American Politics

[mark12345]

Nice to see you two agreeing on this





Well if Limbaugh said it wasn't a suicide, I'm actually more inclined to believe the coroner

Totally unrealted to the above, but this is a very interesting article on the gun argument in America (which is front and center of every debate when there is a mass shooting).

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/05/carlson-and-patel-walmart-woke-capitalism/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

[Real ale Madrid]

Totally unrealted to the above, but this is a very interesting article on the gun argument in America (which is front and center of every debate when there is a mass shooting).

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/05/carlson-and-patel-walmart-woke-capitalism/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

Carlson would want to be careful - he's turning into a lefty liberal. Chinese workers rights, getting employers to pay staff enough to live, whatever next!

[mark12345]

Carlson would want to be careful - he's turning into a lefty liberal. Chinese workers rights, getting employers to pay staff enough to live, whatever next!

I am sure impeachment / Ukraine etc. will be all the rage on the news channels in Ireland over the next few weeks. A bit of perspective on what really happened


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHihyFsgJGc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSyy5iF7npM

[pineapple stu]

mark - dumping YouTube videos into a thread isn't the same as making an argument.

What point are we supposed to take from those videos?

(Not interested in a "Watch it yourself and make your mind up" reply because that to me is the marker of someone who generally thinks a YouTube video equates to a solid argument, even if the video is nonsense. Sum up the key points in a few lines for us please)

[SkStu]

Agree with Stu. Haven’t watched the videos. My only take on this is that it will blow up in the Dems faces again just like their previous efforts to take Trump down.

The main question I have is that, even if there was a quid pro quo request made by Trump and it doesn’t appear that there was, and even if that is wrong (and I don’t know that it is), why on earth are we not applying the same standards to a) the Biden video where he brags about withholding the $1.5bn from Ukraine until they fired the Burisma prosecutor that his son was sitting on the Board of and b) Obama administrations efforts to pressure Ukraine into releasing information on Trumps 2016 campaign manager. The double standards being applied here are just nutso to me.

[osarusan]

From what was released so far, there's nothing that will get Trump in trouble. Maybe later releases will have something.


Anyway, I don't think many party members on either side would actually give much of a sh!t about the actual principles of it all. The Dems would piously attack, the Reps would prevaricate and play down and muddy the waters, and some time in the not-too-distant future something similar will happen under a Democrat president, and everybody will play the political game again, except with roles reversed, making the same arguments they all had such contempt for previously.

Nothing matters really, except for getting your champ in the white house and then keeping them there. Anything is fair game when it comes to that.

I'm sure this is what the impeachment is about also.

[mark12345]

mark - dumping YouTube videos into a thread isn't the same as making an argument.

What point are we supposed to take from those videos?

(Not interested in a "Watch it yourself and make your mind up" reply because that to me is the marker of someone who generally thinks a YouTube video equates to a solid argument, even if the video is nonsense. Sum up the key points in a few lines for us please)

Really interesting Stu that you say this because I would much prefer making my point in a few (or not so few) lines. I have done this in the past but have been called out for not providing sources. Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

But since you ask the attached videos speak about the actions of Joe Biden and the payoff his son got from the Ukrainians while working for an energy company (the son had no exprience in that field but got a 600k pay off). Joe Biden then goes and threatens the Ukrainians to remove a prosecutor who was looking into his son's activities. Biden threatens to withold US government aid from them if the prosecutor is not fired. He was promptly fired. And then the Dems go and accuse Trump of wrongdoing for looking into this. The non fake news is saying that AG William Barr and the Inspector General (Durham) are extremely close to blowing the lid on the corruption which led to the Russian collusion debacle, and this impeachment drive from the Dems is a diversion to keep the eyed of the world off them.

[samhaydenjr]

Really interesting Stu that you say this because I would much prefer making my point in a few (or not so few) lines. I have done this in the past but have been called out for not providing sources. Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

But since you ask the attached videos speak about the actions of Joe Biden and the payoff his son got from the Ukrainians while working for an energy company (the son had no exprience in that field but got a 600k pay off). Joe Biden then goes and threatens the Ukrainians to remove a prosecutor who was looking into his son's activities. Biden threatens to withold US government aid from them if the prosecutor is not fired. He was promptly fired. And then the Dems go and accuse Trump of wrongdoing for looking into this. The non fake news is saying that AG William Barr and the Inspector General (Durham) are extremely close to blowing the lid on the corruption which led to the Russian collusion debacle, and this impeachment drive from the Dems is a diversion to keep the eyed of the world off them.

From what I've read, there is consensus that the prosecutor, Shokin, was fired for failure to prosecute corruption charges against oligarchs in Ukraine, not because he was going after Biden's son, with Joe Biden merely expressing US Government policy at the time. There appears to be no evidence that Hunter Biden was, or should have been, under investigation for illegal activity at the time.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/09/26/the-move-towards-impeachment-marks-a-dangerous-shift

Meanwhile Fox News' legal advice indicates that simply asking President Zelensky to investigate Biden's son alone was a crime, regardless of whether the withholding of aid is to be considered part of a quid pro quo or worse, a bribe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKiRdUbDTWk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yY_N4d5xv8

[SkStu]

Just to be clear, Hunter Biden was not under investigation. The corruption being investigated predated his time on the Burisma Board. That’s where a lot of people are getting confused. However, he was sitting on the Board of a company that was under investigation by the government of the time. And Joe used his position as an elected official to exert pressure on this foreign government to fire the prosecutor of the company. And that Ukraine wouldn’t get their $1.5bn until this happened.

