Trump Presidency

[ACamp1900]

So, John Lewis and Maxine Waters are among some of the Dems not going to the Inauguration?

Hmm, did they attend the previous republican inauguration?

No they didn't? So, its just business as usual for them. Got it

Unity.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I agree. It is nothing new.

Also, I love the the left pretends that she Mrs. Integrity prior to Wikileaks and this somehow damaged her reputation. This has been nothing but an attempt to to de-legitimize Trump.

Long before WikiLeaks, Americans had concluded that Clinton was a congenital liar. A CNN poll taken July 13-16 found that 65 percent of voters said Clinton was neither honest nor trustworthy and that 57 percent would not be proud to have her as president. A July 16 CBS News poll showed similar results — 67 percent of voters said Clinton was not honest or trustworthy. And little wonder.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.8157abf592c9

I don't have much of a disagreement with anything you posted other than the following : congenital. The word "congenital" means "at birth, " and almost always refers to a physical anomaly. An entirely different reference is used for behavioral or psychological issues. Pathological or compulsive liar, fine. There is at least a degree of intelligence to this. Pathological and compulsive are usually used interchangeably.

Speaking of same. Hillary Clinton lies, no doubt. But Donald lies that same amount, times a factor of ten. Again, this can be easily shown by independent sources.

But this is interesting. A little internet 'How to spot a pathological liar article."

A pathological liar is someone who compulsively tells lies or fabricates information. A pathological liar may not be completely rooted in reality, believing the lies they tell, often in an effort to remedy low self esteem. To spot a pathological liar, pay attention to behavior. A person may tell lies that seem to provide them with attention or personal gain. You may also spot frequent inconsistencies in stories. While pathological liars generally give less physical cues when lying, certain subtle changes in body language may indicate a pathological liar. A pathological liar may, for example, make excessive eye contact. Look into someone's history. Problems like substance abuse, and a history of unstable relationships, are all indications someone may be a pathological liar.

Donald's ability to look into the camera, (peer, or glare) and speak in his patented monotone voice, repeating things over and over, crafting them as he goes is just 'PathLying 101!'

And of course, as far as your credibility, you are again, posting an 'Opinion Editorial Piece,' as hard factual journalism. Do you know the difference? I mean do you really have a clue?

Sometimes, I think that the problem with most ideological supporters of each parties nominated candidates is that they really don't know the difference between fact and opinion.

Because the numbers you quoted about the electorate finding problems with Hillary, are closer to what I saw in objective poles attributed to Trumps negative numbers. Hillary's were regularly terrible also, but about ten points less than Donald's.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The Legitimate President | The Huffington Post

Article subtitle:
The evidence is clear. Courts must use the broad discretionary powers with which they are vested to enjoin Donald Trump, an illegitimate president, from taking office.

Did you read the article? Either you didn't, or you are using that patented DJT supporter passive-aggressive, tongue in cheek sarcasm, the same thing whole bunches of the unimaginative Trump supporters are doing, attacking those raising any kind of voice of descent.

 

[ulukinatme]

What truth was exposed in those emails that was worse than one of the candidates calling on a foreign government that actively undermines and works against US interests around the world to hack and influence the US election process? Trump is a lifelong professional swindler and pathological liar with serious psychological issues. He is not worthy of your time and energy defending him.

I think if you'll look at the Presidential Horse race thread I didn't spend much time defending him. I ended up voting for him in the end, but mostly as a block against Hillary. I wasn't necessarily happy with either of the two major candidates, but the Donald is the lesser of two evils. As far as Russia, regardless of their meddling in the process, the fact remains they exposed the truth. Hillary may have lost the election regardless, it's difficult to determine how much the undecided vote was swayed by the dirt that was dug up. It's not like Russia blackmailed Hillary into her various scandals, they just brought them to light. If they did affect the election in any way, I consider that a good will gesture by keeping Hillary out of the White House.

