Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[Eleven]

49 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

whatever crimes the Trump administration may have committed are not the fault of others but the audacity stems from lack of accountability in the past. 

There is an audacity right now that has no roots in any American history at all.  For many, that is a considerably larger problem than policy decisions.

[Weave]

10 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

And guess what? When a Democrat is in office a conservative will say they are destroying America. BTW those phantom WMDs resulted in many families losing loved ones. I doubt that changes your perspective but hopefully you understand people see things in a different light. 

Since you brought up standards why do you ignore and minimize what others have done as though it has no impact on what is happening now? I don’t mean with a single phone call to Ukraine either. 

I haven't once minimized what was done in the past. But I'm also not using what was done in the past to minimize or rationalize what this President is doing now. 

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

There is an audacity right now that has no roots in any American history at all.  For many, that is a considerably larger problem than policy decisions.

This is the heart of it right here.  Unprecedented is the correct word.

[SABRES 0311]

26 minutes ago, Eleven said:

There is an audacity right now that has no roots in any American history at all.  For many, that is a considerably larger problem than policy decisions.

Let’s say he in fact is found guilty of quit pro quo. He must be held accountable otherwise it sends a bad message to future presidents. I think we can agree on that. If he did in fact do this, after all the evidence and hearings come out, is anybody going to ask what made him think he get away with it.

Have recent administrations done anything bad and gotten away with it? The answer is yes. Under Bush we tortured people and went into Iraq under false pretenses.  I’ve mentioned the Benghazi/ISIS stuff under Obama many times. Both resulted in Americans dying and neither administration really gets held accountable. Why would Trump think he has anything to worry about concerning a phone call? I clearly am not seeing it the same way but I am open to hearing your side. 
 

Bush and Obama don’t give Trump a free pass for anything he is found guilty of. But our standards need to be equal and IMO they are not.

Edited November 6, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[Weave]

33 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Let’s say he in fact is found guilty of quit pro quo. He must be held accountable otherwise it sends a bad message to future presidents. I think we can agree on that. If he did in fact do this, after all the evidence and hearings come out, is anybody going to ask what made him think he get away with it.

 

And therein lies the rub.  In order to conduct a full investigation Congress needs to evaluate the evidence.  And by commanding the witnesses to defy a subpoena, he's preventing the evidence from coming to light.  And giving the Republicans an out.  If the evidence isn't brought forth they can claim plausible deniability.  Your choice of words here is hinting at it now.  "When he is found guilty" in a trial process that is inherently political, not judicial. In a case where evidence is being withheld for political reasons in the face of legal subpoenas.

Due process works both ways.  A fair investigation and litigation requires both sides to obey the rules.  And one side is acting above the rules right now.  The privilege of having the Justice department beholden to you.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Weave

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Let’s say he in fact is found guilty of quit pro quo. He must be held accountable otherwise it sends a bad message to future presidents. I think we can agree on that. If he did in fact do this, after all the evidence and hearings come out, is anybody going to ask what made him think he get away with it.

Have recent administrations done anything bad and gotten away with it? The answer is yes. Under Bush we tortured people and went into Iraq under false pretenses.  I’ve mentioned the Benghazi/ISIS stuff under Obama many times. Both resulted in Americans dying and neither administration really gets held accountable. Why would Trump think he has anything to worry about concerning a phone call? I clearly am not seeing it the same way but I am open to hearing your side. 
 

Bush and Obama don’t give Trump a free pass for anything he is found guilty of. But our standards need to be equal and IMO they are not.

Equating Benghazi to Iraq really drives that point home.

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Equating Benghazi to Iraq really drives that point home.

Part of the reason we went into Iraq was to get WMDs we were told were there. To date that has not happened. Then we place an ambassador in one of the most dangerous places on the planet with inadequate security. When the post comes under attack our guys are hung out to dry. Both are examples of either incompetence, deception or a combination of both ending in the deaths of Americans. 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Part of the reason we went into Iraq was to get WMDs we were told were there. To date that has not happened. Then we place an ambassador in one of the most dangerous places on the planet with inadequate security. When the post comes under attack our guys are hung out to dry. Both are examples of either incompetence, deception or a combination of both ending in the deaths of Americans. 

Like I said.

