Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

I have not watched this video, nor do I intend to, but you do understand how it's gotten to the point that something so controversial could have been made, don't you? There has never been a president who's been treated so unfairly by the press...ever. From the day he was elected (even months before that) the media, which basically functions as the propaganda arm for the Democrats, has been calling for his impeachment. They regard him as illegitimate. There's been a 24/7 onslaught of this for the past 3 years. So if some of his supporters go a little overboard in satirizing the media it's understandable. Remember when Bush was "satirized' in a book and movie (can't recall the titles or author, etc) as being assassinated? I don't remember any outcry as how outrageous that was. No, it was regarded as "art" and "free speech." Why is there always a double standard?

 

As I said, gross, scary people who absolutely need Trump.  Their entire worldview and self worth are now and forever tied.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^All it requires for the media to not be “criticizing” an administration is to actually have competent people doing real work for the country not a bunch of corrupt hooligans.  The press is independent except for Fox, OANN, and RT.

  Don’t lie to the American people. Don’t be a criminal extorting countries for your own personal favors.  Don’t get your kids involved in your own government. Hello nepotism, anyone?   The list is long with the irregularities and the crimes that trump and his cabinet have accrued. We would only know of most of them because of a free press.  But cool cool blame the messenger for not being toadies. 

Edited by audidave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

I have not watched this video, nor do I intend to, but you do understand how it's gotten to the point that something so controversial could have been made, don't you? There has never been a president who's been treated so unfairly by the press...ever. From the day he was elected (even months before that) the media, which basically functions as the propaganda arm for the Democrats, has been calling for his impeachment. They regard him as illegitimate. There's been a 24/7 onslaught of this for the past 3 years. So if some of his supporters go a little overboard in satirizing the media it's understandable. Remember when Bush was "satirized' in a book and movie (can't recall the titles or author, etc) as being assassinated? I don't remember any outcry as how outrageous that was. No, it was regarded as "art" and "free speech." Why is there always a double standard?

 

So you defend Kathy Griffin now?  Amazing!

 

"Why doesn't the media stop reporting facts and just be nice to our manchild President? SO UNFAIR!" - cultist snowflakes

 

Your entire post is just whining about the media doing its job.  When you can't stand on facts, attack the messengers - i.e. "propaganda arm for the Democrats."  It's pathetic.  You are truly the safe space snowflake you have mocked the last 3+ years.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

I have not watched this video, nor do I intend to, but you do understand how it's gotten to the point that something so controversial could have been made, don't you? There has never been a president who's been treated so unfairly by the press...ever. From the day he was elected (even months before that) the media, which basically functions as the propaganda arm for the Democrats, has been calling for his impeachment. They regard him as illegitimate. There's been a 24/7 onslaught of this for the past 3 years. So if some of his supporters go a little overboard in satirizing the media it's understandable. Remember when Bush was "satirized' in a book and movie (can't recall the titles or author, etc) as being assassinated? I don't remember any outcry as how outrageous that was. No, it was regarded as "art" and "free speech." Why is there always a double standard?

 

A) Obviously, you and I have fundamental disagreements re: the President being a victim, so we can leave it at that. 

 

B) I think you're operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment - the right to criticize public figures and politicians is nearly without limit. I.e. Public officials have to demonstrate actual malice in libel and slander suits - not just negligence like a private citizen. As such, you'd have to show that a cartoon (i.e. Bush assassination) wasn't for some other purpose, like satire. 

 

C) And this is where we really have an issue, Don... because I honestly think your beliefs are becoming dangerous in that you're willing to enable behavior you never would've accepted from GWB, GHWB, and Reagan. You and I can agree - the media is hyperbolic in response to Trump. Everything he does is under a microscope. Though you and I can disagree on why that is, we can find that piece to agree on. Now, incidents like Annapolis, and the Cesar Sayoc sending explosives to CNN are reflexes of Trump's rhetoric and his enabling of people like the one's that  make the video. 

 

Instead of saying, Bush's treated unfairly, there's a reason why CNN isn't trustworthy. You've now extrapolated that into - Trump is treated unfairly, I can see why someone would make a video with Trump shooting and stabbing all of his critics. You and I may be able to parse through the video and realize it isn't reality, but thousands of people in the very base to which you belong cannot discern that difference. And the more this rhetoric escalates, the worse things will get. 

