Obama named worst president in 6 decades

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
srellim234
Posts: 2710
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:12 am
Car: 2007 silver Versa SL
hatchback w/CVT
(sold 08/2011)
2008 red Toyota Prius
(purchased 04/2016)
Location: Laughlin, NV

Post

telco - Use your own argument against your own argument. What has Trump been found guilty of while under oath for you to make that statement?

Yes, Trump has made thousands of false statements. I haven't seen any of them that were made while under oath. Lying to the American people is not a criminal offence and it does not warrant jail time. It should only cost him credibility and support, something he has very little of at this point in time.


User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

srellim234 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:00 pm
telco - Use your own argument against your own argument. What has Trump been found guilty of while under oath for you to make that statement?

Yes, Trump has made thousands of false statements. I haven't seen any of them that were made while under oath. Lying to the American people is not a criminal offence and it does not warrant jail time. It should only cost him credibility and support, something he has very little of at this point in time.
The Ghost of Trump Chaos Future

Trump is the worst president in the entire United States History.

Obama gave millions health care and millions of others a rising economy,and a rising stock market after a failing economy by a previous republican president. Looks like a democrat needs to be elected again to bail us out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/opin ... e=Homepage

"Two years ago, after the shock of Donald Trump’s election, financial markets briefly freaked out, then quickly recovered. In effect, they decided that while Trump was manifestly unqualified for the job, temperamentally and intellectually, it wouldn’t matter. He might talk the populist talk, but he’d walk the plutocratic walk. He might be erratic and uninformed, but wiser heads would keep him from doing anything too stupid."

"To be clear, voters have been aware for some time that government by a bad man is bad government. That’s why Democrats won a historically spectacular majority of the popular vote in the midterms. Even the wealthy, who have been the prime beneficiaries of Trump policies, are unhappy: A CNBC survey finds that millionaires, even Republican millionaires, have turned sharply against the tweeter in chief."
srellim234 wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:00 pm
telco - Use your own argument against your own argument. What has Trump been found guilty of while under oath for you to make that statement?
We are going to find out soon. What evidence has Mueller compiled against Trump? What information is in his tax returns that will ultimately be used against him? Has Trump committed tax fraud and failed to pay his taxes? Trump University was a fraud and so was the Trump Foundation. Will Trump be forced to resign to avoid jail?

Stay tuned

Follow the money

Telcoman

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

R/T Hemi wrote:
Sun Aug 10, 2014 12:24 pm
I think history will view Obama in a very favorable light. I'm also going to put you'll on notice that we're in for, at the very least, 8 more years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse. What truly amazes me is how the Republicans are all so willing to criticize the Democrats instead of fixing their broken party, which in and of itself, is one of the reasons our president(s) will be wearing a blue tie in the future.
Here is an updated list of the worst presidents

The 10 Worst Presidents

https://www.usnews.com/news/special-rep ... ts?onepage

Trump is trying very hard to make that list and Mueller,the justice department, and the FBI is going to assist him.
Trump is making Obama look very well

Telcoman

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Hope vs. Change: Why Some Democrats Are Turning on Obama’s Legacy
by T.A. Frank - Vanity Fair

...If today’s Democrats can’t beat Trump, then maybe Hillary Clinton wasn’t as bad a candidate as her critics claimed. And if Clinton wasn’t the problem, then what was the problem? Such questions are behind a recent spike of debates on the left over Barack Obama’s record. More and more voices seem to be saying, either obliquely or bluntly, that Obama was a bad president...

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Interesting article.

It asks could the Democratic Party been more like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during Obama's tenure.

The issue at stake is this, 30 years ago Obama would have been a moderate Republican.
More and more the right has pushed this country's politics further and further right.

This is why there is such a huge backlash and people like Bernie and AOC are gaining ground.
So the article is about a sub-group of Democrats that are discussing Obama's legacy through today's lens.
No issue there. It's always good to see where you came from and understand past mistakes.

To use that article in the context of this thread, "Obama named worst president in 6 decades", is telling.

