Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[Hank]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Dr. Hill admits her faults and is very concise with her statements. Her responses are logical and her responses are amazing. 

The wife and I found her very likeable. 

[LGR4GM]

So Trump was just on Fox n Friends and holy crap. Grandpa has lost his marbles. 

Most of what he says in this clip is fake and completely a lie

 

[LGR4GM]

For the record he wanted an investigation into Biden not corruption. 

[LGR4GM]

There's more

 

[LGR4GM]

"The ambassador wouldn't hang up my picture" - Donald J Trump

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

"The ambassador wouldn't hang up my picture" - Donald J Trump

 

If she refused to hang his picture that is absolutely something she should have been removed for. It's not a Trump thing, it's a protocol thing. She doesn't have the liberty to decide if she wants to hang his picture or not. 

[LGR4GM]

46 minutes ago, Hank said:

If she refused to hang his picture that is absolutely something she should have been removed for. It's not a Trump thing, it's a protocol thing. She doesn't have the liberty to decide if she wants to hang his picture or not. 

There are several reports that she didn't have the picture to hang as the White House did create or send out enough of the official portraits. Also, do you really think that this is the real reason why she was removed? She was removed because she was in the way. Also he didn't need any excuse to remove her but spent time smearing her. Lol it wasn't the picture. 

[Hank]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

There are several reports that she didn't have the picture to hang as the White House did create or send out enough of the official portraits. Also, do you really think that this is the real reason why she was removed? She was removed because she was in the way. Also he didn't need any excuse to remove her but spent time smearing her. Lol it wasn't the picture. 

As vain and egotistical as you think Trump is, you really think he didn't ensure they got enough pictures out? That's not logical. 

[LGR4GM]

22 hours ago, Hank said:

As vain and egotistical as you think Trump is, you really think he didn't ensure they got enough pictures out? That's not logical. 

Totally logical. He can't even get posts filled and he's an unorganized mess. He gets his incompetent sycophants to work for him. Sending pictures is an easy ball for their incompetence to drop. 

Is there really any doubt though about him parroting Russian propaganda?

[SABRES 0311]

36 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Totally logical. He can't even get posts filled and he's an unorganized mess. He gets his incompetent sycophants to work for him. Sending pictures is an easy ball for their incompetence to drop. 

Is there really any doubt though about him parroting Russian propaganda?

I’ve been in six different units over the course of five administrations (three presidents). Their updated photos were in the headquarters buildings of local commands immediately. Based on my experience working in multiple embassies, the idea her embassy didn’t have a picture of the POTUS is laughable, not logical.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Totally logical. He can't even get posts filled and he's an unorganized mess. He gets his incompetent sycophants to work for him. Sending pictures is an easy ball for their incompetence to drop. 

Is there really any doubt though about him parroting Russian propaganda?

You posted. I replied. My reply way on topic with your post. My reply to you was in no way condescending, patronizing or antagonistic. I made no attempt to engage you regarding Trump, his policies, his motivation for removing the Ambassador, his ties to Russia, or anything else. I don't understand what you're trying to do here. You've become the SabreSpace equivalent of Fox News. Stop acting like a snowflake and grow up. 

[SABRES 0311]

I wish Trump would fire the people running base housing here. They tried telling me my power outage was community wide as I’m looking at all my neighbors with power. I lost my **** on that lady. Wife called the electric company and housing didn’t pay their commercial bill in full even though we paid our bill to housing. Power went on 20 minutes after threatening to go to my command. Funny how that works. Must just be a coincidence. 

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

You posted. I replied. My reply way on topic with your post. My reply to you was in no way condescending, patronizing or antagonistic. I made no attempt to engage you regarding Trump, his policies, his motivation for removing the Ambassador, his ties to Russia, or anything else. I don't understand what you're trying to do here. You've become the SabreSpace equivalent of Fox News. Stop acting like a snowflake and grow up. 

What? I responded to you. Also it's hilarious you called me a snowflake when you're triggered. 

Why don't you want to address trump's Russian parroting?

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I’ve been in six different units over the course of five administrations (three presidents). Their updated photos were in the headquarters buildings of local commands immediately. Based on my experience working in multiple embassies, the idea her embassy didn’t have a picture of the POTUS is laughable, not logical.

Ok. Just seems unlikely that a career diplomat would die on that hill. Considering Trumps personal lawyer had a smear campaign against Yavonivitch I don't believe the president when he claims something that juvenile. 

Edited November 23, 2019 by LGR4GM

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Ok. Just seems unlikely that a career diplomat would die on that hill. Considering Trumps personal lawyer had a smear campaign against Yavonivitch I don't believe the president when he claims something that juvenile. 

Then don’t believe the president. I wouldn’t believe whoever authored those reports either. If Yavonovich or whoever said they didn’t have a picture of the president for the embassy they are lying.

