Trump Presidency

[NorthDakota]

I thought that it was just fine, Cack --- even tried to rep you.

To the negativist: "When you see bad in everything, you see yourself."

Mountain William (someone who actually CAN play the banjo.)

Do you know that I can't play the banjo?

Most folks consider me a very positive person btw.

 

[TorontoGold]

This entire thread is seeing the bad in Trump...

Aside from Toronto, I've yet to see anyone be neutral or even mildly reasonable about things Trump has done. He can't be all bad right? And if he is, you're saying it's because his detractors are in fact projecting their own badness?

I didn't like Obama but I never posted anything like this....

Honestly dude, the issue is that anytime any critical neutral analysis is brought into here it's almost always met with some sort of personal attack. We're all human and constantly getting ragged on about suffering from TDS REALLY takes a toll and nobody wants to engage on a neutral level.

You can draw parrallels to how Democrats couldn't get out of their way to say "Hrrrr I hope Mr. President gets better!!" and then not more then a couple days later he starts rehashing the the lock her/him up stuff again. So, why would anyone engage on a neutral level? I know we both can get caught up in this at times but there's some posters who just take it to a whole other level.

I wish we could discuss tax policy instead lol.

 

[PraetorianND]

Honestly dude, the issue is that anytime any critical neutral analysis is brought into here it's almost always met with some sort of personal attack. We're all human and constantly getting ragged on about suffering from TDS REALLY takes a toll and nobody wants to engage on a neutral level.

You can draw parrallels to how Democrats couldn't get out of their way to say "Hrrrr I hope Mr. President gets better!!" and then not more then a couple days later he starts rehashing the the lock her/him up stuff again. So, why would anyone engage on a neutral level? I know we both can get caught up in this at times but there's some posters who just take it to a whole other level.

I wish we could discuss tax policy instead lol.

I actually don't disagree. However, I think that the opposite is also true. The level of hate and vitriol for Trump supporters is the same.

I think the nation is just SUPER SUPER divided. We can't really communicate anymore and it's super sad.

I'd love to hang out and have a beer with you and debate politics without it getting personal. I bet we could accomplish that.

I'll do tax policy all day

 

[TorontoGold]

I actually don't disagree. However, I think that the opposite is also true. The level of hate and vitriol for Trump supporters is the same.

I think the nation is just SUPER SUPER divided. We can't really communicate anymore and it's super sad.

I'd love to hang out and have a beer with you and debate politics without it getting personal. I bet we could accomplish that.

I'll do tax policy all day

Oh 100%, my personal issue with that "Everyone hates Trump!!!" take is that he really hasn't done anything to help it....like constantly saying shit like the Blue vs Red state is such childish stuff. Like DUDE come on let the others make themselves seem like idiots.

Lol for sure man, I need to get better versed in my US tax planning since it mostly consists of "Idk incorporate in Delaware".

 

[PraetorianND]

Oh 100%, my personal issue with that "Everyone hates Trump!!!" take is that he really hasn't done anything to help it....like constantly saying shit like the Blue vs Red state is such childish stuff. Like DUDE come on let the others make themselves seem like idiots.

Lol for sure man, I need to get better versed in my US tax planning since it mostly consists of "Idk incorporate in Delaware".

Again it's not one sided. "Deplorables," "Trumpers," etc, etc get thrown around all the time. My biggest complaint about Trump are the things you're saying actually. I'm totally fine admitting that.

The reality is that there isn't a good or evil here. Politicians all up have an approval rate of less than 10%. They're all bad, Trump, Obama, etc.

 

[TorontoGold]

Again it's not one sided. "Deplorables," "Trumpers," etc, etc get thrown around all the time. My biggest complaint about Trump are the things you're saying actually. I'm totally fine admitting that.

The reality is that there isn't a good or evil here. Politicians all up have an approval rate of less than 10%. They're all bad, Trump, Obama, etc.

The large majority are bad, but the levels of "bad" are seriously in question.

 

[PraetorianND]

The large majority are bad, but the levels of "bad" are seriously in question.

Don't disagree with this at all. I just think we, as the general populace, exist to check our politicians. WE are the government, not them. If we're at each others' throats we're not very effective at doing that. And I don't think it's by chance that we're at each others' throats.

 

[Legacy]

I'd be very grateful to read or see the news without something on what a President did or said that day.

That said, to me our system of checks and balances and the roles of the three branches of government have been knocked off their axis.

To see a Party who may be in charge of the Presidency and both branches of Congress seek to limit powers is hopeful.

Democrats propose sweeping bill to curb presidential abuses (AP, Sept 23)

House Democrats on Wednesday proposed a bill to curb presidential abuses, a pitch to voters weeks ahead of Election Day as they try to defeat President Donald Trump, capture the Senate from Republicans and keep their House majority.