Ask historian's where they rank the US President's Rogue.
Their findings are a bit different than the public surveys you post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... ey_results

User avatar
szh
Posts: 18857
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

RCA wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:06 am
Ask historian's where they rank the US President's Rogue.
Their findings are a bit different than the public surveys you post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... ey_results
Yes, indeed! :yesnod

Z

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

szh wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:39 pm
RCA wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:06 am
Ask historian's where they rank the US President's Rogue.
Their findings are a bit different than the public surveys you post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... ey_results
Yes, indeed! :yesnod

Z
:lolling:
If you guys think these are any less biased, you are woefully naive.
Let’s start with the first such rankings. They were done in 1948 and again in 1962 under the aegis of Arthur Schlesinger Sr., a prominent Harvard historian who was an ardent New Deal Democrat. His surveys, which formed a mold for everything that came later, asked historians to put every previous president into one of five categories: great, near great, average, below average, and failure. In 1996, his son and namesake, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., started doing the same thing, with similar results.

The Schlesingers’ methodology was, to put it mildly, problematic. First, because no objective criteria were established, the conclusions are impressionistic, almost by definition. Second, under their system, there’s no way to assign a president credit for a success and give him demerits for a failure. For that reason, their ratings are incomplete and misleading. Lyndon Johnson, for instance, is lauded for his civil rights record and faulted for his disastrous Vietnam policies, but the only way to reconcile the two areas is to give him an “average” grade. This is particularly discordant for LBJ, who didn’t strike anybody who knew him as average on any day of his life.

The third weakness in the Schlesingers’ ratings racket is their obvious ideological bias. They basically polled their pals, which is to say, fellow liberals—and political activists at that. How liberal? How activist? Schlesinger Jr. co-founded the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action. He also worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and was such a Democratic Party partisan that he wrote an acclaimed biography of Andrew Jackson without mentioning the Seminole Indians or Cherokees or the Trail of Tears.
The classic survey started by historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. and continued by his son, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., invited complaints about its Democratic bias, and focused research on presidential rankings suggests that political preferences play a role in just about any expert rankings. Perhaps the most systematic analysis of partisanship in presidential rankings to date was done by Joseph Uscinski and Arthur Simon. They found that expert rankings of Democratic presidents are consistently higher — and those of Republicans lower — than the determinations of the general public.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71061
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Just imagine if DJT spearheaded a law that levied a fine against everyone who didn't want a border wall...

...kinda like what BHO did with Obamacare. :)

I'll just sit here and be smug until someone can explain the difference. No copypasta, slow kids!

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 4:14 pm
:lolling:
If you guys think these are any less biased, you are woefully naive.
Yeah all those biased intellectuals that study history and presidents for a living VS 1,446 random registered voters.

Meanwhile in the same exact Quinnipiac University poll this thread spawned those same 1,446 people were asked:
  • 35. Thinking about the United States Presidents we have had since World War II: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which one would you consider the best president?
Obama was the 4th best President since WWII.
Beating out Eisenhower, Truman, Johnson, Bush Sr. and others.
Fun fact those 1,446 people thought Carter was a better President than Bush Jr.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-de ... aseID=2056

Professionals are biased fake news but rando registered voters are equals in your eyes.

Rogue you can do better.
AZhitman wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:26 pm
Just imagine if DJT spearheaded a law that levied a fine against everyone who didn't want a border wall...
...kinda like what BHO did with Obamacare. :)

I'll just sit here and be smug until someone can explain the difference. No copypasta, slow kids!
I understand the frustration.

In Arizona if you want to operate a motor vehicle it is required to have car insurance.
Are their any penalties or "fines" for those who operate a motor vehicles without insurance?

krimsonviper
Posts: 21055
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:04 pm
Car: 2010 MS3 -PAID
2010 Mazda 3i Touring -Totaled
2006 Mazda 3i Sport -Totaled
1989 S13 -Sold
1990 S13 -Sold
Location: NorCal

Post

Rather interesting that scholars, both left and right, have actually dubbed Trump at the bottom. Conservatives keeping him in the bottom five, being beaten out by A. Johnson, Pierce, W.H. Harrison, and Buchanan.

