Author Topic: The Trump Presidency  (Read 293637 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5068
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3675 on: February 15, 2017, 09:24:43 AM »
No, I don't think it would arguably be treasonous, for the same reason that I opposed conservatives talking about Obama's Iran deal as treasonous.  To Trump's administration, Russia is not an "enemy of the United States" (or at least no rational person looking at it can say so), so how can giving it "aid" (if indeed anything Flynn said even rose to that level, but even assuming that for the sake of argument) be treasonous?  The entire point of the Treason Clause of the Constitution was to limit the range of conduct that could be considered treasonous so as to exclude ordinary political and policy disagreements.  If Congress were to declare war on Russia over a presidential veto, then you could say that Russia is an enemy of the United States notwithstanding anything the president might say to the contrary.  But the mere fact that Russia is sanctioned under federal law cannot be the standard for establishing who is an "enemy of the United States" for purposes of the Treason Clause, or else Obama's clandestine negotiations with Iran (another sanctioned entity engaged in discussions about lifting those sanctions) was equally treasonous.  But that means that neither was treasonous, not that both were.

If you think it was treasonous for Flynn to tell Russia to not retaliate, are you implying that it would have been non-treasonous to tell Russia to retaliate with everything they've got?  You either believe the secrecy of the conversation makes it treasonous or the content of the conversation makes it treasonous, and neither one does if it was simply stating the position of the transition team.  If we find out later that Flynn revealed classified information or that he was actually being paid by the Russians to offer counsel to Trump that was other than what he would have offered if disinterested, then obviously we have a whole new ballgame (still even then might not be treason, but would almost certainly be criminal under some lesser federal statute or other).

I think I agree with Gramarye on this one.  Based on what I know of the discussions I would certainly call them inappropriate.  Perhaps illegal.  But treason?  I don't think so.  With that said it sounds like there might be more to this than that simple conversation so I think I'll just wait for the onion to be peeled before getting out my pitchfork.

And I agree with you (as I've said previously on this thread) that I have a feeling there's more to this than has yet been revealed as well, because the revelations so far that have caused such hyperventilation among Trump opponents would not be cause for termination in the administration based on everything we know of Trump (he enjoys freaking out the people who are most freaked out by this).  Other than the rusty Logan Act (which really is toothless), I haven't actually seen a legal argument for which law was violated and how.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/14/harward-emerges-as-front-runner-to-replace-flynn-following-talks/?utm_term=.15635a80d57d

Admiral Harward would be a signal that Mattis is winning vis a vis foreign policy, a major good sign.

He's been on the blunt end of the stick, and he's not just a military thinker globally.   One of his pet issues has been increasing the education of girls, internationally.


Never heard of the guy.  But if he has Mattis' backing and is not a conspiracy theorist like Flynn, he's automatically got a leg up on his predecessor.

Note that I generally disapproved of Flynn as national security adviser.  However, it was his penchant for conspiracy-theory mongering, not his alleged contacts with Russia in support of an administration that has openly stated it wants a closer relationship with Russia (regardless of my opinions on that course of action), that I think made him a liability at that job.  It isn't just that someone who is given to treating everything as a threat necessarily fails at prioritization (because not everything is actually equally threatening, and resources need to be prioritized proportionally to actual national security threats).  It's that one of the primary roles of the NSC is interagency coordination (the NSC has a staff of around 400, whereas the various actual cabinet departments represented at the NSC have staffs of thousands--or millions, in the case of the Pentagon).  A paranoiac at the helm of a body that exists in large part to try to force individual departments out of their bunkers is like putting a mute in charge of giving motivational speeches.

