The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoahFence said:
He is doing nothing to preserve, protect, or defend the constitution. That's his oath, and not only is he breaking that oath, he is actively going against it

He is fighting for RUSSIA for **** sake.
Click to expand...

That is all dependent on intent, because the exact action taken Monday could be by either a Russian supporter or someone who actually thinks the proposed sanctions are best for America. You would need to divine intent.
 
BobTheCoward said:
That is all dependent on intent, because the exact action taken Monday could be by either a Russian supporter or someone who actually thinks the proposed sanctions are best for America. You would need to divine intent.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm confident I have intent covered.

You on the other hand, see a red car and for reasons known only to you, proudly proclaim it blue. Just to be
contrarian.

Grump is working directly for Putin. Period.
 
NoahFence said:
Oh, I'm confident I have intent covered.

You on the other hand, see a red car and for reasons known only to you, proudly proclaim it blue. Just to be
contrarian.

Grump is working directly for Putin. Period.
Click to expand...

Actually,I don't claim it is blue.

I make no claim one way or the other about Trump's Russian relationship. I have not been convinced by the the evidence presented so far by either side.
 
NoahFence said:
You on the other hand, see a red car and for reasons known only to you, proudly proclaim it blue. Just to be
contrarian.
Click to expand...
Let's be fair, no he doesn't. He just claims it isn't red, and it takes three pages of back and forth to extract that by "red" he means the Platonic Red, a red so red that any red in the real world isn't red enough, and that this car is as close to red as it is possible to be without being such a red, rendering the entire conversation a reddish-but-not-quite-red herring.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You on the other hand, see a red car and for reasons known only to you, proudly proclaim it blue. Just to be contrarian.
Click to expand...
Actually,I don't claim it is blue.

I make no claim one way or the other about Trump's Russian relationship. I have not been convinced by the the evidence presented so far by either side.
Click to expand...
There has been a substantial amount of evidence that there has been direct or indirect cooperation between at least the Trump campaign (if not Trump himself) and Russian operatives. (Meetings where Trump Jr. praised the potential of getting campaign info from Russia and then failing to mention it when required; Claims from the Trump family that Trump gets all the money he needs to fund his businesses from Russian sources; Multiple intelligence agencies stating that Russians did indeed interfere with the election.)

Being a skeptic does not necessarily mean you have to automatically discount everything you see... it means that you follow the evidence, and in this case the preponderance of evidence is that yes, the Trump campaign benefited from Russian influence. For you to hind behind the claim that "I'm not supporting Trump in these allegations, I'm really unbiased" is seen by many as extremely disingenuous.

To use the 'car' analogy, it would be like the red car being directly in your line of sight for an extended length of time, in broad daylight, with no obstructions, and then claiming "I can't say that the car is red". You may not be claiming the car is blue, but I think people would be right to question your motivation for denying the car is red.
 
Segnosaur said:
Multiple intelligence agencies stating that Russians did indeed interfere with the election.)
Click to expand...

A lot of the separation between us can be examined through this piece here.

They are simply not credible for the purposes of a skeptic. Knowledge, when possible, requires open presentation of all evidence. There are no exigent circumstances that requires you or I to reach an opinion on what the Trump campaign did or did not. So, there is no reason to not adopt the full disclosure process.

The partial reports and leaks are like a scientific study that says what their conclusions are without presenting the evidence..not credible. If you gave me half the results of an experiment, and asked me to form an opinion, that would be risible.

And I wouldn't agree the car is red. Before we can answer that question, we need to agree and adhere to the methodology for determining that.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't it say anything that essentially the entirety of congress, both houses, agreed that Russia interfered and that sanctions should be put in place mean anything?

These are people who can't agree on what day of the week it is.

Or are you more super-skeptical than the entirety of Congress, and if so why don't you run?
 
NoahFence said:
Doesn't it say anything that essentially the entirety of congress, both houses, agreed that Russia interfered and that sanctions should be put in place mean anything?

These are people who can't agree on what day of the week it is.

Or are you more super-skeptical than the entirety of Congress, and if so why don't you run?
Click to expand...

I haven't taken a position on whether it is necessary congress be skeptical or not.


As for if it matters to me, no it doesn't. Ostensibly, they are basing their decision on privileged information. As their evidence is not open for peer review, and I have no pressing need to form an opinion, I don't have one.
 
Sometimes the jokes write themselves:

‘Get out of the country!’: Navajo lawmaker harassed by Arizona Trump supporters accusing him of being here ‘illegally’
 
Train carrying garbage hits truck carrying garbage.

First report says Ryan and his fellow traitors are unhurt. Hope the truck driver and train crew are OK.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A lot of the separation between us can be examined through this piece here.

They are simply not credible for the purposes of a skeptic. Knowledge, when possible, requires open presentation of all evidence. There are no exigent circumstances that requires you or I to reach an opinion on what the Trump campaign did or did not. So, there is no reason to not adopt the full disclosure process.
Click to expand...
You use the term 'skeptic'. I do not think you know the meaning of that word.

To be a skeptic does not mean that you always have to see each and every piece of evidence. It means you can also examine the source of claims and judge their value based on things like competency, possibility of bias, and supporting claims, even if you do not have access to original evidence (for situations where evidence is classified, for example).

Most people here probably recognize that you're a Trump fan-boy, who is only trying to appear as unbiased by wrapping yourself in a thin veneer and incorrectly slapping the label "skeptic" on it. It is unconvincing.
 
Segnosaur said:
You use the term 'skeptic'. I do not think you know the meaning of that word.