Years into his presidency, it's plagued with failures upon failures, and nothing good helping the majority of the people. The tax cuts people raved about caught a lot of people off guard and ended up owing the government money. The less money in the government, the less government systems will be effective. Our education continues to spiral. Our health continues to splinter. The government shutdown caused nothing but harm and he gained nothing in his favor. Who knows what repercussions will come from that fiasco as some people may have borrowed money from money lenders and that's a f*** fiasco. Children still being separated from their families and more legal issues than there are words in George R.R. Martin's books. Our global allies don't welcome us and are turning their backs on us, weakening our strength globally. North Korea is now mobilizing their nuclear arsenal and hiding it better while our government sits on the fence twiddling it's thumbs about a f*** wall that does nothing to curb the issues it's talking about. Not sure how anyone can continue to support this nutbag and his ways.

And this government and the Trump spearhead wedges the two sides further and further apart as ones politically in the middle turn further and further away from politics pushing this country from the very freedom it fought for and won back in it's inception. This country is in a very grave situation and Trump is only a symptom of it.

krimsonviper
Posts: 21055
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:04 pm
Car: 2010 MS3 -PAID
2010 Mazda 3i Touring -Totaled
2006 Mazda 3i Sport -Totaled
1989 S13 -Sold
1990 S13 -Sold
Location: NorCal

Post

Forgot to include my link regarding Trump being the worst president in decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... dents.html

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

krimsonviper wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:29 pm
Forgot to include my link regarding Trump being the worst president in decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... dents.html
Image

Image

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Impeachment coming soon

Trump ship is sinking
6 Key Revelations of Taylor’s Opening Statement to Impeachment Investigators

William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, delivered detailed testimony on Tuesday about the actions at the heart of the inquiry.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/u...gtype=Homepage

"WASHINGTON — William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Kiev, provided the most explicit account to date of President Trump’s insistence that Ukraine publicly announce an investigation of Mr. Trump’s political rivals in exchange for an Oval Office meeting and military assistance to fight Russian-led forces.

Mr. Taylor said he and other top officials were alarmed by a shadow foreign policy that put Ukrainian lives at risk for Mr. Trump’s political gain. The following are key parts of his opening statement.


Read the Ukraine Envoy’s Statement to Impeachment Inquiry
William B. Taylor Jr., the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, delivered testimony to impeachment investigators on Tuesday that described an effort by President Trump to withhold aid for Ukraine until the country’s leader agreed to investigate Mr. Trump’s political rivals.



1. Taylor described an explicit quid pro quo.
Mr. Taylor said he was told by Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union, that military aid for Ukraine and an Oval Office meeting between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine were contingent on the Ukrainians announcing that they were investigating a company, Burisma, that had hired Hunter Biden, the son of Joseph R. Biden Jr. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, helped convey the demands, he said.



By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.

Later in his statement he said,



Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.

2. The White House had two channels on Ukraine policy: official and unofficial. Giuliani helped steer the unofficial policy.

I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy toward Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. As the Chief of Mission, I had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes, including the bulk of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption. This regular channel of U.S. policy-making has consistently had strong, bipartisan support both in Congress and in all administrations since Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991.

At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani.

Later he said,

When I first arrived in Kyiv, in June and July, the actions of both the regular and the irregular channels of foreign policy served the same goal-a strong U.S.-Ukraine partnership — but it became clear to me by August that the channels had diverged in their objectives. As this occurred, I became increasingly concerned.

3. Taylor was told Ukraine had to ‘pay up’ before the president would ‘sign a check.’

Before these text messages, during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador Volker used the same terms several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not “owe” President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was “crazy,” as I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9.

4. Taylor said Ukrainians would die at the hands of Russian led-forces as a result of the delay in American military aid.

Ambassador Volker and I traveled to the front line in northern Donbas to receive a briefing from the commander of the forces on the line of contact. Arriving for the briefing in the military headquarters, the commander thanked us for security assistance, but I was aware that this assistance was on hold, which made me uncomfortable.

Ambassador Volker and I could see the armed and hostile Russian-led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact. Over 13,000 Ukrainians had been killed in the war, one or two a week. More Ukrainians would undoubtedly die without the U.S. assistance.

