The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

Scottrf wrote:Apparently he's now banned cheese slices because he wants to make America grate again.

That's probably why he's trying to turn it into a fireplace.

He's going to make that fireplace great again...

He's recused himself - the right thing to do. Not convinced he was being deliberately misleading, but he's made himself look like a plonker after only a few weeks in the job. Amateur hour.

Sessions might'a gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskell was a real Velma though.  She smelled a rat and was just too smart for Jeff when she tweeted.

"I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years. No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com."
12:06 PM - 2 Mar 2017


She even outsmarted herself:

"Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal"
12:49 PM - 6 Aug 2015

"Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process."
3:25 PM - 30 Jan 2013

10 years.  No call.  No meeting. EVAH.  That's telling him, Claire!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Franken is as tribal a Democrat as you're going to get.

I love Franken but he's no one to quote on this.

But I'm with you Pr4wny not only should Sessions go..Should not have been there in the first place...

Trump needs to think these things through...He's not a politician and he is going to have learn fast.

I like Franken. Well worth reading his books "Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them" and "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot".

SecretFly wrote:Sessions might'a gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskell was a real Velma though.  She smelled a rat and was just too smart for Jeff when she tweeted.

"I've been on the Armed Services Com for 10 years. No call or meeting w/Russian ambassador. Ever. Ambassadors call members of Foreign Rel Com."
12:06 PM - 2 Mar 2017


She even outsmarted herself:

"Today calls with British, Russian, and German Ambassadors re: Iran deal"
12:49 PM - 6 Aug 2015

"Off to meeting w/Russian Ambassador. Upset about the arbitrary/cruel decision to end all US adoptions, even those in process."
3:25 PM - 30 Jan 2013

10 years.  No call.  No meeting.  EVAH.  That's telling him, Claire!

Yes, one person lying always excuses another person lying.

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Franken is as tribal a Democrat as you're going to get.

I love Franken but he's no one to quote on this.

But I'm with you Pr4wny not only should Sessions go..Should not have been there in the first place...

Trump needs to think these things through...He's not a politician and he is going to have learn fast.

I like Franken.  Well worth reading his books "Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them" and "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot".  

Remember the Rush Limbaugh.. Sandra Fluke controversy where he called her a Sl*t on air on the Friday and lost a load of his advertisers over the weekend.

Never seen such a grovelling apology on the Monday..

I imagine it's in the YouTube vault somewhere.

I like Franken.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yes, one person lying always excuses another person lying.

No, that's not the lesson, Julius. The lesson is that Hypocrisy is spelt H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

But let the Democratic version of feverish McCarthyism continue, I'm enjoying the volte-face on the topic from them. And we're all interested in how it all develops.

In fairness it's going to continue and it has been effective so far.

Too late for Hillary though...The Democrats should have been this efficient before November

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness it's going to continue and it has been effective so far.

Too late for Hillary though...The Democrats should have been this efficient before November

We'll see, Truss.  It's alright being effective with the Washington Press and the 'liberal' section of the American public, but the more Trump's administration is hassled and harried by the White festooned ladies and lads of the Democratic party (plus rebellious Republicans) the more Trump's supporters consolidate behind him.  The Democrats and MSM are making him a martyr.  

But back to the detail, I liked the tone Sessions used in his press conference when he referred to the Justice department never admitting or denying the investigations that might be going on in the background.  Even a casual, bland, loose reading of the kind of topics popping up as regards the Obama administration and the Clinton network of friends, pals and funders is cause enough to have those Democrats worried about the nature of those undisclosed investigations.
One of the latest episodes now in public (and only the latest) is that in the last days of the Obama White House, his administration feverishly worked on slotting info into batches of 'classified' and not-so-classified is order to manufacture this steady stream of Commie-under-the-bed paranoia now coming out in the post-Obama days, weeks and I'm sure months to come.  The 'classified' stuff was meant to keep certain Trump admin people away from certain information, and the not-so-classified was the stuff to assist the leakers.  They supposedly/allegedly worked with British and Dutch intelligence too in creating their dossiers.  Hmmm, foreign intelligence interference in the election process of the US of A?

