• 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.
alasdairm said:
no answer to the substantive question? if trump is so concerned with poverty and conditions in local geographies why is he only picking on baltimore? obvious conclusion is obvious.
Click to expand...


You like using that 'obvious is obvious', but that's not necessarily true. We can each draw our own conclusions or justifications behind the man's action. My money, 99 times out of 100, is he is an idiot without a plan. But I could throw some other logic at it and have a fistful of different reasons. Do you want mine, or do you care to share your 'obvious' one first?
 
fair enough.

the conclusion i draw is that he sees last week's decision, by the house oversight committee to subpoena white house aides including ivanka trump and jared kushner, as an attack and he's retaliating.

alasdair
 
Here are some of my thoughts:

Distraction for the public - pick a fight he can't be held accountable for (as you have pointed out, he said before the Pres should fix it, but I fully expect if pressed on it he'll pivot to say locals should handle local issues esp. when the gov't has been pumping money in for support for years = where's it all gone to?). Get people to focus on something outside his area to truly address, try to get outrage about it and support that he sees where people need to improve what they were elected to address (ignoring the YUGE irony about what a President should be addressing...which isn't a city, IMO).

Distraction for himself - inserting his comments into the back-and-forth between Pelosi and the squad backfired badly on him. Maybe he's trying to keep himself from constantly putting his foot in his mouth about the Dem debates and candidates, but he has to be whinging and fingerpointing about something and this is safer for him to let it out upon

Foundation - when he runs again for 2020, there will be the usual strongholds of Dem voters. This could be the first of several such tauntings at the Dem establishment (Detroit, Chicago, LA-SanFran) where he points out miserable conditions in the places where Dems have owned the gov't for decades. By highlighting where there is failure to take care of American citizens (beat that patriotic drum at every chance) he can show whatever accomplishments his first term achieved (they don't have to exist, he can just make them up again) and highlight for the public how much he is Making America Great Again except for where the Dems are blocking him (wall-immigration, budget, whatever) just like the Dems have fought to keep America down in these once great cities. Note, this is not my view of the cities or their leaders, but what I can see him using for the campaign.


I don't see the retaliation you mention. I mean, his ego is totally geared for it and I know he may not strike out directly when attacked but feels the need to strike back in some way, even if it is indirect. And, I don't know how much the subpeona thing irks him given all the other things he has dealt with. But I see my 3 obvious ideas before I see retaliation.

But really, above all, I see a mouth in gear before the brain. There is no plan.
 
alasdairm said:
the states i listed were (with the general election candidate who won the state in parentheses):

alabama (trump)
alaska (trump)
arizona (trump)
arkansas (trump)
florida (trump)
georgia (trump)
indiana (trump)
kentucky (trump)
louisiana (trump)
mississippi (trump)
new mexico (clinton)
ohio (trump)
oklahoma (trump)
tennessee (trump)
texas (trump)
west virginia (trump)

my mistake. 15 out of the 16.

no answer to the substantive question? if trump is so concerned with poverty and conditions in local geographies why is he only picking on baltimore? obvious conclusion is obvious.

alasdair
Click to expand...
100% on point man, I always concurred on this point.
 
In other news

Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'

A federal judge in frank terms Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.

The ruling came as Democrats increasingly have sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

President Trump, in a tweet late Tuesday, noted that the judge in the case, John Koeltl, was appointed by Bill Clinton. The president called Koeltl's decision "really big 'stuff'" and "yet another total & complete vindication and exoneration."
...
However, Judge Koeltl, sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the factual record in the case.

The DNC first filed its suit in April 2018, and the defendants responded that the First Amendment legally protected the dissemination of stolen materials.

"In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts ... to show that any of the defendants -- other than the Russian Federation -- participated in the theft of the DNC's information," Koeltl said.

"Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC's documents," he added.
...
But, even if the Russians had provided the hacked documents to the Trump team directly, the judge wrote, it would not be criminal for the campaign to then publish those documents, as long as they did not contribute to the hacking itself. Similarly, the judge said, it is not criminal to merely solicit or "welcome" stolen documents.
...
Koeltl denied the Trump team's motion for sanctions but dismissed the suit with prejudice -- meaning it had a substantive legal defect and could not be refiled. An appeal remained possible.
...
The DNC also focused on statements from Stone that may have suggested he had advance warning of pending email hacks or dissemination, as well as Trump Jr.'s statement that he would "love" to receive potentially damaging information on Clinton. Several other communications from Trump officials to Russians or people tied to Russia were mentioned throughout the DNC's complaint.

None of these alleged episodes, the judge ruled, established a criminal conspiracy.
...
Papadopoulos said on "Sunday Morning Futures" he was "very happy" to see House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., grill Mueller about the summer 2017 payment during last week's hearings -- even though Mueller maintained, without explanation, that the matter was outside the scope of his investigation.

"I was very happy to see that Devin Nunes brought that up," Papadopoulos said. "A man named Charles Tawil gave me this money [in Israel] under very suspicious circumstances. A simple Google search about this individual will reveal he was a CIA or State Department asset in South Africa during the '90s and 2000s. I think around the time when Bob Mueller was the director of the FBI."
Click to expand...

Of course Trump claims another 'exoneration'. 8(

Also interesting with the last bit about Pap and an entrapment attempt.

Bottom line, DNC runs aground on another attempt to get Trump and his team in legal trouble by leaning on Stone and 'but Russians!!'. A Clinton appointed judge dismissed the case with prejudice and blasts the DNC for such a weak claim. This is coming from the Southern District of NY, one of the most liberal federal judicial district outside of the Ninth Circuit districts.
 