To be a skeptic does not mean that you always have to see each and every piece of evidence. It means you can also examine the source of claims and judge their value based on things like competency, possibility of bias, and supporting claims, even if you do not have access to original evidence (for situations where evidence is classified, for example).

Most people here probably recognize that you're a Trump fan-boy, who is only trying to appear as unbiased by wrapping yourself in a thin veneer and incorrectly slapping the label "skeptic" on it. It is unconvincing.
Click to expand...

What are my trump positions? Oh, it must be my support for complete open borders. Or my disgust with criminal justice and the police. Or my dislike of military spending. Or my love of free trade and how I pointed out how stupid tariffs are.

I'm hard pressed to come up with one of his policies he has supported that I supported.
 
Good afternoon sts60.
sts60 said:
Train carrying garbage hits truck carrying garbage.

First report says Ryan and his fellow traitors are unhurt. Hope the truck driver and train crew are OK.
Click to expand...
One fatality on the truck and another from the truck in critical condition. One report says that CPR was administered to a member of the train staff. Engineer or conductor.
Everything should be ok because The White House has sent out "Thoughts and Prayers". That usually makes things right as rain.
 
theprestige said:
If Trump fails at everything else, I will still consider his presidency a success if he rehabilitates the CIA in the eyes of the progs.
Click to expand...

Sure, even if he destroys the reputation of the CIA among Republicans. What a success!
 
Trump’s nominee for head of the Council on Environmental Quality is an aggressively bonkers climate conspiracy theorist.

White is also a conspiracy theorist. Her opinion on climate change isn’t just that it’s not so bad (a position at odds with 99.5 percent of actual climate scientists) but that the whole thing is, as Trump once said, a hoax. In that same Townhall piece, White wrote:

“As the evidence for unprecedented warming temperatures, extreme weather events, declining Arctic ice, and rising sea levels wanes, the entrenched warmists’ grasp for familiar tags such as “pollution” or “environmental protection” to sanitize their grand schemes to decarbonize human societies.”

Note the combination of lies and myths here. First, there is (and was in 2015) abundant evidence for every one of the items White mentions: the unprecedented warming of the climate, extreme weather events, declining Arctic ice, and rising sea levels.

Second, there’s the conspiracy-mongering: “grand schemes to decarbonize human societies.” White has made this claim many times: that the entire climate-science field, all around the world, is actually a cabal to undermine fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Wray opposes the release of the Nunes memo, saying it contains false and misleading information. Bear in mind that he is the Republican appointed by Trump to fix the problems with the FBI. And, unlike Nunes, he's actually read the information it's purported to be a summation of.
Click to expand...


The Republicans clamoring for release of the memo have to know that sooner or later, legitimately or leaked, the actual information which the memo is allegedly based on will come out.

I can only think that they just don't give a damn. That the only point is to get something on their record which purports to smear the FBI, and that the voters they look for in the primaries either won't care when it's disproven, or won't believe it. (Or both.)

And they are probably right about that.
 
quadraginta said:
The Republicans clamoring for release of the memo have to know that sooner or later, legitimately or leaked, the actual information which the memo is allegedly based on will come out.

I can only think that they just don't give a damn. That the only point is to get something on their record which purports to smear the FBI, and that the voters they look for in the primaries either won't care when it's disproven, or won't believe it. (Or both.)

And they are probably right about that.
Click to expand...

Could be they are simply trying to get their narrative of the "corrupt FBI" out ahead of the next round of indictments, knowing full well that the majority of people won't follow up by checking facts, but just rely on the first thing they hear.
 
Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

But dwell on it for a moment, Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot.

Same for the IRS, FBI Department of Justice, or any other federal agency..

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...to-end-the-rule-of-law.html?via=recirc_recent
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a pretty naked call for a purge. Risky.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

But dwell on it for a moment, Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot.

Same for the IRS, FBI Department of Justice, or any other federal agency..

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...to-end-the-rule-of-law.html?via=recirc_recent
Click to expand...

We just need a good purge.
 
blutoski said:
Yes, it's a pretty naked call for a purge. Risky.
Click to expand...

With how the republicans in congress are lining up to slander the FBI, CIA and so on sound about right.

Of course I am sure we will have the apologists along any minute to say he didn't mean what he said, as he has no idea what basic words mean like with his clean DACA bill.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention resigned her position on Wednesday after only half a year because of “complex financial interests” that repeatedly forced her to recuse herself from the agency's activities and kept her from testifying before lawmakers on public health issues.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-financial-interests/?utm_term=.28d21b531883


The BEST People!
Click to expand...

I feel about this the same way I felt about Trump nominating unqualified people to be federal judges. It's not as if there's some sort of shortage of highly competent medical sorts who are also firmly conservative and who wouldn't have these sorts of conflicts of interest.
 
Civet said:
I'm glad they've gone on the record so we're not left with the usual "unnamed sources who know for definite". Good on them. I'm sure Trump's diehards will dismiss it as just Deep State.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder about their end game here.

Seriously, to go after the integrity of the FBI?

Do they not realize that the FBI agents are largely strong republican supporters? And here they are, questioning their integrity?

Democrats (and, truth be told, most politicians) have stayed away from criticizing the FBI and the agents because, regardless of their political affiliations, they know that the feds are the utmost of professionals, and the best law enforcement force in the world. They do their jobs, and it's not a political issue.

My brother-in-law just retired from the FBI, and his office was full of anti-Hillary nuts. I mean, he used to mock them walking in the office with "Benghazi!!!! Ahh!!!!!" type cracks. That's how strong their ADS was.

Yet, that doesn't and didn't affect their ability to do their job, and so it's not an issue.

I wonder what these folks think about the GOP calling them corrupt and biased? How can they put up with that nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom