Master Trump Thread

[Homer]

On 8/16/2018 at 5:54 PM, The Dryad said:

to seeing how small children automatically flinch away from him

This is literally the only thing I envy Doughnald for

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Sally said:

OK, you've said all that many times now, in many different words.   No need to keep repeating.  

Hillary isn't an angel. Trump is an utter crook.

 

So one looking down at the other to me, is like a prostitute looking down at a crack dealer. 

 

Anyone painting her as a savior will have me remind them of this. 

 

She isn't exempt from shady behavior which is why these two were some of the worst candidates the US could vote for. 

 

It could be seen in the voter turnout both prior and post inauguration.

 

Painting Hillary as an angel is ignoring why she also would have made a horrible, albeit qualified leader.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

They both make me cringe in those moments where they try to mingle with the crowd and show how genuine they are. 

 

Hillary's preparation and diligence is something I respect. However, she seems just about as genuine as Ted Cruz to me. I am not alone on that feeling which is why she had to work very hard to get the votes that she did.

 

Trump just reeks of douchey salesman, so let's not even waste our time touching that one.

 

Of all three mentioned however, he was the only one who was openly as such.

 

Really sad when you consider things.

[Skycaptain]

20 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

a prostitute looking down at a crack dealer. 

 

If that double entendre was deliberate its brilliant 😋 😋 

[The Dryad]

17 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

So the next question after the Cohen guilty plea to paying off porn stars at Trump's instructions to help his campaign: is the GOP sufficiently spineless and morally bankrupt that it won't vote to impeach Trump? 

I honestly don't know if we can hope for the best, like....this should be a wake up call to Trump supporters and those who are complacent in politics- if a president's inner circle is getting fired left and right and leaving....plus "leaving", and they're being investigated, and they're getting convicted of political and financial crimes.... isn't guilt by association a thing?! Like...if he hired these people to do his dirty work.... shouldn't he be in trouble for that?

[daveb]

2 minutes ago, The Dryad said:

if he hired these people to do his dirty work

If Cohen is telling the truth (this time; under oath and about to be sentenced) Trump didn't just hire him to do dirty work, Trump directed him to do certain acts of dirty work. And if that's true it's not just guilt by association; it's guilt by action.

 

As the expression goes, it stinks from the head down.

 

Trump may be honest about his emotions about some things, but he's hardly honest about facts. Some sources say he lies as often as 7 times a day, averaged out over the course of his time in office. He lies about big things and little things. To be more than charitable, maybe he actually believes some or even most of it. But if he does then he is rather deluded and divorced from reality.

 

I am concerned about the future, but like I've said before I'm waiting to see what happens in the mid-term elections in November (and participating, of course).

[Guest]

6 hours ago, daveb said:

maybe he actually believes some or even most of it

That's classic narcissistic behavior.

 

They enforce their lies so passionately, they become the truth. They start to genuinely believe so. To the tune of being upset if you called them a liar. 

 

They gaslight the heck out of anyone not believing their now truth.

 

Understanding how these people operate also gives a better understanding as to why Trump is unable to admit any guilt even if caught red handed.

[Sally]

13 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Hillary isn't an angel. Trump is an utter crook.

 

So one looking down at the other to me, is like a prostitute looking down at a crack dealer. 

 

Anyone painting her as a savior will have me remind them of this. 

 

She isn't exempt from shady behavior which is why these two were some of the worst candidates the US could vote for. 

 

It could be seen in the voter turnout both prior and post inauguration.

 

Painting Hillary as an angel is ignoring why she also would have made a horrible, albeit qualified leader.

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

They both make me cringe in those moments where they try to mingle with the crowd and show how genuine they are. 

 

Hillary's preparation and diligence is something I respect. However, she seems just about as genuine as Ted Cruz to me. I am not alone on that feeling which is why she had to work very hard to get the votes that she did.

 

Trump just reeks of douchey salesman, so let's not even waste our time touching that one.

