Decency, Trump and Obama.

[*bfine32*]

(03-07-2017, 05:49 PM)Griever Wrote: if Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob was an impeachable offense...

I think the difference is that Clinton was lying to the Nation and Congress. Trump is just shooting off at the mouth about things he should be handling with more discretion. That is why I think Censure is more appropriate than impeachment. 

I know, Trumpeter. 

[hollodero]

(03-07-2017, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am a Trump supporter because I don't care what size papers he puts in folders, if KMart stops carrying his daughter's products, or if he agrees to use steel already purchased to build pipelines;

About the things you mentioned as reason why you're a Trump supporter. First off, I think these are rather weak reasons to support someone. But whatever. I myself really am not portraied correctly as a "liberal" or as Obama/Hillary/Democrat supporting folk. I really am not. I would not have cared too much whether Hillary or let's say Marco Rubio would have been elected. I am not a liberal in the sense you use that word, I am a "leftist" maybe, but these are terms bound to domestic policies, and I do not care too much about how you shape your society. Had Rubio beaten Hillary, I would probably post once a month in this forum and would keep reading Jungle Noise. Not to unnecessarily talk about myself here, I just want to make clear where the following remarks are coming from.

That being said. I do agree that these things you mentioned maybe might not matter too much on the bigger scale. However. I feel it's not entirely fair to call those who have a problem with that simply "butt-hurt". You're simply going too partisan here. I can see why these things anger people. The least important one is the steel thing, but even there, why does Trump blatantly lie about that one? It's as if people were stupid suckers, it really is, when he just says "well we use American steel" when clearly it doesn't work that way. And the only excuse is sheer incompetence, not knowing about the existing deal before claiming such things. Or he just lies to people he considers more stupid than him. One of these two.
This playing the people for suckers - and again, I am not from "the other side" here - is also obvious regarding these paper in folders things. It might not matter too much, taken for itself, I agree. But you need to understand why people are angry about that. Trump in fact never really cut ties with his businesses, he obviously used props and just again went with the lie - and even if it's unimportant, what the heck? This whole handing his business over to his sons is BS. Simply as that, it is BS, it's not ethical, it shows no devotion to his new task. Why do the American people now have to pay for his sons' protection when they fly all over the world conducting his businesses for him. Why does he have a hotel for diplomats, where obviously these diplomats now book his hotels as a gesture of good will to your president. Why have the fees for Mar-a-Lago membership now doubled, what kind of shady thing is that. Again, this is not coming from a Hillary supporter. It's just from the outside. This is all BS.

Now OK, politicians are shady, we in Europe have shady dealings going on too. So, whatever. One thing I can say for sure though. If any Western European politician would have the impertinence to use his office to publicly slam a private business for not selling his daughter's stuff - which obvioulsy was done for mere economic reasons - if a politician here would dare to behave like that, publicly shaming them, with this whiny tweets as if his daughter was molested by that - he would not survive another day politically. And honestly, rightfully so. Now while I might bring myself to agree the two other points might be disregarded - this Nordstrom affair is too much. If you disagree, just ask yourself, what if Obama had done that. I know this argument is lame, but still, what if Michelle had a line and Obama would have gone public shaming private businesses who don't sell it.
That is simply not acceptable. Maybe you disagree. But proving an open mind really would mean to just understand that people who are angered about that are not simply "butt-hurt". This line of thinking, this form of schadenfreude clouds your clear, unbiased vision here. That's how I feel. No disrespect, really.

Additionally, there are several other points already discussed in length. Where you, a respectable, but die-hard conservative in my books, always end up in this "butt-hurt" accusations. Tax returns might not matter, but a man of honor would have stuck to his word. And so on. He is a liar, he gets his intelligence from Breitbart (you're too smart not to know that this source is not an acceptable one for a president), he agitates, he makes baseless claims, he lies and decieves way more than your average politician (and yes, they all do), he is unprepared, clueless, and hand on heart - and you deep down have to know that somehow - he's not that bright to begin with, not smart enough to run the country in the most important job of the world. This might be blunt. But well, it's obvious not just to me, but to virtually everyone from the outside.

