Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[Hank]

1 minute ago, SABRES 0311 said:

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.

You don't think the house will vote to impeach? I think there's no way they don't impeach. I think the hearings are a formality merely delaying the inevitable. 

[SABRES 0311]

5 minutes ago, Hank said:

You don't think the house will vote to impeach? I think there's no way they don't impeach. I think the hearings are a formality merely delaying the inevitable. 

I think they will need the smoking gun. Something like the full transcript. They don’t want this to turn into a win the battle but lost the war type of thing. I think the goal is a 2020 blue tsunami. If there is any doubt in the public they may reap it later on. The problem is this is the third major issue they have raised. Stormy and the Mueller report didn’t do what their constituents thought would happen. Impeachment seems like a double down move. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Hank said:

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. 

 

At the time I was all for the Clinton impeachment.  He almost certainly obstructed justice.  Although frankly, I think a stronger case for obstruction of justice can be had re: Trump right now.  The investigation that led to the obstruction of justice charges?  Yeah, I was for it then as well.  Now?  Not so much.  Don't get me wrong, getting into a sexual relationship with a subordinate is worthy of censure.  Was it worthy of a full blown investigation?  I don't feel so today. 

The hatred for the Clintons is interesting.  I'm guilty of it.  I think Hillary lost on her own merits.  Bill's history sure doesn't help, but she's crafted her own negative image.

[Drunkard]

8 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

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. 

Most likely. 

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, Drunkard said:

Most likely. 

Fair. Either way the entire affair seems odd. 

12 hours 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. 

Of course there is hypocrisy in politics. That's one of the reasons we are in this mess. 

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, Hank said:

You don't think the house will vote to impeach? I think there's no way they don't impeach. I think the hearings are a formality merely delaying the inevitable. 

I think they will vote to impeach and Trump will not be removed by the Senate. There's too many Senators with their hands in the cookie jar. They feel they need Trump and will show him loyalty. 

[LGR4GM]

 

 

Like I said, Trump is a liar and full of s#!t. 

[Drunkard]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Fair. Either way the entire affair seems odd. 

 

Yeah, I could never say for sure because I'm not there, but based on his history, I wouldn't be surprised if he's lying.

[SwampD]

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. 

So much for using logic to figure out this president, huh?

[LTS]

16 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

@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.

First bolded: I don't blame Russia.  Interference in election politics has been going on longer than the Internet has existed.  It's just easier now, because the world is collectively much more ignorant now.

Second bolded: Thank you.  I guess now, see below and let me know what you think.  It's stuff like this that always makes me pause.  I have no idea on how to interpret the information below.  On the surface, it lends credence to the notion that they did not get the picture and it addresses why they didn't just print one.

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

Like I said, Trump is a liar and full of s#!t. 

And the show goes on...

 

[SABRES 0311]

7 minutes ago, LTS said:

First bolded: I don't blame Russia.  Interference in election politics has been going on longer than the Internet has existed.  It's just easier now, because the world is collectively much more ignorant now.

Second bolded: Thank you.  I guess now, see below and let me know what you think.  It's stuff like this that always makes me pause.  I have no idea on how to interpret the information below.  On the surface, it lends credence to the notion that they did not get the picture and it addresses why they didn't just print one.

And the show goes on...

 

It makes no sense to me. These are U.S. embassies so I don’t get how they would not have the picture when lower level organizations did. Most notably is the amount of time. Someone at the embassy has the job of updating the photo in the frame just like someone in DC has the job of distribution. I’ll admit there are times I need a break from this stuff out of frustration.

[LGR4GM]

I think the fact that Russia is actively targeting our elections while the Senate sits on a bill to help secure those elections is troubling. More troubling than a stupid picture. 

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I think the fact that Russia is actively targeting our elections while the Senate sits on a bill to help secure those elections is troubling. More troubling than a stupid picture. 

What’s the bill propose?

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

What’s the bill propose?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1540/text

[LTS]

8 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

It makes no sense to me. These are U.S. embassies so I don’t get how they would not have the picture when lower level organizations did. Most notably is the amount of time. Someone at the embassy has the job of updating the photo in the frame just like someone in DC has the job of distribution. I’ll admit there are times I need a break from this stuff out of frustration.

I understand the frustration.  Yet it seems like somehow that may have happened... or may not have.  

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I think the fact that Russia is actively targeting our elections while the Senate sits on a bill to help secure those elections is troubling. More troubling than a stupid picture. 

I suppose I should look at that bill, but security is an illusion, especially if its being peddled by the government.

Yeah, I opened the bill and stopped almost immediately.  I don't have it in me to read through a bunch of rambling legalese appropriating funds to some government contractors in attempts to provide an illusion of security.  Let's just say this... non electronic voting has been compromised far too often, electronic voting is insecure by the very nature of it being electronic.  System are insecure, especially highly desegregated systems such as voting machines.

The biggest problem?  Even if security weren't a facade, you aren't protecting against people voting because of psychological campaigns meant to steer people to voting a certain way.