https://twitter.com/saracarterdc/status/1176700644343910402?s=21

Hunter was earning $50k per month. Bear in mind this guy was completely unqualified for such a position and was discharged from the army for cocaine addiction. The guy is nothing short of a car crash and most companies that you or I would be aware of wouldn’t entrust governance into someone with that kind of track record. It’s fair to assume that daddy Biden had something to do with Hunter getting this sweet gig.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hunter-biden-tackles-cocaine-diamonds-alleged-business-conflicts/story?id=64064060

It’s also fair to conclude that, at best, there was a serious conflict of interest here and funds withheld based on a clear quid pro quo. We won’t give you money unless you fire a prosecutor we don’t like. It’s actually a far more obvious and straightforward a violation than what the transcript sets out against Trump, in my opinion. The Hunter connection is somewhat irrelevant other than to make it an ethical violation on top of “bribery”.

If nothing else, as I say above, it’s a woeful double standard that’s being applied.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/24/democrats-investigation-might-do-more-hurt-biden-than-trump/?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Transcript: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

[The Fly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA

[Real ale Madrid]

Hunter was earning $50k per month. Bear in mind this guy was completely unqualified for such a position and was discharged from the army for cocaine addiction. The guy is nothing short of a car crash and most companies that you or I would be aware of wouldn’t entrust governance into someone with that kind of track record. It’s fair to assume that daddy Biden had something to do with Hunter getting this sweet gig.


Ivanka Trump likes this.

Edit - sorry don't know how i missed this until now.

[dahamsta]

The guy is nothing short of a car crash and most companies that you or I would be aware of wouldn’t entrust governance into someone with that kind of track record.

I give you: President Donald Trump

[mark12345]

I give you: President Donald Trump

Thanks Dahamsta for giving us President Donald Trump. He has proved himself to be the best president America has ever seen.

[dahamsta]

I don't engage with Trumpists, find someone else to validate your ridiculous opinions.

[Real ale Madrid]

As seen as we are throwing out Trump quotes here is an interesting transcript to a Q on Tariffs. It's difficult to read as its largely incoherent but a great insight into 'The Greatest President America has ever seen'

1194409083341877248

[SkStu]

Ivanka Trump likes this.

Edit - sorry don't know how i missed this until now.

Despite her one or two failed business ventures (she is in great company in that regard by the way), i think that any review of Ivanka compares very favourably with Hunter Biden. Find me 3 or 4 links that speak in any way positive of his roles in business or politics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/04/26/everyone-needs-to-get-over-ivanka-trumps-success/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401862-pavlich-ivanka-trumps-quiet-success

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/ivanka-trump-s-global-women-empowerment-program-reports-initial-success/4996524.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-brand-shuts-down-full-story-2018-7


I give you: President Donald Trump

Yeah, good one. Are you a WUM? You might want to infract yourself :D 63m people voted to give him the chance to run the country. About half the population of the biggest country in the world, 30.5 states and about 60% of the electoral votes. And he is doing a mighty fine job on many fronts despite the most unjustly hostile opposition and media that i can ever recall, possibly ever.


I don't engage with Trumpists, find someone else to validate your ridiculous opinions.

So why did you quote me? Probably shouldnt do that if you "dont engage with Trumpists" haha - but i am not sure you can help yourself as he appears to be living rent-free inside yours (and RAM's) head.

[Real ale Madrid]

Despite her one or two failed business ventures (she is in great company in that regard by the way), i think that any review of Ivanka compares very favourably with Hunter Biden. Find me 3 or 4 links that speak in any way positive of his roles in business or politics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/04/26/everyone-needs-to-get-over-ivanka-trumps-success/

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401862-pavlich-ivanka-trumps-quiet-success

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/ivanka-trump-s-global-women-empowerment-program-reports-initial-success/4996524.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-brand-shuts-down-full-story-2018-7


I don't really know about either but just pointing out the obvious Hypocrisy in your post lamenting Biden's unsuitability for his position ( same as Ivanka ) and the nepotism that led him to it ( same as Ivanka )



he appears to be living rent-free inside yours (and RAM's) head.

What a strange thing to say.

Just because you can hear and understand the high pitched ramblings of the biggest and loudest Dog whistler in history, and the rest of us can't doesn't mean obsession it really just means concern and in many cases confusion.

[osarusan]

No question Ivanka is superior to Hunter Biden.

Very hard to criticise a woman who has created 14 million new jobs (https://thehill.com/policy/finance/470291-trump-claims-ivanka-created-14-million-jobs).

[SkStu]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/pledge-to-americas-workers/

Thanks for drawing my attention to this initiative. Pretty interesting that they have in excess of 14 million pledges from over 300 companies to create or expand training and upskilling opportunities to people who are on the sidelines or whose existing jobs mean that they need to consider alternative career paths. Pretty admirable, even if Trump was loose with the details.

[osarusan]

The policy itself is admirable, but the lies are not.

Was he loose with the details in Feb 2019 when he said 6.5 million new jobs were created and that "These are jobs that, for the most part, would not have happened"?

Was his daughter loose with the details in October 2018 when she said that "We’re up to 6.3 million new jobs"?

I mean, why not just put the proper statistics forward? Why lie to make them sound better?

You made a conscious choice to characterise this as 'loose with the details'...it's honestly quite sad to see.

[SkStu]

I know this isn't the ideal approach to take in discussing this, but - since you brought up "lies" - do you think all other politicians generally do not lie or stretch the truth or get loose with details?? Do you really think this? Why is it only sad to see when someone defends Trumps approach to facts or lies - and not those of his predecessors or, frankly, any politician anywhere in the world? Do you hold him to a higher standard than others? Why?