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

And therein lies the rub.  In order to conduct a full investigation Congress needs to evaluate the evidence.  And by commanding the witnesses to defy a subpoena, he's preventing the evidence from coming to light.  And giving the Republicans an out.  If the evidence isn't brought forth they can claim plausible deniability.  Your choice of words here is hinting at it now.  "When he is found guilty" in a trial process that is inherently political, not judicial. In a case where evidence is being withheld for political reasons in the face of legal subpoenas.

Due process works both ways.  A fair investigation and litigation requires both sides to obey the rules.  And one side is acting above the rules right now.  The privilege of having the Justice department beholden to you.

And I’m not disagreeing that this stuff is happening. Nor am I saying it’s ok for one side to do it. I’m all for the whole thing to be out in the open. Hell I’d invite the Ukrainian president but that won’t happen. 

Just now, SwampD said:

Like I said.

What are you trying to say?

[SwampD]

9 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

And I’m not disagreeing that this stuff is happening. Nor am I saying it’s ok for one side to do it. I’m all for the whole thing to be out in the open. Hell I’d invite the Ukrainian president but that won’t happen. 

What are you trying to say?

That somehow trying to equate the deaths of four Americans who knew what they were in for long before they even stepped onto the plane in the US knowing where they were going, to the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of roughly 5000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis including tens of thousands of civilians in air strikes, is the epitome of not having ones standards equal.

Edited November 6, 2019 by SwampD

[SABRES 0311]

3 minutes ago, SwampD said:

That somehow trying to equate the deaths of four Americans who knew what they were in for long before they even stepped onto the plane in the US knowing where they were going, to the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of roughly 5000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis including tens of thousands of civilians in air strikes, is the epitome of not having ones standards equal.

I don’t think the guys in Benghazi went there knowing they’d get left like that. That was one of the major points in their ordeal. Part of knowing what to expect is understanding the resources and assets we could’ve used to help them which those guys did but the administration failed to provide. Then the administration tells us it happened because of a cartoon.

You are right that the scale of death was much higher in Iraq. Are you saying the number of deaths determines the level of culpability? The way your post reads it sounds like you are saying what happened to the guys in Benghazi wasn’t as bad as what happened to those in Iraq because not enough people died. That is the epitome of zero standards and actually disturbing. The standard is take of those you send into harms way, not deceive and abandon.

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I don’t think the guys in Benghazi went there knowing they’d get left like that. That was one of the major points in their ordeal. Part of knowing what to expect is understanding the resources and assets we could’ve used to help them which those guys did but the administration failed to provide. Then the administration tells us it happened because of a cartoon.

You are right that the scale of death was much higher in Iraq. Are you saying the number of deaths determines the level of culpability? The way your post reads it sounds like you are saying what happened to the guys in Benghazi wasn’t as bad as what happened to those in Iraq because not enough people died. That is the epitome of zero standards and actually disturbing. The standard is take of those you send into harms way, not deceive and abandon.

Do you really not think that that plays a part in the decision making of those who choose to send people in harms way. It wasn’t as bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or has an agenda.

We don’t know what they had at their disposal. We don’t know what other factors there were for their inaction.

And just so you know my feelings on Bush’s decision on Iraq. I thank my lucky stars I won’t ever have to make a decision like that. He was a sitting president under a brutal attack. He just didn’t want it to happen again under his watch, so he made sure if people were going to die, it would be soldiers and “not Americans.” I don’t say I agree with it, but at least I can understand it.

Bush (both), Obama, Clinton (both), were probably all awful people, but in the end, I truly believe they cared more about America than themselves.

Trump is garbage. He cares about one thing over all, Trump. His actions are unprecedented and it is a testament to our constitution that we have survived him this long. I’m not sure we will survive another 4 years of him.

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Do you really not think that that plays a part in the decision making of those who choose to send people in harms way. It wasn’t as bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive or has an agenda.

We don’t know what they had at their disposal. We don’t know what other factors there were for their inaction.

And just so you know my feelings on Bush’s decision on Iraq. I thank my lucky stars I won’t ever have to make a decision like that. He was a sitting president under a brutal attack. He just didn’t want it to happen again under his watch, so he made sure if people were going to die, it would be soldiers and “not Americans.” I don’t say I agree with it, but at least I can understand it.

Bush (both), Obama, Clinton (both), were probably all awful people, but in the end, I truly believe they cared more about America than themselves.

Trump is garbage. He cares about one thing over all, Trump. His actions are unprecedented and it is a testament to our constitution that we have survived him this long. I’m not sure we will survive another 4 years of him.