Also, of course, on the Russian issue, if the agencies themselves believed that he was vulnerable to Russian blackmail or had already been compromised by Russian blackmail, then there was definitely a risk--already credibly reported by the WaPo as a reality--that the intel agencies would keep vital intel within their silos and not bring it to the NSC for fear of where the information would end up afterwards.  That would also critically compromise his role even if he had not done anything illegal.  But the paranoid style is actually worse because that can infect the entire bureaucratic culture, meaning not just people holding things back from Flynn personally, but holding things back from each other.  And if that's going to happen, there's not much point to having a National Security Council in the first place.

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5068
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3676 on: February 15, 2017, 09:33:13 AM »
The fact that you freely admit a lot of Trump supporters are unwilling to admit they voted for him says a lot.  Why hide it unless there were obvious negative associations to that support?

Because very few conservatives have the patience I do for conversations like this, which would be forced on many such people involuntarily and frequently if they reveal their vote.  The left loves to heckle, and this thread is mild compared to much that I've seen on Facebook and IRL.  Some people might well fear more than frequent pestering, too, considering what's happened at Berkeley and the disruptive or even outright violent proclivities of left-leaning groups like BLM and Occupy even before the election.

Quote
And frankly, a conservative SCOTUS would almost guarantee a regression of social equality.  Those voters thinking about that absolutely have to know that, and if they don't, shame on them for not doing basic research.

First, the job of SCOTUS is not to be the enforcer of social equality.  It is to be the enforcer of legal equality and the arbiter of constitutional law.  Second, there is no reason to believe that a conservative SCOTUS would be hostile to social equality unless social equality is automatically defined as the unconstitutional demands of the left, and/or the refusal to elevate the left's legislative demands to constitutional ones.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 10:21:18 AM by Gramarye »

Online audidave

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1221
  • Akron skyline
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3677 on: February 15, 2017, 09:39:59 AM »
^^Understand what you are saying.  The guy that is president put his belief as the best candidate to be NSC chief, a conspiracy theorist.  The whole point of the job is to be able to tell fact from fiction and determine which facts are more reliable and pertinent.
He had already been fired by Obama for incompetence in a lower position.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 09:42:01 AM by audidave »

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3678 on: February 15, 2017, 10:05:43 AM »
First, the job of SCOTUS is to be the enforcer of social equality.  It is to be the enforcer of legal equality and the arbiter of constitutional law.  Second, there is no reason to believe that a conservative SCOTUS would be hostile to social equality unless social equality is automatically defined as the unconstitutional demands of the left, and/or the refusal to elevate the left's legislative demands to constitutional ones.

That presupposes that the left makes unconstitutional demands and elevates its legislative demands to constitutional ones.  I won't debate that issue with you.  We know that discussion is going nowhere.  But I think it is fair to say that the left feels that social regression will result from SCOTUS overturning decisions which nullified laws criminalizing homosexuality as unconstitutional.  That's just one example.  You probably disagreed with the constitutional analysis in that decision and felt Texas had every right to pass a law which allowed police to barge into a private bedroom and arrest two consenting adults who were engaging in sodomy.  That's your right to disagree, but don't talk down to people who disagree with you by framing their own interpretation of the constitution as something as obnoxious as you did above.
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline stpats44113

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3679 on: February 15, 2017, 10:14:38 AM »
The fact that you freely admit a lot of Trump supporters are unwilling to admit they voted for him says a lot.  Why hide it unless there were obvious negative associations to that support?

Because very few conservatives have the patience I do for conversations like this, which would be forced on many such people involuntarily and frequently if they reveal their vote.  The left loves to heckle, and this thread is mild compared to much that I've seen on Facebook and IRL.  Some people might well fear more than frequent pestering, too, considering what's happened at Berkeley and the disruptive or even outright violent proclivities of left-leaning groups like BLM and Occupy even before the election.

Quote
And frankly, a conservative SCOTUS would almost guarantee a regression of social equality.  Those voters thinking about that absolutely have to know that, and if they don't, shame on them for not doing basic research.