 

D) Again, it comes back to the point I've made countless times on here. If on December 1, 2020, Trump has lost the election, and comes forward saying "CNN and the mainstream media manipulated the facts in a story about me only a day before the election. As such, I will be remaining in office until an investigation is launched and we found out what happened." You would support him remaining in office (unless I'm wrong - and I hope I am). Because you believe he's treated unfairly, you continue to allow for the disintegration of norms and the dignity of the Office he holds. 

 

E) I genuinely believe you are a really good and intelligent person. That's why all of this is so damn scary to me - this isn't Jill Stein or Pat Buchanan, this is the sitting President. 

Share this post


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

Uhhhh, what?

 

 

It's called a mirror.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


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

Imagine a group of people so sh**ty that it makes John Bolton look like a good guy. 

 

When so many Trump officials (Yovanovitch, Sondland, Taylor, Hill, potentially Bolton) are testifying about their concerns this was a crime, it undercuts the argument that "this was perfect" or "no big deal."  It's also becoming clear this was a criminal conspiracy orchestrated and signed off from the top.  Pressuring Ukraine to manufacture "dirt" on Biden, which did not exist, in exchange for a White House meeting for Zelensky and that military aid was contingent on said "dirt."  Basically none of that is in dispute.  It's more than just one phone call, which was damning enough.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

When so many Trump officials (Yovanovitch, Sondland, Taylor, Hill, potentially Bolton) it undercuts the argument that "this was perfect" or "no big deal."  It's also becoming clear this was a criminal conspiracy orchestrated and signed off from the top.  Pressuring Ukraine to manufacture "dirt" on Biden, which did not exist, in exchange for a White House meeting for Zelensky and that military aid was contingent on said "dirt."  Basically none of that is in dispute.

It's also becoming clear why the administration was trying to prevent people from testifying.  Hill's lawyers pretty much told the White House to f*** off with their executive privilege. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-found-a-staggering-281-lobbyists-whove-worked-in-the-trump-administration

 

We Found a “Staggering” 281 Lobbyists Who’ve Worked in the Trump Administration

 

Quote

At the halfway mark of President Donald Trump’s first term, his administration has hired a lobbyist for every 14 political appointments made, welcoming a total of 281 lobbyists on board, a ProPublica and Columbia Journalism Investigations analysis shows.

 

With a combination of weakened rules and loose enforcement easing the transition to government and back to K Street, Trump’s swamp is anything but drained. The number of lobbyists who have served in government jobs is four times more than the Obama administration had six years into office. And former lobbyists serving Trump are often involved in regulating the industries they worked for.

 

@cbussoccer @Ram23 @eastvillagedon

 

Here's your chance for a serious discussion.  Trump promised to drain the swamp and he's doing the opposite.  I will take silence to mean you do agree Trump was, in fact, lying and full of ****.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/us/christian-music-ccm-trump-blake/index.html

 

Why Christian music's biggest stars refuse to change their tune for the Trump era

 

Quote

He won't sing about hot-button political issues, and he certainly won't criticize President Trump.

 

"I would never oppose a president because I believe in what scripture says about giving honor to authority," the genial 33-year-old entertainer says in a brief interview before his show. "That doesn't mean that I agree with everything. But I believe that an attack on authority anywhere is an attack on authority everywhere."

 

Imagine saying this unironically and thinking it's good.  He's subtly giving a nod to all the socialists, communists, and dictators that the right supposedly hates.  If they are an authority figured - no matter how bad they are - you can't attack them.  Amazing.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't look now Trumpers, but even Rasmussen has support for impeachment/removal at 50% now and rising.  So the real number is probably closer to mid-50s.  I look forward to the trashing of a poll you all have been clinging to from the beginning.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Don't look now Trumpers, but even Rasmussen has support for impeachment/removal at 50% now and rising.  So the real number is probably closer to mid-50s.  I look forward to the trashing of a poll you all have been clinging to from the beginning.

 

Are you talking about Rasmussen Reports or Scott Rasmussen? They are two different things. I've seen a Scott Rasmussen impeachment poll today, but not one from Rasmussen Reports.

 

 

Just wanted to clarify since you couldn't bring yourself to provide a link. 