 

Of all three mentioned however, he was the only one who was openly as such.

 

Really sad when you consider things.

You just can't let the Hillary thing go, can you.   She lost the election almost 2 years ago; she's not running for office again.  Why still obsess about her?

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Sally said:

You just can't let the Hillary thing go, can you.   She lost the election almost 2 years ago; she's not running for office again.  Why still obsess about her?

I think you need to look at the definition of obsessed.

 

She's irrelevant in my books and lost fair and square. 

 

Look at your posts. How I am obsessed is beyond me, considering my posts are in response to your rhetoric. 

 

That's like a man 500lbs heavy calling a 1,000lbs man a glutton.

 

You know the saying. It involves glass homes and stones...

[hekky1]

Dolan Trumps, it was this actor in Home Alone 2 and this guy who is liek realannoyingorange just got another "real", GET IT?! Because: orange XD.

 

But seriously, tomorrow I will be starting one of his co-authored books: Midas Touch.

 

[ben8884]

So Weisselberg gets immunity in the Cohen trial, interesting 

[Skycaptain]

To me, much is I'd like to see them strung on a gibbet, using election funds as hush money because of a failure to keep things zipped before the election isn't enough to topple him. It would have to be some offence committed whilst in office. 

[ben8884]

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Lying to cover it up week be what gets him, if anything does. 

You might know better than me but was it Neil Hammilton or maybe Jeffrey Archer who was toppled because he took money for asking questions which is legal but didn't declare it? 

[Sally]

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Lying to cover it up week be what gets him, if anything does. 

More  likely obstruction of justice.   He can't be gotten for lying unless it's under oath.  

[The Dryad]

26 minutes ago, Sally said:

More  likely obstruction of justice.   He can't be gotten for lying unless it's under oath.  

We'll have to see if Paul Manafort can actually be caught in his part of the Russian collusion/'investigestion'. He's already been caught for not registering as a foreign "agent"/lobbyist, but apparently he also owes money to a Russian oligarch; if they can prove Manafort worked with Russia with orders from Trump, then Trump can probably be tried for treason.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, The Dryad said:

We'll have to see if Paul Manafort can actually be caught in his part of the Russian collusion/'investigestion'. He's already been caught for not registering as a foreign "agent"/lobbyist, but appitarently he also owes money to a Russian oligarch; if they can prove Manafort worked with Russia with orders from Trump, then Trump can probably be tried for treason.

Manafort would have to say that Trump gave him such orders, and something in writing would have to be produced showing such orders.  Trump can't be charged simply on someone else's claim, and it's uncertain whether a sitting President can be charged with anything criminal.  That's never been tested; Nixon resigned before being tried.  

[daveb]

Manafort wouldn't actually have to say it happened if there was otherwise sufficient proof that it happened, right?

 

I guess Trump would have to be impeached rather than tried in court (could he be tried in a district court or other lower court while he is still president?). But it seems like the Republicans won't likely go for that unless/until it becomes a political liability if they don't. Even if the Democrats take control of the House it could still be a difficult proposition to impeach Trump. And even if that happened then it would go to the Senate to follow up. As far as I can tell it takes a simple majority in the House to impeach, and then a 2/3s majority in the Senate to convict; which mean at least some Republicans would have to agree, too.

 

I tend to think what is more likely is that he will lose more support and more votes for Republican candidates, while remaining in office (and becoming more isolated and probably more frustrated). I think that (an increasingly frustrated Trump) is a scary proposition. That recent interview where he talked about the stock market crashing if he got impeached was rather disturbing (albeit par for the course).

[The Terrible Travis]

If Trump loses re-election, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the official position of the U.S. government that the 2020 election was illegitimate.

 

At the very least, he'll actively attempt to sow doubt over the legitimacy of the election, and will probably set up another bogus task force to investigate so-called "voter fraud".

[Sally]

3 hours ago, daveb said:

Manafort wouldn't actually have to say it happened if there was otherwise sufficient proof that it happened, right?

