President Trump & the USA

[Carl the Llama]

9 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Its official. 90% of the posters in this thread are bots

And this is the problem with right wing politics, dissension must be fake. Christ on a bike.

[Grebfromgrebland]

12 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The Dems' reaction to his words on Twitter (sic!) is priceless, the four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse are going AWOL. Their common press conference was hilarious, so many butt-hurt feelings (but little factual content), plus Omar pretty much made up her own facts when she talked about Trump. She blatantly lied. 

All the accusations she threw at Trump are but that - accusations. He's been cleared by the Mueller report, but facts don't matter when they meet feelings, do they?

 

Can't stand that woman in particular, they way she speaks in this arrogant, condescending, ivory tower manner. Plus, no condemnation for the attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, WA - none of the four did. And Omar's stance on ISIS is pretty clear, too (she loves them).

 

The whole impeachment demands are but a smokescreen for the Democrats' heavily struggling party and cohesion.

How was he cleared by the Mueller report. Please explain that. The understanding by those who read it would say that it most definitely does not clear him and the only reason that he isn't in prison is that he's a sitting president and no one has arrested a sitting president before and there's no process for this.  Trump is basically immune and that's why he still there. Maybe you missed Mueller's speech where he spelt this out in no uncertain terms.

[marko]

12 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

So, in a nutshell, no evidence of collusion

 

There was also insufficient evidence of obstruction

 

He won. Time for you to build a bridge, get over it, and observe America becoming great again

In a nutshell, yes there's plenty of evidence of collusion. Collusion isn't a crime so Mueller couldn't bring charges related to collusion, but instead examined conspiracy against the United States. As he stated, the deleted communications between the Trump campaign could resulted in a very different outcome. 

 

There was absolutely evidence of obstruction but Mueller couldn't possibly charge Trump as DoJ policy doesn't allow a sitting president to be charged - "Under longstanding department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office" therefore, "Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider." but "the evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

You should try actually reading the report instead of believing what comes out of Trump's mouth.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

And this is the problem with right wing politics, dissension must be fake. Christ on a bike.

And this is the problem with you lot, no sense of humour

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, marko said:

In a nutshell, yes there's plenty of evidence of collusion. Collusion isn't a crime so Mueller couldn't bring charges related to collusion, but instead examined conspiracy against the United States. As he stated, the deleted communications between the Trump campaign could resulted in a very different outcome. 

 

There was absolutely evidence of obstruction but Mueller couldn't possibly charge Trump as DoJ policy doesn't allow a sitting president to be charged - "Under longstanding department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office" therefore, "Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider." but "the evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

You should try actually reading the report instead of believing what comes out of Trump's mouth.

Lol.  You think the things you read are objective articles? 

 

Why was he investigating if he couldnt charge? What was the point of it all? Couldnt be to smear could it?

 

Of course, we'd be better off with a Clinton in charge, not like they've ever done anything wrong 

[The_77]

On 16/07/2019 at 09:27, MC Prussian said:

You are basically regurgitating what I've said before, and I've also pointed out that his generalizations don't help his cause, since only one out of the four congresswomen he's attacking wasn't originally born in the US. That was either incedibly ignorant or on purpose, you can interpret it either way.

 

In his second part of that lengthy Tweet, he talks about "places", not countries. And the way I read it, yes, it's about Minnesota (or Somalia) in Omar's case, Detroit (Tlaib), Boston (Pressley) and New York (AOC).

Trump was a real-estate mogul before he became president, never a politician. It's AOC's job to take care of her district or NYC, not his. Never has.

New York, city and State, are deep in debt, have been so for decades and are not the greatest places to live on paper.

https://observer.com/2017/12/thomas-dinapoli-new-york-state-debt/

Mayor de Blasio is so detested, he regularly polls at 0% in popularity, in other cases even in the negative area!

https://theweek.com/speedreads/842760/bill-de-blasio-astonishing-8-percent-favorable-rating

 

I've said it before and I'm saying it again, too many gullible people read way too much into Trump's Twitter output. Some of it is hilarious, other posts are hilariously bad, other parts are funny, some are serious, others stupid or inflammatory/derogatory. We all knew the character Trump way before he became president, look it up on YouTube for example, so why the outrage over his behaviour today? He's got an ego problem, has done so most of his life once he became famous, it's part of a narcissistic personality, yet I don't see how that distinguishes himself from presidents that came before him (apart from Doubleyah, maybe).

