Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah but will he be good for the economy?

doesn't matter, it'll really piss off the liberals. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

doesn't matter, it'll really piss off the liberals. 

I would hope it would piss everyone off. Liberals don’t have a monopoly on good sense. 

Roseanne , a jewish entertainer who said umptteen anti establishment things over her career loses job over after insulting her affirmative action-hire boss because of her looks.

In your face Trump voters. You got owned on this one.

 

id like to see his legal arguments on the above two points. 

Edited June 4, 20187 yr by The Unknown Poster

^^^ nope 

 

If impeachment is ever attempted over an increasingly phoney allegation he'll take it to Supreme Court . Evidence of a politicized investigation by deliberately politicized govt bodies to thwart a campaign and then over turn a democraticly elected govt simply because of an undesired result will make fascinating theatre.

 

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

^^^ nope 

 

because if Nixon couldn't and Clinton couldn't then he shouldn't either. I mean at least they had the decency to not do it, he knows he's in trouble. Why do I have a feeling that he isn't going to admit to his crimes until AFTER he leaves office (that's what Nixon did)

Good point stewart

http://tvline.com/2018/06/04/samantha-bee-controversy-ivanka-trump-jon-stewart-response/

52 minutes ago, iHeart said:

because if Nixon couldn't and Clinton couldn't then he shouldn't either. I mean at least they had the decency to not do it, he knows he's in trouble. Why do I have a feeling that he isn't going to admit to his crimes until AFTER he leaves office (that's what Nixon did)

just read this

Quote

, "The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House.

lol......Seems pretty innocuous (looked it up, hard to spell)  doesn't it? compared to the present crazyman they've got running things.

course this is why  they won't let him say anything under oath, pretty much guaranteed to lie.

 

Edited June 4, 20187 yr by Mark F

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

If impeachment is ever attempted over an increasingly phoney allegation he'll take it to Supreme Court . Evidence of a politicized investigation by deliberately politicized govt bodies to thwart a campaign and then over turn a democraticly elected govt simply because of an undesired result will make fascinating theatre.

 

Which investigation is that?

1 minute ago, Mark F said:

just read this

lol......Seems pretty innocuous (looked it up, hard to spell)  doesn't it? compared to the present crazyman they've got running things.

 

I think its why Trump is desperately avoiding speaking with Mueller.  Clinton was sunk for lying.  If there was not enough evidence to indict or impeach Trump but he lies to Mueller, he'd be sunk.  Its almost a guaranteed impeachment (whether he'd be kicked out of the White House is another story).

I think he's clearly laying the ground work for 1) a defense in firing Mueller (a) there is nothing to investigate and b) he can't obstruct because he doesnt need a reason to fire anyone or end investigations  2) to pardon himself and his family.

In the first case, even super pro Trump people I've seen discuss this, they might take that position but when asked if the President is above the law, they say no of course not.  Im not sure you can have it both ways.  Either the President IS above the law or he isn't.  If he isnt, then of course he can obstruct and be consequenced for that obstruction.

In the second, if he did it (and if Mueller returns a recommendation for indictment or impeachment, Trump WILL pardon himself eventually), it will end up in the Supreme Court.  And I think there is a good chance he'd get away with it too.  The DOJ interprets the law that you cannot judge yourself, thus you cannot pardon yourself.  No one will ever suggest the pardon powers were envisioned with the idea that the President could create for himself a dictatorship whereby he could commit any crime and simply pardon himself for it. 

But...if it doesnt specifically say he can't, then the Supreme Court might come down among party lines.  It will be up to the next President and Congress to change the pardon laws.  The constitution isnt clear, I dont think, on this.  The oath of office requires the President to "faithfully" execute his duties.  The word is there for a reason.

I think the strategy is to aggravate people to the point they are sick of the whole thing.  Trump wont pardon himself or his family before the mid-terms.  In fact, unless he's about to be impeached or his family is about to be tossed in jail, he might as well wait until hes leaving office.  Then there is no political fall out.

1 hour ago, iHeart said:

Good point stewart

http://tvline.com/2018/06/04/samantha-bee-controversy-ivanka-trump-jon-stewart-response/

You are correct ofcourse.  There is plenty of video of Trump using nasty words (including the C-word).  The manufactured out-rage is really fake news.  And like Stewart says, its a trap for the left which they fall into.  The right did not condemn Roseanne.  In fact, the White House attacked ABC.  But the left tries to live up to a manufactured moral code that the right creates the standard for and judge it, in an effort to be better.  But its a losing game.

Bee's mistake wasn't in apologizing.  Good for her for apologizing.  And it wasnt even for using the word because the context was to be critical of Ivanka and she was correct to do so...but her mistake was falling into the trap set by the right letting them diminish Roseanne's words and undermine Bee's point which was a really serious one.

And by the way, the left does the same thing but currently the balance of power is decidedly in the hands of the right.

Innocent people don't even talk about being able to pardon themselves. What that shows me is that Trump knows he's rapidly heading up the creek and has suddenly realized he's got no paddle, so now you see the shift to "doesn't matter, I AM ABOVE THE LAW!" 

I just hope they throw his fat ass in jail as an example to the rest of the corrupt political system in the states. It's rotten to the core and making an example of the guy would hopefully give them pause to think before they keep trying to **** everyone over in their race to the bottom. 