[SABRES 0311]

Here’s what I don’t get. Two years, millions of dollars and a long report on Russian interference in the election. No impeachment hearings. One phone call and a handful of people giving their assumptions. Impeachment hearings. Do any of you ever wonder why impeachment hearings didn’t happen after the Mueller Report? Trump haters were so sure that was going to be what got him out of office but those you elected did absolutely nothing.
 

Hate to tell ya but your liberals in Washington are pandering to their hardcore base just like Trump does. He’s gonna build a wall around the same time Schiff and Pelosi impeach him. By the way ever wonder why “The Squad” and Dem candidate’s haven’t been all over the news on this? I do. If I had to make an unfounded guess it would be Dem leadership told them all to stop talking outside of structured debates. 
 

As for Russian interference. Wanna know how you mitigate foreign actors from influencing voters? Stop looking to Facebook and Twitter for your news! Maybe then people will stop saying “um” and “like” twenty times a sentence too.

Edited November 24, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[LGR4GM]

On 11/23/2019 at 6:56 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

Then don’t believe the president. I wouldn’t believe whoever authored those reports either. If Yavonovich or whoever said they didn’t have a picture of the president for the embassy they are lying.

I don't believe the President. He lies almost constantly. 

[LGR4GM]

On 11/23/2019 at 7:18 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

Here’s what I don’t get. Two years, millions of dollars and a long report on Russian interference in the election. No impeachment hearings. One phone call and a handful of people giving their assumptions. Impeachment hearings. Do any of you ever wonder why impeachment hearings didn’t happen after the Mueller Report? Trump haters were so sure that was going to be what got him out of office but those you elected did absolutely nothing.
 

Hate to tell ya but your liberals in Washington are pandering to their hardcore base just like Trump does. He’s gonna build a wall around the same time Schiff and Pelosi impeach him. By the way ever wonder why “The Squad” and Dem candidate’s haven’t been all over the news on this? I do. If I had to make an unfounded guess it would be Dem leadership told them all to stop talking outside of structured debates. 
 

As for Russian interference. Wanna know how you mitigate foreign actors from influencing voters? Stop looking to Facebook and Twitter for your news! Maybe then people will stop saying “um” and “like” twenty times a sentence too.

Actually the Mueller report found that Trump did not collude with Russia but did obstruct justice (at least that was my understanding from the reading). Why is it odd that the House didn't impeach with that little evidence? Also I find it odd that it has been suggested (not by you but by Trump and Republicans) that this is an illegal coup when the constitution gives the House the power to impeach. The senate will never find him guilty anyways so in mind the point of all these is just to see how far we have fallen. 

The phone call was part of a larger issue at play. Holding up security funding to Ukraine. The question is if nothing was wrong and the call was "perfect" why won't the state department turn of the requested documents and why are so many high ranking members of Trump's administration refuses to answer congressional subpoenas? If you are innocent why not tell your story? There were multiple life long foreign service members who raised flags over the call and whatever Giuliani was doing. It is just all very questionable. I wish that senior Trump officials like Mulvaney had testified because at least then we would have a clearer picture but apparently you can ignore a congressional subpoena which is a hell of a precedent to set. 

This may come as a shock to you, but I'm actually fairly moderate. They aren't my liberals. I don't identify with them or as them. I am an American not a democrat and I will never be a Democrat or Republican. Of course the Dems are pandering to their base. They are an opposition party that wants to be back in power. The issue is Trump keeps giving them fuel for that fire. 

My biggest takeaway from the entire proceedings was what Dr. Hill said about using Russian propaganda as talking points which the GOP members did on several occasions. That's getting your news from Facebook or Twitter or FoxNews conspiracy theorists. Speaking of which didn't Trump tell all the Federal Agencies to cancel their subscriptions to the NY Times? Only the ignorant are afraid of knowledge that contradicts their world view.  

[LTS]

On 11/22/2019 at 2:24 PM, Hank said:

As vain and egotistical as you think Trump is, you really think he didn't ensure they got enough pictures out? That's not logical. 

Actually, it could be logical.  If there was an established pattern in history so obvious that it never happens, one might be inclined to simply not mail a picture knowing that people would never believe that one was never sent.  As such, you can claim that the person did not hang the picture, as is protocol, and remove them.  This entire discussion is exactly what the outcome of that would be.  He said, she said, and no proof, but the person is removed from the position.

On 11/23/2019 at 1:59 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

I’ve been in six different units over the course of five administrations (three presidents). Their updated photos were in the headquarters buildings of local commands immediately. Based on my experience working in multiple embassies, the idea her embassy didn’t have a picture of the POTUS is laughable, not logical.

As you have admitted, this President has done many things that prior administrations have not.  I would not use the actions of the past to confirm those of the present when the current administration has been routinely engaging in activities that no other administration has even approached.

On 11/23/2019 at 6:56 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

Then don’t believe the president. I wouldn’t believe whoever authored those reports either. If Yavonovich or whoever said they didn’t have a picture of the president for the embassy they are lying.