Where was the outrage there? It just happens to be Twitter didn't mean anything to them, because for most of them, it simply didn't exist yet.

This obsession with Social Media is crazy, and downright idiotic.

 

The media enforce and shape Trump's image accordingly, the liberal media hate him, so they'll do anything to portray him in a negative way, no matter what the circumstances. Even if he does something "amazing", they'll either stay silent or find a minor offense to talk about.

AOC is only in the first year of her first term;

New York City is in a budget surplus (and one of the greatest cities in the world); you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do about what’s going on with New York or Trump. 

[bovril]

3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

https://summit.news/2019/07/17/poll-clear-majority-of-mexicans-say-migrants-should-be-deported-back-to-their-home-countries/

 

I guess Mexican Americans are racists too....

The article isn't about Mexican-Americans, it's about Mexicans. And, obviously, Mexicans are no less likely to be racist or xenophobic than any other group. Why would they be? It's a pretty common phenomenon; nationality who commonly faces prejudice have their own prejudices against another nationality. Like many Polish people in the UK, for example. You live in Central Europe so I assume you're aware that happens a lot. 

This seems to be quite a common argument these days. I've observed it a lot with Brexit. You know, like "how can Brexiters be anti-immigrant when I know an Indian bloke who voted for it". You did the same thing with the Vietnamese video - they support Trump and they can't be racist cos they're foreign too. It's a ludicrous argument and, ironically, a bit p.c. gone mad. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

The article isn't about Mexican-Americans, it's about Mexicans. And, obviously, Mexicans are no less likely to be racist or xenophobic than any other group. Why would they be? It's a pretty common phenomenon; nationality who commonly faces prejudice have their own prejudices against another nationality. Like many Polish people in the UK, for example. You live in Central Europe so I assume you're aware that happens a lot. 

This seems to be quite a common argument these days. I've observed it a lot with Brexit. You know, like "how can Brexiters be anti-immigrant when I know an Indian bloke who voted for it". You did the same thing with the Vietnamese video - they support Trump and they can't be racist cos they're foreign too. It's a ludicrous argument and, ironically, a bit p.c. gone mad. 

Kind of joking mate. Its a comment on those who say having a secure border is racist, thats all. Keep your knickers on

[marko]

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Lol.  You think the things you read are objective articles? 

 

Why was he investigating if he couldnt charge? What was the point of it all? Couldnt be to smear could it?

 

Of course, we'd be better off with a Clinton in charge, not like they've ever done anything wrong 

Yes, because I've quoted you text from the Mueller report and remarks from his press conference - it couldn't be more objective as it's straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

 

The point of it all was to determine whether there'd been any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the US election. It's a pretty big deal when a hostile foreign adversary attempts to interfere in an election and warrants. Especially when there's evidence to suggest they had. 

 

Your claim that it's to smear is as nonsense as the rest of your claims! The investigation and subsequent Special Counsel appointment was made a Republican Attorney General, overseen by a Republican Deputy Attorney General, and you want to know the really funny bit... Trump appointed them both! For the record, Mueller is a Republican too.

 

And there we have it... 

 

Hillary bingo and whataboutism. Surely you've got a word or two about something Obama did too?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

57 minutes ago, marko said:

Yes, because I've quoted you text from the Mueller report and remarks from his press conference - it couldn't be more objective as it's straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

 

The point of it all was to determine whether there'd been any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the US election. It's a pretty big deal when a hostile foreign adversary attempts to interfere in an election and warrants. Especially when there's evidence to suggest they had. 

 

Your claim that it's to smear is as nonsense as the rest of your claims! The investigation and subsequent Special Counsel appointment was made a Republican Attorney General, overseen by a Republican Deputy Attorney General, and you want to know the really funny bit... Trump appointed them both! For the record, Mueller is a Republican too.

 

And there we have it... 

 

Hillary bingo and whataboutism. Surely you've got a word or two about something Obama did too?