First, the job of SCOTUS is to be the enforcer of social equality.  It is to be the enforcer of legal equality and the arbiter of constitutional law.  Second, there is no reason to believe that a conservative SCOTUS would be hostile to social equality unless social equality is automatically defined as the unconstitutional demands of the left, and/or the refusal to elevate the left's legislative demands to constitutional ones.

Then, somebody forgot to tell Scalia that he was supposed to be the the enforcer of social equality.

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3680 on: February 15, 2017, 10:20:03 AM »
Surely Gramarye forgot to add a NOT in that first sentence.  But I don't care for the distinction.  Social and legal equality intersect in many respects.
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5068
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3681 on: February 15, 2017, 10:21:45 AM »
Surely Gramarye forgot to add a NOT in that first sentence.  But I don't care for the distinction.  Social and legal equality intersect in many respects.

Correct on your first sentence.  (I modified the post to be clear, but obviously not soon enough!)

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3682 on: February 15, 2017, 10:25:09 AM »
No, I don't think it would arguably be treasonous, for the same reason that I opposed conservatives talking about Obama's Iran deal as treasonous.  To Trump's administration, Russia is not an "enemy of the United States" (or at least no rational person looking at it can say so), so how can giving it "aid" (if indeed anything Flynn said even rose to that level, but even assuming that for the sake of argument) be treasonous?  The entire point of the Treason Clause of the Constitution was to limit the range of conduct that could be considered treasonous so as to exclude ordinary political and policy disagreements.  If Congress were to declare war on Russia over a presidential veto, then you could say that Russia is an enemy of the United States notwithstanding anything the president might say to the contrary.  But the mere fact that Russia is sanctioned under federal law cannot be the standard for establishing who is an "enemy of the United States" for purposes of the Treason Clause, or else Obama's clandestine negotiations with Iran (another sanctioned entity engaged in discussions about lifting those sanctions) was equally treasonous.  But that means that neither was treasonous, not that both were.

If you think it was treasonous for Flynn to tell Russia to not retaliate, are you implying that it would have been non-treasonous to tell Russia to retaliate with everything they've got?  You either believe the secrecy of the conversation makes it treasonous or the content of the conversation makes it treasonous, and neither one does if it was simply stating the position of the transition team.  If we find out later that Flynn revealed classified information or that he was actually being paid by the Russians to offer counsel to Trump that was other than what he would have offered if disinterested, then obviously we have a whole new ballgame (still even then might not be treason, but would almost certainly be criminal under some lesser federal statute or other).

I think I agree with Gramarye on this one.  Based on what I know of the discussions I would certainly call them inappropriate.  Perhaps illegal.  But treason?  I don't think so.  With that said it sounds like there might be more to this than that simple conversation so I think I'll just wait for the onion to be peeled before getting out my pitchfork.

And I agree with you (as I've said previously on this thread) that I have a feeling there's more to this than has yet been revealed as well, because the revelations so far that have caused such hyperventilation among Trump opponents would not be cause for termination in the administration based on everything we know of Trump (he enjoys freaking out the people who are most freaked out by this).  Other than the rusty Logan Act (which really is toothless), I haven't actually seen a legal argument for which law was violated and how.

My hypothetical certainly presumed there is a lot more to this than is publicly known.  There was certainly nothing wrong with Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador, even if it was 5 times in one day.  And simply forgetting to mention to Pence that he had briefly touched on the topic of sanctions is probably not cause to demand his resignation.  There's definitely more to this and it likely has a strong connection to Russia's behavior which caused Obama to impose sanctions.
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37811
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3683 on: February 15, 2017, 10:45:54 AM »
18 U.S. Code § 2382 "Misprision of Treason"
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for."-- Barack Obama

Offline jbcmh81

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1190
    • All Columbus Data
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3684 on: February 15, 2017, 11:53:49 AM »
The fact that you freely admit a lot of Trump supporters are unwilling to admit they voted for him says a lot.  Why hide it unless there were obvious negative associations to that support?