 

Also, I can't speak for the other "Trumpers" around here, but I've not been clinging to any one poll. My stance has always been that the polls are fairly unreliable. However, if you want to talk polls, there's a poll out today from Scott Rasmussen (who I believe you are referencing) which says 57% believe Trump is likely to win reelection, down from 63% in August but up from 46% in February. YAY POLLS!

 

 

Share this post


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

https://www.propublica.org/article/we-found-a-staggering-281-lobbyists-whove-worked-in-the-trump-administration

 

We Found a “Staggering” 281 Lobbyists Who’ve Worked in the Trump Administration

 

 

@cbussoccer @Ram23 @eastvillagedon

 

Here's your chance for a serious discussion.  Trump promised to drain the swamp and he's doing the opposite.  I will take silence to mean you do agree Trump was, in fact, lying and full of ****.

 

2 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Are you talking about Rasmussen Reports or Scott Rasmussen? They are two different things. I've seen a Scott Rasmussen impeachment poll today, but not one from Rasmussen Reports.

 

Just wanted to clarify since you couldn't bring yourself to provide a link. 

 

Also, I can't speak for the other "Trumpers" around here, but I've not been clinging to any one poll. My stance has always been that the polls are fairly unreliable. However, if you want to talk polls, there's a poll out today from Scott Rasmussen (who I believe you are referencing) which says 57% believe Trump is likely to win reelection, down from 63% in August but up from 46% in February. YAY POLLS!

 

 

1 of 3 have joined The Resistance.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I figured that would be enough to bring one of you out from hiding.  You complained the other day that no one is willing to debate real issues, that they were all getting ignored here.  You failed to clarify what those issues were. You have also, like the other Trump supporters, been almost entirely absent on any impeachment discussion or the many alleged crimes committed by Trump and multiple other people throughout his administration.  One would think that only the potential what, 5th impeachment in US history, would be worthy of discussion.  Any thoughts beyond it's all fake?  

 

1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

1 of 3 have joined The Resistance.

 

Here are two perfect examples of why it's impossible to converse with many of you. 

 

Also, how is this crap not considered trolling by the mods? If I was suspended for a few days for "trolling" it seems this type of nonsense would warrant something as well. At least be consistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

Here are two perfect examples of why it's impossible to converse with many of you. 

 

Also, how is this crap not considered trolling by the mods? If I was suspended for a few days for "trolling" it seems this type of nonsense would warrant something as well. At least be consistent. 

 

"It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion on this board."

 

*Here are two examples of reasonable discussions that could happen.*

 

"Look, you guys are trolling.  It's impossible to talk to you."

 

I mean...come TF on.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


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

 

 

Here are two perfect examples of why it's impossible to converse with many of you. 

 

Also, how is this crap not considered trolling by the mods? If I was suspended for a few days for "trolling" it seems this type of nonsense would warrant something as well. At least be consistent. 

 

Its not trolling. He mentioned Rasmussen and you got triggered. You stated that people on this forum weren’t willing to have a serious discussion yet several have offered to do just that. That tells me and everyone on here you’re either incapable of debating the current presidency or afraid to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cbus is too easily rattled and purse clutching to be the typical random trump supporter. My bet is Cbus is a Republican operative of some sort.   

   

Share this post


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

 

 

Here are two perfect examples of why it's impossible to converse with many of you. 

 

Also, how is this crap not considered trolling by the mods? If I was suspended for a few days for "trolling" it seems this type of nonsense would warrant something as well. At least be consistent. 

 

Then talk to me. I'm a Conservative. 

 

Do you have a problem with the amount of lobbyists in the administration and, do you have a problem with the President having spent 238 days on the golf course in 2.5 years? 

 

I think these are fair questions based on fact rather than emotion and an opportunity for you to engage and voice (if any) misgivings you have about the administration.

 

For one, I was pretty upset about the Obama Admins ties to lobbying groups, but the numbers in the Trump Admin appear to be greater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cbussoccer said:

 

 

Here are two perfect examples of why it's impossible to converse with many of you. 

 

Also, how is this crap not considered trolling by the mods? If I was suspended for a few days for "trolling" it seems this type of nonsense would warrant something as well. At least be consistent. 

 

I wasn't trolling, though.  I was specifically talking about polling bringing you guys out, which seems to be the only thing that Trump supporters talk about here (and only when it's favorable to Trump).  