Meh, come back to me when there is some real evidence

 

And its not whataboutery if I dont think Trump did it, ya plumbag

 

Trump is great. Clintons are awful. Thats not whataboutery. Im just celebrating the fact that the right person won the election

Edited 17 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, The_77 said:

AOC is only in the first year of her first term;

New York City is in a budget surplus (and one of the greatest cities in the world); you don’t know nearly as much as you think you do about what’s going on with New York or Trump. 

And hopefully, it will remain her last term. The way she won her vote in her district and the way she's representing it doesn't bode well for her.

 

With regards to NYC, it may have a (budget) surplus right now for 2019 maybe, but its overall debt has been increasing by 76% in between 2002 and 2018.

https://cbcny.org/research/nyc-debt-outstanding

https://www.ccn.com/new-york-nears-financial-ruin-as-debt-balloons-over-80000-per-household/

 

Even Forbes places NYC as one of the major US cities to be near-broke:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodriguezvalladares/2019/01/29/americas-largest-cities-are-practically-broke/#2f0b452d2ebb

 

And in case you mean a budgeted surplus - "budgeted" can mean anything. I can budget a surplus for pretty much any scenario - the real numbers at the end of the (fiscal) year matter, and then need to be put in the context of previous years.

Edited 17 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1151319630335492097

 

Oh dear. People with different opinions

 

 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

How was he cleared by the Mueller report. Please explain that. The understanding by those who read it would say that it most definitely does not clear him and the only reason that he isn't in prison is that he's a sitting president and no one has arrested a sitting president before and there's no process for this.  Trump is basically immune and that's why he still there. Maybe you missed Mueller's speech where he spelt this out in no uncertain terms.

The Mueller Report cleared him and some of his former helpers of any illegal or criminal activity, there was no collusion with Russia, as claimed by the Democrats.

 

What was established is that there were meetings between a few Trump officials and Russian representatives, but anything that happened beyond that is and remains guesswork.

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/

[MC Prussian]

58 minutes ago, marko said:

Yes, because I've quoted you text from the Mueller report and remarks from his press conference - it couldn't be more objective as it's straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

 

The point of it all was to determine whether there'd been any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the US election. It's a pretty big deal when a hostile foreign adversary attempts to interfere in an election and warrants. Especially when there's evidence to suggest they had. 

 

Your claim that it's to smear is as nonsense as the rest of your claims! The investigation and subsequent Special Counsel appointment was made a Republican Attorney General, overseen by a Republican Deputy Attorney General, and you want to know the really funny bit... Trump appointed them both! For the record, Mueller is a Republican too.

 

And there we have it... 

 

Hillary bingo and whataboutism. Surely you've got a word or two about something Obama did too?

Surely you can also see that the Mueller Report finding that Russia tried to interfere or managed to interfere with the US elections back in 2016 means that it pretty much affected all parties in the same fashion?

 

Why no word on the Clinton campaign colluding with Russian officials in order to boost their own chances of promotion?

Hillary's E-Mails gone missing - just like that?

Bill Clinton's trip to Russia, garnering him a $500'000 cheque?

Quote

The evidence shows the Clintons financially benefited from Russia — personally and inside their charity — at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.

Quote

And there’s irrefutable evidence that her opposition research effort on Trump — one that inspired an FBI probe — was carried out by people who got information from Russia and were consorting with Russians.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/429292-the-case-for-russia-collusion-against-the-democrats

 

But hey, let's just have a go at Trump, that orange-haired b****rd. Because we hate him, hate him so much.

Edited 17 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, marko said:

Yeah, it didn't say that either. 

 

Over 100 points of contact between the Trump campaign, the Russian government and associates. It also stated how the Trump campaign hamstrung the investigation by deleting key evidence of communications, and that they "cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

 

That's before we even get started on Trump's effort to obstruct justice. As for your claims that Trump was cleared, I think the Mueller's words suggest otherwise - “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” 

 

Why would an innocent man obstruct an investigation?

 

#nocollusion

 

Why would Deutsche Welle (dw) lie?

https://www.dw.com/en/mueller-report-found-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-justice-dept/a-48046468-0

 

As for the other potential criminal acts by Trump and his cronies, well that remains a task for when his (second) term is over, once he no longer has the immunity of a president.

 

People on here have this fascinating impression of me as some sort of Trump supporter - I don't particularly like him myself, I just find the current drama unfolding rather entertaining and great popcorn material. And I find the attacks aimed at Trump at times hilariously convoluted.

