President Donald Trump and his Administration

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Either Comey lied under oath or The Donald did. If The D'ump lied, he can be impeached like Clinton (though it won't be successful unless Democrats control both houses of congress, with a supermajority in the Senate). If Comey did, he can be indicted. If the top cop cannot be trusted, no beat cop can be. Personally, I trust Comey. He was impartial, with investigations hurting the images of both Hilary and The Donald.

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

Antigen positive.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

Today I read on the german newspaper "Wirtschaftswoche" foreign investments in US went down by 40 percent since Mr. Trump was elected for president.

Regarding german companies they write: Third quarter of 2016 they invested more than 5 billion dollar in US economy. Last quarter of 2016  1,41 billion dollars. First quarter of 2017  992 million dollars.

(Link in german)

[Fantozzi 4,069]

Sorry for double post - sometimes when I'm all alone at home I start to talk by myself, f.e. I ask the fridge: "why are you so empty?"

 

 

 

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Now we have a conundrum: impeach a president worse than Nixon and risk a competent ultraconservative getting (re?)elected in 2020 or allow the rule of law to be upheld.

[krbe 193]

Question: Why did Don II believe that it was a good idea to tell the world "yeah, turns out that I did meet some Russian as they said they had mud on the Throne Pretender's opponent, I just totally forgot I spent 20 minutes with her together with Mr Manafort as I didn't think a meeting with an arch enemy's national would be a problem at all, and even if it turned out to be so shortly afterwards I hoped to shield the Pretender so I didn't mention but my brain thought this was a good moment to show that yeah, we did talk to them and thought that was perfectly OK."

Seriously, Donald Trump's 1993-1999 presidency wasn't as hilarious as this.

--- Oh, almost forgot: Don I is speaking of his son in nice terms. Absent a regicide, Don II is probably out soon.

[Sabretooth78 808]

20 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

Now we have a conundrum: impeach a president worse than Nixon and risk a competent ultraconservative getting (re?)elected in 2020 or allow the rule of law to be upheld.

What's going to be worse is the "leftward" backlash we'll face when this is all over.  It's where things are going anyway, but this is going to help it along significantly.  Old Donnie will facilitate an expansion of government and trampling of liberties that would leave George W. Obama gasping in awe.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

I'm afraid - someone has to explain to me what's the problem. I've been watching the news and german media says Mr. Trump is in trouble - but I don't get what the trouble is exactly.

Isn't this quite normal to gather information about the adversary in an election battle? Is this 'gathering information' limited to certain sources in US?

[Duke87 1,070]

3 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

I'm afraid - someone has to explain to me what's the problem. I've been watching the news and german media says Mr. Trump is in trouble - but I don't get what the trouble is exactly.

Isn't this quite normal to gather information about the adversary in an election battle? Is this 'gathering information' limited to certain sources in US?

It's certainly normal to want to learn whatever you can about your opponent, but it is quite illegal to spy on them in their private spaces. This is what brought Nixon's presidency to an early end back in 1974, it was found his staff had snuck into the offices of his opponent during the election campaign and planted spy equipment in order to record their private conversations.

The Trump campaign is now suspected to have done basically the same thing - except rather than engaging in any spying themselves, they simply talked to their buddies in Russia and said "hey, mind sharing some of the intel your spies have gathered?"

Still, it's too early to say what, if anything, this ultimately means. For one thing, without further investigation all we have is suspicion, not proof. Any formal investigation would have to be ordered by congress, which at this time does not seem too keen on doing so.

Meanwhile the fact that Trump's own people did not get any of their hands dirty may allow them to weasel their way out of this since obtaining intel from the Russians, while unethical, is not necessarily illegal.

Of course, it takes a 2/3rds majority vote to remove a president from office by impeachment, so that can't happen without a bipartisan effort. Nixon's downfall was that he lost the support of his own party. Bill Clinton survived being impeached because the Democrats defended him through the whole process. Trump is not going to be removed from office unless the Republican party hangs him out to dry the same as they did with Nixon.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

"If you try to kiss my Melania, I'll shoot you, frenchmen."

 

(And I did it anyway, while you weren't watching)

 

 

[APSMS 1,893]

17 hours ago, Duke87 said:

It's certainly normal to want to learn whatever you can about your opponent, but it is quite illegal to spy on them in their private spaces. This is what brought Nixon's presidency to an early end back in 1974, it was found his staff had snuck into the offices of his opponent during the election campaign and planted spy equipment in order to record their private conversations.

I think the key with Nixon, more than anyone else, was that his people got caught.