Generally speaking, i dont really know what you are getting at early in your post. You have provided no sources and no context on the quotes you are attributing to them. From the article you quoted:


Under President Trump, the economy has continued to add jobs at roughly the same rate as it had at the end of the Obama era, and unemployment has fallen to a 50-year low.

The total number of jobs created since President Trump took office is roughly 6 million

It really depends on how you define a "new job created" and what data points and/or timelines youre looking at. Either way, it looks like the article you quoted is okay with playing loose with the details too as the administrations release I linked to talks about 5.3m jobs (no idea on time range).

[osarusan]

Both ar claims made about the number of jobs created through the Pledge to America's Workers, rather than general job creation:
Take Trump’s claim in February that his daughter Ivanka created “millions of jobs” through the Pledge to America’s Workers, a White House initiative to encourage professional development for workers across different industries. Trump later provided a more specific number: “Think of it: 6.5 million. And these are jobs that, for the most part, would not have happened.”
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/trump-job-promises


Ivanka herself has conflated jobs with training programs in the past.

“We’re up to 6.3 million new jobs,” Ivanka Trump said at a White House event to promote the initiative last year. But the company officials that signed the pledge told CNN after the event that the number Ivanka cited “largely represented a tally of already-planned training programs rather than the brand-new opportunities Ivanka Trump claimed.”

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/13/trump-credits-ivanka-with-creating-14-million-new-jobs-more-than-double-the-number-actually-created/

[geysir]

The only White House fact/statistic that stands scrutiny is the number of lies Trump has told since taking office. As of Dec 10, Trump has told over 15,000 lies/untruths.

Fact Checker: Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days - huffpost (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lies-washington-post_n_5df898c3e4b03aed50f4725d)

[mark12345]

The only White House fact/statistic that stands scrutiny is the number of lies Trump has told since taking office. As of Dec 10, Trump has told over 15,000 lies/untruths.

Fact Checker: Trump has made 15,413 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days - huffpost (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lies-washington-post_n_5df898c3e4b03aed50f4725d)

Huffpost is a great source of information if you don't like Donald Trump. Try finding something good they have said about him over the last three years. Think about that for a second - not one good word to say about him despite his myriad of wonderful achievements. Take it from someone who lives in America - we are being lied to all day long by the mainstream media and Donald Trump scares them to their core.

[pineapple stu]

What myriad wonderful achievements?

[mark12345]

What myriad wonderful achievements?

Lowest unemployment in 50 years. Redoing of a trade agreement with China which was decades overdue. The redoing of the MCA trade agreement. The strengthening of the military which had been decimated under Obama. The meetings with N. Korea which stopped Kim (albeit temporarily) from firing his missiles. The appointment of two Supreme Court judges and hundreds of lower Court conservative judges. The revealing to the American public about the Deep State, which no previous president ever told us about.
I'm sure I could come up with more if I had time

[pineapple stu]

How much of that was him though?

The lad's a brain dead buffoon.

I don't see the relevance of appointing judges tbh. The Deep State sounds like a conspiracy theory thrown at masses to keep them happy.

His negative contributions to global warming and science will supersede any of those. Not to mention being impeached for abuse of power. Though I get the feeling you'd be of a mind to overlook his impeachment tbh

[peadar1987]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Figure-1.-Unemployment-Rates-by-Educational-Attainment-1992-2019-820x492.png

The unemployment rate fell more quickly under Obama, you can see the curve flatten out noticeably in 2016. Not that I expect President Dunning Kruger to give his predecessor any credit.

[mark12345]

How much of that was him though?

The lad's a brain dead buffoon.

I don't see the relevance of appointing judges tbh. The Deep State sounds like a conspiracy theory thrown at masses to keep them happy.

His negative contributions to global warming and science will supersede any of those. Not to mention being impeached for abuse of power. Though I get the feeling you'd be of a mind to overlook his impeachment tbh

If he's brain dead we should all be brain dead. You just cannot be serious with a comment like that. And please tell me what power he abused? And while you're at it can you tell us what Pelosi who has called Trump an existential threat for three years, is not now going forward with impeachment, after last week's vote?

[mark12345]

You could not be more wrong

[mark12345]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Figure-1.-Unemployment-Rates-by-Educational-Attainment-1992-2019-820x492.png

The unemployment rate fell more quickly under Obama, you can see the curve flatten out noticeably in 2016. Not that I expect President Dunning Kruger to give his predecessor any credit.

The mainstream media in America are lying to you Peadar. And it looks to be the same in Ireland.

[peadar1987]

The mainstream media in America are lying to you Peadar. And it looks to be the same in Ireland.

The mainstream media? That graph is from whitehouse.gov. It was released by the Trump administration!

[geysir]

The mainstream media? That graph is from whitehouse.gov. It was released by the Trump administration!

Eh?? the internet claims it's from whitehouse.gov, the internet is the mainstream media telling you lies.

[peadar1987]

Eh?? the internet claims it's from whitehouse.gov, the internet is the mainstream media telling you lies.

The tiny communists who live in my router replace the information with propaganda before it hits my screen

[dahamsta]

Makes more sense than what goes on inside some people's brains.

[SkStu]

The posts over the last page or so are quite funny. It is remarkable how nobody here will give credit to Trump and his administration for having achieved anything - ANYTHING - positive in his three years. And yet are also the first to label people who defend the president as "brainwashed", "blinkered", "ignorant" and so on. Pot, kettle, black.