We'll see how it all pans out, Truss.

It's classic Secret. Beaten on the Sessions front, he retreats to his usual "BUT HILLARY DID THIS"! or "BUT THE DEMOCRATS"!

It's dull in the extreme.

Just think. Like him or not, Obama went eight years as POTUS without having a single crisis of this magnitude with his staff.

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yes, one person lying always excuses another person lying.

No, that's not the lesson, Julius.  The lesson is that Hypocrisy is spelt H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

But let the Democratic version of feverish McCarthyism continue, I'm enjoying the volte-face on the topic from them.  And we're all interested in how it all develops.  

Democrat hypocrisy comes in for a lot of criticism from you SF.
Republican fake news and lying doesn't.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part?

Fair play to anyone on here that's still got the fortitude to get past the first line of SF's standard diatribes....I just give up and move on. Never any real content to bother with anyway.

HILLARY NEVER HAS ANY CONTENT EITHER!

Pr4wn wrote:It's classic Secret. Beaten on the Sessions front, he retreats to his usual "BUT HILLARY DID THIS"! or "BUT THE DEMOCRATS"!

It's dull in the extreme.

Just think. Like him or not, Obama went eight years as POTUS without having a single crisis of this magnitude with his staff.

??? You better redo your research there PR.

Classic distracting operation on my opinions again btw. We're both good at this game of tennis we play regularly.

The reason a good few Democrats (and Republicans) don't like Trump is because they fear indictments. There. That's a blunt as you can put it. So it's natural that they want him out as soon as possible.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fair play to anyone on here that's still got the fortitude to get past the first line of SF's standard diatribes....I just give up and move on.  Never any real content to bother with anyway.

Oh that is in the New York times..... official correct thought confirmation in your eyes? Do you read the New York Times?

SecretFly wrote:The reason a good few Democrats (and Republicans) don't like Trump is because they fear indictments.  There.  That's a blunt as you can put it.  So it's natural that they want him out as soon as possible.  

If that was the reason he wouldn't necessarily be unpopular with the entire rest of the world? More to it than you're making out.

No, it's not.

They fear him because he's an incompetent, sexist, totalitarian demagogue that has claimed to "drain the swamp" while picking billionaires, racists and morons for his cabinet.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fair play to anyone on here that's still got the fortitude to get past the first line of SF's standard diatribes....I just give up and move on.  Never any real content to bother with anyway.

Oh that is in the New York times..... official correct thought confirmation in your eyes?  Do you read the New York Times?

Do you read what you write before you hit post?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yes, one person lying always excuses another person lying.

No, that's not the lesson, Julius.  The lesson is that Hypocrisy is spelt H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

But let the Democratic version of feverish McCarthyism continue, I'm enjoying the volte-face on the topic from them.  And we're all interested in how it all develops.  

Democrat hypocrisy comes in for a lot of criticism from you SF.
Republican fake news and lying doesn't.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part?

No it isn't.  I'm the one that has said politicians (and lawyers) lie.  How many of you boys here keep trying to avoid the truth of that here? "No they do not, Fly! How disrespectful" 

I'm a hypocrite?  I'm not the one that thought she had Session's over a coal fire and then had to be reminded of her own Twitterite past.  That's hypocrisy.  

You deal with Republican/Trump hypocrisy.  I trust you and others here to do a good job on that.  And I'll perform the other role of identifying Democrat/Obama/Clinton hypocrisy.  
Btw,  I'm also a misogynist, sexist, racist, homophobic commie by usual definition of a person that mentions the Trump administration in a positive light.   Give me my full title when addressing me please

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fair play to anyone on here that's still got the fortitude to get past the first line of SF's standard diatribes....I just give up and move on.  Never any real content to bother with anyway.

Oh that is in the New York times..... official correct thought confirmation in your eyes?  Do you read the New York Times?

Do you read what you write before you hit post?

Do you read the New York Times, top? It's only official news when it comes from those kind of channels, right? Or did you think I collected that from Breitbart? It's Julius that reads Breitbart.