 

I guess Trump would have to be impeached rather than tried in court (could he be tried in a district court or other lower court while he is still president?). But it seems like the Republicans won't likely go for that unless/until it becomes a political liability if they don't. Even if the Democrats take control of the House it could still be a difficult proposition to impeach Trump. And even if that happened then it would go to the Senate to follow up. As far as I can tell it takes a simple majority in the House to impeach, and then a 2/3s majority in the Senate to convict; which mean at least some Republicans would have to agree, too.

 

I tend to think what is more likely is that he will lose more support and more votes for Republican candidates, while remaining in office (and becoming more isolated and probably more frustrated). I think that (an increasingly frustrated Trump) is a scary proposition. That recent interview where he talked about the stock market crashing if he got impeached was rather disturbing (albeit par for the course).

You're right; if there was material evidence that Trump directed Manafort (or anyone else) to break the law, they wouldn't need to testify.  

 

There's still a lot of confusion among attorneys whether a President can be tried in court while they are sitting, and just who would have the standing to do so.   What is settled is that he can pardon anyone found guilty on a federal charge but not on a state charge, and he can't pardon himself (although he doesn't seem to realize that).  So for any federal offenses, people will continue to collaborate with Mueller for immunity, because they won't be pardoned. 

 

And indeed, an isolated Trump would be very dangerous -- and it's likely we're going to see that.   I don't know who would be willing to go to work for him now.  Sessions is a nasty little creep and has collaborated with Trump in doing horrible things to the legal system, but he showed quite a lot of courage in telling Trump to go f*ck himself yesterday.  Trump is a mafia don who is used to running his "family" and apparently Sessions isn't interested in  being Trump's menial soldier.  

 

What will be really interesting is if the House flips in November.  It's not likely, as you say, that they will start impeachment proceedings, but the majority can pick committee chairs and that will derail quite a few things the Republicans want sent to the Senate, because they won't be brought up for a vote.  What's very unlikely is that whether the House flips or not, we will be in the same position in December as we are now, as far as all this uncertainty.   Eventually, Trump isn't going to be drawing crowds at his rallies and that will greatly affect him.

[The Dryad]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

 

And indeed, an isolated Trump would be very dangerous -- and it's likely we're going to see that.   I don't know who would be willing to go to work for him now.  Sessions is a nasty little creep and has collaborated with Trump in doing horrible things to the legal system, but he showed quite a lot of courage in telling Trump to go f*ck himself yesterday.  Trump is a mafia don who is used to running his "family" and apparently Sessions isn't interested in  being Trump's menial soldier.  

 

I think it's interesting that someone else thinks Trump runs his family like a mafia- I've been thinking he acts suspiciously like a true Don for a while. I really don't think we've ever had someone quite as corrupt as him. Andrew Jackson was awful and there was that stint of corrupt presidents who ran the executive office like gangsters before, but I think Trump is worse because he can be categorized as both types of characters.

[daveb]

Yeah, a lot of people who would know (such as law enforcement types who have investigated organized crime and judicial types who have prosecuted them) have been/are saying Trump's statements and ways of doing business are right out of Mafia playbooks. And it's not just the appearance of Mafia-like words and actions, but looks like actual ties to organized crime (both US and Russian). Allegedly.

 

9 hours ago, Sally said:

but the majority can pick committee chairs and that will derail quite a few things the Republicans want sent to the Senate, because they won't be brought up for a vote.

That's true, and I hope it happens.

[Mona Lisa]

On 5/30/2017 at 6:32 PM, CaptainYesterday said:

I was thinking earlier today about what things were like during the Bush era, and I was actually shocked at how similar they are now.  Back then you had Bush, who the Left thought was incompetent, and Dick Cheney, who everyone thought was evil and pulling the strings.  Now  you have Trump, who the Left thinks is incompetent, and some amalgamation of Bannon/Pence/Sessions/Russia as the evil ones pulling the strings.