Soldiers are Americans too not fodder. Basic leadership dictates you take of subordinates because they get the mission done.

Iraq happened in 2003. We went into Afghanistan in 2001 following 911 in order to disrupt Al Qaeda and deny their base of operations. This supports mitigation of the threat.

The truth about Sadam and his brutality combined with a clear strategy and how it fits into the war on terrorism would have been enough justification especially given the emotional state of the country at that time. This part I know is subjective.  To make this clear Iraq was sold as a possible means of terrorists getting a nuclear weapon. 

We hold some common ground on personalities involved. Even if Trump is re-elected I do not believe America will cease to exist. I think our people have a history getting through hard times if that’s what happens. However I still have hope that someday we will get someone that is both competent and doesn’t have drama other than disagreements on policy.

Edited November 6, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[Weave]

5 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

However I still have hope that someday we will get someone that is both competent and doesn’t have drama other than disagreements on policy.

This is where most here disagree with you. Your choice of words is telling, and consistently understates the situation or doesn’t acknowledge it at all.  The drama is embarrassing.  But its not the drama that is driving the conversation here.  Its is blatant disregard for Constitutional separation of powers,  the Emoluments Clause, enlisting a foreign power to assist in an election, and active obstruction of a legitimate Congressional inquiry that is at the heart of it.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Weave

[LGR4GM]

28 minutes ago, Weave said:

This is where most here disagree with you. Your choice of words is telling, and consistently understates the situation or doesn’t acknowledge it at all.  The drama is embarrassing.  But its not the drama that is driving the conversation here.  Its is blatant disregard for Constitutional separation of powers,  the Emoluments Clause, enlisting a foreign power to assist in an election, and active obstruction of a legitimate Congressional inquiry that is at the heart of it.

This is my concern. You don't suggest someone leading a legal inquiry into you is guilty of treason unless you think you're above the law. He views himself as a dictator. That's why he constantly attempts to dehumanize opposition. 

[Eleven]

10 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Let’s say he in fact is found guilty of quit pro quo. He must be held accountable otherwise it sends a bad message to future presidents. I think we can agree on that. If he did in fact do this, after all the evidence and hearings come out, is anybody going to ask what made him think he get away with it.

Have recent administrations done anything bad and gotten away with it? The answer is yes. Under Bush we tortured people and went into Iraq under false pretenses.  I’ve mentioned the Benghazi/ISIS stuff under Obama many times. Both resulted in Americans dying and neither administration really gets held accountable. Why would Trump think he has anything to worry about concerning a phone call? I clearly am not seeing it the same way but I am open to hearing your side. 
 

Bush and Obama don’t give Trump a free pass for anything he is found guilty of. But our standards need to be equal and IMO they are not.

None of this has to do with my point about audacity.  Perhaps I did not articulate it well.

[LGR4GM]

For the record, Trump does not have to be found guilty in a legal sense of a crime. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Impeachable_offenses:_"Treason,_Bribery,_or_other_high_Crimes_and_Misdemeanors"

[LGR4GM]

Also for the record, it appears that Trump might be guilty of a crime. Essentially we are talking about extortion and bribery. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

For the record, Trump does not have to be found guilty in a legal sense of a crime. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Impeachable_offenses:_"Treason,_Bribery,_or_other_high_Crimes_and_Misdemeanors"

 

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Also for the record, it appears that Trump might be guilty of a crime. Essentially we are talking about extortion and bribery. 

Each of these posts is correct.  Neither will matter.

[drnkirishone]

Good ole party before country politics shall win out the day.

[LGR4GM]

13 hours ago, drnkirishone said:

Good ole party before country politics shall win out the day.

Mitch McConnell

[LGR4GM]

How on earth can you have "immunity" from a congressional subpoena?

[drnkirishone]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

How on earth can you have "immunity" from a congressional subpoena?

Because in a dictatorship no one can have oversight on the dictator

[Eleven]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

How on earth can you have "immunity" from a congressional subpoena?

You can't.

It came out today that Trump altered the released transcript.  

https://www.memorandumdaily.com/2019/11/document-shows-white-housed-changed.html

[Eleven]

I think I want to start a Thing.

Everyone should mail a rock to 1600 Pennsylvania so he has material with which to build his wall.

I just don't know how to make this take off.