But you don't accept that Sessions lied, which he blatantly did. All you do is deflect to the Democrats and think of yourself as some kind of justice warrior.

Amazing how, during the Presidential elections, you didn't point out the glaring hypocrisy of the Republicans, going so hard after Hillary - rightly in a lot of cases - but then having all sorts of dirty little secrets of their own.

No, you only do this when the Reps are under fire. You then claim to want balance in opinion.

That makes you a hypocrite. Plain and simple.

Pr4wn wrote:No, it's not.

They fear him because he's an incompetent, sexist, totalitarian demagogue that has claimed to "drain the swamp" while picking billionaires, racists and morons for his cabinet.

Hillary spent tons more than Trump on the campaign. She's damn wealthy..... but not that wealthy. Who do you suppose helped her? The poor folks putting around a hat in that there rust belt?

HILLARY!!!! HILLARY!!!! HILLARY!!!

Also, you didn't answer my point. Campaign backers and inexperienced oil executives in the cabinet are two completely separate things.

Pr4wn wrote:Also, you didn't answer my point. Campaign backers and inexperienced oil executives in the cabinet are two completely separate things.

You're point is that Trump shouldn't employ billionaires if he's talking about 'draining the swamp'? Why not? The swamp he refers to is that ingrained politicians/lobbyist/political backers club and the ultra cosy relationship they've had with each other for too long.

He should employ 'seasoned' in-house politicians instead?
Guys and women that are usually from a legal rather than a business background,
usually institutionalised into the habits and methods of politics rather than real life,
usually looking to make a nice career for themselves by gaining backers with deep pockets,
potentially being very corruptible to keep those big backers on-board,
and then when their political career is over, they shift over - not away - to the Lobbyist section, where they use their legislative experience and knowledge to press for and encourage legislative changes that will assist their corporate bosses to make more profit or get those big juicy contracts?

Pr4wn wrote:HILLARY!!!! HILLARY!!!! HILLARY!!!

Yeah, you know - the person the Democrats were absolutely certain would be making the State of the Union address instead of Commie Trump? Yes, her.

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Fair play to anyone on here that's still got the fortitude to get past the first line of SF's standard diatribes....I just give up and move on.  Never any real content to bother with anyway.

Oh that is in the New York times..... official correct thought confirmation in your eyes?  Do you read the New York Times?

Do you read what you write before you hit post?

Do you read the New York Times, top?  It's only official news when it comes from those kind of channels, right?  Or did you think I collected that from Breitbart?  It's Julius that reads Breitbart.

Re-read the bold text. You honestly think that's English prose??

It's classic flounce.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Re-read the bold text. You honestly think that's English prose??

It's classic flounce.

It's perfect English, Top. You should try Joyce sometime!

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Yes, one person lying always excuses another person lying.

No, that's not the lesson, Julius.  The lesson is that Hypocrisy is spelt H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

But let the Democratic version of feverish McCarthyism continue, I'm enjoying the volte-face on the topic from them.  And we're all interested in how it all develops.  

Democrat hypocrisy comes in for a lot of criticism from you SF.
Republican fake news and lying doesn't.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part?

No it isn't.  I'm the one that has said politicians (and lawyers) lie.  How many of you boys here keep trying to avoid the truth of that here?  "No they do not, Fly!  How disrespectful" 

I'm a hypocrite?  I'm not the one that thought she had Session's over a coal fire and then had to be reminded of her own Twitterite past.  That's hypocrisy.  

You deal with Republican/Trump hypocrisy.  I trust you and others here to do a good job on that.  And I'll perform the other role of identifying Democrat/Obama/Clinton hypocrisy.  
Btw,  I'm also a misogynist, sexist, racist, homophobic commie by usual definition of a person that mentions the Trump administration in a positive light.   Give me my full title when addressing me please

I've been saying (and seeing) politicians lie since before you could vote, maybe before you were born.

Why let us deal with Republican/Trump hypocrisy? Why do you avoid the truth of that here?

Obama and Clinton are the past. Why stop there, why not go back to Wilson or Johnson? You honestly think people here see Obama and Clinton as whiter than white - of course they're not. We all know that.