I have a hard time believing that Nixon was doing anything out of the ordinary with his campaign people. Certainly LBJ, FDR, and JFK, among others, had no problem doing similar kinds of stunts to get the upper hand on their political opponents. Even Theodore Roosevelt probably engaged in some of these kinds of tactics, and the bigger joke with the whole thing is that the lawyer didn't have any information at all, and wasn't working for the Russians, but an American firm with ties to the Clinton foundation. Are all Russian nationals assumed to be under the thumb of the Kremlin, regardless of their actual affiliations? Guilt by nationality? That sounds awfully borderline racist to me. Almost like assuming that all foreign Muslims are terrorists or should be suspected as such.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The D'ump is considering pardoning himself, his aids, his family, and his campaigners. While presidential pardon is legal, it is unethical to use it as such. This should be one of the last straws before Republicans turn on him and allow/side with impeachment.

[LexusInfernus 908]

8 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

The D'ump is considering pardoning himself, his aids, his family, and his campaigners. While presidential pardon is legal, it is unethical to use it as such. This should be one of the last straws before Republicans turn on him and allow/side with impeachment.

Meh the Republicans first need to grow a spine before they will actually go with impeachment. Which I doubt will happen, given how its apparently mandatory for Republicans to have their spines surgically removed before they are allowed into politics. 

But honestly, why would this breach of ethics be the thing that kills the Trump presidency when all of the previous breaches resulted in nothing but mild indignation. I mean, the guy literally made two family members high ranking advisers of his administration, he still keeps tabs on how his businesses are doing and half of his ministers have 'conflict of interest' spelled on their foreheads. Did congress bat an eye? 

No, Republican politicians themselves are only interested in ethics when its something they can use against Democrats, just like they only gave a damn about the budget gap when its something they can use to block Democrat policies. 

[MatlockMan 370]

Republicans will turn eventually. Right now Trump is supported by 80% of Republicans, so impeachment isn't really going to happen.

Give it time.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Now Trump tweets that Transgenders can't serve in the military anymore after having talked it through with a bunch of generals, citing 'costs'.

Well, can you be more of an asshole then by effectively firing thousands of people serving in your army and helping the country remain safe, than by doing it through a tweet? And for such a lame excuse? What costs? Transgender soldiers are hardly more expensive and if you can justify spending over a billion dollars on a shitty airplane, cost is no longer an excuse. Although of course, to that waste of human flesh that somehow became Commander in Chief, shiny expensive toys are probably more important than the people he is responsible for. 

Also, apparently the Pentagon wasn't aware that this policy shift was coming up, so that bit where Trump talked about it with his generals was probably a lie. 

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

All judges and lawyers are criminally insane themselves and incapable any of due process of law with even the slightest integrity, honor, or commitment to any values and ethics.

Donald J. Trump.

Indictment: Conspiracy to commit fraud.
Indictment: Conspiracy to evade tax law.
Indictment: Conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Indictment: Conspiracy to perjure.
Indictment: Conspiracy to promote social disorder.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fantozzi 4,069]

9 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Now Trump tweets that Transgenders can't serve in the military anymore after having talked it through with a bunch of generals, citing 'costs'.

I thought, they make uniforms in the us army unisex? But isn't 'uni' a short form of the word 'universal'? And doesn't that mean the uniform fits all sexes? So they are only 'duosex'?

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

Its gets even better.  The administrative branch of the United Nations may begin preparation for the global administration of provisional government of human civilization.  The security council and the legislature of nations may be dissolved.   All nation-state governments may be considered organized criminal operations.  Enforcement of law is assured over all criminal police and military factions and their criminal justice systems of their respective criminal governments by force of nature and God.  

[APSMS 1,893]

The UN is a morally bankrupt organization. It may be the best we have, but that does not necessarily mean that it is good. 

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

In the strictest sense no institution isn't morally bankrupt and of much good, but conditions would be even worse without the UN maintaining at least a vague clue of some kind of humanity in the world. The UN was the solution to ending any further world wars and it still is. 

The great thing about the UN is to organize it into a full conventional military force would be to eliminate the battle and the field.  Who would we be fighting?  The outer space aliens?   Wouldn't It be cheaper to just medicate them with antipsychotics?

The continuing engineering, stockpiling and trading of weapons is certainly a fatal waste of time and resources, and the UN is the only forum in which to make that clear to the warmonging wastoids preparing for the zombie apocalypse in their psychotic delusions.

Maybe the UN should focus on promotion of human mental health?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

By supporting the alt-right and condemning counterprotesters, The D'ump has alienated more republicans, galvanized Democrats & progressives, and reduced his base to the Alt-right. The day before that, his approval rating was sitting at 35%, the next poll will show us how many racist conservatives there are in the USA.

[metarvo 712]

He condemned both uhh, many sides though.

[matias93 7,535]

2 minutes ago, metarvo said:

He condemned both sides though.

but you know, when you say that both sides won or lost, or that both are bad or good, you are basically saying nothing. It's like participation trophies...

[metarvo 712]

Fair point.

[APSMS 1,893]

2 hours ago, matias93 said:

but you know, when you say that both sides won or lost, or that both are bad or good, you are basically saying nothing. It's like participation trophies...