5. Bolton fought the effort to hijack the policy toward Ukraine and Pompeo did not respond directly to complaints, Taylor said.
Two National Security Council staffers, Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman, told Mr. Taylor that John R. Bolton, then national security adviser and their boss, was very disturbed by the demands that Ukraine launch criminal inquiries.

In the same July 19 phone call, they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting with the Ukrainian officials at the White House. Specifically, they told me that Ambassador Sondland had connected “investigations” with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelensky, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling Dr. Hill and Mr. Vindman that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics. He also directed Dr. Hill to “brief the lawyers.” Dr. Hill said that Ambassador Bolton referred to this as a “drug deal” after the July 10 meeting. Ambassador Bolton opposed a call between President Zelensky and President Trump out of concern that it “would be a disaster.”

Needless to say, the Ukrainians in the meetings were confused. Ambassador Bolton, in the regular Ukraine policy decision-making channel, wanted to talk about security, energy, and reform; Ambassador Sondland, a participant in the irregular channel, wanted to talk about the connection between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations.

Mr. Taylor complained to Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, that it was “folly” to withhold military aid.

Near the end of Ambassador Bolton’s visit, I asked to meet him privately, during which I expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of military assistance to Ukraine while the Ukrainians were defending their country from Russian aggression. Ambassador Bolton recommended that I send a first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo directly, relaying my concerns. I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29, describing the “folly” I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government. I told the secretary that I could not and would not defend such a policy. Although I received no specific response, I heard that soon thereafter, the Secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting at the White House focused on security assistance for Ukraine.

6. Demands were made for secrecy and career officials, including Taylor, were left in the dark about key events.

I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with President Zelensky later that day. Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, Secretary [Rick] Perry, and I were on this call, dialing in from different locations. However, Ambassador Sondland said that he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelensky to the call.

Later he said,On July 25, President Trump and President Zelensky had the long-awaited phone conversation. Strangely, even though I was Chief of Mission and was scheduled to meet with President Zelensky along with Ambassador Volker the following day, I received no readout of the call from the White House. The Ukrainian government issued a short, cryptic summary.

BTW there were many republicans in the room listening to the testimony. Many were shocked at what they were hearing
The whistle blower is no longer needed as many witnesses are confirming the whistle blower complaint.

I wonder why Hannity fails to mention all of this?

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Impeachment coming soon! :) :yesnod

Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal, Judge Rules, Giving Democrats a Victory

The finding came in an order directing the Justice Department to hand over secret grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation to House impeachment investigators.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/p ... e=Homepage

"WASHINGTON — A federal judge handed a victory to House Democrats on Friday when she ruled that they were legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a decision that undercut President Trump’s arguments that the investigation is a sham.

The declaration came in a 75-page opinion by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She ruled that the House Judiciary Committee was entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Typically, Congress has no right to view such evidence. But in 1974, the courts permitted lawmakers to see such materials as they weighed whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon. The House is now immersed in the same process focused on Mr. Trump, Judge Howell ruled, and that easily outweighs any need to keep the information secret from lawmakers.

And in a rebuke to the Trump administration, she wrote that the White House strategy to stonewall the House had actually strengthened lawmakers’ case. She cited Mr. Trump’s vow to fight “all” congressional subpoenas and an extraordinary directive by his White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, that executive branch officials should not provide testimony or documents to impeachment investigators."

Trump's removal from office can't come soon enough!

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Sat Oct 26, 2019 4:50 am
Image
“The walls are closing in.”


“It’s a tipping point.”


Slick Willie was Impeached, but not removed. Even if the House Democrats somehow managed to pass Articles of impeachment against Trump, the trial will be held in the Republican controlled Senate. Conviction requires a super majority of 67, and nobody sees that happening, including Nancy Pelosi. What the Democrats are banking on is that Trump will tuck tail and pull a Nixon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that ain't gonna happen.

Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russian collusion hoax is now a criminal investigation rather than simply an administrative inquiry. Heads are gonna roll, but Trump's won't be one of them. It’s officials in the Obama administration, up to and including President Obama himself, who've noticed the size of their rooms beginning to shrink. This Washington Post headline succinctly reminds its readers who the walls are closing in on now, “William Barr’s investigation should make Democrats nervous.”

