Donald J. Trump (For everyone else except Victor)
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Good posts. But you see what I mean. You were addressing liberals and their love for those guys.
Pretty hostile question, so I'll just answer it with a question. Do you think politics played any role, even a very small one, in his prosecutions? Yes or no.
The answer to this question is obviously yes with respect to at least some of the prosecutions. I'm not sure why this surprises anyone.
If you are high-profile politician, your behavior is going to be heavily scrutinized. And there is an increased risk that someone will try to make a career off of convicting you if you operate in a legal grey area.
The obvious solution is to keep your nose clean and avoid doing a bunch of questionable or outright illegal stuff. You aren't likely to fly under the radar like some average schmo.
Pretty hostile question, so I'll just answer it with a question. Do you think politics played any role, even a very small one, in his prosecutions? Yes or no.
Are you becoming rickroll? I'm asking in order to clarify your position and meant no hostility nor have ulterior motives.
Of course politics played a role, but I believe if he had returned the documents when asked, that probably would have been the end of it on a federal level. Maybe not.
I also believe if he didn't say he fired the FBI director for probing into possible affairs with Russia that a special investigation wouldn't have been opened during his term.
In other words, while there's a political component to everything, he brought all that shiit onto himself by being a dumbshit. Turns out it worked in his favor, though.
It would be impossible for politics to not play a role in prosecuting a former president
Are you talking about actual results, as in what was the growth rate during a presidents term(s) (which of course would be stupid and wrong) or are you just looking at their policies?
He’s ideology driven, not based on economic data. Like he’ll favor crappy low return coal or offshore subsidization over economically super clean energy projects. That’s why growth was so low his first term even before his covid collapse.
I don't know if trump likes pro growth policies like tax cuts, drill-baby-drill, reducing biz regulation and cutting the size of gov't because of economic data or ideology. Frankly I don't care why he supports these policies - I am just glad he does.
Why do you call coal "crappy low return" and why do you think that effects economic growth?
It was a hostile question because the answer is obvious. No rational person thinks that it was either 0% or 100% political. So, you are either asking me if I'm crazy (if I say yes), asking for a one word capitulation (if I say no), or demanding I go into some long and ultimately impossible description of what percentage of it is political and what percentage of it was justified.
Does "everything and anything I do is on behalf of my personal satisfaction and nothing else" count as an ideology?
I'm replying to this post, because, in my opinion, Trump is one of the LEAST ideological political figures in modern history. He's pathologically narcissistic -- look up the definition of NPD and you'll see his picture. He has no political project beyond revenge against his enemies and increasing the number of golf courses he owns. He doesn't give a **** about Project 2025 or wha
If "everything and anything I do is on behalf of my personal satisfaction and nothing else" is what trump does why would he raise the standard deduction and now try to make tips and social security tax free?
Isn't raising the standard deduction one of the least effective ways to help a rich person when enacting a tax cut?
Social Security is typically all or a large part of a lot of poor people's retirement income and it makes up very little of a rich person's (which trump is) retirement income so isn't this another example where he did something for others?
What percent of trump's income comes from tips?
a democrat senator has just being convicted for monstrous corruption with politics never entering the picture.
he was just a trash human being doing very corrupted things , and even republicans didn't pile on that piece of trash to define the entire party as corrupted , because it was clearly a personal failure, a disgusting thief who acquired power and happened to be a democrat while doing so but had nothing to do with the party when stealing taxpayers money and abusing his position.
I am referring to Robert Menendez obviously.
it is sometimes possible to prosecute corrupted politicians outside of politics in some sense. it just happened in the USA.
It was a hostile question because the answer is obvious. No rational person thinks that it was either 0% or 100% political. So, you are either asking me if I'm crazy (if I say yes), asking for a one word capitulation (if I say no), or demanding I go into some long and ultimately impossible description of what percentage of it is political and what percentage of it was justified.
This is the reason why good poker players sometimes can't beat easy games.
the irony is that the stuff trump was convincted on was purely political (in the sense that they prosecuted him differently from how they would have prosecuted the same infractions by normal people, they abused statutes never used in that way to convinct him), while the actual abuses of power Trump committed in his first term weren't prosecuted for other reasons.
while the actual abuses of power Trump committed in his first term weren't prosecuted for other reasons.
Congress will never ask about emoluments because a bunch of them don't want to be asked questions about such things.
Democrats won't ask about whether POTUS had authority to bomb, torture, spy, detain indefinitely and such, perhaps aside from a few notorious instances, because they want to be able to do that too.
Congress will never ask about emoluments because a bunch of them don't want to be asked questions about such things.
Democrats won't ask about whether POTUS had authority to bomb, torture, spy, detain indefinitely and such, perhaps aside from a few notorious instances, because they want to be able to do that too.
emolument clause violations by Trump were certainly more common and frequent and disastrously apparent than by any other president by a wide margin.
every single diplomat from a foreign country that booked a single hotel room in a trump hotel during his first term, every single one of those occurrences had to be investigated by Biden DOJ but those "independent experts" (lol) chose otherwise and went for very unclear potential violation of other principles of the law and the rest is history
I don't know if trump likes pro growth policies like tax cuts, drill-baby-drill, reducing biz regulation and cutting the size of gov't because of economic data or ideology. Frankly I don't care why he supports these policies - I am just glad he does.
I’m saying he’s for low growth policies like the ones you describe based on ideology. That why we had such slow growth in his first term.
Why do you call coal "crappy low return" and why do you think that effects economic growth?
Subsidizing outdated technology to make it profitable when the market has selected against it leads to low growth. Again why growth was so poor under Trump.
What are Republican thoughts on the "Gun Violence Restraining Order"?
2018:
Not sure what you think ideology means but the dictionary definition might be useful: "An ideology is a set of ideas, beliefs and attitudes, consciously or unconsciously held, which reflects or shapes understandings or misconceptions of the social and political world"
It means when a mid-stakes pro takes a shot at a high-stakes game because there's a couple of soft players in it, they can sometimes, when tangled up with a soft player, forget that the reason they sat in the game in the first place is because the soft player is transparent, and they ironically wind up playing worse against the soft players and better against the good players.
In this respect, I was being transparent but you thought I was trolling and played back at me. Can't say that I blame you as I may have had that rep back in the day in OOT.
Why did you ask me if I thought Trump's prosecution was **solely** political then? Did you imagine it was at all likely that I thought that?
My recollection is that you think Trump is worse than the alternative but that the alternative isn't good either. If that's accurate, then I'm right there with you.
With that in my mind, you started coming off like Kavanaugh or something, so I was just checking if my recollection was correct as there could be a non-zero chance that you both don't like Trump but also think it was an unwarranted political hit job.
The word "sometimes" means "occasionally" by definition. I gave an occasion where it happens quite a bit, but the word good is a relative term and I wouldn't have a problem if you want to call that person bad because he can pound one limit and then outplay himself at 4x the stakes.
[QUOTE=Land O Lakes;58904991My recollection is that you think Trump is worse than the alternative but that the alternative isn't good either. If that's accurate, then I'm right there with you. [/Quote]
Yes
With that in my mind, you started coming off like Kavanaugh or something,
Not that you're required to know all about me, but...I don't find this flattering.
At any rate, I don't think your hostility level was at 11 or anything, but still, don't know how "do you think it was **solely** political" is something one would even ask a reasonable person in good faith.
But, anyway ..
The Georgia call was a huge crime and deserved whatever it lead to.
The hush money stuff was primarily political.
The Russia stuff mostly political.
Emoluments should have been prosecuted.