 

[connor_in]

Did you read the article? Either you didn't, or you are using that patented DJT supporter passive-aggressive, tongue in cheek sarcasm, the same thing whole bunches of the unimaginative Trump supporters are doing, attacking those raising any kind of voice of descent.

smh

I think if you'll look at the Presidential Horse race thread I didn't spend much time defending him. I ended up voting for him in the end, but mostly as a block against Hillary. I wasn't necessarily happy with either of the two major candidates, but the Donald is the lesser of two evils. As far as Russia, regardless of their meddling in the process, the fact remains they exposed the truth. Hillary may have lost the election regardless, it's difficult to determine how much the undecided vote was swayed by the dirt that was dug up. It's not like Russia blackmailed Hillary into her various scandals, they just brought them to light. If they did affect the election in any way, I consider that a good will gesture by keeping Hillary out of the White House.

Agree with a lot of this. I have been calling DJT a giant douche for a while now, but still preferred over the sh!t sandwich that is HRC.

 

[connor_in]

So I guess PBO just stamped his approval of wikileaks and thus everyone whining about DJT being "not legitimate" have to answer to him now...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's sentence for leaking to WikiLeaks. She will be freed on May 17. <a href="https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV">https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV</a></p>— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) <a href="https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/821466204179144704">January 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[TDHeysus]

So I guess PBO just stamped his approval of wikileaks and thus everyone whining about DJT being "not legitimate" have to answer to him now...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's sentence for leaking to WikiLeaks. She will be freed on May 17. <a href="https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV">https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV</a></p>— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) <a href="https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/821466204179144704">January 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

all of us cis-genders can't possibly understand....

 

[IrishinSyria]

So I guess PBO just stamped his approval of wikileaks and thus everyone whining about DJT being "not legitimate" have to answer to him now...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Obama commutes Chelsea Manning's sentence for leaking to WikiLeaks. She will be freed on May 17. <a href="https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV">https://t.co/7Y6s55x6OV</a></p>— Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) <a href="https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/821466204179144704">January 17, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

IDK commutation = /pardon and she spent years in prison under him and will still be considered an ex-felon after this. More to the point there's at least an argument that Manning's actions were in good faith out of some (misguided) belief in radical transparency- it's pretty clear that wikileaks later work was not that.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Without getting into the merits of the critiques of Bill Clinton's pardons, Obama is doing something very different with his pardon power.

This is the organization I worked with: https://www.clemencyproject2014.org/

These are the criteria they screened for before passing any clemency requests to the DOJ (based on the DOJ's criteria)



CP 2014 isn't responsible for 100% of the pardons Obama's given, but they have handled a lot. There are 4 or 5 layers of review before the president ever makes a decision on these.

e. I would also add that they look for people who have taken responsibility for their conduct and who have a viable post-release plan for reintegrating into society.

At least one of the pardons from this last batch is another one of my pro-bono clients from this summer. I'm pretty excited about this; the guy deserved a second shot.

 

[IrishinSyria]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/15/us/politics/you-draw-obama-legacy.html

This is fun

 

[kmoose]

We got it Moose, you and Donald don't believe all of the intelligence services, and other independent professional sources. I personally am good with that.

As far as Trumps tax returns and the questionnaires that his appointees left incredibly blank, you have (among other things), you have the Emoluments clause of the US Constitution. This is something that the founding fathers took extremely seriously, as has every generation since. This is all about American leadership having financial and personal interests, that are in conflict with America's own best interests.

And interestingly enough, as of today, two of DJT's appointees have been clearly shown to have breaches in ethical protocols of alarming proportions, (not little things, but serious ones), similar to this.

And also, of course, DJT refuses to recuse himself of his businesses, and can be seen already to be regularly profiting off his presidency.

And don't refer to DJT as a capable billionaire (or millionaire), he has gone bankrupt six times. He has been schooled by Merv Griffin! The guy wouldn't have much, if he didn't have a lack of scruples. So painting him as accomplished, and a white knight, (pardon the pun) for this country, just makes you look, foolish.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.............. Please explain to me how President-elect Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause? And please explain to me why you didn't care that the Clinton Family Foundation received donations from numerous foreign leaders, a clear violation of the clause?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Re: Trump and the emoluments clause, I really do think that the fact that his hotel is commanding more than 5x the rates of any peer hotels for his inauguration is troubling, especially with the $500,000 price tag. Like you could argue that it's the market at work people are willing to pay more to see Trump's inauguration while staying at his hotel but that's kind of the definition of emolument:

Definition of emolument
1
: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites
2
archaic : advantage

He's getting a huge premium based on his office and it certainly raises the possibility that people either are or think they are paying for access and influence. Obviously I hate Trump but at the very least he should have divested from his hotel business.