(03-07-2017, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: however, this is the 3rd issue in his short Presidency that I take issue with. The first 2 being his remarks toward the press and the Judicial Branch 

OK. I find these issues, especially the 3rd issue to be a major proof he is unfit for the burden and responsibility the office brings. I acknowledge and respect your seeing the problems here.
Why can't you bring yourself to the conclusion that Trump is totally unfit. There's not a reason to believe he will "learn". It's not that the liberals would be winning if you would see it that way - if he got removed for he shames the office, the country. If he were removed, you would get Pence, a man no liberal would want in office. But please for heaven's sake, you need to see that. I am not against you or the conservative stance, I have no chips in this game to begin with, when saying so. It's just intangible.

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the difference is that Clinton was lying to the Nation and Congress. Trump is just shooting off at the mouth about things he should be handling with more discretion. That is why I think Censure is more appropriate than impeachment. 

I know, Trumpeter. 

It appears that Trump was lying to the nation as well. Or he cannot tell difference between alternative facts and reality.

Either way, this is so much more serious than consensual sex with an intern.

What commander-in-chief "shoots off his mouth" about an intel scandal accusing the previous president, with the whole world listening in? 

This is not like a facebook argument between people whose opinions don't count and with few people looking on.

Foreign powers, not all of them friendly, assess of US credibility every time Trump tweets. The tweeter-in-chief represents the ENTIRE NATION when he gets up a 4 am to comment on how the press lies or millions of illegals voting or Obama wire-tapping him or to single out a business for not furthering his daughter's business.

Hollo is quite right when says--no one else does this, no other world leader. This kind of eccentric-erratic behavior marked crazy world leaders like Mobutu and Gaddafi in the past and Kim jong-un today.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-07-2017, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you read what I wrote?

(03-06-2017, 01:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  I like to see folk's heads explode.

[*bfine32*]

(03-07-2017, 10:56 PM)Dill Wrote: It appears that Trump was lying to the nation as well. Or he cannot tell difference between alternative facts and reality.

Either way, this is so much more serious than consensual sex with an intern.

What commander-in-chief "shoots off his mouth" about an intel scandal accusing the previous president, with the whole world listening in? 

This is not like a facebook argument between people whose opinions don't count and with few people looking on.

Foreign powers, not all of them friendly, assess of US credibility every time Trump tweets. The tweeter-in-chief represents the ENTIRE NATION when he gets up a 4 am to comment on how the press lies or millions of illegals voting or Obama wire-tapping him or to single out a business for not furthering his daughter's business.

Hollo is quite right when says--no one else does this, no other world leader. This kind of eccentric-erratic behavior marked crazy world leaders like Mobutu and Gaddafi in the past and Kim jong-un today.

You say no other leader does it, but give examples. Of course this is more than consensual sex, of course that is not why Clinton was impeached. 

There is no proof that Trump has lied in any of the 3 episodes I view are grounds for censure and I feel a formal rebuke is more in line with his transgressions than removal; especially only one month in. Not surprisingly, you disagree; however, you examples of tweeting are perect grounds for censure. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-07-2017, 09:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: About the things you mentioned as reason why you're a Trump supporter. First off, I think these are rather weak reasons to support someone. But whatever. I myself really am not portraied correctly as a "liberal" or as Obama/Hillary/Democrat supporting folk. I really am not. I would not have cared too much whether Hillary or let's say Marco Rubio would have been elected. I am not a liberal in the sense you use that word, I am a "leftist" maybe, but these are terms bound to domestic policies, and I do not care too much about how you shape your society. Had Rubio beaten Hillary, I would probably post once a month in this forum and would keep reading Jungle Noise. Not to unnecessarily talk about myself here, I just want to make clear where the following remarks are coming from.