Over the weekend, I read or saw a few snippets of information that hopefully people on here will digest (but i will not hold my breath):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463

Those who say that the strong economy under President Trump is merely a continuation of past trends are in full-scale denial. Before Mr. Trump took office in January 2017, the Congressional Budget Office forecast the creation of only two million jobs by this point. The economy has in fact created seven million jobs since January 2017. At the same time, the Federal Reserve’s median forecast had the unemployment rate inching up toward 5%, almost 1.5 percentage points higher than the current 50-year low.

To be sure, there have been some headwinds over the past year with the Fed’s interest policy, the domestic political environment and trade-policy uncertainty pushing growth to below the 3% target in 2019. Nonetheless, the slowdown is world-wide, and the U.S. is the only Group of Seven country that will post growth above 2% this year.

https://twitter.com/AndyPuzder/status/1208796725466537985

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/politics/cnn-poll-economy-2020-matchups/index.html

CNN reported on Dec. 20 that as the year 2019 closes, “the US economy earn[ed] its highest ratings in almost two decades” [emphasis added]. This, according to CNN, potentially boosts “President Donald Trump in matchups against the Democrats vying to face him in next year's election, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.”

Specifics in the poll results showed that 76 percent of those polled “rate economic conditions in the US today as very or somewhat good, significantly more than those who said so at this time last year (67%)” [emphasis added].

breakthrough in addressing the trade deficit with China
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3042819/us-and-china-have-trade-deal-only-washington-has-what-it-wants

Beijing’s compromises are substantive. For instance, the Chinese pledge to purchase an additional US$100 million of American products and services in each of the next two years represents a 77 per cent jump in US imports from the 2017 level of US$130 billion. Beijing’s commitment to purchase US$40 billion to US$50 billion of agricultural produce over that period also represents a sharp increase from an all-time peak of US$29 billion and a current annual run rate of less than US$10 billion. These pledges, as they are easily described and verifiable, reflected China’s eagerness to reach a deal.
China’s concessions are also extensive, covering areas ranging from IP protection, currency management, technology transfers, market opening and access to dispute resolution and enforcement systems.

There are other achievements that are worth mentioning on top of this that are well documented but that i didnt read about over the weekend. These include:

- destroying ISIS and overseeing the death of al-Baghdadi (remember how much credit Obama got for Bin-Laden?)
- withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Syria
- USMCA - replacing NAFTA
- record unemployment rates for blacks and hispanics (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/black-and-hispanic-unemployment-is-at-a-record-low.html)

On some of the other things mentioned over the last page or so...
When it comes to climate change - there are far more serious questions to be asked about other countries than there are about Trump - under whose watch carbon emissions continue to decline (at a slower rate, granted). China and India are seeing massive increases since Kyoto and the Paris accord. Trump's decision to withdraw was more political/symbolic than practical - a stupid move really.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/12/04/the-worlds-top-10-carbon-dioxide-emitters/#e4d2ce2d04b7

Nevertheless, as the data shows, China has become the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide by far, growing emissions at a breakneck pace. While the U.S. leads the world in cutting carbon emissions.
...
It also remains true that China’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are much lower than those in the U.S. In 2018, annual emissions in the U.S. stood at 16 metric tons per person, while those in China were 8 metric tons per person. However, since 1980 per capita emissions in the U.S. have fallen by 20%, while they have more than quintupled in China.

On the supreme court judges thing, i am also not sure why that gets touted as this great achievement, being that it is a matter of timing as opposed to judgement. That said, i thought the Kavanaugh spectacle was a real low point in politicking from the american left. I did read something recently that talked about the number of judges the senate has appointed that has transformed the court system in the US for decade.

On the deep state - just read the IG Horowitz report. Disgraceful carry on! Barr/Durham have access to way more information than Horowitz did so it will be interesting to see what comes of their investigation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/11/ig-report-horowitz-testify-his-fisa-findings-russia-probe/4387545002/

The federal surveillance process was “not used appropriately” during the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign aide, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz told senators Wednesday, intensifying the harsh light his office has placed on the FBI.

https://www.axios.com/fisa-horowitz-inspector-general-testimony-94880158-a6f8-4089-8c66-690b1b661209.html

The bottom line: "I think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this," Horowitz told the Senate Judiciary Committee, referencing a celebratory James Comey op-ed in the Washington Post.

Impeachment - partisan hack job - just like "Russian collusion". To the extent that a Democrat changed parties over the debacle! They couldnt even get all of their congresspeople to vote for impeachment! :D since i have been so good with my supporting sources in this post, here's one from Fox News to get youse all riled up!! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/van-drew-defends-switch-to-gop-calls-impeachment-of-trump-weak-thin

[pineapple stu]

When it comes to climate change - there are far more serious questions to be asked about other countries than there are about Trump - under whose watch carbon emissions continue to decline (at a slower rate, granted). China and India are seeing massive increases since Kyoto and the Paris accord. Trump's decision to withdraw was more political/symbolic than practical - a stupid move really.
Ah, that's a bit of a cop out in fairness. The US is still second highest in the world in that regard, so while India and China are issues as they modernise, that doesn't absolve the US of its own duties to reduce emissions. And Trump's response? He not only doesn't believe it (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940), but
has also "pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda" (same article), thus exacerbating the problem.

He's a sexpest, he's a blithering idiot who can't even use the right phone (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/us/politics/trump-phone-security.html) for making secure calls despite being over and over again what to do, his near-random hiring and firing of staff can only destabilise the country, and if he doesn't get impeached for abuse of power (which is what the impeachment is for), then it'll be at least 90% down to the fact that his party controls the senate (a fair hearing is guaranteed I'm sure). Fortunately for the rest of the country, one person can't run the country, so there's plenty of others keeping the head down and keeping the place (more or less) on the go.