You seem more interested in winding people up for the sake of it, rather than commenting on the thread topic - which is 'The Trump Presidency'.

This is what I'm saying. He's either a WUM or a total moron.

Not a moron, clearly, but no appetite for making any serious points in a reasonable way. More interesting in point-scoring and chuckling away to himself at his oh-so-cleverer-than-thou posts.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Sessions scares white people; the kind of white people that don't care about black people (namely slick senators, media moguls, corporate lobbyists and their quango assorted associates that have been screwing the system for way too long with their multi-linked familial insertions into all things US Government.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you mean any whites described as 'liberal' in the U.S. that is.

No, I mean the people I described.

So why bring 'colour' into it then?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

I've been saying (and seeing) politicians lie since before you could vote, maybe before you were born.

Why let us deal with Republican/Trump hypocrisy? Why do you avoid the truth of that here?

Obama and Clinton are the past. Why stop there, why not go back to Wilson or Johnson? You honestly think people here see Obama and Clinton as whiter than white - of course they're not. We all know that.

You seem more interested in winding people up for the sake of it, rather than commenting on the thread topic - which is 'The Trump Presidency'.

Are we going to get into an age sharing debate?  I'll accept that you know I'm younger than you - though neither of us know for sure yet.  How many times have you voted in National Elections/Referendums though?  I think I might beat you on that score.

Back to your point.  How come my point is so difficult to get established?  I am saying Obama and Clinton are NOT the past.  They are both very much the present.  The Trump Presidency involves his declared intentions - it's why many people voted for him - what did Trump say to Hillary Clinton during the campaign about 'jail'?  

Trump is the President - he's in the present - yes.  He himself mentions Obama - as recently as a few days ago - in the present, not the past.  The Clintons and Obama are still very much part of the political discourse in America as it pertains to the Trump Presidency.  Just scan the media - even the MSM media.  They are still characters in the discourse and I'll legitimately keep referring to them.

Scottrf wrote:Apparently he's now banned cheese slices because he wants to make America grate again.

Ahhhh, that's better....

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Sessions scares white people; the kind of white people that don't care about black people (namely slick senators, media moguls, corporate lobbyists and their quango assorted associates that have been screwing the system for way too long with their multi-linked familial insertions into all things US Government.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you mean any whites described as 'liberal' in the U.S. that is.

No, I mean the people I described.

So why bring 'colour' into it then?

Because the discussion was about Sessions....the racist? And someone (I believe PR?) said he scares 'black people'?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not a moron, clearly, but no appetite for making any serious points in a reasonable way. More interesting in point-scoring and chuckling away to himself at his oh-so-cleverer-than-thou posts.

I 'chuckle' at the fact that I am in a room full of people who disagree with virtually every comma and full-stop I type, yet I'm the novelty character that supposedly never compromises on my opinion?
I chuckle that I'm often surrounded by people who feel so confused that I should even hold an alternative attitude to the general 'world view' on 'racist', 'commie', 'sexist', 'homophobe', 'hypocrite' Trump. It often feels surreal. It often feels like being in a bear pit every time I come in here - but in a good way. I must be a masochist!

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

I've been saying (and seeing) politicians lie since before you could vote, maybe before you were born.

Why let us deal with Republican/Trump hypocrisy? Why do you avoid the truth of that here?

Obama and Clinton are the past. Why stop there, why not go back to Wilson or Johnson? You honestly think people here see Obama and Clinton as whiter than white - of course they're not. We all know that.

You seem more interested in winding people up for the sake of it, rather than commenting on the thread topic - which is 'The Trump Presidency'.

Are we going to get into an age sharing debate?  I'll accept that you know I'm younger than you - though neither of us know for sure yet.  How many times have you voted in National Elections/Referendums though?  I think I might beat you on that score.

Back to your point.  How come my point is so difficult to get established?  I am saying Obama and Clinton are NOT the past.  They are both very much the present.  The Trump Presidency involves his declared intentions - it's why many people voted for him - what did Trump say to Hillary Clinton during the campaign about 'jail'?  