Because very few conservatives have the patience I do for conversations like this, which would be forced on many such people involuntarily and frequently if they reveal their vote.  The left loves to heckle, and this thread is mild compared to much that I've seen on Facebook and IRL.  Some people might well fear more than frequent pestering, too, considering what's happened at Berkeley and the disruptive or even outright violent proclivities of left-leaning groups like BLM and Occupy even before the election.

Quote
And frankly, a conservative SCOTUS would almost guarantee a regression of social equality.  Those voters thinking about that absolutely have to know that, and if they don't, shame on them for not doing basic research.

First, the job of SCOTUS is not to be the enforcer of social equality.  It is to be the enforcer of legal equality and the arbiter of constitutional law.  Second, there is no reason to believe that a conservative SCOTUS would be hostile to social equality unless social equality is automatically defined as the unconstitutional demands of the left, and/or the refusal to elevate the left's legislative demands to constitutional ones.

Can you offer a reasonable, rational explanation how someone could support Trump and not be tainted by his obvious racism, bigotry, misogyny, authoritarianism, lying, etc.?  Let's buy for a second that a bunch of Ohio's Trump voters did so for economic reasons.  Was it okay for them to ignore all the rest?  Did they simply disagree that all of that stuff was true, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?  How exactly do you walk away from Trump support fully unscathed by the clear associations?  Why is it wrong to point them out?

That's nonsense.  OF COURSE a conservative court will be hostile, and the GOP have made it crystal clear what their intentions would be with one.  Conservative courts have shown that again and again.  Not that long ago, what happened in Cincinnati's district court regarding gay marriage equality?  It's naďve to believe social equality/progressive views wouldn't suffer under a conservative SCOTUS.  At the very least, they would likely not advance further than they have to this point. 

Offline jbcmh81

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1190
    • All Columbus Data
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3685 on: February 15, 2017, 11:58:19 AM »
18 U.S. Code § 2382 "Misprision of Treason"
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

It seems unlikely to me that Trump will face any real consequences unless there is an indisputable smoking gun that points to his direct involvement.  His supporters will continue to deny everything until the bitter end, and the GOP Congress seems to be fairly unconcerned by it all, despite the fact that they would be making this the biggest story of the millennium if it were Obama or Hillary.  What may be more likely is that many of his subordinates fall, Flynn just being one of the first, and Trump takes a hit to his already terrible reputation, at least in some circles.  Certainly, no matter what, his relationship with the intelligence community is likely already irreparably damaged, and that is dangerous in and of itself.

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3686 on: February 15, 2017, 12:02:41 PM »
Lot's of pro-lifers who are neither racist or bigoted voted for Trump because they are largely single issue voters.  That's one example.  I would also assume a lot of people who vote with their wallet voted for Trump in hopes that he would lower their taxes.  That's another.  I think you need to differentiate between the people who supported Trump and the people who voted for Trump.  The number who actually supported him is not very high..... maybe only half of the number that ended up voting for him.

One thing that sets Trump apart from Obama, Bush, and other alleged polarizing Presidents is dislike of him as a person.  I certainly don't like him as a person.  I think he is an a-hole with very questionable moral character.  And, yes, I do feel that is very important.  So my disagreements with him go well beyond policy.  I suspect that many of his 'supporters' didn't pay much attention at all to his actually policy proposals because they liked him as a person.  He is their type of guy.  They identify with him, his style, his rhetoric, etc.  He is the type of person they look up to and admire.  Obama and Bush were very different.  Most rational disagreements with them stemmed from policy.  They were both likeable guys to those people who did not have a predisposition to dislike them. 
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline Gramarye

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 5068
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3687 on: February 15, 2017, 12:19:41 PM »
Lot's of pro-lifers who are neither racist or bigoted voted for Trump because they are largely single issue voters.  That's one example.  I would also assume a lot of people who vote with their wallet voted for Trump in hopes that he would lower their taxes.  That's another.  I think you need to differentiate between the people who supported Trump and the people who voted for Trump.  The number who actually supported him is not very high..... maybe only half of the number that ended up voting for him.