But nothing to see here 

 

 

8 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

  The right did not condemn Roseanne.  In fact, the White House attacked ABC.  

1.Untrue

2. They did not attack. Simply asked about a double standard.

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

Criticism from a Democratic Mayor in a Democratic city that is predominately black that predominately vote Democrat isnt profound. A politician toeing the party line and playing to his base.

8 hours ago, Zontar said:

Criticism from a Democratic Mayor in a Democratic city that is predominately black that predominately vote Democrat isnt profound. A politician toeing the party line and playing to his base.

Nope. But it is relevant. Who said it was profound? What does race have to do it wirh it by the way?

Edited June 5, 20187 yr by The Unknown Poster

Quick someone remind him that the republicans control the White House and congress. 

 

9 hours ago, Zontar said:

1.Untrue

2. They did not attack. Simply asked about a double standard.

At best you’re splitting hairs. At best.  And you’re viewing it through such a distorted partisan lens it’s almost impossible to discuss which is likely the point. 

Trumps remarks did not condemn Roseanne. It attacked abc. What double standard?  The president of the United States attacked a business for punishing racist words. That’s a fact. No matter how you want to spin it. 

45 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Quick someone remind him that the republicans control the White House and congress. 

 

A congress populated by republicans who purposely resist passing stricter immigration reforms often voting and using same rhetoric as Democrats.

Edited June 5, 20187 yr by Zontar

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

At best you’re splitting hairs. At best.  And you’re viewing it through such a distorted partisan lens it’s almost impossible to discuss which is likely the point. 

Trumps remarks did not condemn Roseanne. It attacked abc. What double standard?  The president of the United States attacked a business for punishing racist words. That’s a fact. No matter how you want to spin it. 

A lens no more partisan and no less informed than the one you employ.

Despite your spin Trump was not defending or promoting racism by not explicitly condemning Barr any more than Pelosi or any leading american feminist is promoting misogyny by not codemning comedians when FLOTUS is called a ***** or press secretary is mocked for looks or lack of intelligence.

Edited June 5, 20187 yr by Zontar

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Nope. But it is relevant. Who said it was profound? What does race have to do it wirh it by the way?

If by relevent you mean one politician trying to score points against an opponent and energize his party's voting base heading into an election cycle, yes, its relevant. Its what polticians do.

Edited June 5, 20187 yr by Zontar

1 hour ago, Zontar said:

A congress populated by republicans who purposely resist passing stricter immigration reforms often voting and using same rhetoric as Democrats.

Separating children from their parents is not a law though.  It didnt happen under Bush and it didnt happen under Obama.  Its Trump policy.  If your position is that Congress is collectively against Trump, what does that say about Trump?

55 minutes ago, Zontar said:

A lens no more partisan and no less informed than the one you employ.

Despite your spin Trump was not defending or promoting racism by not explicitly condemning Barr any more than Pelosi or any leading american feminist is promoting misogyny by not codemning comedians when FLOTUS is called a ***** or press secretary is mocked for looks or lack of intelligence.

Im not patisan at all.  Im a conservative.  It doesnt mean I blindly support all right wing insanity (just some lol).  Its not uninformed vs informed.  Its fact vs fiction.  These arent in dispute.

You can scroll through the thread to read the discussion about the C word vs racist slur.  If you believe a racist attack by Roseanne is comparable to petty insults or criticism, we're at a crosswords and no further discussion is warranted.  If you dont believe racism is acceptable, then surely you condemn Roseanne's remarks full stop without any "whataboutism".  The spotlight was on Trump in the wake of Roseanne's remarks because he had spoken about her and her show (not to mention the fact the President should be a unifying voice).  He chose to ignore her tirade in favour of attacking the company that exercised its right to cancel her show.  That is absolutely defending her remarks.

EVREYONE came down on Samantha Bee for her remarks.  The difference between Trump/White House and everyone else is that the latter also condemned Roseanne's remarks and the former did not.

Attacking Sanders for her looks is low hanging fruit.  But there will always be people that do that regardless of partisan stripe.  Trump is hardly the only person to ever be fodder for comedians.  Also, has nothing to do with racism.

 

40 minutes ago, Zontar said:

If by relevent you mean one politician trying to score points and energize his voting base heading into an election cycle, yes, its relevant. Its what polticians do.

To believe this to be the only truth is to also believe that Trump's words/deeds are meant to only play to his base.  To attack Eagles players with the lie of being unpatriotic and sitting for the anthem is to play into the racism of his base.  Yes?

The Mayor of Philly might have been playing to his base.  But oddly, I dont believe he was negative about the Eagles attending the White House in the first place.  What must his base have thought of that?  To play to ones base AND speak the truth are not mutually exclusive.  Sometimes they are the same thing.

The Mayor is correct in this instance.  Trump rescinded his invitation when he learned not many Eagles players planned on attending.  He could not admit that though and instead spun the lie that he was doing it to stand up for patriotism and the anthem.  That is a lie.  The Mayor's description is accurate.  Its not a grey area.  Its truth vs lies.

 

Edited June 5, 20187 yr by The Unknown Poster

Trump isn't a racist, he's a narcissist, so the only thing that enters his mind is "is this good for me?" race doesn't even come into play at all. He just happens to be surrounded by the racist party.