Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[LGR4GM]

18 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

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.

So we agree Trump is lying about a career foreign service worker refusing to put a portrait? It is such a simple and routine thing that I don't believe it wasn't done or that if this person was directed to they burned their career over a picture. I do believe she was in Trump and Guliani's way and they wanted an excuse to remove her. Hence why the story about why she was removed has shifted and changed. 

 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

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.

 

We've already crossed the Rubicon. The fallout from this won't simply vanish. I think in 1 year you will be able to add a charge to this. Trump won't concede if he loses the election. He and his sycophants will call it fake. They will charge that the election was fraudulent and that they alone were elected to power. Anyone speaking out against such a claim will be labeled a traitor to the State. All this talk about letting the people decide is a lie to cover his crimes. When the time comes for the people to decide in the next election, you watch but it will be a fight over the results. 

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We've already crossed the Rubicon. The fallout from this won't simply vanish. I think in 1 year you will be able to add a charge to this. Trump won't concede if he loses the election. He and his sycophants will call it fake. They will charge that the election was fraudulent and that they alone were elected to power. Anyone speaking out against such a claim will be labeled a traitor to the State. All this talk about letting the people decide is a lie to cover his crimes. When the time comes for the people to decide in the next election, you watch but it will be a fight over the results. 

.....this Fox news style narrative brought to you by our resident snowflake...

[drnkirishone]

Just so this snowflake is clear on the situation.

We are accepting as plausible that commander in orange fired an ambassador for not hanging up his picture over 2 years after his orange portrait was to go up?

We think it is possible that he waited 28 months to pull the trigger on that insult?

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, drnkirishone said:

Just so this snowflake is clear on the situation.

We are accepting as plausible that commander in orange fired an ambassador for not hanging up his picture over 2 years after his orange portrait was to go up?

We think it is possible that he waited 28 months to pull the trigger on that insult?

I never claimed to know, or attempted to debate, the reason for her removal. Trump, like every other president, can remove an ambassador for any reason. They don't need to justify it to anyone. What I said was IF, again IF, she refused to hang his picture, that's reason enough to be removed. 

 

[SABRES 0311]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

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.  

For two years liberals kept saying the Mueller investigation was going to get him removed. What exactly did Russia do? Created fake social media accounts to spread anti HRC info. Im still waiting for how many people changed their vote based on a meme posted by a Russian organization. I’d like to believe most voters are smart enough not to get their info from Facebook but maybe I’m wrong. So if some Russian teenager posts a Biden meme I guess we’re gonna do this all over again.

So now we are on to a phone call. Would I like to see the full transcript and hear from the same people the left wants? Yes I would. Thus far it’s been a bunch people offering their opinion. I’m telling you Democrats in Washington are trying to appeal to their base. It’s the same thing Trump does. After a two year investigation failed to do what liberals thought it would do you really think this is going to remove him? 

5 hours ago, LTS said:

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.

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.

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. 

 

In no way is it logical the embassy did not have his picture. I have outlined why it is not logical so please outline how it would make sense they did not have a picture of the POTUS. Keep in mind the accusation is that she didn’t make sure it was up for about a year. 

[LGR4GM]

57 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

For two years liberals kept saying the Mueller investigation was going to get him removed. What exactly did Russia do? Created fake social media accounts to spread anti HRC info. Im still waiting for how many people changed their vote based on a meme posted by a Russian organization. I’d like to believe most voters are smart enough not to get their info from Facebook but maybe I’m wrong. So if some Russian teenager posts a Biden meme I guess we’re gonna do this all over again.

So now we are on to a phone call. Would I like to see the full transcript and hear from the same people the left wants? Yes I would. Thus far it’s been a bunch people offering their opinion. I’m telling you Democrats in Washington are trying to appeal to their base. It’s the same thing Trump does. After a two year investigation failed to do what liberals thought it would do you really think this is going to remove him? 

In no way is it logical the embassy did not have his picture. I have outlined why it is not logical so please outline how it would make sense they did not have a picture of the POTUS. Keep in mind the accusation is that she didn’t make sure it was up for about a year. 

You think it's teenagers posting memes? That's not what's happening. It's a coordinated effort to influence the election not a bitch of kids from Russia making jokes. You seriously believe that? 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I never claimed to know, or attempted to debate, the reason for her removal. Trump, like every other president, can remove an ambassador for any reason. They don't need to justify it to anyone. What I said was IF, again IF, she refused to hang his picture, that's reason enough to be removed. 

 

Nope just freaked out on me and called me a snowflake when I responded with an alternative view. You made it personal. Talk about being a snowflake. 