Trump was quite clear: “What they did was treasonous, OK? It was treasonous.”

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:32 pm
Even if the House Democrats somehow managed to pass Articles of impeachment against Trump, the trial will be held in the Republican controlled Senate. Conviction requires a super majority of 67, and nobody sees that happening, including Nancy Pelosi. What the Democrats are banking on is that Trump will tuck tail and pull a Nixon. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that ain't gonna happen.
I agree with you.

So unlike Telco I don't think he will be convicted but based on the evidence we know he should be. It's clear as day.
If Trump can't be convicted with this, then Impeachment isn't a tool we as citizens have to check the Executive branch.

American citizens will be the losers.

Checks and balances are broken, the republic crumbles a bit more.
Rogue One wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:32 pm
Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russian collusion hoax is now a criminal investigation rather than simply an administrative inquiry. Heads are gonna roll, but Trump's won't be one of them. It’s officials in the Obama administration, up to and including President Obama himself, who've noticed the size of their rooms beginning to shrink. This Washington Post headline succinctly reminds its readers who the walls are closing in on now, “William Barr’s investigation should make Democrats nervous.”

Trump was quite clear: “What they did was treasonous, OK? It was treasonous.”
1st - I am sure even you know people can't trust Trump's judgement on literally anything. "a very normal and perfect call"

2nd - Russian Collusion hoax is what exactly? The origins of the Mueller Probe was about Russian interference in the election and we found that they interfered in our elections. While looking at interference we found lots of people on Team Trump aiding Russia in their efforts. Also Trump committed Obstruction of Justice during the investigation. What about that nessesary and fruitfull investigation was "a hoax"?

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Democrats Win Control in Virginia and Claim Narrow Victory in Kentucky Governor’s Race

Control of Virginia’s government fell to Democrats for the first time in decades, while Andy Beshear held an edge over Gov. Matt Bevin in the Kentucky election.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... e=Homepage


"And the president himself stood alongside Mr. Bevin Monday night in Lexington to argue that, while the combative governor is “a pain in the a**,” his defeat would send “a really bad message” beyond Kentucky’s borders.

But three years after handing the president a 30-point victory, Kentucky’s voters appeared to put their displeasure with the conservative Mr. Bevin, his controversial policies and even more controversial personality, over their partisan preferences."


You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:08 am
Democrats Win Control in Virginia and Claim Narrow Victory in Kentucky Governor’s Race

Control of Virginia’s government fell to Democrats for the first time in decades, while Andy Beshear held an edge over Gov. Matt Bevin in the Kentucky election.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... e=Homepage


"And the president himself stood alongside Mr. Bevin Monday night in Lexington to argue that, while the combative governor is “a pain in the a**,” his defeat would send “a really bad message” beyond Kentucky’s borders.

But three years after handing the president a 30-point victory, Kentucky’s voters appeared to put their displeasure with the conservative Mr. Bevin, his controversial policies and even more controversial personality, over their partisan preferences."


You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
Yawn. You know as well as I do that any wins by Republicans would be because of Russian collusion/interference, and any wins by Democrats is due to Ukrainian collusion/interference.

No one is surprised at the Democrats winning in Virginia. The state is heavily saturated with liberals in the DC suburbs, so much so that they tend to cancel out the votes of the rest of the state. Delaware has a similar problem in that Wilmington is little more than a suburb of Philadelphia, and as a voting block they overwhelm the less populated areas in the rest of the state that generally vote Republican.

As far as Kentucky goes, that race will likely be contested. The state was court ordered to remove 250,000 invalid voter registrations, but the outgoing AG drug his feet in complying and failed to complete the process before the election. Kentucky may well be the reason the US joins the rest of the civilized world and enacts nationwide uniform voter ID laws.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

Oh, and I like how you neglected to mention that Republicans have broken through and busted the Democratic Super-majority in the New Jersey State Assembly. Congratulations New Jersey!

One more thought about the Virginia results... In the wake of the #VAelections, do I get to break windows, block traffic, and form a mob of thugs to intimidate people? #Resist #NotMyLegislature

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:41 am
No one is surprised at the Democrats winning in Virginia. The state is heavily saturated with liberals in the DC suburbs, so much so that they tend to cancel out the votes of the rest of the state. Delaware has a similar problem in that Wilmington is little more than a suburb of Philadelphia, and as a voting block they overwhelm the less populated areas in the rest of the state that generally vote Republican.
So there is a scary trend happening and I hope you don't ignore it...