 

And as much flack as Bush got, there still was some sort of respect for the office.  "Bush is dumb" is about the worse it ever got.  I don't really remember "Bush is evil" or "Bush is literally Hitler" being common notions, certainly not from the mainstream Left (The Daily Show, Colbert, etc.).  And yet Trump is getting all of those "evil" comments - like seriously nasty stuff, far worse than Bush ever got.  I know there's a bit of a George W. Bush Renaissance right now where people are actually looking back fondly at his presidency, comparatively, but I never got the sense that Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert hated Bush, or that Will Ferrell despised him every time he did the impression.

 

But when you look at the actual policies, Trump isn't doing anything that you wouldn't expect any other Republican to do, or anything that you wouldn't expect the very same Bush, that the Left are now almost romanticizing, to do if he was elected in 2017.

 

I don't support Trump or his policies.  I did not vote for Trump.  I almost certainly will not be voting for Trump in 2020 (unless he somehow starts paying a lot of attention to men's rights issues, but I've repeatedly said that Conservatives don't care about men's rights as much as Democrats don't, just for different reasons).  I've noticed this trend where people confuse not crying wolf with being "pro-wolf," but that couldn't be farther from the truth.  Those of us who refuse to cry wolf, or who criticize those who do, simply have the foresight to know that crying wolf only helps the wolf in the long run.

The really nasty stuff started with the far right during the last administration, calling Obama "Hitler," "Satan," "silver-tongued devil," etc. Because they were afraid of a black man in office, and what they saw as an infringement on their way of life. Obama was dignified and never took the bait. Bush didn't, really, either. This president cannot stand criticism and is in no way dignified at how he reacts. He is just as to blame for demolishing the dignity of the office. A truly presidential person doesn't mock disabled people, throw toilet paper at hurricane victims, spend his time tweeting insults, blame veterans for being POWs, talk about women (including their own daughters!) as if they are sexual commodities, threaten to jail their opponents, romanticize despots, single out private citizens for mockery, the list goes on...

[pickles.]

20 hours ago, Sally said:

So for any federal offenses, people will continue to collaborate with Mueller for immunity, because they won't be pardoned. 

 

Other way around; it's the federal charges that can be pardoned.

 

Interesting article in Slate magazine that lays out the possibilities of trying and convicting Manafort on state charges, which Trump can't pardon:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/paul-manafort-will-likely-go-to-jail-if-trump-pardons-him-thanks-to-a-lone-holdout-juror.html

[Sally]

1 hour ago, pickles mcgee said:

Other way around; it's the federal charges that can be pardoned.

 

Yup, I typed the wrong word.  

[ben8884]

19 hours ago, Mona Lisa said:

The really nasty stuff started with the far right during the last administration, calling Obama "Hitler," "Satan," "silver-tongued devil," etc. Because they were afraid of a black man in office, and what they saw as an infringement on their way of life. Obama was dignified and never took the bait. Bush didn't, really, either. This president cannot stand criticism and is in no way dignified at how he reacts. He is just as to blame for demolishing the dignity of the office. A truly presidential person doesn't mock disabled people, throw toilet paper at hurricane victims, spend his time tweeting insults, blame veterans for being POWs, talk about women (including their own daughters!) as if they are sexual commodities, threaten to jail their opponents, romanticize despots, single out private citizens for mockery, the list goes on...

I think the reason is twofold.

Firstly I think it is just because political discourse has changed. Thanks to companies like Facebook we can isolate ourselves from anyone who disagrees with us and justify not respecting them. Hence under Obama people could call him Satan, evil and make subtle and not so subtle remarks about his skin colour. Nowadays the racism would be even more brazen.