In fact, at times I put him as being similar to John Delaney. They've different modus operandi, for sure - Delaney was quieter with less bluster, but bite all the same - and they both claimed credit for improved performances which happened despite them, not because of them.

[SkStu]

Ah, that's a bit of a cop out in fairness. The US is still second highest in the world in that regard, so while India and China are issues as they modernise, that doesn't absolve the US of its own duties to reduce emissions. And Trump's response? He not only doesn't believe it (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940), but
has also "pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda" (same article), thus exacerbating the problem.

That bbc article you appear to have misrepresented his position. He said he didnt agree that it would "cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars annually". He also said, same article, that "right now, we're at the cleanest we've ever been and thats very important to me. But if we're clean and every other place on the earth is dirty, thats not so good. So, I want clean air, I want clean water, very important". What a madman.

Also, emissions continue to decrease in the USA, despite his position on traditional energy sources, like coal. So he hasnt sought to absolve the US of its own duties. While you appear quite happy to absolve China and India of theirs "as they modernize". The bit that you ignore is that China is increasing exponentially, while they "modernize". How long are you prepared to give China to reverse the trend?


He's a sexpest, he's a blithering idiot who can't even use the right phone (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/us/politics/trump-phone-security.html) for making secure calls despite being over and over again what to do, his near-random hiring and firing of staff can only destabilise the country, and if he doesn't get impeached for abuse of power (which is what the impeachment is for), then it'll be at least 90% down to the fact that his party controls the senate (a fair hearing is guaranteed I'm sure). Fortunately for the rest of the country, one person can't run the country, so there's plenty of others keeping the head down and keeping the place (more or less) on the go.

Most of the above is irrelevant and/or silly. But, regarding impeachment, it is arguable whether the House of Representatives has established an abuse of power at all. That, as you point out, is for the Senate to adjudicate.

The witnesses in the hearings were all testifying on 2nd and 3rd hand information and their testimony didnt stand up to scrutiny when they were asked questions by the republicans on the committees. The whole thing is a complete dud - an overwhelmingly partisan hack job that has bored the majority of the USA to tears. The US constitution provides for impeachment in the event of "high crimes and misdemeanours". Like Nixon who attempted a cover up of his administrations involvement in the break-in to the DNC headquarters. And Clinton who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. In the House of Representatives, by the way, 31 democrats voted to impeach Clinton. Despite this, in the republican controlled Senate, Clinton was acquitted on both counts - requiring, as it does, 67 votes to impeach in the Sentate and trigger a removal from office.

No republicans in the House voted to impeach Trump and, as i mentioned, 2 democrats voted against impeaching Trump and one (Tulsi) spoiled her vote. On that evidence alone, and using Clinton as a yardstick, it seems highly unlikely that he would be impeached in the Senate anyway as all Senators would simply vote along party lines! The whole thing is nothing more than political showmanship from the Democrats, designed to fool idiots and get the base excited. What will their next trick be?

[mark12345]

The posts over the last page or so are quite funny. It is remarkable how nobody here will give credit to Trump and his administration for having achieved anything - ANYTHING - positive in his three years. And yet are also the first to label people who defend the president as "brainwashed", "blinkered", "ignorant" and so on. Pot, kettle, black.

Over the weekend, I read or saw a few snippets of information that hopefully people on here will digest (but i will not hold my breath):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-reform-has-delivered-for-workers-11577045463


https://twitter.com/AndyPuzder/status/1208796725466537985

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/politics/cnn-poll-economy-2020-matchups/index.html


breakthrough in addressing the trade deficit with China
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3042819/us-and-china-have-trade-deal-only-washington-has-what-it-wants


There are other achievements that are worth mentioning on top of this that are well documented but that i didnt read about over the weekend. These include:

- destroying ISIS and overseeing the death of al-Baghdadi (remember how much credit Obama got for Bin-Laden?)
- withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Syria
- USMCA - replacing NAFTA
- record unemployment rates for blacks and hispanics (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/black-and-hispanic-unemployment-is-at-a-record-low.html)

On some of the other things mentioned over the last page or so...
When it comes to climate change - there are far more serious questions to be asked about other countries than there are about Trump - under whose watch carbon emissions continue to decline (at a slower rate, granted). China and India are seeing massive increases since Kyoto and the Paris accord. Trump's decision to withdraw was more political/symbolic than practical - a stupid move really.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/12/04/the-worlds-top-10-carbon-dioxide-emitters/#e4d2ce2d04b7


On the supreme court judges thing, i am also not sure why that gets touted as this great achievement, being that it is a matter of timing as opposed to judgement. That said, i thought the Kavanaugh spectacle was a real low point in politicking from the american left. I did read something recently that talked about the number of judges the senate has appointed that has transformed the court system in the US for decade.

On the deep state - just read the IG Horowitz report. Disgraceful carry on! Barr/Durham have access to way more information than Horowitz did so it will be interesting to see what comes of their investigation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/11/ig-report-horowitz-testify-his-fisa-findings-russia-probe/4387545002/


https://www.axios.com/fisa-horowitz-inspector-general-testimony-94880158-a6f8-4089-8c66-690b1b661209.html


Impeachment - partisan hack job - just like "Russian collusion". To the extent that a Democrat changed parties over the debacle! They couldnt even get all of their congresspeople to vote for impeachment! :D since i have been so good with my supporting sources in this post, here's one from Fox News to get youse all riled up!! https://www.foxnews.com/politics/van-drew-defends-switch-to-gop-calls-impeachment-of-trump-weak-thin

SkStu. You have an open and very brilliant mind

[pineapple stu]

"The cleanest we've ever been" is (a) irrelevant if it's still too dirty and (b) a blatant lie. In fact, their carbon emissions are increased on 1990 levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions). If you take plastics into account, well the explosion of quick plastic only really took off in the 60s, so it stands to reason that the US was cleaner before then by that measure.

