Jump to content

Our president is a deeply stupid man


Pau1ina

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Sally said:

Unfortunately, one of the things his Republican supporters are doing on the statewide level is reducing the number of people who can vote, but pushing people off the voter rolls.   

 

And not even hiding it

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, daveb said:

He's a conman and a gangster.

He is, and he essentially Rick Rolled the US and globe due to that very nature.

 

His skill at business and entrepreneurship is irrelevant. Him being a businessman, is essentially a title. His highly narcissistic nature, make it impossible for him to listen to good advice from his closest advisors. This makes him a horrible businessman by default, considering you need to grow in order to thrive in business.

 

He'd rather listen to his instincts, even if they're a few generations behind just like his hairstyle.

 

What I'm saying, is he knows how to read a market. He knows how to create a movement and generate interest. People can hate him all they want, but Trump knows how to do one thing very well. Getting ratings.

 

He saw a burning fire in a very vocal demographic of white Americans, and knew just how to fan those flames.

 

Some would say this is genius, but I feel this is more due to his narcissism, and the "negative advocates" narcissists tend to desperately require to provide them with power.

This is how they can get people turning against you, and bolster their stance. His nature makes him very good at this. Whatever you throw his way, he expertly flips it to his benefit.

 

Doing just that, means more money in his pocket, and free advertisement while his rivals spend much more for far less results and press.

 

He's highly incompetent, but my seeing this won't make me blind to what he does well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all true, @Perspektiv. He is good at conning some people. I suspect that some of his support is also from people who know who/what he is, but who cynically exploit it for their own ends. And he may understand that, too, and doesn't care as long as they fawn over him. (thinking especially of some of those who were critical of him previously, but now roll over for him at the drop of a lie)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, natsume said:

The Republicans control the corporations?😂

Congress is "the check and balance on the presidency"? You mention the Supreme Court but appear to not know its function. Hint: there are 2 checks and balances on the presidency.

If you're over 18 (or even in high school through dual enrollment), you should enroll in an introduction to American Politics course at a local community college. We all appreciate your enthusiasm but reading is a very important part of cogent arguments. You have very strong opinions but they lack factual substance, but this isn't your fault. Your enthusiasm is a great starting point for learning about politics! Start with the basics! 😀

Your arrogance is misplaced.  I've been voting in the US for 40 years.  

 

 The Republicans definitely control the corporations, but their control is quite benign at the moment, since Trump (whose party this is now) is deregulating all business practices.  Congress is the direct check-and-balance on the President.  The Supreme Court cannot do anything direct unless they get and accept a case from a lower court.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 10:32 AM, daveb said:

I suspect that some of his support is also from people who know who/what he is, but who cynically exploit it for their own ends

The scary part is Trump doesn't realize this is why Russia wants to keep him in power.

 

Putin knows this guy is a moron.

 

Why would he want to have an intelligent president going against him, when he can keep a charm offense up against this one and receive a bit of a break vs other leaders that would have been more punitive with their sanctions and condemning. Kim Jung Un also knows this is the only president dumb enough to make any concessions towards him. Dumber even, to try befriending and trusting him. 

 

Trump favors business over morals in some cases, it is of American duty to enforce. 

 

Of course countries like China will try to get along with a moron that favors growing coal, vs renewable energies which they will soon dominate in as the globe moves to things like solar and electrical energy (regarding transportation, for the latter) to name a couple initiatives that have even proven to create more jobs that pay better. 

 

Mind you, his stupidity is so high, he's even stomped on their pride and damaged their relationship albeit temporarily.

 

Trump speaks to the blue collar, but works for the 1%. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Trump speaks to the blue collar, but works for the 1%. 

Trump doesn't work for anyone but himself.  He feels no loyalty except to his family.  He is a mafia don, not a mafia soldier.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sally said:

Trump doesn't work for anyone but himself.  He feels no loyalty except to his family.  He is a mafia don, not a mafia soldier.  

More like a Don-key, a.k.a an ass:P:P

 

One wonders if these stories about IS regrouping in Iraq is a precursor to more troops going over there? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sally said:

Trump doesn't work for anyone but himself. 

Sad part is his fiercest supporters are too dumb to see this. 

 

His nature only benefits people like him. He is not in your corner, as a working class individual. 