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit said:
They are the stats Ali provided ;)



Question - did DC get any safer after you left? Asking for a friend <3
Click to expand...
I have no idea of knowing. Just avoid SE DC and you should be fine. Stay in public with people you trust. It's not that hard. It's just obviously got its issues and was def rough back in the day. I wish I knew what was going on there now.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
But really, above all, I see a mouth in gear before the brain. There is no plan.
Click to expand...
oh, undoubtedly. and i doubt there's a single factor.

fwiw, reports from inside the whitehouse suggest that he raged about the subpoenas. but they're anonymous sources so they're always of limited value.

of course, if president trump is sincerely concerned about rodent-infested dwellings in baltimore, he doesn't have far to go to find somebody who's in a great position to do something about it: Trump’s ‘rat infested’ tweets about Baltimore are actually true in these Kushner-owned apartments

alasdair
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Click to expand...


Did he say "INFESTED"???
That's ok tho it means something else when a white person says it.

This whole thing was obviously a dig at Elijah Cummings from the start to shine a light on how corrupt he is. And Cummings IS a disgusting piece of shit.
 
you obviously misunderstand - he's actually doing something by shining light on the situation and bringing it to people's attention.

cake etc.

:)

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
you obviously misunderstand - he's actually doing something by shining light on the situation and bringing it to people's attention.

cake etc.

:)

alasdair
Click to expand...

That's a side effect of Trump calling out Criminal Cummings (investigate Cummings and see what you might find).

You're the type of person after I say "Saudi Arabia is doing bad things" to say "yeah well Iran is doing bad things". Yes Ali Iran is bad too but now we're talking about Saudi. You need to deflect from the issue at hand to desperately make Trump look bad or hypocritical.

Will you admit Cummings did a shit job in his district? No you won't, you'll bring up a tweet from Trump re: Obama and then you'll blame Trump for the failings of Cummings and the infestations (drugs/crime/rats) in his district.
 
JGrimez said:
That's a side effect of Trump calling out Criminal Cummings (investigate Cummings and see what you might find).

You're the type of person after I say "Saudi Arabia is doing bad things" to say "yeah well Iran is doing bad things". Yes Ali Iran is bad too but now we're talking about Saudi. You need to deflect from the issue at hand to desperately make Trump look bad or hypocritical.

Will you admit Cummings did a shit job in his district? No you won't, you'll bring up a tweet from Trump re: Obama and then you'll blame Trump for the failings of Cummings and the infestations (drugs/crime/rats) in his district.
Click to expand...

Is that any different to when you bring up Hillary Clinton anytime someone bashes Trump?
 
JessFR said:
Is that any different to when you bring up Hillary Clinton anytime someone bashes Trump?
Click to expand...
spot on. pot. kettle. black.

honestly, i don't know much about cummings record in baltimore but i don't blame trump for the failings of cummings - trump said it was the president's responsibility so even trump blames trump for it :)

JGrimez said:
...need to deflect from the issue at hand...
Click to expand...
did you type that with a straight face? very good jg :)

honestly, discussion of these issues gets so meta sometimes.

alasdair
 
I like Ali's point that Kushner has rat houses in B'more, so maybe Trump gets a bit of fire in his house to clean up before calling others out. Doubt it, but I like the idea.

I'll also rewind to Ali's suggestion of retribution on Trump's part. I didn't realize Cummings' name was as the ranking member on the committee that would have sent the subpeonas. So yeah, that moves to the top of my list for reasons behind Trump's attack on him.

I know this, because I started looking for Elijah's name with subpeona and found that 'obvious' fact of which I was unaware. However, I also found this:

Catherine Engelbrecht being targeted by Elijah Cummings back in 2014, where it appears he was wielding that 'ranking member' title to intimidate her, enlisting the FBI, OSHA, and the IRS to harass her. This is only part 1 of 6-7 regarding this incident, but shows the 'deep state' using it's power to silence those who oppose them.




Which then led to this in 2016 where he gets caught up in the IRS cover-ups





And yet, here we are years later, and this fella is still getting re-elected. Go figure.
 
JessFR said:
Is that any different to when you bring up Hillary Clinton anytime someone bashes Trump?
Click to expand...

That's different because they accuse Trump of terrible things without evidence, yet give Hillary a pass and make excuses for her even though we have evidence. It's usually me pointing out the hypocrisy, lies and double standards by bringing up criminal acts and evil misdeeds of Hillary (another difference is that I also criticize Trump for doing bad things while people here turn their blinders on and feign ignorance when it comes to Hilldog).

Ali didn't accuse Trump of lying he just accused him of only criticizing one area when there are other problem ones. That's great mate, but let's focus on the problem at hand and be mature enough to admit there's a problem in one area, even if there are also problems in others. That's a deflection.

As for the president being responsible, who is more responsible for a district, the president or the representative for that district? It's obviously the rep as the president cannot oversee the details of every district. But what the president can do is put pressure on representatives to fix their local problems. That's what Trump is doing here and that's what Obama never did. So Trump is objectively doing a better job at cleaning up that district than Obama.
 
Last edited:
Except there being evidence or no evidence is entirely subjective. What you might consider evidence others dismiss, and what you dismiss others consider evidence.

I don't see that as a difference. But say it were.. I don't see why that makes it not hypocritical anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top