But I don't know why you picked that out of the article when what I actually quoted from it was that Trump doesn't believe climate change. Not entirely sure why you ignored that tbh.

Again, I agree China's pollution is an issue (and they're an issue elsewhere too; wildlife poaching is hugely at their door for example, and they're the new colonialists in Africa in particular), but this is a thread about Fox News and, by extension, Trump. China doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread. It's only an excuse to try take it off topic.

And it's daft to suggest that it's either "silly/irrelevant" to point out that he's a sex pest, a technologically incompetent buffoon who's putting national security at risk, or causes chaos by his random hiring/firing. These are really relevant things, specifically related to his suitability for the job, or his competence at it.

I'll stand by another comment which you ignored - calling Trump a success is like calling John Delaney a success. Yet the likes of Michael Healy-Rea would go out of their way to praise Delaney despite all the evidence to the contrary. And some people will do the same for Trump. And a really bizarre subset will criticise Delaney while backing Trump, ignoring the many similarities as they do so.

As a stance, it makes literally no sense.

[SkStu]

"The cleanest we've ever been" is (a) irrelevant if it's still too dirty and (b) a blatant lie. In fact, their carbon emissions are increased on 1990 levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions). If you take plastics into account, well the explosion of quick plastic only really took off in the 60s, so it stands to reason that the US was cleaner before then by that measure.

I agree that the USA and Trump can be doing more to reduce emissions but i do dispute your claim that Trump has (or intends to) rolled back the progress that has been made. As long as the line keeps going in the right direction, that is the main thing for me. The EPA's report suggests that emissions have continued to decrease (albeit more slowly) under Trump. I note the spike in the chart on wiki (but even the decreases made under Obama had years where there were two spikes up).


But I don't know why you picked that out of the article when what I actually quoted from it was that Trump doesn't believe climate change. Not entirely sure why you ignored that tbh.

The article you provided doesn't support that assertion. Read my post again. I didn't ignore it, I addressed it.


Again, I agree China's pollution is an issue (and they're an issue elsewhere too; wildlife poaching is hugely at their door for example, and they're the new colonialists in Africa in particular), but this is a thread about Fox News and, by extension, Trump. China doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread. It's only an excuse to try take it off topic.

It is not an effort to take it off topic. Not at all. Just to give context to the issue that you raised. Climate change is a truly global issue that has the fullest context when discussed in a global sense. Irrespective of the thread title. I just think its a little disingenuous to criticise Trump for not doing enough while completely ignoring China and India - in fact, essentially giving them a free pass from your moral outrage.

edit: In fact, i would encourage anyone reading this to click the link to the wiki page that Stu referenced and tell me whose contribution to emissions, on the chart on the right, we should be most worried about.


And it's daft to suggest that it's either "silly/irrelevant" to point out that he's a sex pest, a technologically incompetent buffoon who's putting national security at risk, or causes chaos by his random hiring/firing. These are really relevant things, specifically related to his suitability for the job, or his competence at it.

It is irrelevant and/or silly as the stupidity of politicians is a standard. Is he a bellend? Yes. A funny one. But a bellend nonetheless. But, hey, Clinton was a sex pest, Bush was also considered an incompetent buffoon and Obama put global security at risk allowing ISIS to rise unchecked and providing cash - actual cash - to Iran that was funneled to a multitude of terrorist groups. It is also irrelevant and/or silly to say that he has had nothing to do with the positive things that have occurred while he has been in charge.


I'll stand by another comment which you ignored - calling Trump a success is like calling John Delaney a success. Yet the likes of Michael Healy-Rea would go out of their way to praise Delaney despite all the evidence to the contrary. And some people will do the same for Trump. And a really bizarre subset will criticise Delaney while backing Trump, ignoring the many similarities as they do so.

As a stance, it makes literally no sense.

And you accuse me of taking the thread off topic? Delaney doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread etc etc.

[pineapple stu]

As long as the line keeps going in the right direction, that is the main thing for me.
Problem is you're not relevant here. If the line is going in the right direction but too slowly - as it is in many places, Ireland included - then that's no good overall.


The article you provided doesn't support that assertion. Read my post again. I didn't ignore it, I addressed it.
It also quotes him saying climate change is a "hoax"; he thinks it will "change back again (https://www.joe.ie/news/donald-trump-says-climate-change-will-change-back-644415)". He thinks it's something which could impact over "millions of years" (same article - from an interview with CBS)

We don't know what he really thinks of course - but there can be no doubt that he has no intention of doing anything practical about it if it means cutting jobs. Because that's more important than an entire planet of course. ("I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." - same article again). Standard capitalist fare - keep increasing production, and with it pollution/carbon emissions, because nothing bad's going to happen in four years, and then it's someone else's problem.

Not good enough when the bigger picture is looked at.


It is irrelevant and/or silly as the stupidity of politicians is a standard. Is he a bellend? Yes. A funny one. But a bellend nonetheless. But, hey, Clinton was a sex pest, Bush was also considered an incompetent buffoon and Obama put global security at risk allowing ISIS to rise unchecked and providing cash - actual cash - to Iran that was funneled to a multitude of terrorist groups. It is also irrelevant and/or silly to say that he has had nothing to do with the positive things that have occurred while he has been in charge.
Funny? **** me, you've some weird sense of humour. What do you find funny about him? Seriously?