And you didn't bother addressing the questions.  Don't complain about people not being able to hold discussions if you're just going to feign outrage and ignore direct questions.  If you don't like the topics, what do you want to discuss?

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stpats44113 said:

 

Its not trolling. He mentioned Rasmussen and you got triggered. You stated that people on this forum weren’t willing to have a serious discussion yet several have offered to do just that. That tells me and everyone on here you’re either incapable of debating the current presidency or afraid to do so. 

this up here GIF by Chord Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 1:17 PM, eastvillagedon said:

quelle surprise🎊 🙄

 

 

 

 

This an incredibly dumb post and even dumber journalism by the Post (which isn't shocking).

 

538 covered this on their podcast yesterday and why it's so dumb for a variety of reasons.  I'll try to paraphrase here:

1) Party ID isn't static. Some states don't even have party registration.  Who decided the Gallup party breakdown is now the gold standard?

2) Gallup missed big swings in Independents in 2004 and 2008. 2018 is more accurate and the country voted Democrat +8.

3) Gallup doesn't push Indies which way the lean. Fox's pollster did, which meant 48% were Dems or lean Dem. This isn't an outlier number.

4) The result isn't much of an outlier either. If it was 20% support or 80% support, sure.  But it is in line with other polling.

 

Complaining about the cross tabs is stupid.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminder..... There are some courageous people among the conservatives.

 

 

 

AND

 

 

AND

And

And

 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And

 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 1:17 PM, eastvillagedon said:

quelle surprise🎊 🙄

 

 

 

 

Since The Post decided to use Gallup as their gold standard (for reasons unexplained), let's check in with the folks at Gallup.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/267491/congress-approval-support-impeaching-trump.aspx

 

Quote

Currently, 52% say Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

 

Oh, it looks like it's in line with the Fox News poll.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020, according to Moody’s accurate election model

 

 

Moody’s based its projections on how consumers feel about their own financial situation, the gains the stock market has achieved during Trump’s tenure and the prospects for unemployment, which has fallen to a 50-year low. Should those variables hold up, the president looks set to get another four-year term.

 

The modeling has been highly accurate going back to the 1980 election, missing only once.

 

The Moody’s models have been backtested to 1980 and were correct each time — except in 2016, when they ndicated Clinton would get a narrow victory. The authors attributed “unexpected turnout patterns” in Trump’s favor caused the error and they adjusted for that in the latest projections. They also said the will be updating the projections as conditions develop and change.

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cbussoccer said:

Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020, according to Moody’s accurate election model

 

 

Moody’s based its projections on how consumers feel about their own financial situation, the gains the stock market has achieved during Trump’s tenure and the prospects for unemployment, which has fallen to a 50-year low. Should those variables hold up, the president looks set to get another four-year term.

 

The modeling has been highly accurate going back to the 1980 election, missing only once.

 

The Moody’s models have been backtested to 1980 and were correct each time — except in 2016, when they ndicated Clinton would get a narrow victory. The authors attributed “unexpected turnout patterns” in Trump’s favor caused the error and they adjusted for that in the latest projections. They also said the will be updating the projections as conditions develop and change.

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html

 

 

Moody's predicted a HRC win by 135 Electoral Votes. 

Share this post


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

Moody's predicted a HRC win by 135 Electoral Votes. 

 

"Yeah, but now...they think my guy is going to win!  They're accurate!"

 

20 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Then talk to me. I'm a Conservative. 

 

Do you have a problem with the amount of lobbyists in the administration and, do you have a problem with the President having spent 238 days on the golf course in 2.5 years? 

 

I think these are fair questions based on fact rather than emotion and an opportunity for you to engage and voice (if any) misgivings you have about the administration.

 

For one, I was pretty upset about the Obama Admins ties to lobbying groups, but the numbers in the Trump Admin appear to be greater

 

I suppose Cbus doesn't want to answer any of these questions since they know there's no legitimate answer to them that doesn't come to the conclusion of criticizing Trump.

 

Here is another "serious" discussion opportunity.  Why did Trump Org keep two sets of books?  It sounds like fraud, at best.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

 

Quote

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

 

For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.

 

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yeah it is wild - @cbussoccer and I share common cause as Conservatives, and I laid out an objective, non-hyperbolic pair of questions. It seems as if that's as golden an opportunity as any to engage in these discussions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...