 

[ACamp1900]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/15/us/politics/you-draw-obama-legacy.html

This is fun

Ha. Odd how they're missing numerous other lines/graphs for things like Workforce Part. Rate, Poverty numbers, # of those on Welfare, months of 2% or lower economic growth, number of people kicked off their plans due to OCare, average household income, national unity, they love using GDP as a side measure but for some reason didn't measure GDP itself. ... I can't imagine why stuff like that isn't included....

 

[kmoose]

Re: Trump and the emoluments clause, I really do think that the fact that his hotel is commanding more than 5x the rates of any peer hotels for his inauguration is troubling, especially with the $500,000 price tag. Like you could argue that it's the market at work people are willing to pay more to see Trump's inauguration while staying at his hotel but that's kind of the definition of emolument:



He's getting a huge premium based on his office and it certainly raises the possibility that people either are or think they are paying for access and influence. Obviously I hate Trump but at the very least he should have divested from his hotel business.

You're going to have to source the claim that Trump is charging more than 5x the rates of any peer hotels, because a simple search for a double room in DC, from Thursday through Saturday, returns the following prices for a 2 night stay:

The Fairmont Wash. DC: $4800
JM Marriott: $2998
Hyatt Regency: $2618
Courtyard by Marriott, Foggy Bottom: $2498

The Trump Hotel is sold out, so I could not obtain pricing for them.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Re: Trump and the emoluments clause, I really do think that the fact that his hotel is commanding more than 5x the rates of any peer hotels for his inauguration is troubling, especially with the $500,000 price tag. Like you could argue that it's the market at work people are willing to pay more to see Trump's inauguration while staying at his hotel but that's kind of the definition of emolument:

He's getting a huge premium based on his office and it certainly raises the possibility that people either are or think they are paying for access and influence. Obviously I hate Trump but at the very least he should have divested from his hotel business.

If you're looking to change minds on this subject, arguing that "Trump is dirty/ conflicted" isn't going to get you anywhere. The vast majority of Trump supporters I know readily concede that point. You'll need to argue that Trump is unusually dirty/ conflicted, especially wrt Hillary Clinton, which is much harder to do. For instance, the Clinton Global Initiative just announced it would be shutting down; which is pretty coincidental now that Clinton isn't going to be president. Strong circumstantial evidence that most of those donors were paying for access, and not out of any sort of humanitarian impulse.

 

[pkt77242]

I think if you'll look at the Presidential Horse race thread I didn't spend much time defending him. I ended up voting for him in the end, but mostly as a block against Hillary. I wasn't necessarily happy with either of the two major candidates, but the Donald is the lesser of two evils. As far as Russia, regardless of their meddling in the process, the fact remains they exposed the truth. Hillary may have lost the election regardless, it's difficult to determine how much the undecided vote was swayed by the dirt that was dug up. It's not like Russia blackmailed Hillary into her various scandals, they just brought them to light. If they did affect the election in any way, I consider that a good will gesture by keeping Hillary out of the White House.

I find posts like this troubling. Another country dicking around in our election is always bad. Full stop. Rationalizing it or viewing it as "I got what I wanted" or it gave you your preferred outcome, does not make it ok.

This win at all cost politics is problematic when it leads to rationalizing that Russia messing with our elections is somehow good.

*Yes HRC was a turd sandwich (and DJT was/is a douchebag) but don't confuse that with thinking that Russia doing it is good or right.

 

[kmoose]

Did you read the article? Either you didn't, or you are using that patented DJT supporter passive-aggressive, tongue in cheek sarcasm, the same thing whole bunches of the unimaginative Trump supporters are doing, attacking those raising any kind of voice of descent.

I don't have much of a disagreement with anything you posted other than the following : descent. The word "descent" means "moving downward", or "the origin or background of a person or family". An entirely different reference is used for opposing ideas and issues. Dissent, fine. There is at least a degree of intelligence to this. Descent and dissent are never used interchangeably.