 

I would be embarrassed to wear a "Make America great again" hat as I risk people assuming am black trash and uneducated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Laughing about the "special snowflake" Trumpites and Trump himself who are crying about the CBC cutting Trump's cameo from their broadcast of Home Alone 2. Bits are often cut from movies when they are aired on tv, and that cameo did nothing for the story so it made sense to drop it if they needed the movie to be a bit shorter. But they all think it was some nefarious Canadian plot to deliberately dis Trump, and some think Trudeau was the one who orchestrated it. Seriously, people? :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveb said:

Laughing about the "special snowflake" Trumpites and Trump himself who are crying about the CBC cutting Trump's cameo from their broadcast of Home Alone 2. Bits are often cut from movies when they are aired on tv, and that cameo did nothing for the story so it made sense to drop it if they needed the movie to be a bit shorter. But they all think it was some nefarious Canadian plot to deliberately dis Trump, and some think Trudeau was the one who orchestrated it. Seriously, people? :P 

Well it's probably true :P, and all the funnier for it :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, daveb said:

But they all think it was some nefarious Canadian plot to deliberately dis Trump, and some think Trudeau was the one who orchestrated it. Seriously, people? :P 

Trudeau might have been their pawn, but I'm sure it was really Obama and Hillary Clinton who ultimately masterminded the removal. 😛

Link to post
Share on other sites

This quora answer strikes a rather optimistic note about the upcoming senate trial.

 

Quote

The magic number for the impeachment trial is 51 not 67.

51 Senators allow them to take control of the impeachment proceedings away from Mitch McConnell.

A presidential impeachment trial customarily includes two separate votes: (1) a vote of guilt or acquittal on the articles of impeachment followed by (2) a second vote on the sanction of “disqualification” to ever run again for office (for Trump, this would include 2020). Bill Clinton was acquitted but disqualified.

45 Dems + 2 Independents + 4 Repubs = 51% (enough to disqualify Trump for 2020 election)

Just four Repub Senators could end the disaster called the Trump presidency.

https://www.quora.com/Which-Republican-senators-will-break-from-Trump-during-the-impeachment-trial/answer/Jon-Bourgetti

 

The answer also discusses which Republican senators might break ranks.

 

Thoughts?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, michaeld said:
Quote

The magic number for the impeachment trial is 51 not 67.

51 Senators allow them to take control of the impeachment proceedings away from Mitch McConnell.

A presidential impeachment trial customarily includes two separate votes: (1) a vote of guilt or acquittal on the articles of impeachment followed by (2) a second vote on the sanction of “disqualification” to ever run again for office (for Trump, this would include 2020). Bill Clinton was acquitted but disqualified.

45 Dems + 2 Independents + 4 Repubs = 51% (enough to disqualify Trump for 2020 election)

Just four Repub Senators could end the disaster called the Trump presidency.

 

Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 

President Clinton was acquitted by the Senate on both articles of impeachment brought against him.  Since he was in his second term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was what prevented him from running again.  When Andrew Johnson was tried and acquitted of charges, no vote was called on whether he could run again, even though he was not term limited by the Constitution.  It seems clear that the second vote is taken only in the case of conviction on one or more articles of impeachment.  The idea that the Senate could acquit President Trump on both articles of impeachment but then still bar him from running again seems to have no legal basis.    If a second vote were even allowed after an acquittal (which is dubious) it would still require a 2/3 majority, not just 51 percent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, michaeld said:

Trudeau might have been their pawn, but I'm sure it was really Obama and Hillary Clinton who ultimately masterminded the removal. 😛

And George Soros...with help from Ukraine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, michaeld said:

This quora answer strikes a rather optimistic note about the upcoming senate trial.

 

https://www.quora.com/Which-Republican-senators-will-break-from-Trump-during-the-impeachment-trial/answer/Jon-Bourgetti

 

The answer also discusses which Republican senators might break ranks.

 

Thoughts?

 

much of how the senate hears an impeachment trial is up to the senate so there  is not a lot we can say will work one way or another about it

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, michaeld said:

This quora answer strikes a rather optimistic note about the upcoming senate trial.

 

https://www.quora.com/Which-Republican-senators-will-break-from-Trump-during-the-impeachment-trial/answer/Jon-Bourgetti

 

The answer also discusses which Republican senators might break ranks.