The thing here though is that Trump is all those things rolled into one - as well as being borderline mentally unstable (hiring/firing at will, and his twitter comments actually), and unable to actually do what he's told (e.g. making fairly top-level phone calls on a bog-standard mobile). All of that rolls up into something really worrying.


And you accuse me of taking the thread off topic? Delaney doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread etc etc.
Way to miss the point there Stu. I made the likeness to draw a topical parallel between their supporters - in both cases, the person being supported could do no harm at all, even though dodgy rumblings were there right from the get-go, and even though people were pointing out the issues. They were entirely right in Delaney's case, and I think Trump supporters could do worse than look at the blind support Delaney got and reevaluate their views accordingly.

So it's not taking the matter off topic at all. Whereas "The US is the cleanest it's ever been" (even though it's not) followed by "But what about China?" is an attempt at deflection onto a different topic.

[SkStu]

It also quotes him saying climate change is a "hoax"; he thinks it will "change back again (https://www.joe.ie/news/donald-trump-says-climate-change-will-change-back-644415)". He thinks it's something which could impact over "millions of years" (same article - from an interview with CBS)

I will get to the rest of the post later/tomorrow but in the article you have linked - he is literally quoted as saying "I dont think it is a hoax" and "I'm not denying climate change". Seriously... like what?

[Real ale Madrid]

SkStu. You have an open and very brilliant mind

2019 summed up for me here. Disappointed but not surprised by anything.

[pineapple stu]

I will get to the rest of the post later/tomorrow but in the article you have linked - he is literally quoted as saying "I dont think it is a hoax" and "I'm not denying climate change". Seriously... like what?
(a) He is on record as calling it a hoax, and
(b) in that article, he is on record as saying he thinks it will change back again and that any impact will take millions of years

That's what I put in my post, and it's correct.

OK, so he's gone from "It is a hoax" - which he has said - to now thinking it's not a hoax but he's defined as something that's so far removed from what it actually is that it's clear that he still has no intentions of actually dealing with the issue.

Just to reiterate - capitalism is dependent on infinite growth to keep standing. That in itself is a logical impossibility of course, but climate change (and plastics and resources such as oil and metals) are very real and immediate barriers to infinite growth. So the easiest way to deal with these is to ignore them - but you can't do that in this day and age, so you have to either deny or diminish them and hope they don't crystallise on your watch. That's what he's doing.

In fairness, in that regard, he's merely doing what the rest of the world is doing - but he does lose further credibility by coming across as an ignorant buffoon whenever he talks about it.

[geysir]

Trump does his best to imitate a 5 year old boy's understanding of the intrepid windmill warrior Don Quixote and why 'windmills' (apparantly still spinning today in Trump's make believe world) should be prosecuted for killing protected species such as bald eagles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=77&v=ec9P3C1OXqE&feature=emb_l ogo

[SkStu]

(a) He is on record as calling it a hoax, and
(b) in that article, he is on record as saying he thinks it will change back again and that any impact will take millions of years

That's what I put in my post, and it's correct.

OK, so he's gone from "It is a hoax" - which he has said - to now thinking it's not a hoax but he's defined as something that's so far removed from what it actually is that it's clear that he still has no intentions of actually dealing with the issue.

Just to reiterate - capitalism is dependent on infinite growth to keep standing. That in itself is a logical impossibility of course, but climate change (and plastics and resources such as oil and metals) are very real and immediate barriers to infinite growth. So the easiest way to deal with these is to ignore them - but you can't do that in this day and age, so you have to either deny or diminish them and hope they don't crystallise on your watch. That's what he's doing.

In fairness, in that regard, he's merely doing what the rest of the world is doing - but he does lose further credibility by coming across as an ignorant buffoon whenever he talks about it.

You’re all over the place. A bit like the orange man. ;) :)

[SkStu]

Problem is you're not relevant here. If the line is going in the right direction but too slowly - as it is in many places, Ireland included - then that's no good overall.


It also quotes him saying climate change is a "hoax"; he thinks it will "change back again (https://www.joe.ie/news/donald-trump-says-climate-change-will-change-back-644415)". He thinks it's something which could impact over "millions of years" (same article - from an interview with CBS)

We don't know what he really thinks of course - but there can be no doubt that he has no intention of doing anything practical about it if it means cutting jobs. Because that's more important than an entire planet of course. ("I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs." - same article again). Standard capitalist fare - keep increasing production, and with it pollution/carbon emissions, because nothing bad's going to happen in four years, and then it's someone else's problem.

Not good enough when the bigger picture is looked at.

I think we have covered this off. Trump, as a president, could be better for the environment and climate change from a leadership perspective and from a policy perspective. I agree. But i would temper that by saying that his administration is still doing their bit to curb emissions and increasing funding for the work of the EPA - not as much as Obama's. But he was not elected on that message so it is likely not a high priority for him - the reasons for which, you set out above and in the quoted part.


Funny? **** me, you've some weird sense of humour. What do you find funny about him? Seriously?

just a few examples here. I mean he's no Dave Chappelle but you get the jist. He can have a laugh at his and others expense.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163603361423351808

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184595335794036737

https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1192903151927603201


This split-screen reaction to Trump’s jokes—fans seeing a twinkle in his eye, opponents seeing creeping authoritarianism—happens offline, too. At a veterans’ event in Louisville, Ky., last August, Trump joked about wanting to give himself the Medal of Honor: “I wanted one, but they told me I don’t qualify,” he said of his aides. “I said, ‘Can I give it to myself anyway?’ They said, ‘I don’t think that's a good idea.” His foes freaked out, and some news outlets covered the crack as if it were a serious statement. But as the Louisville Courier-Journal reported from the scene, “Trump was smiling as he said it, and the crowd laughed.”