Suburbs used to vote majority Republican (including the "liberal" ones in Virginia). More and more suburbs are leaving the republican party. The Texas suburb that has been R since the 1960s where President Bush's family lives is now voting Democrat. It's happening everywhere.

Suburban voters worry about health care and education. Not immigration.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18282509/ ... ealth-care
Rogue One wrote:
Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:41 am
As far as Kentucky goes...
It doesn't matter really.

Bevin was a Trumpist and stain on Kentucky and he lost to Beshear, a conservative.
Every other race was won by Republicans. Dems didn't make any inroads, Kentucky is still very Red.

But I hope this shows Trumpist clowns that people don't tolerate stupid.

ALSO this thread is about "Obama named Worst President" according to some random people who also think he's a great president at the same time. :facepalm:

User avatar
Bubba1
Moderator
Posts: 18355
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:42 pm
Car: 2003 Nissan 350z
2008 Acura TSX
2008 Toyota Corolla S
2001 Toyota Avalon XLS

Post

I think Rogue also forgot to mention that one of the other reasons Virginia turned blue was their recent court decision redrawing voter districts to undo much of the Republican gerrymandered advantage that they've enjoyed in that state for many years. I don't believe that is the only reason for the blue flip, but it certainly helped the dems there.

As far as NJ, the republicans did indeed pick up a couple seats there, though the democrats retained their traditional strong majority. Mildly significant news at best, far from earth shaking. Not sure either side in NJ should be beating their chest about scoring a big victory there.

User avatar
RCA
Posts: 8226
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:09 am

Post

Bubba1 wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:33 am
Virginia turned blue was their recent court decision redrawing voter districts to undo much of the Republican gerrymandered advantage

As far as NJ...
Virginia courts ruled the maps must change, but they haven't yet.
The Dems won with Republican maps in Virginia.

NJ Dems politicians definitely see this election as a loss. They lost 4 seats in swing districts.
NJ Gov. Phil Murphy is very much disliked. NJ is a tax-sensitive state and Phil has an expensive agenda but NJ just doesn't have the money.

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Book by ‘Anonymous’ describes Trump as cruel, inept and a danger to the nation

Philip Rucker

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...VqG?li=BBnb7Kz

"Senior Trump administration officials considered resigning en masse last year in a “midnight self-massacre” to sound a public alarm about President Trump’s conduct, but rejected the idea because they believed it would further destabilize an already teetering government, according to a new book by an unnamed author."

In “ A Warning A Warning
” by Anonymous, obtained by The Washington Post ahead of its release, a writer described only as “a senior official in the Trump administration” paints a chilling portrait of the president as cruel, inept and a danger to the nation he was elected to lead.

]Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

The author — who first captured attention in 2018 as the unidentified author of a New York Times opinion column — describes Trump careening from one self-inflicted crisis to the next, “like a twelve-year-old in an air traffic control tower, pushing the buttons of government indiscriminately, indifferent to the planes skidding across the runway and the flights frantically diverting away from the airport.”


The book is an unsparing character study of Trump, from his morality to his intellectual depth, which the author writes is based on his or her observations and experiences. The author claims many other current and former administration officials share his or her views.

The 259-page book — which was published by Twelve, an imprint of Grand Central Publishing/Hachette Book Group, and goes on sale Nov. 19 — does not re-create many specific episodes in vivid detail, which the author writes was intentional to protect his or her identity.

At a moment when a stream of political appointees and career public servants have testified before Congress about Trump’s conduct as part of the House impeachment inquiry, the book’s author defends his or her decision to remain anonymous.

“I have decided to publish this anonymously because this debate is not about me,” the author writes. “It is about us. It is about how we want the presidency to reflect our country, and that is where the discussion should center. Some will call this ‘cowardice.’ My feelings are not hurt by the accusation. Nor am I unprepared to attach my name to criticism of President Trump. I may do so, in due course.”