Edited November 27, 2019 by LTS

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1540/text

Started browsing through it. As it pertains to cyber security I didn’t see which organization/agency would be used to provide a vulnerability assessment and mitigation. I would hope it is not open to private sector. I would hate too see a swing state outsourcing to the lowest bidder. That opens the door to foreign interference. 

Edited November 27, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Started browsing through it. As it pertains to cyber security I didn’t see which organization/agency would be used to provide a vulnerability assessment and mitigation. I would hope it is not open to private sector. I would hate too see a swing state outsourcing to the lowest bidder. That opens the door to foreign interference. 

I agree. 

11 hours ago, LTS said:

I understand the frustration.  Yet it seems like somehow that may have happened... or may not have.  

I suppose I should look at that bill, but security is an illusion, especially if its being peddled by the government.

Yeah, I opened the bill and stopped almost immediately.  I don't have it in me to read through a bunch of rambling legalese appropriating funds to some government contractors in attempts to provide an illusion of security.  Let's just say this... non electronic voting has been compromised far too often, electronic voting is insecure by the very nature of it being electronic.  System are insecure, especially highly desegregated systems such as voting machines.

The biggest problem?  Even if security weren't a facade, you aren't protecting against people voting because of psychological campaigns meant to steer people to voting a certain way.

Which was at the crux of a lot of the Russian interference. Fake stories and things designed to create division and get people to vote different ways. 

[LTS]

13 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Started browsing through it. As it pertains to cyber security I didn’t see which organization/agency would be used to provide a vulnerability assessment and mitigation. I would hope it is not open to private sector. I would hate too see a swing state outsourcing to the lowest bidder. That opens the door to foreign interference. 

They are already open to foreign interference, even if they choose the highest bidder.  No one develops code from scratch, no one builds chips from scratch.  There are always attack vectors that are open to exploitation.  Even if someone was to build everything from scratch their code would likely have even more vulnerabilities than using "off the shelf" code/components to build from. This is the illusion of security.

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I agree. 

Which was at the crux of a lot of the Russian interference. Fake stories and things designed to create division and get people to vote different ways. 

Yep.. psychological manipulation.  The only defense against that is critical thinking and intelligence.

[LGR4GM]

49 minutes ago, LTS said:

They are already open to foreign interference, even if they choose the highest bidder.  No one develops code from scratch, no one builds chips from scratch.  There are always attack vectors that are open to exploitation.  Even if someone was to build everything from scratch their code would likely have even more vulnerabilities than using "off the shelf" code/components to build from. This is the illusion of security.

Yep.. psychological manipulation.  The only defense against that is critical thinking and intelligence.

Almost like maybe we should actually spend money on education. And I don't mean that religious based crap that Devos pushes. I mean science and fact based education teaching critical evaluation skills. 

[drnkirishone]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Almost like maybe we should actually spend money on education. And I don't mean that religious based crap that Devos pushes. I mean science and fact based education teaching critical evaluation skills. 

You mean the fake news skills?!

Now where did I leave my sarcasm emoticon?

[LTS]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Almost like maybe we should actually spend money on education. And I don't mean that religious based crap that Devos pushes. I mean science and fact based education teaching critical evaluation skills. 

One could only wish for it.  I weep for my own children who routinely just believe whatever they hear or read.  Despite attempts to teach them how to think critically.  Perhaps chess should be a school subject.  Hell, start with checkers and Othello... throw in a little Mastermind.

Sigh.

[SABRES 0311]

Rep Lawerence (D) says she supports a vote of censure as opposed to impeachment. No idea how strong her voice is in the party. 

[Weave]

On 11/28/2019 at 6:29 AM, SABRES 0311 said:

Rep Lawerence (D) says she supports a vote of censure as opposed to impeachment. No idea how strong her voice is in the party. 

My problem with a vote to censure is twofold.  1. It has no teeth to curb the illegal activity that has taken place, and 2. related to 1., Trump can and will simply ignore it and continue on, business as usual.

We really need to see these activities halted, and punished to dissuade them from happening again in the future.

[drnkirishone]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

My problem with a vote to censure is twofold.  1. It has no teeth to curb the illegal activity that has taken place, and 2. related to 1., Trump can and will simply ignore it and continue on, business as usual.

We really need to see these activities halted, and punished to dissuade them from happening again in the future.

Problem is short of the senate removing him (it won't happen) nothing will dissuade him from continuing to act as he has.

He will be impeached, the senate will vote down party lines and he will call it vindication from the "witch hunt".

Best we can hope for is the impeachment process lays bare his corruption to the voters and it turns them against him in the election

[Curt]

On 11/25/2019 at 6:44 PM, Hank said:

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 *****. 

Personally, I think this is bonkers.  Exploiting the office of POTUS in order to attempt to perpetuate your own hold on power, as opposed to acting in the interests of your country is a very big deal.  It should be completely unacceptable, but who knows, maybe I’m out to lunch on what public at large is accepting of.