"So many people have been leaving the White House," Trump joked. "It's actually been really exciting and invigorating 'cause you want new thoughts. So I like turnover. I like chaos. It is really good. Now, the question everybody keeps asking: Who's going to be the next to leave, Steve Miller or Melania?"
...
"This might be the best night I've had since watching your faces on election night," Trump said.


The thing here though is that Trump is all those things rolled into one - as well as being borderline mentally unstable (hiring/firing at will, and his twitter comments actually), and unable to actually do what he's told (e.g. making fairly top-level phone calls on a bog-standard mobile). All of that rolls up into something really worrying.

I'm not worried. Neither are the American voters, it seems. As indicated by his increasing approval ratings (which are higher than Obama's at the same point in their presidencies) and the decrease in approval for impeachment.


Way to miss the point there Stu. I made the likeness to draw a topical parallel between their supporters - in both cases, the person being supported could do no harm at all, even though dodgy rumblings were there right from the get-go, and even though people were pointing out the issues. They were entirely right in Delaney's case, and I think Trump supporters could do worse than look at the blind support Delaney got and reevaluate their views accordingly.

OK. So?


So it's not taking the matter off topic at all. Whereas "The US is the cleanest it's ever been" (even though it's not) followed by "But what about China?" is an attempt at deflection onto a different topic.

OK. Well, all i can say is i really wasnt (and havent ever) tried to take this thread off topic. I have always tried to engage with what is being put in front of me to prevent this thread from becoming a complete circle jerk. I thought i was pointing out something relevant to the discussion we were having but ill play by your rules. Why don't you start a thread on it? As an issue that is so important to you? Maybe that way we could have a fuller discussion on all of the contributors to climate change without breaking any of these rules?

[pineapple stu]

You’re all over the place. A bit like the orange man. ;) :)
Sorry Stu - going to call out this ****** first off. There's a charter in place here which calls for at least an attempt at intelligent conversation. The above...isn't.


I think we have covered this off. Trump, as a president, could be better for the environment and climate change from a leadership perspective and from a policy perspective. I agree. But i would temper that by saying that his administration is still doing their bit to curb emissions and increasing funding for the work of the EPA - not as much as Obama's. But he was not elected on that message so it is likely not a high priority for him - the reasons for which, you set out above and in the quoted part.
But again here, you don't really seem to take into account that throwing the EPA a few quid isn't going to do anything. Token attempts like that are really no more than an attempt at PR. And saying that it wasn't in his mandate - that's not really an excuse for such an important issue.

It's obviously a tricky issue, but America is supposedly the leader of the free world and needs at least to be trying to be seen to going dramatically greener - reducing oil dependency, reducing the number of gas guzzlers, improving public transport, tackling industry issues such as water pollution and over-use, etc, etc. As I say, not easy, but to talk away from it isn't defendable.



just a few examples here. I mean he's no Dave Chappelle but you get the jist. He can have a laugh at his and others expense.
Yeah, you and I have a very different view of what humour is. Interesting too that all the examples you can quote are putting Trump at the centre of things as per usual - typical behaviour for someone as blindly egocentric as he is.



I'm not worried. Neither are the American voters, it seems.
Again, though, you say this as if it's relevant. National security concerns exist whether or not you're worried about them.



OK. So?
I mean, the point is literally in what you quoted. I'm comparing Delaney and Trump, and noting the similarities in the arguments used by those who defend him. And hindsight has shown a new light to Delaney - one which we all knew was there. Trump will be the same.

Anyways, you've nothing to really add and I've better things to be arguing about at Christmas time, so let's just end with a quote from the video geysir linked above. I think it's quite indicative of the clueless calibre of person in charge at the moment. If you want me, I'll be off reading Commander in Cheat.


I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I have studied it better than anybody. But they are manufactured, tremendous — if you are into this — tremendous fumes and gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life.

(And for balance, here's a short article (https://www.sciencealert.com/the-president-said-a-lot-of-wild-stuff-about-windmills-here-are-some-actual-facts) highlighting the bull**** in that one passage alone)

[SkStu]

I don't know why you are so angry over my posts. If you take a deep breath or two, you will notice that I actually agree with you about whether he could or should be doing more on this issue. That is quite clearly the thrust of the point i was making but that seems to have escaped your attention in your rush to get offended and angry.

The post that seemed to have tipped you over the edge was intended as a light-hearted way to diffuse the tension/conversation - hence the winking & smileys and so on. But my sense of humour is clearly different to yours as you have pointed out many times. Sorry if i caused any offense.

But since you feel like i dodged my duty to engage in intelligent conversation, I could address it more directly if you like. For example, how you misquoted the original article you linked to to support that Trump believes climate change is a hoax despite him being directly quoted in the article that you linked to saying the exact opposite. I pointed this out and, instead of acknowledging that you had erred and providing a different supporting source, you doubled down on your assertion and contradicted yourself at least once while doing so and then ended with the revelation that he is no different to the rest of the world. If you want to call me out for whatever those ******'s above represent, allow me to do the same.

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - inappropriate with my posts here and how i have engaged in debate/discussion with you and others. If you have a problem with my posts or approach, use the report button. Otherwise, quit whining about it.

Feliz Navidad.