 

Thoughts?

 

Every single political news media outlet has stated that McConnell's grip on the Senate -- and Trump's grip on the Republican Party -- is strong enough that Senators will simply not vote for his ousting.  This is not the era of Clinton's trial -- that was bipartisan in that enough Republicans voted no.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sally said:

Every single political news media outlet has stated that McConnell's grip on the Senate -- and Trump's grip on the Republican Party -- is strong enough that Senators will simply not vote for his ousting.  This is not the era of Clinton's trial -- that was bipartisan in that enough Republicans voted no.   

Well the critical claim (which was new to me) is that a simple majority in the senate would suffice to block him from running in 2020 (or ever again) while a super-majority is only needed to remove him here and now. From what @Rockblossom is saying, this claim seems to be faulty though. I'll try to do some research on this...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, michaeld said:

Well the critical claim (which was new to me) is that a simple majority in the senate would suffice to block him from running in 2020 (or ever again) while a super-majority is only needed to remove him here and now. From what @Rockblossom is saying, this claim seems to be faulty though. I'll try to do some research on this...

Those are both true:  2/3rds vote to render him guilty and therefore remove him from office; only simple majority needed to keep him from running again, but not kick him out of office.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
𝗦𐌷𝖆七七ₑⲅₑ𝑑Ꙧⅰ𐍀𝑑
On 12/22/2019 at 12:46 AM, daveb said:

He's a conman and a gangster. He was a terrible "businessman", just as he is a terrible president and a terrible human being.

 

As for the rest, all I was saying was "majority" is not an accurate term to refer to his base or even for whatever wider population might support him at any given time.

 

You don't know how things will turn out in 2020, and neither does anyone else. We can only wait and see (and for US citizens, support other candidates, vote, etc., and basically participate in democracy here). But until the results are in it's futile to predict what will happen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
𝗦𐌷𝖆七七ₑⲅₑ𝑑Ꙧⅰ𐍀𝑑

he'd need a brain to be a conman 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say he was a good conman. He has gotten caught a number of times. As evidence, there's Trump University, Trump "charities", various other "business" ventures, and his entire political career. Many people are not conned by him, and some who weren't conned have somehow turned around and supported him at some point. Even so, it appears he has somehow conned a large (but non-majority) number of people from the start. :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463

 

Something tells me that this is not going to prove to be a step towards peace and harmony, especially as Iran has a long relationship with Russia. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nick2 said:

Right...wonder who's kids were just marked for death because of this?

I'm not planning on flying on a plane with a USA carrier in the near future for starters 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/19/2019 at 4:31 AM, Sally said:

The President is now impeached.  The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has done something quite smart, I think:  she will not send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate until she is informed what their rules and process will be.  The leader of the Senate, McConnell, said that he will not be impartial, and that he intends that the Senate will find the President innocent.  Until that happens, Trump can't yell at everyone that he's won, and until Pelosi sends the Articles over, the Senate can't put on their show trial.

 

On 12/20/2019 at 8:54 PM, daveb said:

I think Pelosi is more savvy than some people give her credit for. She isn't sending it to the Senate yet, because the Republicans there have stated flat out that they are not impartial and are basically just going to rush it through and have already decided Trump didn't do anything wrong.

Given all this, I wonder why they are sending it through now? What's changed (if anything)? I think they were better off waiting (indefinitely if needed) until there was some indication it was going to be a proper trial, which was never gonna happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2020 at 7:40 AM, Skycaptain said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463

 

Something tells me that this is not going to prove to be a step towards peace and harmony, especially as Iran has a long relationship with Russia. 

Imagine what would happen if it was the other way round, if at all possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, michaeld said:

 

Given all this, I wonder why they are sending it through now? What's changed (if anything)? I think they were better off waiting (indefinitely if needed) until there was some indication it was going to be a proper trial, which was never gonna happen.

Good question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it is a matter of providing enough time for a fair trial to take place even if there isn't one expected

Link to post
Share on other sites

The House Dems wanted to try to get some agreement about trial process.  When it was clear that the Republicans would  not budge, then Pelosi decided to send the Articles over to the Senate, which they've done.  Obviously, it wouldn't have made any sense to continue waiting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...