The legislation, a wide-ranging package of new and revised bills, would limit the president’s pardon power, strengthen laws to ban presidents from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments, better protect independent agency watchdogs and whistleblowers from firing or retribution and require better reporting by campaigns of foreign election interference.

Each of the bill’s provisions is a response to actions by Trump or his administration that Democrats see as abuses of presidential power. It builds on an elections and ethics reform package the House passed soon after Democrats reclaimed the majority in 2019. (cont)

https://oversight.house.gov/news/pr...-reforms-package-the-protecting-our-democracy

 

[PraetorianND]

I'd be very grateful to read or see the news without something on what a President did or said that day.

That said, to me our system of checks and balances and the roles of the three branches of government have been knocked off their axis.

To see a Party who may be in charge of the Presidency and both branches of Congress seek to limit powers is hopeful.

Democrats propose sweeping bill to curb presidential abuses (AP, Sept 23)



https://oversight.house.gov/news/pr...-reforms-package-the-protecting-our-democracy

I agree, Legacy. I mean, this was the outcome that I was actually hoping for. Every 4 years it's a dice roll who will be president. We should ALL want the presidency to be limited, regardless of which party holds office.

I mean, we should really want the whole government to be limited, but I'll settle for the executive branch for now.

 

[NorthDakota]

I agree, Legacy. I mean, this was the outcome that I was actually hoping for. Every 4 years it's a dice roll who will be president. We should ALL want the presidency to be limited, regardless of which party holds office.

I mean, we should really want the whole government to be limited, but I'll settle for the executive branch for now.

The thing is, people don't want the President to be limited, they just want their guy controlling the levers and they'll justify their guy's actions while he is doing it and accuse the other side's guy of being a tyrant when he does it (even if the action in question was something identical to what their guy would do).

That's not inherently a D problem or a R problem. That's a general problem. The only way we'll probably ever get any sort of limited executive power would be someone like Rand Paul winning, but a guy like Rand isn't going to ever win because half of Presidential campaigning is promising cool stuff you'll do as President.

The President shouldn't have the authority to really have a major impact on your day to day life but neither party is going to willingly give up the acquired de facto power of the presidency to adhere to the more restrained de jure power the office is supposed to have.

 

[PraetorianND]

The thing is, people don't want the President to be limited, they just want their guy controlling the levers and they'll justify their guy's actions while he is doing it and accuse the other side's guy of being a tyrant when he does it (even if the action in question was something identical to what their guy would do).

That's not inherently a D problem or a R problem. That's a general problem. The only way we'll probably ever get any sort of limited executive power would be someone like Rand Paul winning, but a guy like Rand isn't going to ever win because half of Presidential campaigning is promising cool stuff you'll do as President.

The President shouldn't have the authority to really have a major impact on your day to day life but neither party is going to willingly give up the acquired de facto power of the presidency to adhere to the more restrained de jure power the office is supposed to have.

100% agree with this.

The problem is that wanting universal healthcare, UBI, free college, etc, etc means larger Federal government. It also means expanded executive authority, because the executive branch is responsible for actually executing on this shit.

So pick your poison.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I want my President to be limited. For sure.

I just don't want policies to be arbitrarily 100% blocked regardless of merit.

But I DO want them to be blocked if they DON'T meet the criterion of being meritorious (or wise ... or civil ... or ---insert a worthy adjective describing good governance.)

 

[Rogue219]

If Borat winds up being the thing that finally does this ass clown Rudy in, that's about as America 2020 as it gets.

 

[PraetorianND]

I want my President to be limited. For sure.

I just don't want policies to be arbitrarily 100% blocked regardless of merit.

But I DO want them to be blocked if they DON'T meet the criterion of being meritorious (or wise ... or civil ... or ---insert a worthy adjective describing good governance.)

But who determines merit in these cases? The president?

 

[PraetorianND]

If Borat winds up being the thing that finally does this ass clown Rudy in, that's about as America 2020 as it gets.

Why is Rudy an "ass clown?"

 

[Rogue219]

Why is Rudy an "ass clown?"

Triple Crown winner of the Useful Idiot Derby, but even before that wasn't he married to his cousin for 14 years or some shit? I can't keep up. Another Republican who changes wives like most men change socks. I digress.

Most recently, he decided to pivot off of his Biden smear campaign to claim George Soros is the cause of a federal investigation into Giuliani’s activity involving Ukraine. Complete baseless bullshit.

He said this last week (which feels like several weeks) on Steve Bannon's radio show and podcast last week, and as it turns out, Steve Bannon is facing federal fraud charges himself. #AllTheBestPeople

That was before he done got did by Borat.

 

[Irish#1]

I actually don't disagree. However, I think that the opposite is also true. The level of hate and vitriol for Trump supporters is the same.

I think the nation is just SUPER SUPER divided. We can't really communicate anymore and it's super sad.

