Jump to content

Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency


LGR4GM

Recommended Posts

On 9/1/2019 at 11:18 AM, LTS said:

Here's the thing. I don't, for a single moment, believe this. Trump is classic misdirection. His public persona can be whatever he wants it to be but the truth is where the money goes. Where's his money? What's his long term payout on this President gig he's got going on?

Does he benefit from Russian and Chinese investments in the future?  Does he benefit short term by tweeting and impacting the markets to gain favor with particular investors?

He may be nothing more than a puppet for those behind the scenes, but he's a great puppet and he's doing great things for them.  We're so preoccupied with Trump that we don't stop to think about what is really going on.

And they are all complicit with it... including many from the other party.

The American Public finally got its reality TV in the White House and they are eating it up.

Of course it is misdirection. Trump wants 2 things, adoration and money. The rest is inconsequential to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or does this sentence seems off? I copied and pasted it directly from the: Certified Website of President Donald J. Trump, Official Socialism Approval Poll

Quote

"Would you be upset if YOUR taxes being raised in order to pay for socialist programs like the $92 TRILLION Green New Deal?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/donald-trump-whistleblower/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49763080

Quote

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson said the complaint consists of a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of the law" that involves classified information, a letter to lawmakers revealed.

Under US law, if the complaint is considered to be of "urgent concern", and if the inspector general considers the complaint to be "credible", then the department head is expected to share the information with Congress within seven days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is from the CNN article. Previously they admit it is unclear which country is involved or any specifics at all. This single sentence is an example of MSM citing opinion as fact. I do think this sentence will be the narrative going forward. I hope the complaint comes to light. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. Until that information is known, MSM should stop trying to influence the masses and stick to reporting what is known. 

“There must at least be a possibility that Trump abused his power or committed a grievous ethical lapse in dealing with the foreign leader.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Below is from the CNN article. Previously they admit it is unclear which country is involved or any specifics at all. This single sentence is an example of MSM citing opinion as fact. I do think this sentence will be the narrative going forward. I hope the complaint comes to light. If he did something wrong he should be held accountable. Until that information is known, MSM should stop trying to influence the masses and stick to reporting what is known. 

“There must at least be a possibility that Trump abused his power or committed a grievous ethical lapse in dealing with the foreign leader.”

Actually that is a fact. There must be a possibility of something otherwise the Inspector General would not have passed the complaint along and it would not have magically been stopped before reaching congress. So the wording isn't great but let's read this from the IG and quoted in the BBC article "Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson said the complaint consists of a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of the law" that involves classified information, a letter to lawmakers revealed." So no they aren't citing opinion as fact. They are citing fact as fact in this case because if there was not "at least the possibility" then the IG would not have found the claim as above cited. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also why are you harping on this part of the story? Do you not find it odd that 250million in aid was withheld from the Ukraine and then suddenly released shortly after this started to come out. Why won't they turn over the complaint to congress as dictated by law if it really is nothing? If it smells like sh##, tastes like sh##, and looks like sh##.... well it certainly isn't roses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Actually that is a fact. There must be a possibility of something otherwise the Inspector General would not have passed the complaint along and it would not have magically been stopped before reaching congress. So the wording isn't great but let's read this from the IG and quoted in the BBC article "Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson said the complaint consists of a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of the law" that involves classified information, a letter to lawmakers revealed." So no they aren't citing opinion as fact. They are citing fact as fact in this case because if there was not "at least the possibility" then the IG would not have found the claim as above cited. 

 

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Also why are you harping on this part of the story? Do you not find it odd that 250million in aid was withheld from the Ukraine and then suddenly released shortly after this started to come out. Why won't they turn over the complaint to congress as dictated by law if it really is nothing? If it smells like sh##, tastes like sh##, and looks like sh##.... well it certainly isn't roses. 

I am harping on this because so far all we know is somebody complained about the POTUS revealing classified information. Did he? If not then there is no possibility the law was broken. Until we know what information was revealed and just as important to whom, then it’s speculation based on someone’s perception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

 

I am harping on this because so far all we know is somebody complained about the POTUS revealing classified information. Did he? If not then there is no possibility the law was broken. Until we know what information was revealed and just as important to whom, then it’s speculation based on someone’s perception. 