That being said. I do agree that these things you mentioned maybe might not matter too much on the bigger scale. However. I feel it's not entirely fair to call those who have a problem with that simply "butt-hurt". You're simply going too partisan here. I can see why these things anger people. The least important one is the steel thing, but even there, why does Trump blatantly lie about that one? It's as if people were stupid suckers, it really is, when he just says "well we use American steel" when clearly it doesn't work that way. And the only excuse is sheer incompetence, not knowing about the existing deal before claiming such things. Or he just lies to people he considers more stupid than him. One of these two.
This playing the people for suckers - and again, I am not from "the other side" here - is also obvious regarding these paper in folders things. It might not matter too much, taken for itself, I agree. But you need to understand why people are angry about that. Trump in fact never really cut ties with his businesses, he obviously used props and just again went with the lie - and even if it's unimportant, what the heck? This whole handing his business over to his sons is BS. Simply as that, it is BS, it's not ethical, it shows no devotion to his new task. Why do the American people now have to pay for his sons' protection when they fly all over the world conducting his businesses for him. Why does he have a hotel for diplomats, where obviously these diplomats now book his hotels as a gesture of good will to your president. Why have the fees for Mar-a-Lago membership now doubled, what kind of shady thing is that. Again, this is not coming from a Hillary supporter. It's just from the outside. This is all BS.

Now OK, politicians are shady, we in Europe have shady dealings going on too. So, whatever. One thing I can say for sure though. If any Western European politician would have the impertinence to use his office to publicly slam a private business for not selling his daughter's stuff - which obvioulsy was done for mere economic reasons - if a politician here would dare to behave like that, publicly shaming them, with this whiny tweets as if his daughter was molested by that - he would not survive another day politically. And honestly, rightfully so. Now while I might bring myself to agree the two other points might be disregarded - this Nordstrom affair is too much. If you disagree, just ask yourself, what if Obama had done that. I know this argument is lame, but still, what if Michelle had a line and Obama would have gone public shaming private businesses who don't sell it.
That is simply not acceptable. Maybe you disagree. But proving an open mind really would mean to just understand that people who are angered about that are not simply "butt-hurt". This line of thinking, this form of schadenfreude clouds your clear, unbiased vision here. That's how I feel. No disrespect, really.

Additionally, there are several other points already discussed in length. Where you, a respectable, but die-hard conservative in my books, always end up in this "butt-hurt" accusations. Tax returns might not matter, but a man of honor would have stuck to his word. And so on. He is a liar, he gets his intelligence from Breitbart (you're too smart not to know that this source is not an acceptable one for a president), he agitates, he makes baseless claims, he lies and decieves way more than your average politician (and yes, they all do), he is unprepared, clueless, and hand on heart - and you deep down have to know that somehow - he's not that bright to begin with, not smart enough to run the country in the most important job of the world. This might be blunt. But well, it's obvious not just to me, but to virtually everyone from the outside.


OK. I find these issues, especially the 3rd issue to be a major proof he is unfit for the burden and responsibility the office brings. I acknowledge and respect your seeing the problems here.
Why can't you bring yourself to the conclusion that Trump is totally unfit. There's not a reason to believe he will "learn". It's not that the liberals would be winning if you would see it that way - if he got removed for he shames the office, the country. If he were removed, you would get Pence, a man no liberal would want in office. But please for heaven's sake, you need to see that. I am not against you or the conservative stance, I have no chips in this game to begin with, when saying so. It's just intangible.

Lots to reply to here but let's see:

Just as you; there are numerous folks I would have preferred win the Presidency over Trump, but the facts out that is not how out Nation voted. 

He has been President for less than 2 months and he is a Political outsider. Not being Politically correct is not grounds for impeachment less than 60 days on the job.

Folks started crying impeachment about his first week in office and haven't stopped yet. Where do you escalate to from there; execution?

The folders are a perfect example of folks losing focus on what really matters; as I have repeatedly said he must separate himself from his private business while serving as a public servant and IF there is ever proof (we may have to give it a little more that about 45 days) that he engaged in conflict of interest after being advised THEN we can talk impeachment.

You know we have jumped the shark when about 6 weeks into a Presidency someone is having to defend their stance as advocating for censure as being too lenient. 

[JustWinBaby]

Well, the latest wikileaks was rather fortuitous timing....