Again, similar to the argument in the Federalist article I posted (I think) a few pages pack, the question needs to be asked in terms of "actually supported him"--supported him in what.  You will find tremendous conservative support up and down the movement for Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.  You will find more agreement than the news will generally admit on his crackdown on illegal immigration, and possibly even on legal immigration (the last poll I saw, which was more than a week ago, said that the plurality favored his EO on immigration something like 46%-42%, but the 42% of course got basically all the airtime).  On the flip side, Betsy DeVos barely squeaked by as Secretary of Education, and she's going to face a fair amount of ongoing criticism, some deserved, some not.

Very few conservative media outlets are uniformly full-throated in support of Trump.  Conservatives really are taking him issue by issue.  He healed a lot of wounds with the base with his Gorsuch pick, but that goodwill could easily be squandered quickly.

Quote
One thing that sets Trump apart from Obama, Bush, and other alleged polarizing Presidents is dislike of him as a person.  I certainly don't like him as a person.  I think he is an a-hole with very questionable moral character.  And, yes, I do feel that is very important.  So my disagreements with him go well beyond policy.  I suspect that many of his 'supporters' didn't pay much attention at all to his actually policy proposals because they liked him as a person.  He is their type of guy.  They identify with him, his style, his rhetoric, etc.  He is the type of person they look up to and admire.  Obama and Bush were very different.  Most rational disagreements with them stemmed from policy.  They were both likeable guys to those people who did not have a predisposition to dislike them. 

I'd agree that most people who are genuinely supporters of Trump see much to admire in his overdone alpha-male personality, and don't buy the argument that a lot of his lashing out on Twitter is a sign of a weak character rather than a strong one; they want to see a guy who "fights back" against the dirty liberal media, the campus SJWs, the rioters and looters, etc., and they'll see that regardless of whether all his punches land, that he's at least not too cowed to throw them.  I'm not sure if that even describes half of his voter base, though.

Offline stpats44113

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3688 on: February 15, 2017, 12:52:25 PM »
Lot's of pro-lifers who are neither racist or bigoted voted for Trump because they are largely single issue voters.  That's one example.  I would also assume a lot of people who vote with their wallet voted for Trump in hopes that he would lower their taxes.  That's another.  I think you need to differentiate between the people who supported Trump and the people who voted for Trump.  The number who actually supported him is not very high..... maybe only half of the number that ended up voting for him.

Again, similar to the argument in the Federalist article I posted (I think) a few pages pack, the question needs to be asked in terms of "actually supported him"--supported him in what.  You will find tremendous conservative support up and down the movement for Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.  You will find more agreement than the news will generally admit on his crackdown on illegal immigration, and possibly even on legal immigration (the last poll I saw, which was more than a week ago, said that the plurality favored his EO on immigration something like 46%-42%, but the 42% of course got basically all the airtime).  On the flip side, Betsy DeVos barely squeaked by as Secretary of Education, and she's going to face a fair amount of ongoing criticism, some deserved, some not.

I'm not sure what polls you're viewing:

Poll: More than half oppose Trump travel ban

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/administration/318330-poll-over-half-oppose-trump-travel-ban%3Famp

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/fox-news-poll-sharp-division-along-political-lines-on-trumps-travel-ban.amp.html
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 01:55:06 PM by stpats44113 »

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37811
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3689 on: February 15, 2017, 01:13:04 PM »
Cincinnati Republican says it's time to impeach President Trump
Mark P. Painter , WKYC
4 hours ago

This piece, written by Mark P. Painter, was posted on Cincinnati.com Tuesday. Painter is a lifelong Cincinnatian, and served as a judge for 30 years.
---
As Charles P. Pierce said in Esquire last week, “I swear, it's like we elected the Clampetts, if the Clampetts were grifters.”