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham derided the book as a “work of fiction” and its anonymous author as a “coward.”

“The coward who wrote this book didn’t put their name on it because it is nothing but lies,” Grisham wrote in an email. “Real authors reach out to their subjects to get things fact checked — but this person is in hiding, making that very basic part of being a real writer impossible. Reporters who choose to write about this farce should have the journalistic integrity to cover the book as what it is — a work of fiction.”

Earlier this week, the Justice Department warned Hachette and the author’s agents, Matt Latimer and Keith Urbahn of Javelin, that the anonymous official may be violating a nondisclosure agreement. Javelin responded by accusing the administration of seeking to unmask the author.

The author’s Sept. 5, 2018, *op-ed in the Times, headlined “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” depicted some senior officials as a bulwark protecting the country from the president’s reckless impulses. Trump denounced it at the time as treasonous."

The author describes senior officials waking up in the morning “in a full-blown panic” over the wild pronouncements the president had made on Twitter.

“It’s like showing up at the nursing home at daybreak to find your elderly uncle running pantsless across the courtyard and cursing loudly about the cafeteria food, as worried attendants tried to catch him,” the author writes. “You’re stunned, amused, and embarrassed all at the same time. Only your uncle probably wouldn’t do it every single day, his words aren’t broadcast to the public, and he doesn’t have to lead the US government once he puts his pants on.”

The book depicts Trump as making misogynistic and racist comments behind the scenes.

“I’ve sat and listened in uncomfortable silence as he talks about a woman’s appearance or performance,” the author writes. “He comments on makeup. He makes jokes about weight. He critiques clothing. He questions the toughness of women in and around his orbit. He uses words like ‘sweetie’ and ‘honey’ to address accomplished professionals. This is precisely the way a boss shouldn’t act in the work environment.”

The author alleges that Trump attempted a Hispanic accent during an Oval Office meeting to complain about migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/o...esistance.html

"The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations."
"On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over."

Scary

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

" You can't promote principled anti- corruption action without pissing off corrupt people"

George Kent

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Another Trump supporter

Trump ally Roger Stone found guilty of lying to Congress, witness tampering

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

Roger Stone, a longtime friend and confidant of President Donald Trump, was found guilty of lying to Congress by a jury in federal court in Washington, D.C.
Stone, 67, a self-described political trickster, was charged with lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. He had pleaded not guilty in the case.

Almost everyone who gets close to Trump winds up going to jail

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Did President Trump Just Earn Himself Another Article of Impeachment?

Now there’s witness intimidation and clearer evidence he had no interest in cleaning up Ukraine.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/opin ... e=Homepage


Republican defenders of Donald Trump have argued that he withheld congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine and a promised White House meeting because he wanted assurances that Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was serious about fighting corruption.

Sworn testimony in the House impeachment inquiry on Friday obliterated that defense, revealing that Mr. Trump was interested in assurances of a very different kind.

David Holmes, an official in the American Embassy in Kiev, testified to lawmakers privately that he had overheard a telephone conversation in which the ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, assured the American president that his Ukrainian counterpart “loves your a**” and will do “anything you ask him to,” including to open investigations into the family of Mr. Trump’s leading Democratic rival, Joe Biden.

Mr. Holmes said that he overheard the conversation while sitting at a restaurant in Kiev with Mr. Sondland. Mr. Trump was speaking so loudly, Mr. Holmes said, that the ambassador held the phone away from his ear and Mr. Holmes could hear Mr. Trump demanding to know if Mr. Zelensky had committed to the investigations. Thus, apparently, is diplomacy conducted at the highest levels of the Trump administration.
What a contrast that ham-fisted scene made with the dignified, professional appearance before the committee earlier in the day by Marie Yovanovitch, the nation’s top envoy to Ukraine until President Trump yanked her back without explanation this spring. She described how, as she sought to promote democracy and rule of law in Ukraine, the president’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, worked with a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor to trash her reputation and force her out of her post.

As George Kent, a top State Department official, put it in his own testimony on Wednesday, “You can’t promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people.”