The IG found it credible enough to advance and then it was stopped with interference from the white house. That's the current facts.  If it was nothing, why hasn't the complaint been turned over to Congress?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The IG found it credible enough to advance and then it was stopped with interference from the white house. That's the current facts.  If it was nothing, why hasn't the complaint been turned over to Congress?

Good question. I think it should be. Im not arguing the event. Im arguing how MSM handles this kind of stuff. American’s don’t need a report’s analysis, just the facts. Then again how would they fill that 24 hour cycle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Good question. I think it should be. Im not arguing the event. Im arguing how MSM handles this kind of stuff. American’s don’t need a report’s analysis, just the facts. Then again how would they fill that 24 hour cycle?

I would imagine they do it the same way Sabrespace posters endure the off-season.  ?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I know for a fact it happens.

 A lot of things happen.

There is no way you can equate anything that happens anywhere else to someone blowing the whistle on the President of the United States. 

In my mind, that person was sure that they heard what they heard,… cuz they most likely did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 A lot of things happen.

There is no way you can equate anything that happens anywhere else to someone blowing the whistle on the President of the United States. 

In my mind, that person was sure that they heard what they heard,… cuz they most likely did.

I can use my knowledge of historical incidents to say there is a chance the whistleblower was incorrect. Im sure that person was sure in their mind which is why they reported. However not every whistleblower is correct. We will not know for sure until that information comes out. Believing an accuser just because of who the accused is does nothing good for our justice system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I can use my knowledge of historical incidents to say there is a chance the whistleblower was incorrect. Im sure that person was sure in their mind which is why they reported. However not every whistleblower is correct. We will not know for sure until that information comes out. Believing an accuser just because of who the accused is does nothing good for our justice system.

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

K

Then what do you want? 

Whistleblower comes forward.

Trump is impeached and in prison 24 hours later.

This isn’t Judge Dredd. Maybe this allegation should trigger an inquiry which could then lead to an investigation. I’m not a lawyer but it makes sense to look into something before condemning someone. If he messed up then hold him accountable.

The problem I have is this idea an accuser is never wrong and should always be believed. 

This article has a timeline of what is known so far. 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/462464-timeline-the-trump-whistleblower-complaint?amp

This one is on par with CNN as it adds fluff to skew the reader’s opinion.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-trump-whistleblower

Edited by SABRES 0311
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the whistleblower was wrong why was it advanced and then hidden? 

I don't care about the spin. Stick to that major problem. A complaint against the president was valid enough to be advanced and then the president's ag barr and the white house stopped the report going to Congress per the law. That's not nothing. It's so obvious it is not nothing that after Congress found out they were still denied the report they are legally entitled too. Can't investigate it if you don't get it can you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Then what do you want? 

Whistleblower comes forward.

Trump is impeached and in prison 24 hours later.

This isn’t Judge Dredd. Maybe this allegation should trigger an inquiry which could then lead to an investigation. I’m not a lawyer but it makes sense to look into something before condemning someone. If he messed up then hold him accountable.

The problem I have is this idea an accuser is never wrong and should always be believed. 

This article has a timeline of what is known so far. 

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/462464-timeline-the-trump-whistleblower-complaint?amp

This one is on par with CNN as it adds fluff to skew the reader’s opinion.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-trump-whistleblower

I want the law to be followed, something this president cares very little about.

 

And I think it’s funny that you (and they) don’t think that FOX is MSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

I want the law to be followed, something this president cares very little about.

 

And I think it’s funny that you (and they) don’t think that FOX is MSM.

When did I say Fox isn’t MSM? They are. That’s why I added their article. To show how both sides do the same thing. ?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

If the whistleblower was wrong why was it advanced and then hidden? 

I don't care about the spin. Stick to that major problem. A complaint against the president was valid enough to be advanced and then the president's ag barr and the white house stopped the report going to Congress per the law. That's not nothing. It's so obvious it is not nothing that after Congress found out they were still denied the report they are legally entitled too. Can't investigate it if you don't get it can you? 

Did I ever say the situation didn’t look bad? No. Trumps administration is actually making it look almost obvious.

Only reason I inserted myself into this is because you used a garbage article. You yourself admitted their verbiage was not good. 

Let me be clear. If Trump is found guilty of crimes warranting impeachment I will support it. It has to be proven with real information not comments appealing to emotions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...