Trump is the President - he's in the present - yes.  He himself mentions Obama - as recently as a few days ago - in the present, not the past.  The Clintons and Obama are still very much part of the political discourse in America as it pertains to the Trump Presidency.  Just scan the media - even the MSM media.  They are still characters in the discourse and I'll legitimately keep referring to them.

And still he goes on. Why don't you accept any criticism of Trump et al? Why don't you accept that he's a demonstrable liar? Maybe the fact he lies is all Hillary's doing? She's got some alien-inherited mind controlling device maybe? If so, does it use tinfoil?

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not a moron, clearly, but no appetite for making any serious points in a reasonable way. More interesting in point-scoring and chuckling away to himself at his oh-so-cleverer-than-thou posts.

I 'chuckle' at the fact that I am in a room full of people who disagree with virtually every comma and full-stop I type, yet I'm the novelty character that supposedly never compromises on my opinion?
I chuckle that I'm often surrounded by people who feel so confused that I should even hold an alternative attitude to the general 'world view' on 'racist', 'commie', 'sexist', 'homophobe', 'hypocrite' Trump.   It often feels surreal.  It often feels like being in a bear pit every time I come in here - but in a good way.  I must be a masochist!

Chuckle away, but nobody can stand you.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Sessions scares white people; the kind of white people that don't care about black people (namely slick senators, media moguls, corporate lobbyists and their quango assorted associates that have been screwing the system for way too long with their multi-linked familial insertions into all things US Government.

I seriously doubt that. Unless you mean any whites described as 'liberal' in the U.S. that is.

No, I mean the people I described.

So why bring 'colour' into it then?

Because the discussion was about Sessions....the racist?  And someone (I believe PR?) said he scares 'black people'?

Dammit. OK, fair point. That's what I get for dipping in and out...

Pr4wn wrote:

Chuckle away, but nobody can stand you.

.... Because I don't share your views.

Nobody loves to be hated but, then again, I'm not going to change my entire philosophy to ensure people in a discussion group like me. I'm not applying for Affection.... I'm debating.

No, because you're a hypocrite, for the reasons that I explained above that you appear to have ignored, predictably.

Pr4wn wrote:No, because you're a hypocrite, for the reasons that I explained above that you appear to have ignored, predictably.

To be fair, his argument is (generally) that the media over-represents one side of the argument. Of course he generally defends the other side rather than giving equal weighting to both.

He always defends the other side. That's why he's a hypocrite.

navyblueshorts wrote:
And still he goes on. Why don't you accept any criticism of Trump et al? Why don't you accept that he's a demonstrable liar? Maybe the fact he lies is all Hillary's doing? She's got some alien-inherited mind controlling device maybe? If so, does it use tinfoil?

As was the other candidate??? As was the previous incumbent?

So the question is, if Trump is the only politician that can be talked about in a Trump's Presidency thread... who the hell did you people prefer to be talking about at this moment in time four or five weeks after an election. Trump is BAD. Trump is a Liar! Trump is a Racist!!!! All that stuff?

So what do you want? What's the nature of the thread? What's the solution? Impeachment, Resignation or Assassination? Those are the three options. Now, when that is done - any of them - what next? Hillary takes over? Obama comes back for another 8 years under emergency legislation? Or Pence? He's worse than Trump in the minds of the 'liberal' movement!

Outlaw the Presidency completely then and rule America from the EU. Jean Claude as Dictator.

Answer the question. Stop deflecting.

Pr4wn wrote:He always defends the other side. That's why he's a hypocrite.

And you quite often say Trump ain't all that bad in certain areas and that you acknowledge that all media outlets have an editorial political bias.

Pr4wn wrote:Answer the question. Stop deflecting.

This is a debate, not a interrogation.

Impeachment? Resignation? Or Assassination? Which should it be? I'll even knock off the last one as an option to keep things respectful (but a lot of supposedly respectful people have already publically alluded to it)

Impeachment? Resignation? Which?

What?

You're purposefully not engaging in debate by not answering his question.

The problem Trump has is that he's just not likeable and people take delight in winding him up and taking the p1ss out of him.

No wonder the lesser Fly can relate to him.