But when both sides are equally responsible for the violence, is there a difference? If two gangs get into a gun fight, do we condemn only one gang because we decide that we approve of what they're doing more than the other gang, even if both engaged in illegal activity?

Because, unless the Alt-Right started the violence, I have a hard time defending the antifa solely because they're supposedly not "racist, white-supremacists neo-nazis who are members of the KKK." Last I checked it was still legal to be a racist in America. Call me up the next time it's not so I can move to Mexico and avoid the fascism that's overtaking the nation.

At any rate, if you participate in violence, you lose. Since when is it OK to support violence against individuals simply because we disagree with them?

2 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

By supporting the alt-right and condemning counterprotesters, The D'ump has alienated more republicans, galvanized Democrats & progressives, and reduced his base to the Alt-right. The day before that, his approval rating was sitting at 35%, the next poll will show us how many racist conservatives there are in the USA.

People said that racism ruled the day when Trump got elected, but I'm so confused...where were all these racists when a black man was president? Did they come out of the woodwork to protest a white woman who helped support the legislation that labeled young black men as "super-predators"?

Wouldn't that be sexism? But then I'm confused about this, see, because of this study, which, while not very scientific, did debunk a lot of the idea that people in general were anti-Clinton simply because she was a woman.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

 

[Odainsaker 2,137]

I have yet to understand how the young woman memorialized today was "equally responsible" for the terrorist car attack that killed her.

The only coherent explanation for such supposed responsibility has been the self-congratulatory bigotry from the mouths of Ku Klux Klan, an armed terrorist militia so emboldened now that they no longer feel the need to hide their faces shamefully behind the old white hoods.  Despite what the apologists, doublethinkers, and little Von Papens would have us believe, we saw the Klan and the so-called "alt-right" for what they really are when they terrorized Charlottesville, and we also saw exactly who Trump really is.  We are barely 8 months in, and already the KKK and the Nazis are marching through our streets with torches and guns and trying to mass-murder our citizens.

 

[Jasoncw 12,060]

APSMS you're seriously defending Trump over this? A Nazi committing a terrorist attack (or if we're being generous "attempted to murder scores of people") is the easiest thing in the universe to say is wrong. EVERYONE is coming out in droves to say that this obviously bad thing is bad. Trump is somehow incapable of doing this. Why is this so hard for him? Why is he making the simplest thing a president ever has to do so incredibly difficult!

If I'm walking down the street and someone tells me "hey a Nazi just killed someone! Isn't that terrible?" I say "oh geeze, that's terrible!". It's not something I have to think about, I don't need days of people giving me insane pressure to say it, and when I say it I don't need to deflect it, muddle it, rationalize it, or qualify it. 

[matias93 7,535]

2 hours ago, APSMS said:

Last I checked it was still legal to be a racist in America. Call me up the next time it's not so I can move to Mexico and avoid the fascism that's overtaking the nation.

I think this sums why all this affair looks so foreign to me: here indeed is illegal to be racist, and in fact, to do anything arbitrarialy discriminatory. Indeed, the law was rushed after a nazi attack and hate homicide of a gay youngster. And while I can understand what arguments are behind the caution of considering this kinds of restrictions as somewhat vulneratory of liberties, I cannot share those worries. Maybe is simply an irrational and biased stance, but I prefer an state of things on which racism is strictly forbidden, even if political liberties got restricted on virtue of that.

On the other hand, I'm also surprised (and then not-surprised) for the amount of support antifascists are recieving from liberals. Sure, antifascists generally don't have any political project farther than eliminate nazis and similars, but they are by themselves violators of the principle of State's monopoly of legitimate force. But then comes the no-surprise: here that principle applies, but not on the US: your legislation contemplates the freedom of forming militias, of bearing arms, etc. Do that on Chile (or in almost any western country, really) and you'll get yourself in jail for long years.

In my opinion, the US cannot and should not expect the presence of nazis (or neo-nazis, or white supremacists, whatever you want to call them) to be resolved by private citizens, be them antifascists, civil rights activists or anything else; is the Federal State the one with the authority and the duty to take control of what's happening under its sovereignty. There are even precedents, as the federalisation of the Arkansas National Guard in 1957 to enforce the school integration; why couldn't this be done now?

Of course, this would depend on Trump deciding, all by himself, to deny legitimity to a very vocal part of his own electorate, to win their most complete rejection. I cannot imagine Trump doing that, but it would be what a responsable president would do to preserve the peace on his nation.

[KaintGetRight 2]

tRump is a global embarrassment and anyone who voted for him should hang their heads in collective shame. The only people who're still supporting him are the overtly ignorant, uneducated, and White supremacists. 

[TekindusT 3,809]

1 hour ago, matias93 said:

Of course, this would depend on Trump deciding, all by himself, to deny legitimity to a very vocal part of his own electorate, to win their most complete rejection. I cannot imagine Trump doing that, but it would be what a responsable president would do to preserve the peace on his nation.

A responsible president? The USA could really use one now...