 

The majority of the US media is on the liberal side, especially on TV. And they'll do anything to smear the President who shouldn't have become one in the first place - in their eyes.

They shape the public discourse in the US accordingly.

 

Trouble is, Hillary Clinton is/was even worse than Trump. But hardly anybody dared to talk about it.

 

I am curious to find out what secret weapon aka feasible candidate the Democrats will position for the 2020 elections. He or she better be good, because right now, all I see is blandness and cluelessness. The ones that I'd support have been ostracized by their own party (Gabbard and Yang).

Edited 17 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

And this is the problem with you lot, no sense of humour

You know I have a sense of humour, you've repped enough of my shitposts  

 

I'm just pointing out that reductivism helps nothing.  Don't fall into that trap.

[CosbehFox]

Another glorious moment overnight 

Edited 18 July 2019 by Cardiff_Fox

[Grebfromgrebland]

This is nice

 

 

 

[Buce]

31 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

This is nice

 

 

 

 

He's a vile, disgusting piece of shit but his trolls will still be on here defending him.

 

It tells you all you need to know about them.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You know I have a sense of humour, you've repped enough of my shitposts  

 

I'm just pointing out that reductivism helps nothing.  Don't fall into that trap.

fair enough

 

Occasionally this thread gets hard to keep it civil. Such a large proportion of the posts are just rants about how Trump is racist and anyone who likes him is racist. If someone defends him they get labelled. Its pretty poor stuff

 

In fact i had no real thoughts on him until i read all that stuff and decided to have a look at what his supporters think to see why so many people would support a racist - turns out a lot of good people like him and people are mistaking racism for the reassertion of western values and thats about the long and short of it

 

If people would actually take the time to listen to people they think they hate rather than listen to only one side it would be better.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

He's a vile, disgusting piece of shit but his trolls will still be on here defending him.

 

It tells you all you need to know about them.

Lol case in point about the labelling i just mentioned

 

Neved change Buce

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

This is nice

 

 

 

In their defence: she is a rabid anti semite. Hates jews and has refused to apologise for anti semitic comments

 

Refuses to condemn Al Qaeda and compares them to England and the US

 

Refuses to condemn terrorist attacks

 

Send her back

 

Ps. Cherry on the cake: looking more and more likely it will soon be confirmed she married her brother. Jokes

 

 

Edited 18 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

In their defence: she is a rabid anti semite. Hates jews and has refused to apologise for anti semitic comments

 

Refuses to condemn Al Qaeda and compares them to England and the US

 

Refuses to condemn terrorist attacks

 

Send her back

 

 

If you're going to make these kinds of statements could you provide some evidence?

 

Googling "Ilhan Omar anti semite" brings up an apology towards Jewish groups as the top result, your first statement appears to be erroneous.

 

Googling "Ilhan Omar Al Qaeda" brings up a few articles, most usefully factcheck.org's investigation into Trump's claims that she supports the terrorist group.  Surprisingly it turns out he's 'misunderstood' a 2013 interview where she definitely didn't refuse to condemn Al Qaeda but rather questioned the inherently racist belief that American Muslims should be duty bound to condemn every terrorist attack as though it's not obvious that people living peacefully and legally in the USA don't support terrorists. The bit about comparing Al Qaeda to England and the US appears to come from her discussing why we stick to the Arabic name for these groups, the implication being that stoking prejudice plays a part in it.  It's a point I don't really agree with because as far as I'm aware we're just using the names the groups themselves chose in the same way we refer to people like Antifa or Incels.  Your second statement appears to be erroneou.

 

Refuses to condemn terror attacks?  Refuses to play into the racism of being asked if she supports a terror group is more accurate.  It's covered in the previous link but here's a partisan article claiming she refuses to denounce Al Qaeda despite the true meaning of the quotes being obvious to anybody who reads beyond the headline.  These hate mongers are getting lazier.  In any case your third statement appears to be erroneous.

 

Send her back, drink the kool aid, don't question your masters, get married, reproduce, obey, obey, obey.

[Carl the Llama]

55 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

This is nice

 

 

 

Chilling.  They've officially stopped pretending it would seem.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Chilling.  They've officially stopped pretending it would seem.

 

Except on here.