I'd love to hang out and have a beer with you and debate politics without it getting personal. I bet we could accomplish that.

I'll do tax policy all day

Oh we can communicate. It's just that we're not saying what the other wants to hear! lol

 

[PraetorianND]

Triple Crown winner of the Useful Idiot Derby, but even before that wasn't he married to his cousin for 14 years or some shit? I can't keep up. Another Republican who changes wives like most men change socks. I digress.

Most recently, he decided to pivot off of his Biden smear campaign to claim George Soros is the cause of a federal investigation into Giuliani’s activity involving Ukraine. Complete baseless bullshit.

He said this last week (which feels like several weeks) on Steve Bannon's radio show and podcast last week, and as it turns out, Steve Bannon is facing federal fraud charges himself. #AllTheBestPeople

That was before he done got did by Borat.

1. What Biden smear campaign?
2. How do you know that George Soros isn't the cause of a federal investigation?
3. Why does him being on Bannon's podcast make him an ass clown?

 

[NorthDakota]

But who determines merit in these cases? The president?

You can make just about any policy sound wise, humane, and good too. The road to hell was paved on these ideas.

 

[PraetorianND]

You can make just about any policy sound wise, humane, and good too. The road to hell was paved on these ideas.

So you're saying we shouldn't build a wall? Seems pretty meritorious to me and Trump. So, like, the legislature should pass a law saying that's what's happening vs presidents just doing shit?

Huh, weird concept.

 

[PraetorianND]

Just looked up the Borat stuff because I didn't know what you're talking about.

So a 24 year old actress throws herself at Rudy in a hotel bar. He, a single man, takes her upstairs, doesn't do anything with her and the Borat dude walks in and yells that she's 15. Rudy calls the cops.

How is this some indictment on Rudy being an ass clown?

Genuinely curious. If anything it just demonstrates how insane people are to do something like this. I hope he presses charges.

 

[TorontoGold]

Just looked up the Borat stuff because I didn't know what you're talking about.

So a 24 year old actress throws herself at Rudy in a hotel bar. He, a single man, takes her upstairs, doesn't do anything with her and the Borat dude walks in and yells that she's 15. Rudy calls the cops.

How is this some indictment on Rudy being an ass clown?

Genuinely curious. If anything it just demonstrates how insane people are to do something like this. I hope he presses charges.

He got duped into thinking that the interview was real, and on top of that he thought he could sleep with the interviewer. Seems pretty embarrassing that he could be tricked that easily.

 

[PraetorianND]

He got duped into thinking that the interview was real, and on top of that he thought he could sleep with the interviewer. Seems pretty embarrassing that he could be tricked that easily.

Really? You're a single dude. Some hot babe starts making moves on you, and you're the Pope?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[TorontoGold]

Really? You're a single dude. Some hot babe starts making moves on you, and you're the Pope?

Give me a fucking break.

It would be *insane* to compare a regular dude to RUDY GUILIANI who's been in the public view for just about forever.

If you're a guy who's as important as that you're not slamming whatever piece of meat comes your way.

Let alone she's supposed to be a JOURNALIST, a decent person is likely not going to be making advances on someone that's supposed to interview them.

It's scummy and weird.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

Rudy should’ve realized he was seriously out kicking his coverage and know his limitations.

 

[Old Man Mike]

The "Trump Presidency" thread: IE's Porta-John.

(every site needs one. Some posters have their own units.)

 

[PraetorianND]

The "Trump Presidency" thread: IE's Porta-John.

(every site needs one. Some posters have their own units.)

Some of your posts have been pretty porta-john-y. Glass houses and all IE brother.

 

[NEIIrish]

It would be *insane* to compare a regular dude to RUDY GUILIANI who's been in the public view for just about forever.

If you're a guy who's as important as that you're not slamming whatever piece of meat comes your way.

Let alone she's supposed to be a JOURNALIST, a decent person is likely not going to be making advances on someone that's supposed to interview them.

It's scummy and weird.

Sometimes you gotta raw dog some strange brah.

 

[NEIIrish]

It would be *insane* to compare a regular dude to RUDY GUILIANI who's been in the public view for just about forever.

If you're a guy who's as important as that you're not slamming whatever piece of meat comes your way.

Let alone she's supposed to be a JOURNALIST, a decent person is likely not going to be making advances on someone that's supposed to interview them.

It's scummy and weird.

Smokin crack and impregnating strippers from Arkansas is on the up and up though.

 

[NorthDakota]

Smokin crack and impregnating strippers from Arkansas is on the up and up though.

Stripper baby sort of undermines the whole "Joe is a fundamentally decent guy" thing. Has Joe even met the child yet? I'm pretty sure a month or two back he mentioned having X number of grandkids when the answer was X + 1. The people demand answers! Acknowledge and legitimize the child Joe! Louis XIV had more decency when it came to his bastards and he died like 300+ years ago!