There is no proof of this, as I said above. You believe they are lying. Objectively, there is a perfectly good possibility why they could be telling the truth. There is no irrefutable proof of either position, only the outcome. 

 

[Weave]

Alexander Hamilton’s commentary re: impeachment in Federalist 65 seem very prescient today.

“ A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

I found this in an article in Reason today.  Interesting to note that the focus was on violating the public trust, not violations of criminal statutes, and notes the inherent politics involved in that distinction.

The author of the article goes on to observe that Hamilton likely expected party loyalty politics in the House, but that a more statesmanly Senate wouldn’t be so caught up in party loyalty.  Unfortunately, the days of the Senate being the more deliberative body and more statesmanlike are no longer here.

Sorry, not sure how to link the article on my phone.  Google is your friend.

[Weave]

Interesting tweets from @waltershaub today. It is a pretty extensive list of grievances that individually and collectively map a behavior of violating the public trust.  See below.  This is an accumulation of like 18 tweets.

Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify:

a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections;

 

b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection;

 

c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all;

d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president;

 

e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress;

 

f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president;

g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president;

 

h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts;

 

i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications;

j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know;

 

k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence;

l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information;

 

m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd;

n. Disseminating Russian disinformation;

 

o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business;

 

p. Violating human rights and international law at our border;

q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities;

 

r. Lying incessantly to the American people;

 

s. Relentlessly attacking the free press;

t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses;

 

u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;

 

w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies;

x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base;

 

y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election;

bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations;

 

cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence;

dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations;

 

ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight;

ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in  terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment);

 

gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business;

hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties;

 

ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses;

jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals;

 

kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president;

 

ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion;

mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal;

 

nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and

oo. etc.

 

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

Alexander Hamilton’s commentary re: impeachment in Federalist 65 seem very prescient today.

“ A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

I found this in an article in Reason today.  Interesting to note that the focus was on violating the public trust, not violations of criminal statutes, and notes the inherent politics involved in that distinction.

The author of the article goes on to observe that Hamilton likely expected party loyalty politics in the House, but that a more statesmanly Senate wouldn’t be so caught up in party loyalty.  Unfortunately, the days of the Senate being the more deliberative body and more statesmanlike are no longer here.

Sorry, not sure how to link the article on my phone.  Google is your friend.

Do you think it's possible the impeachment hearings could end up being a strategic mistake by the Democrats and could backfire come election time?

I think it's likely that Trump did everything he's accused of, the house will vote to impeach, the Senate will not vote to remove, and this is all a waste of time, entertaining as it may be. 

What do you think?

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

Do you think it's possible the impeachment hearings could end up being a strategic mistake by the Democrats and could backfire come election time?

I think it's likely that Trump did everything he's accused of, the house will vote to impeach, the Senate will not vote to remove, and this is all a waste of time, entertaining as it may be. 

What do you think?

No idea if its going to be a strategic mistake. I hope not.  The behavior, and support of that behavior needs to be punished or it will repeat.

 

I agree with your likely scenario.  I don’t see a path to a Senate conviction.  It frustrates me that the Senate is so shortsighted about the likely implications of non-conviction.  It is not at all entertaining to me.  I think our children will suffer greatly for this.

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, Weave said:

No idea if its going to be a strategic mistake. I hope not.  The behavior, and support of that behavior needs to be punished or it will repeat.

 

I agree with your likely scenario.  I don’t see a path to a Senate conviction.  It frustrates me that the Senate is so shortsighted about the likely implications of non-conviction.  It is not at all entertaining to me.  I think our children will suffer greatly for this.

I don't think this administration will be the new normal. I think it's a failed experiment that'll be forgotten about a year after he's out of office. I think the biggest concern is will that be in one year or five years. 

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, Hank said:

I don't think this administration will be the new normal. I think it's a failed experiment that'll be forgotten about a year after he's out of office. I think the biggest concern is will that be in one year or five years. 

I don’t share your optimism or your opinion that it is a failed experiment.  

Under Trump separation of powers has been pretty well gutted and majority Conservatives put in positions for life.  Don’t forget that some of those appointees should have been Obama appointees.  I don’t see how this behavior isn’t encouraged going forward.  It worked without repercussion. The curtain has been pulled away and we see now how tenuous rule of law really is.

At this point the only effective countermeasure that I can see is similar behavior from the Democrats.

[Drunkard]

On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 1:59 PM, SABRES 0311 said:

I’ve been in six different units over the course of five administrations (three presidents). Their updated photos were in the headquarters buildings of local commands immediately. Based on my experience working in multiple embassies, the idea her embassy didn’t have a picture of the POTUS is laughable, not logical.

Exactly. I work on a military base and those photos always get updated right away (within a day or two of the new leaders assuming command). It's not like they even have to snail mail them out to people. They generally get sent out in a mass email and whomever is responsible for the signs in each building (usually some administrator) prints them out and replaces the old photo(s) with the new ones.