The second reason, well for me anyways is while I despised the Bush presidency and while I think Bush was incompetent and manipulated by people with a bad agenda, I don't actually think Bush himself was a bad person. I think he genuinely cared about his country and that he was elected to a job he should have never held. Trump on the other hand I think is just well, a jerk. I don't think he cares about the suffering of others and I actually think hes even more incompetent than Bush. Its like in Trump you get more the incompetence of Bush but none of the heart. Bush actually worked to help process illegal immigrants so they could stay in America-something that must have pissed off the Aryan nationalists that Trump seems to have no problem passively embracing.

In short I believe that Bush and Trump are getting different treatment firstly because of discourse and secondly because they are different. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ben8884 said:

In short I believe that Bush and Trump are getting different treatment firstly because of discourse and secondly because they are different. 

They definitely are different, however you can't compare the human toll at the US border under Trump (which is a PR nightmare) to the Iraq war under Bush (which was fought under false pretenses, and has had catastrophic consequences. Some still reverberating, today).

 

Bush was charming and friendly and knew politics. 

 

Trump did not and is paying for that lack of grace. 

 

Ironically, they both acted out of trying to appease the fears of Americans and failed miserably in doing so.

[ben8884]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

They definitely are different, however you can't compare the human toll at the US border under Trump (which is a PR nightmare) to the Iraq war under Bush (which was fought under false pretenses, and has had catastrophic consequences. Some still reverberating, today).

 

Bush was charming and friendly and knew politics. 

 

Trump did not and is paying for that lack of grace. 

 

Ironically, they both acted out of trying to appease the fears of Americans and failed miserably in doing so.

II absolutely agree but even though I was totally anti the Iraq war and still am, I think Bush supported it because he really thought it needed doing and convinced by people with more sinister motives. Trump on the other hand I just really believe does not care about anyone or anything that doesn't have the Trump name. 

[The Dryad]

1 hour ago, ben8884 said:

II absolutely agree but even though I was totally anti the Iraq war and still am, I think Bush supported it because he really thought it needed doing and convinced by people with more sinister motives. Trump on the other hand I just really believe does not care about anyone or anything that doesn't have the Trump name. 

I'm pretty sure the Iraq war/conflict was started because Hussein wanted to switch from the petrodollar back to traditional gold backed money- which undermines the US dollar, not because of crimes against humanity. That being said, as far as political similarities, Bush and Trump are as different as night and day & I honestly believe Bush's policies looked out for the general population more than Trump's, and even more than that, I honestly believe Bush served the people more than Trump ever will. Trump's first loyalty is to himself and his second is to his pocketbook.

[Sally]

Bush was a Texan; Trump is a mafioso.  They couldn't be more different.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The Dryad said:

I honestly believe Bush's policies looked out for the general population more than Trump's

I would have to agree with that.

 

Trump seems more hell bent, on undoing everything Obama did (without looking out for the unintended consequences of doing so). His base hated Obama, so they see this as a win. However, many policies Obama had, were actually working properly. So to break it, when its not even broken doesn't even make logical sense. If anything you can add to it, improve it--anything can be improved. But to rip everything up, just because Obama's hands touched it, is just idiotic. Stating it were crazy, would give him the benefit of the doubt that he had an intelligent discussion about it.

 

He'll side with enemies over allies, and I can't even think of a president in recent history that would have done something like that.

 

So yes. Bush and him are polar opposites on policy. He even admits it. Had he been in Iraq, he would've bombed it to smithereens and taken the oil and left. Let them fix their own problems.

[Guest]

I deal with a lot of major US suppliers. I don't think I've ever seen a US president, that has had so many of my suppliers complaining about who's in office. Its uncanny.

 

I don't think he realizes how many businesses he is hurting. I've literally have had to cut or dramatically reduce sales to some key product lines, because of this (price hikes were insanely high on some products). My transport costs across the border, have spiked as well, forcing me to take a page from Justin Trudeau's book, and source locally, in terms of Canadian products. I mercifully sell a lot of Canadian, too.

 

I've already seen a trend in many clients educating themselves about the source of products that they buy. I've even had some specifically request Canadian product, and even rejecting US product even if it happened to be better or cheaper.

 

You know a president is hated, when...