Btw, if he doesn't need a reason why'd he invent one? 

Edited November 25, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Weave]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

For two years liberals kept saying the Mueller investigation was going to get him removed. What exactly did Russia do? Created fake social media accounts to spread anti HRC info. Im still waiting for how many people changed their vote based on a meme posted by a Russian organization. I’d like to believe most voters are smart enough not to get their info from Facebook but maybe I’m wrong. So if some Russian teenager posts a Biden meme I guess we’re gonna do this all over again.

So now we are on to a phone call. Would I like to see the full transcript and hear from the same people the left wants? Yes I would. Thus far it’s been a bunch people offering their opinion. I’m telling you Democrats in Washington are trying to appeal to their base. It’s the same thing Trump does. After a two year investigation failed to do what liberals thought it would do you really think this is going to remove him? 

Not trying to be snarky here but I think you have your head in the sand if you aren’t willing to accept the testimony of career professionals, and not political appointees, that have detailed the events involving the bribery (let’s call it what it is) of a friendly country. Democrats may be running the investigation but the testimony and evidence is coming from career experts who have served without issue under Presidents from both parties.  That “bunch of people” as you label them have no base that they are appealing to.  

[SABRES 0311]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You think it's teenagers posting memes? That's not what's happening. It's a coordinated effort to influence the election not a bitch of kids from Russia making jokes. You seriously believe that? 

Russias newest cyber unit, the meme squad. BTW I’m laughing because people refuse to acknowledge Russia is exploiting our fetish with social media. Newsflash, don’t believe everything you see online. Unless you implement censorship the only way to mitigate the vulnerability is to educate those getting their information from social media.

The U.S. receives cyber attacks everyday and nobody bats an eye. You know full well if HRC won and Russia did this to Trump the left would say Trump is a sore loser. Only when it affected her ability to break through that glass ceiling did everyone complain.

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Not trying to be snarky here but I think you have your head in the sand if you aren’t willing to accept the testimony of career professionals, and not political appointees, that have detailed the events involving the bribery (let’s call it what it is) of a friendly country. Democrats may be running the investigation but the testimony and evidence is coming from career experts who have served without issue under Presidents from both parties.  That “bunch of people” as you label them have no base that they are appealing to.  

I have my head in the sand? I’m not going to take someone’s assessment on the situation seriously until I have all the information on the issue. I want to hear from the same people the left does and read the full transcript. What we have now is a summary without the body. Separate emotion (hatred of Trump) from the situation. We are talking about possible impeachment. I’d think you want more than what’s been provided.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Nope just freaked out on me and called me a snowflake when I responded with an alternative view. You made it personal. Talk about being a snowflake. 

Btw, if he doesn't need a reason why'd he invent one? 

Please, get over yourself. I told you to stop acting like a snowflake and grow up, that's different than a personal attack, you should be intelligent enough to be able to see the difference. 

You ever notice how many posters you seem to think have a problem with you? Wether the topic is politics, Risto or who to draft, you lack the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion than you, and seem obsessed with convincing them that "your" opinion is the "right" opinion, and you have a tendency to be condescending and dismissive about it. Didn't you pull the equivalent of taking your ball and going home during the draft? Again? As if withholding your expert knowledge and insight is some great loss to the SabreSpace community. What a joke. 

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I have my head in the sand? I’m not going to take someone’s assessment on the situation seriously until I have all the information on the issue. I want to hear from the same people the left does and read the full transcript. What we have now is a summary without the body. Separate emotion (hatred of Trump) from the situation. We are talking about possible impeachment. I’d think you want more than what’s been provided.

Not that anyone asked, but I personally believe Trump asked for an investigation to be done on BurIsma/Biden. He also may have linked it to them receiving aid. I also believe that doing such a thing may not be uncommon and if it was anyone but Trump no one would give a *****. 

[Weave]

20 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I have my head in the sand? I’m not going to take someone’s assessment on the situation seriously until I have all the information on the issue. I want to hear from the same people the left does and read the full transcript. What we have now is a summary without the body. Separate emotion (hatred of Trump) from the situation. We are talking about possible impeachment. I’d think you want more than what’s been provided.

Yeah, that is exactly what you are doing, putting your head in the sand.  It's too conveninet for someone who is never going to get all the information to say they will reserve judgement until they get it, especially given the sworn testimony that you 100% have access to.  And given your outrage over Hillary's emails and Benghazi (neither of which you have seen any evidence about) about 3 years ago I'm calling *****.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Weave

[LTS]

4 hours ago, Hank said:

.....this Fox news style narrative brought to you by our resident snowflake...