For Mr. Trump, Ms. Yovanovitch’s determined pursuit of longstanding American anticorruption efforts was evidently a problem. It was impossible to square his treatment of the ambassador, a career Foreign Service officer with an exemplary record, and his conversation with Mr. Sondland with any claim that Mr. Trump was intent on advancing the rule of law, as opposed to his own political interest.

In fact, Mr. Holmes testified, Mr. Sondland told him that Mr. Trump did not care about Ukraine but only “big stuff” like the investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president.

As Ms. Yovanovitch testified about the smear campaign against her, Mr. Trump weighed in from the White House as though eager to confirm her story. “Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad,” he tweeted, preposterously blaming her for the chaos in Somalia, one of several hardship posts in which she served.
Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, interrupted the questioning to let the ambassador know that the president was attacking her.

After reading Ms. Yovanovitch one of the belligerent tweets, Mr. Schiff asked: “What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?”

“Well, it’s very intimidating,” she said, visibly shaken.

Mr. Schiff assured her that “some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”

Translation: The president may just have earned himself an article of impeachment.

In a refreshing development, the ensuing criticism of Mr. Trump’s Twitter fit was bipartisan. Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, said the president’s tweeting “was wrong.”

“Extraordinarily poor judgment,” said Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel at the center of President Clinton’s impeachment, on Fox News. “Obviously this was quite injurious.” Fox News’ Bret Baier called it “a turning point in this hearing.”

Even an effort by Republican lawmakers on Friday to clear the president wound up underscoring how indifferent he was to wrongdoing by officials in Ukraine.

After Mr. Trump first spoke with Mr. Zelensky on April 21, to congratulate him on his electoral victory, the White House said Mr. Trump had expressed his commitment to work with Mr. Zelensky “to implement reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity, and root out corruption.” But at the public hearing on Friday, Representative Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, read a fuller account of the conversation that the White House had just released. Mr. Trump spoke about how well the United States was doing and that “When I owned Miss Universe … Ukraine was always very well represented.”

He spoke not a word about corruption.


Thankfully there are still great Americans that believe in upholding the constitution and the rule of law.

Unfortunately there are still many a$$holes that still believe Trump's shyt

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:49 pm
Did President Trump Just Earn Himself Another Article of Impeachment?

Now there’s witness intimidation and clearer evidence he had no interest in cleaning up Ukraine.

Translation: The president may just have earned himself an article of impeachment.

Unfortunately there are still many a$$holes that still believe Trump's shyt
:rotfl :rotfl :rotfl

There are only three ways to commit witness intimidation under the law: “physically harming a witness, bribing a witness, or coercing a witness to lie.”

But hey, who cares about the law when you're conducting a Kangaroo Court?

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Rogue One wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:31 am
telcoman wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:49 pm
Did President Trump Just Earn Himself Another Article of Impeachment?

Now there’s witness intimidation and clearer evidence he had no interest in cleaning up Ukraine.

Translation: The president may just have earned himself an article of impeachment.

Unfortunately there are still many a$$holes that still believe Trump's shyt
:rotfl :rotfl :rotfl

There are only three ways to commit witness intimidation under the law: “physically harming a witness, bribing a witness, or coercing a witness to lie.”

But hey, who cares about the law when you're conducting a Kangaroo Court?
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-c ... -1512.html

https://www.frontpagelive.com/2019/11/1 ... real-time/

During her testimony Donald Trump tweeted

"Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors."

That doesn't sound kosher to me.

User avatar
Rogue One
Administrator
Posts: 8789
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:15 pm
Car: 2011 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Nissan Rogue SL
2012 Honda CR-V LX
2022 Honda Pilot Special Edition
Location: Florida, USA

Post

telcoman wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:20 pm

During her testimony Donald Trump tweeted

That doesn't sound kosher to me.
What pray tell was intimidating about that tweet? And for that matter, if Adam Shiftless hadn't read the tweet out to her during his circus, she wouldn't have found out about it until AFTER she'd given her testimony. Not a very convincing argument you've got there.

But as was mentioned previously, we're off topic.

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

Read Trump’s Letter to Pelosi
Protesting Impeachment

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...si-letter.html

Anyone who doesn't believe that the American people managed to elect an a$$hole have their head up their a$$


Return to “Politics Etc.”