[hollodero]

(03-07-2017, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lots to reply to here but let's see:

Yeah, sorry bout that. I tried to keep it an easy, fluent read.

(03-07-2017, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just as you; there are numerous folks I would have preferred win the Presidency over Trump, but the facts out that is not how out Nation voted. 

He has been President for less than 2 months and he is a Political outsider. Not being Politically correct is not grounds for impeachment less than 60 days on the job.

While this is true - and I also fully understand that the vote is to be respected -, I think some things go beyond political correctness. Accusing the former president of a major crime (some claimed a crime deserving corporal punishment even, and it's not even that unreasonable) without any evidence is more than just "not being PC". Or claiming 3 millions voted illegally, all those baseless, proofless claims. These things are dangerous, shake basic trust, they are not just blunders, but agitation. But these things were discussed so often, I could make a long list with your own points quite on top, but I won't; for you catch my drift. I guess at this time this remains a case of agreeing to disagree.

(03-07-2017, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks started crying impeachment about his first week in office and haven't stopped yet. Where do you escalate to from there; execution?

Yeah, here I make my basic point in this response. It doesn't matter at all what folks cried. Irrelevant to the matter at hand, doesn't play any role.
And I don't intend to escalate from there. Impeachment sounds fine to me.

(03-07-2017, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The folders are a perfect example of folks losing focus on what really matters; as I have repeatedly said he must separate himself from his private business while serving as a public servant and IF there is ever proof (we may have to give it a little more that about 45 days) that he engaged in conflict of interest after being advised THEN we can talk impeachment.

Alright then. Maybe there isn't "proof" yet, maybe just signs. I mentioned them and I think they need to be examined very closely. As one possible valid reason for impeachment; and I really try to use that rhetoric as open, unbiased and objective as possible.
(And although mentioned, his sons run his business which is extremely shady - and he certainly didn't cut at least emotional ties to his daughter's business. That Nordstrom thing alone - in my view - already would put impeachment on the table. It only gets lost in all the other fuss.)

(03-07-2017, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You know we have jumped the shark when about 6 weeks into a Presidency someone is having to defend their stance as advocating for censure as being too lenient. 

Yeah well... question is who jumped said shark. These are extraordinary circumstances. But I can acknowledge and respect your call for a censure. This would be a serious measurement for sure.

Respectful greetings & good night.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-08-2017, 12:22 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, the latest wikileaks was rather fortuitous timing....

Wikileaks: the CIA is in the spy business

Wow, stop the presses!

[JustWinBaby]

(03-08-2017, 01:01 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Wikileaks: the CIA is in the spy business

Wow, stop the presses!

Well, basically wiretapping everyone in the US, all the time, would make Trump technically correct even if the spirit of what he said was very, very different.

And allegedly "losing" their spyware, which includes the ability to mimic Russian hacking, opens a whole other can of worms.

Problem is, none of that will ever be confirmed or denied (justifiably so).

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-08-2017, 02:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, basically wiretapping everyone in the US, all the time, would make Trump technically correct even if the spirit of what he said was very, very different.

And allegedly "losing" their spyware, which includes the ability to mimic Russian hacking, opens a whole other can of worms.

Problem is, none of that will ever be confirmed or denied (justifiably so).

Sure hurts our intelligence agencies and our potential intel gathering. 

As far as I'm concerned Assange is an enemy of America and should be towards the top of any wanted list, dead or alive.

I dont ever look at wikileaks. Are there other countries they are leaking intel secrets etc on?

[Dill]

(03-07-2017, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You say no other leader does it, but give examples. Of course this is more than consensual sex, of course that is not why Clinton was impeached. 

If I say that no other leader does it, I cannot really give examples, can I?
That's what "no other leader does it" means.

Or are you asking for examples of leaders who don't tweet out senseless, unfiltered messages?  Merkel, Obama, Putin, May, Hollande, Xi, Abe, etc. etc.etc.

And of course "this is more than consensual sex." It began as a whitewater fishing expedition to find something to censure. It was the first Benghazi.