This is not asking someone to stop acting like a snowflake.  It's name calling and has no place here.

3 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

For two years liberals kept saying the Mueller investigation was going to get him removed. What exactly did Russia do? Created fake social media accounts to spread anti HRC info. Im still waiting for how many people changed their vote based on a meme posted by a Russian organization. I’d like to believe most voters are smart enough not to get their info from Facebook but maybe I’m wrong. So if some Russian teenager posts a Biden meme I guess we’re gonna do this all over again.

So now we are on to a phone call. Would I like to see the full transcript and hear from the same people the left wants? Yes I would. Thus far it’s been a bunch people offering their opinion. I’m telling you Democrats in Washington are trying to appeal to their base. It’s the same thing Trump does. After a two year investigation failed to do what liberals thought it would do you really think this is going to remove him? 

In no way is it logical the embassy did not have his picture. I have outlined why it is not logical so please outline how it would make sense they did not have a picture of the POTUS. Keep in mind the accusation is that she didn’t make sure it was up for about a year. 

First bolded: I fear you are incorrect here.  I only need to look at my community Facebook page to know that people, despite the obvious truth in front of them, refuse to believe it if enough people tell them it's not accurate. It's a sad state.

Second bolded: perhaps I missed the full outline in the initial post.  If so, my apologies. It seemed like the initial take was "they make sure these are distributed immediately" and "I have been in X number of location over Y Presidents and they've always had the picture."  I used generics because I don't recall the number.  I didn't see the part about her not making sure it was up for about a year. 

17 minutes ago, Hank said:

Please, get over yourself. I told you to stop acting like a snowflake and grow up, that's different than a personal attack, you should be intelligent enough to be able to see the difference. 

You ever notice how many posters you seem to think have a problem with you? Wether the topic is politics, Risto or who to draft, you lack the ability to accept that people may have a different opinion than you, and seem obsessed with convincing them that "your" opinion is the "right" opinion, and you have a tendency to be condescending and dismissive about it. Didn't you pull the equivalent of taking your ball and going home during the draft? Again? As if withholding your expert knowledge and insight is some great loss to the SabreSpace community. What a joke. 

See my first quoted post from you above.  Your first comment was indeed as you say, the second, not so much.  The second paragraph can be handled elsewhere. 

---------------

In general, I love when people post quotes from the "founding fathers" and frankly from political texts of years gone by.  Politics were so much more philosophical than matters of law.  Exercises of thought.  I suppose that's what had originally enamored me with politics.. and then I studied them and learned it just wasn't true anymore.  Sigh.

 

[SABRES 0311]

9 minutes ago, Weave said:

Yeah, that is exactly what you are doing, putting your head in the sand.  It's too conveninet for someone who is never going to get all the information to say they will reserve judgement until they get it.  And given your outrage over Hillary's emails and Benghazi (neither of which you have seen any evidence about) about 3 years ago I'm calling *****.

If I’m putting my head the sand you’re a gullible person who believes anything that will fit your emotional narrative. After three years it’s time to face reality. Your candidates for 2020 suck. Maybe Tulsi has a chance. The future of your party is AOC and Omar. Your party leadership sees removing Trump from office as the only way to make sure he doesn’t win. They spin their base up over and over. Russia, Stormy Daniels, Ukraine. Every time you guys say this is it, he’s getting removed and going to jail. Don’t be mad at me because it never happens. 

[SABRES 0311]

@LTS

So are we only mad at Russia for trying to interfere or are we a little mad at ourselves for creating our own vulnerability?

The numbers you are looking for are 17 years, 6 commands, 3 presidents, 2 embassies. I literally came into work the day after inauguration and there he was in all his orange glory. ? If my local command in Japan (at that time) had the picture I don’t see why an embassy wouldn’t.

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

If I’m putting my head the sand you’re a gullible person who believes anything that will fit your emotional narrative. After three years it’s time to face reality. Your candidates for 2020 suck. Maybe Tulsi has a chance. The future of your party is AOC and Omar. Your party leadership sees removing Trump from office as the only way to make sure he doesn’t win. They spin their base up over and over. Russia, Stormy Daniels, Ukraine. Every time you guys say this is it, he’s getting removed and going to jail. Don’t be mad at me because it never happens. 

I've never been a registered Democrat and never in 34 years as a voter voted one for President, Governor, or Senator. In fact, I can count on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over how many Dmes I've voted for lifetime.  It's not my party.  And it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation about Donald Trump.  Frankly, it says alot about the man when a never Democrat feels so strongly about what is happening today.  When there is no more substance to your argument you change the subject.