A president of the United States, on the official POTUS Twitter feed, assails a department store for dropping his daughter’s merchandise. On the same day, the Pentagon is looking to rent space in the Trump Tower. Trump’s son travels to Uganda to make a Trump business deal. And, of course, foreign diplomats will stay at the Trump Hotel. The cash comes marching in.

The phony legalisms Trump has said he used to “separate” himself from his businesses – though he still owns them and his sons are running them – will be cited to make this all acceptable. Horsefeathers. No ethical expert could say with a straight face that this is not a classic conflict of interest.

In any time except our post-factual era, no office holder, much less the president, could get away with any one of the dozens of dazzlingly illegal things Trump has already done. They would forfeit office immediately.

MORE
http://www.wkyc.com/mb/news/politics/cincinnati-republican-says-its-time-to-impeach-president-trump/408513572
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for."-- Barack Obama

Offline jbcmh81

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1190
    • All Columbus Data
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3690 on: February 15, 2017, 01:14:42 PM »
Lot's of pro-lifers who are neither racist or bigoted voted for Trump because they are largely single issue voters.  That's one example.  I would also assume a lot of people who vote with their wallet voted for Trump in hopes that he would lower their taxes.  That's another.  I think you need to differentiate between the people who supported Trump and the people who voted for Trump.  The number who actually supported him is not very high..... maybe only half of the number that ended up voting for him.

One thing that sets Trump apart from Obama, Bush, and other alleged polarizing Presidents is dislike of him as a person.  I certainly don't like him as a person.  I think he is an a-hole with very questionable moral character.  And, yes, I do feel that is very important.  So my disagreements with him go well beyond policy.  I suspect that many of his 'supporters' didn't pay much attention at all to his actually policy proposals because they liked him as a person.  He is their type of guy.  They identify with him, his style, his rhetoric, etc.  He is the type of person they look up to and admire.  Obama and Bush were very different.  Most rational disagreements with them stemmed from policy.  They were both likeable guys to those people who did not have a predisposition to dislike them.

I'm not sure if single-issue voters are all that rational.  And I can't be the only one who sees the irony in being "pro-life" while supporting a guy that trashes millions of living people under a party that would love nothing more than to cut the benefits of those like single parents and the poor.
Also, I think this is attempting to split hairs.  If you voted for him, you support him.  You may not agree with everything, but you support him.  And there seems to be a suggestion that there is no line that goes too far- that as long as you say you're voting for your own self-interests economically, it doesn't matter what the candidate supports or believes otherwise.  I couldn't disagree with that more, and I think that's a prime example of how you end up with demagogues in power, because too many people are too selfish, too lazy or too ignorant (or all 3) to look at the bigger picture.  I know for a lot of people, it is difficult to place all Trump voters under the same umbrella, often because those voters include friends and family, but this isn't a situation of a candidate that promised a lot of good, positive changes and was reasonable during the election only to become a bigoted psycho later on.  Trump was an extremist from Day 1.  There have been no surprises at all regarding his behavior or decisions as president.  In fact, I am struggling to find one tangible positive that has come about specifically because he won, or in the short time he's been in office.  He promised us so much winning, we'd get tired of it, and instead it's been a 'Total disaster!' to use his favorite phrase.  All of his voters own this.  Not just those who fully agreed with his racism. 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 01:18:52 PM by jbcmh81 »

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37811
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3691 on: February 15, 2017, 01:18:47 PM »
Classic Trumpists -- prejudging a situation and wishing the worst on those affected, only to find out they're acting against their own interests....

Trump supporters hope Californians will ‘drown’ in the Oroville Dam crisis – but all the counties in the area voted for him
http://thetab.com/us/2017/02/13/trump-supporters-hoping-californians-drown-oroville-dam-crisis-60483
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for."-- Barack Obama

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3692 on: February 15, 2017, 01:21:53 PM »
If someone doesn't take a stand on a one or two state solution,  is that leading from the front or leading from behind?  Asking for a friend.