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2017, 05:39 PM)Dill Wrote: If I say that no other leader does it, I cannot really give examples, can I?

Actually I was pointing out that you said no one does it, but provided 3 examples (2 from the past and 1 from the present). But that was the old gotcha bfine.

Trumps tweets often before he thinks, but I don't think we should impeach him for it. Perhaps a guiding tool such as censure could be more beneficial that trying to remove him; unless you fell 45 days on the job is sufficient to show no improvement can be made. Hell, I know around here we give them 90 and they have to do more than say stupid things.  

[Dill]

(03-08-2017, 05:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually I was pointing out that you said no one does it, but provided 3 examples (2 from the past and 1 from the present). But that was the old gotcha bfine.

Trumps tweets often before he thinks, but I don't think we should impeach him for it. Perhaps a guiding tool such as censure could be more beneficial that trying to remove him; unless you fell 45 days on the job is sufficient to show no improvement can be made. Hell, I know around here we give them 90 and they have to do more than say stupid things.  

I don't know if Jong-un tweets. But the instability (eccentric behavior) is similar. I thought you were asking for examples of tweeters in that last post.

The president's job is different from other kinds of jobs. "Stupid things" said by a president can drop the stock market, cause wars, generate social anxiety and social unrest, send people to their deaths. 

We were told Trump would be different after he won the primary. A "pivot" to presidential demeanor would come. We were told to expect a change after the election, then we were told after he took office, the responsibility would shape him up.

Reporters were hopeful after his "successful" speech before Congress--then came the crazy tweet accusing the former president of a felony, followed by a refusal to provide any evidence.

He is the president--he can call his own AG, the head of the CIA and the House and Senate Intel committees to determine how and when this occurred if it did. Instead he seems to go with Breitbart.   

No "censure" is going to work. He is unstable, not someone who is going to grow into his job. He cannot properly vet intel, distinguish reliable sources from conspiracy theory. He has "frozen" the State Department, and chaos is spreading outward to other departments--and he is in charge of the world's largest military.

Many people, including Republicans, can see this. 45 days, 90 days, 6 months--the "mistakes" will continue as chaos permeates and immobilizes the executive branch.   

 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-08-2017, 02:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, basically wiretapping everyone in the US, all the time, would make Trump technically correct even if the spirit of what he said was very, very different.

And allegedly "losing" their spyware, which includes the ability to mimic Russian hacking, opens a whole other can of worms.

Problem is, none of that will ever be confirmed or denied (justifiably so).

Did the information leaked say the CIA is basically wire tapping everyone all the time? Or was information about how to conduct the espionage?

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2017, 06:16 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't know if Jong-un tweets. But the instability (eccentric behavior) is similar. I thought you were asking for examples of tweeters in that last post.

The president's job is different from other kinds of jobs. "Stupid things" said by a president can drop the stock market, cause wars, generate social anxiety and social unrest, send people to their deaths. 

We were told Trump would be different after he won the primary. A "pivot" to presidential demeanor would come. We were told to expect a change after the election, then we were told after he took office, the responsibility would shape him up.

Reporters were hopeful after his "successful" speech before Congress--then came the crazy tweet accusing the former president of a felony, followed by a refusal to provide any evidence.

He is the president--he can call his own AG, the head of the CIA and the House and Senate Intel committees to determine how and when this occurred if it did. Instead he seems to go with Breitbart.   

No "censure" is going to work. He is unstable, not someone who is going to grow into his job. He cannot properly vet intel, distinguish reliable sources from conspiracy theory. He has "frozen" the State Department, and chaos is spreading outward to other departments--and he is in charge of the world's largest military.

Many people, including Republicans, can see this. 45 days, 90 days, 6 months--the "mistakes" will continue as chaos permeates and immobilizes the executive branch.   

 

You point to things that could happen chicken little. How has the stock market reacted since Trump's tweets as President? There was social anxiety and social unrest before Trump's election. It's just a different crowd was anxious and unrestfull.

As hard as folks try they cannot impeach a duly elected president because they disagree with his style.