 

[kmoose]

I find posts like this troubling. Another country dicking around in our election is always bad. Full stop. Rationalizing it or viewing it as "I got what I wanted" or it gave you your preferred outcome, does not make it ok.

This win at all cost politics is problematic when it leads to rationalizing that Russia messing with our elections is somehow good.

*Yes HRC was a turd sandwich (and DJT was/is a douchebag) but don't confuse that with thinking that Russia doing it is good or right.

Do you feel the same about internal people/organizations dicking around with our elections? Because, unlike Russia, we don't need to just take anyone's word for the fact that that actually HAPPENED.

 

[pkt77242]

Do you feel the same about internal people/organizations dicking around with our elections? Because, unlike Russia, we don't need to just take anyone's word for the fact that that actually HAPPENED.

Of course that is your comeback. You always have to bring up something else instead of dealing with the issue at hand. Also there seems to be little doubt that Russia was involved.

Without knowing exactly what you are referencing it is hard to comment. You could be discussing the DNC, "news" companies or even Comey.

 

[kmoose]

Of course that is your comeback. You always have to bring up something else instead of dealing with the issue at hand. Also there seems to be little doubt that Russia was involved.

Without knowing exactly what you are referencing it is hard to comment. You could be discussing the DNC, "news" companies or even Comey.

I'm speaking of the proven collusion between CNN and the DNC, to sway the Primary to Hillary Clinton. There's no doubt about intent there, because they discussed intent. I'm "bringing up something else" because your outrage rings hollow, considering that election meddling was no big deal to you when your team did it. It's only when the other team won, that suddenly election fixing was some big deal. There seems to be little doubt that Russia was involved, but to what extent? Did Russia piecemeal out the leaks to WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks released them as they got them? Or did the Russians dump all of the emails on WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks decided the timing of their release? And how many people already had their minds made up? Why did all of the polls on Election morning favor Hillary Clinton, if the Russians were so successful at influencing voters through WikiLeaks?

 

[ACamp1900]

I find Russia dicking around disturbing.
I find the reality of HRC disturbing.
I find the same about pres elect Trump disturbing.
I find how easy it is to predict who will defend what posts disturbing.

 

[IrishinSyria]

You're going to have to source the claim that Trump is charging more than 5x the rates of any peer hotels, because a simple search for a double room in DC, from Thursday through Saturday, returns the following prices for a 2 night stay:

The Fairmont Wash. DC: $4800
JM Marriott: $2998
Hyatt Regency: $2618
Courtyard by Marriott, Foggy Bottom: $2498

The Trump Hotel is sold out, so I could not obtain pricing for them.

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/312499-trump-presidency-24.html#post1849946

 

[ulukinatme]

I find posts like this troubling. Another country dicking around in our election is always bad. Full stop. Rationalizing it or viewing it as "I got what I wanted" or it gave you your preferred outcome, does not make it ok.

This win at all cost politics is problematic when it leads to rationalizing that Russia messing with our elections is somehow good.

*Yes HRC was a turd sandwich (and DJT was/is a douchebag) but don't confuse that with thinking that Russia doing it is good or right.

Another country dicking around with our election? What about our own country (Democrats and CNN) dicking around with our election? That's okay I guess. Did it make it okay for Hillary to delete thousands of e-mails when she was told not to? Was it okay to take money from foreign dignitaries? Was it okay to accept the debate questions ahead of the debates? Was it okay for the DNC to meddle in the primary and rig the election against Bernie? That's not even the whole list. Again, how is Russia exposing the truth worse than what Hillary's camp has done? It's not like they hacked election terminals and changed Hillary votes to Trump. They brought to light corruption. Was it self serving? Possibly, but it's not like Hillary was going to be any harder on Russia than Obama was. If Russia plans on being diplomatic with Trump we're better served than if we go into another Cold War or roll over as Russia has it's way with the East.

 

[kmoose]

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/leprechaun-lounge/312499-trump-presidency-24.html#post1849946

I'm not sure that you can draw the conclusion that Trump's hotel would not be charging the same amount, if Bernie Sanders were being inaugurated. A 6,300 sq. ft. duplex with dinner for 24 and round the clock car service is probably going to set you back half a mil, no matter who is getting inaugurated.