Offline jbcmh81

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1190
    • All Columbus Data
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3693 on: February 15, 2017, 01:23:09 PM »
Classic Trumpists -- prejudging a situation and wishing the worst on those affected, only to find out they're acting against their own interests....

Trump supporters hope Californians will ‘drown’ in the Oroville Dam crisis – but all the counties in the area voted for him
http://thetab.com/us/2017/02/13/trump-supporters-hoping-californians-drown-oroville-dam-crisis-60483

But did they vote for their wallets? 

Offline KJP

  • Premium Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37811
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
    • All Aboard Ohio
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3694 on: February 15, 2017, 01:25:35 PM »
Did Trump actually believe that he would be the first president in history not to be the subject of criticism or even satire?
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for."-- Barack Obama

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3695 on: February 15, 2017, 01:32:10 PM »
GOP senators are asking president to withdraw Puzder's nomination.   I'm sure this is the media's fault.  The buck stops over there.

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3696 on: February 15, 2017, 01:39:33 PM »
^The real Puzder or PUZDER, the metaphor?
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3697 on: February 15, 2017, 02:02:22 PM »
The administration is just having some minor kinks. 

Online sir2gees

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3698 on: February 15, 2017, 02:04:50 PM »
^He's taking a lot of losses.

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3699 on: February 15, 2017, 02:05:57 PM »
Are you tired of all the winning yet?

Online eastvillagedon

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4040
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3700 on: February 15, 2017, 02:05:57 PM »
^^exactly! Like every incoming administration has. Clinton had one of the rockiest transitions of power in recent memory. Let's not blow up every little glitch like it's some constitutional crisis!

Online sir2gees

  • 629'-Rhodes State Tower
  • *****
  • Posts: 613
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3701 on: February 15, 2017, 02:07:16 PM »
^This is beyond rocky...
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 02:08:05 PM by sir2gees »

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3702 on: February 15, 2017, 02:08:27 PM »
It's just some light treason.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3703 on: February 15, 2017, 02:28:11 PM »
Has the president commented on why a Russian ship is off the coast of Connecticut or is he too busy on Twitter. 

#loserpresident

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3704 on: February 15, 2017, 02:30:59 PM »
^That is not as uncommon as one might think.  The timing certainly is curious.  The bigger issue IMHO is the cruise missile test, in violation of treaty.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 02:31:44 PM by Hts121 »
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3705 on: February 15, 2017, 02:32:38 PM »
^ It is apparently outfitted with spying equipment to intercept signals according to Eichenwald's Tweet.

Online audidave

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1221
  • Akron skyline
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3706 on: February 15, 2017, 02:35:28 PM »
Republican representatives are circling the wagons to protect their dear leader from these awful, awful leaks.
  I can't believe someone would leak that Flynn lied to Pence. I hope they get that person.

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3707 on: February 15, 2017, 02:38:02 PM »
Leaks are only OK when you get them by colluding with Russia. 

Online Hts121

  • UO Supporting Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17741
  • It's still just like your opinion, man
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3708 on: February 15, 2017, 02:42:51 PM »
Yesterday's WH press briefing was funny.  When it got too hot, Spicer used the "phone-a-friend" option to take 'softball' questions via Skype.  Today, in his joint press conference with Netanyahu, Trump took questions from Fox News, Daily Caller, NewYork Post, Fox Business, Christian Broadcasting Network, and Townhall.

Cowards. 
Your true friends will help you up when someone knocks you down.  Your best friend will say "Stay down, I got this."

Offline down4cle

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 3910
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #3709 on: February 15, 2017, 02:46:17 PM »
He actually only took questions today from CBN and Townhall.   He's needs a safe space away from the media that asks him hard questions.  What a beta snowflake.

Remove Ads