Those suggesting impeachment are following in the footsteps of that woman that said Russia invaded Korea; hell, even Pelosi gave her the WTF. Perhaps I'll have to share the story of the old bull and the young bull with you one day 

[Dill]

(03-08-2017, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You point to things that could happen chicken little. How has the stock market reacted since Trump's tweets as President? There was social anxiety and social unrest before Trump's election. It's just a different crowd was anxious and unrestfull.

As hard as folks try they cannot impeach a duly elected president because they disagree with his style.

Those suggesting impeachment are following in the footsteps of that woman that said Russia invaded Korea; hell, even Pelosi gave her the WTF. Perhaps I'll have to share the story of the old bull and the young bull with you one day 

Incompetence is not a "style." It is incompetence. 

Among the "different crowd" made anxious and unrestful by Trump are the US intel services and his own executive branch, not to mention leaders of his won party. That is crippling their effectiveness with consequences for US security.

I haven't been suggesting impeachment for his tweets. But I am saying that he is heading for impeachment or resignation because "things that could happen" will sooner or later, and likely sooner. Suggesting that Putin invaded Korea is exactly the kind of thing Trump has been doing on a daily basis. People who point out the difference between Korea and Crimea are like those correcting him.

It's like we are on an overpass watching a 13-year-old drive an 18-wheeler down the freeway, veering in and out of lanes and blowing the horn for fun as cars scramble out of his way. I say there's going to be an accident and you say I am just talking about "what could happen." You want to share with me a story about a bull.

[*bfine32*]

(03-08-2017, 07:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Incompetence is not a "style." It is incompetence. 

Among the "different crowd" made anxious and unrestful by Trump are the US intel services and his own executive branch, not to mention leaders of his won party. That is crippling their effectiveness with consequences for US security.

I haven't been suggesting impeachment for his tweets. But I am saying that he is heading for impeachment or resignation because "things that could happen" will sooner or later, and likely sooner. Suggesting that Putin invaded Korea is exactly the kind of thing Trump has been doing on a daily basis. People who point out the difference between Korea and Crimea are like those correcting him.

It's like we are on an overpass watching a 13-year-old drive an 18-wheeler down the freeway, veering in and out of lanes and blowing the horn for fun as cars scramble out of his way. I say there's going to be an accident and you say I am just talking about "what could happen." You want to share with me a story about a bull.

So he's making career politician's uncomfortable, to include members of his own party. Remeber when folks said that would be a good thingYou didn't answer the Stock Market question. Just went on something about a 18-wheeler

[hollodero]

(03-08-2017, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As hard as folks try they cannot impeach a duly elected president because they disagree with his style.
 

But we all really, really want to impeach him... but OK, "style" isn't a valid reason. And maybe incompetence - and that evaluation gets hard to deny - falls under "style". Abuse of office/malpractice (I don't know which translation is correct), however, is a valid reason.
Now the way I see it, there are some major concerns that might not fall in that category. And there's at least one minor thing that actually does. That would be the Nordstrom affair. Every Western European politician (not talking countries like Romania or Bulgaria, and maybe not in Italy) would immediately face impeachment trial after something like that. I think that is fair to say. Don't know about the US, though, maybe you're more lenient there.

(The stock market is a mystery to me, I admitted and admit once again. Can't explain that one.)

[*michaelsean*]

(03-08-2017, 09:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: But we all really, really want to impeach him... but OK, "style" isn't a valid reason. And maybe incompetence - and that evaluation gets hard to deny - falls under "style". Abuse of office/malpractice (I don't know which translation is correct), however, is a valid reason.
Now the way I see it, there are some major concerns that might not fall in that category. And there's at least one minor thing that actually does. That would be the Nordstrom affair. Every Western European politician (not talking countries like Romania or Bulgaria, and maybe not in Italy) would immediately face impeachment trial after something like that. I think that is fair to say. Don't know about the US, though, maybe you're more lenient there.

(The stock market is a mystery to me, I admitted and admit once again. Can't explain that one.)

The Nordstrom affair?  You mean when he tweeted he thought they treated his daughter unfairly?