i bet u cant back one of those fake news facts up!
Click to expand...

This is why it wasn't smart to refuse to backup your assertion of trumps military experience. Because now when you ask evidence of others they'd be well within their rights to just tell you to look it up and otherwise ignore you.

I do find it odd though that you're demanding evidence that there was no collusion and no obstruction. And suggesting that saying there was no collusion or obstruction is bullshit.

If I didn't know any better I'd almost think you didn't even read the post you were replying too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top