[Hank]

43 minutes ago, LTS said:

This is not asking someone to stop acting like a snowflake.  It's name calling and has no place here.

First bolded: I fear you are incorrect here.  I only need to look at my community Facebook page to know that people, despite the obvious truth in front of them, refuse to believe it if enough people tell them it's not accurate. It's a sad state.

Second bolded: perhaps I missed the full outline in the initial post.  If so, my apologies. It seemed like the initial take was "they make sure these are distributed immediately" and "I have been in X number of location over Y Presidents and they've always had the picture."  I used generics because I don't recall the number.  I didn't see the part about her not making sure it was up for about a year. 

See my first quoted post from you above.  Your first comment was indeed as you say, the second, not so much.  The second paragraph can be handled elsewhere. 

 

You're right. I'll stop. 

[SABRES 0311]

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

I've never been a registered Democrat and never in 34 years as a voter voted one for President, Governor, or Senator. In fact, I can count on the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over how many Dmes I've voted for lifetime.  It's not my party.  And it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation about Donald Trump.  Frankly, it says alot about the man when a never Democrat feels so strongly about what is happening today.  When there is no more substance to your argument you change the subject.

You’re the one responding to disagreements with insults but somehow I have no substance. Every time I have tried to bring up the hypocrisy of politics I’m told I’m changing the subject. It says a lot when you rely on people’s opinions of what happened and ignore Zelensky saying he didn’t feel pressured. Try looking at all of the information not just what fits your personal view.
 

Since you brought up the Benghazi thing, I have an issue with Obama and HRCs judgement contributing to a situation which resulted in death. I’ve also read and heard accounts of the situation from those who were there and directly involved. I didn’t rely on someone’s assessment like HRC when she said it was because of a cartoon. Or that she didn’t know what “C” means on a document considering that is basic stuff.
 

To the bold I’m guessing your a talking about Trump. 

[Weave]

15 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You’re the one responding to disagreements with insults but somehow I have no substance. Every time I have tried to bring up the hypocrisy of politics I’m told I’m changing the subject. It says a lot when you rely on people’s opinions of what happened and ignore Zelensky saying he didn’t feel pressured. Try looking at all of the information not just what fits your personal view.
 

Since you brought up the Benghazi thing, I have an issue with Obama and HRCs judgement contributing to a situation which resulted in death. I’ve also read and heard accounts of the situation from those who were there and directly involved. I didn’t rely on someone’s assessment like HRC when she said it was because of a cartoon. Or that she didn’t know what “C” means on a document considering that is basic stuff.
 

To the bold I’m guessing your a talking about Trump. 

Would you feel any better if I said you're ignoring evidence because you don't like what it shows?  Because that is exactly what hiding your head in the sand means.

I'm not relying on anyone's opinions to form my thoughts.  I'm relying on sworn testimony.  All of it.  Available to anyone to read, unlike the trnascript you'll never see.

[SABRES 0311]

6 minutes ago, Weave said:

Would you feel any better if I said you're ignoring evidence because you don't like what it shows?  Because that is exactly what hiding your head in the sand means.

I'm not relying on anyone's opinions to form my thoughts.  I'm relying on sworn testimony.  All of it.  Available to anyone to read, unlike the trnascript you'll never see.

Then we’ll see how this turns out. If he doesn’t get impeached with all this testimony of truth from people who are above reproach I’ll look forward to hearing why.

[Weave]

9 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Then we’ll see how this turns out. If he doesn’t get impeached with all this testimony of truth from people who are above reproach I’ll look forward to hearing why.

He'll get impeached.  However, a loyal Republican majority in the Senate won't convict.  It's not like a criminal trial.  Impeachment is an inherently political process.  See Bill Clinton as example #1.  Politics prevented his conviction, not innocence.  But he was impeached.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

He'll get impeached.  However, a loyal Republican majority in the Senate won't convict.  It's not like a criminal trial.  Impeachment is an inherently political process.  See Bill Clinton as example #1.  Politics prevented his conviction, not innocence.  But he was impeached.

I have no doubt the Senate won’t convict. I don’t think the house will do anything. I think there will be one or maybe two more investigations before 2020.

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

He'll get impeached.  However, a loyal Republican majority in the Senate won't convict.  It's not like a criminal trial.  Impeachment is an inherently political process.  See Bill Clinton as example #1.  Politics prevented his conviction, not innocence.  But he was impeached.

This is exactly how I see it playing out. 

Slightly off topic, I think the Clinton impeachment was an even bigger sham than this one. I also believe that fiasco had an impact on his wife not winning in 16.