 

[IrishinSyria]

If you're looking to change minds on this subject, arguing that "Trump is dirty/ conflicted" isn't going to get you anywhere. The vast majority of Trump supporters I know readily concede that point. You'll need to argue that Trump is unusually dirty/ conflicted, especially wrt Hillary Clinton, which is much harder to do. For instance, the Clinton Global Initiative just announced it would be shutting down; which is pretty coincidental now that Clinton isn't going to be president. Strong circumstantial evidence that most of those donors were paying for access, and not out of any sort of humanitarian impulse.

To be fair they'd announced it would be shutting down win or lose before the election AND you would get no argument from me that had she won she would have to make sure there was a clean cut.

The scale of Trump's conflicts and his refusal to take effective measures to insulate himself from them is the difference.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

To be fair they'd announced it would be shutting down win or lose before the election AND you would get no argument from me that had she won she would have to make sure there was a clean cut.

The scale of Trump's conflicts and his refusal to take effective measures to insulate himself from them is the difference.

His supporters would likely retort that he's just more brazen about it.

 

[kmoose]

To be fair they'd announced it would be shutting down win or lose before the election AND you would get no argument from me that had she won she would have to make sure there was a clean cut.

The scale of Trump's conflicts and his refusal to take effective measures to insulate himself from them is the difference.

How about the scale of a foreign official calling the State Dept to get a meeting with Clinton and being directed to the Clinton Foundation; then getting the meeting once he has made a sizeable donation to the Foundation? That's not "scale" enough for you?

 

[pkt77242]

I'm speaking of the proven collusion between CNN and the DNC, to sway the Primary to Hillary Clinton. There's no doubt about intent there, because they discussed intent. I'm "bringing up something else" because your outrage rings hollow, considering that election meddling was no big deal to you when your team did it. It's only when the other team won, that suddenly election fixing was some big deal. There seems to be little doubt that Russia was involved, but to what extent? Did Russia piecemeal out the leaks to WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks released them as they got them? Or did the Russians dump all of the emails on WikiLeaks, and WikiLeaks decided the timing of their release? And how many people already had their minds made up? Why did all of the polls on Election morning favor Hillary Clinton, if the Russians were so successful at influencing voters through WikiLeaks?

LOL. So you can read my mind? As I have stated many times before I think that it is ridiculous that the DNC and RNC have any say in how we elect our President. I think that the what the DNC did is shitty and horrible (and just another reason why both the DNC and RNC need to go) but I wouldn't in anyway compare it to Russia's involvement (Also if you think that this is the first time that the DNC or RNC has tried to influence the nomination I got some ocean front property in AZ to sell you).

I will say it again, another country dicking around in our election is worse than the CNN/DNC issue. If you want to talk about someone in the US dicking around in our election, Comey is a better example. He broke the longstanding DOJ "rule" about interfering with an election.

Clinton did not lose because of Russia's hacking. Here would be a quick and dirty reason that Hillary lost.

Minor reasons:
Americans were tired of 8 years of Democrat control and many poor/middle class feeling like their lot in life hadn't improved during that time.
Russian hacking


Major Reason
Hillary being a historically shitty candidate (if you make Gore and Kerry look good, it is a problem). This covers many issues such as scandals, lack of enthusiam, etc.
Comey's letter to Congress about 10 days out from the election.

 

[ACamp1900]

Minor reasons:
Americans were tired of 8 years of Democrat control and many poor/middle class feeling like their lot in life hadn't improved during that time.
Russian hacking


Major Reason
Obama is black
Racism
Everyone who voted for Trump is a damned dirty ape.
Hillary being a historically shitty candidate (if you make Gore and Kerry look good, it is a problem). This covers many issues such as scandals, lack of enthusiam, etc.
Comey's letter to Congress about 10 days out from the election.

Fixed.


(Sorry, just couldn't help myself).

 

[greyhammer90]

I find Russia dicking around disturbing.
I find the reality of HRC disturbing.
I find the same about pres elect Trump disturbing.
I find how easy it is to predict who will defend what posts disturbing.

Fucking nailed it.

"I don't like *candidate* either, but *post* against *candidate* ignores the reality that *other candidate* did the same but worse!"

Every. Damn. Post.