Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[tim_m]

Rivera definitely deserves it, he's a great example of someone who uses his fame and fortune to help people. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Trump to say he's the best pitcher ever, closer absolutely though.

Trump said "maybe" the best pitcher of all time. and I think that is a fair comment, because Mo deserves to be mentioned among the all time great pitchers. it is difficult to compare SPs to closers, but the impact he had on games was enormous and sometimes unmeasurable. if the Yankees got a lead, there was a psychological advantage because the other team knew if they were down in the 8th or 9th, it was over.

but yeah, his efforts helping people is world class. 

No doubt about that, he was as automatic they come, especially in October and certainly the greatest relief pitcher of all time. I don't see any of his postseason numbers being touched ever. That's obviously not the reason he got this medal though, it's for using his wreath and celebrity to help those who need it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

John Bolton Is Mad That Trump Wouldn't Let Him Bomb Iran

Trump's recently fired national security adviser fumed about the president's unwillingness to launch another half-cocked war and says U.S. should stay in Afghanistan basically forever.

Recently fired national security advisor John Bolton is spending his first days of forced retirement complaining about how he was thisclose to finally starting a war with Iran—if only President Donald Trump hadn't stopped him.

Politico reports that Bolton, during a private lunch on Wednesday hosted by a neoconservative think tank, openly stewed about his inability to convince Trump to bomb Iran. In particular, Bolton claimed the United States should have attacked Iran in June, after the Islamic Republic was blamed for shooting down a U.S. drone.

"During Wednesday's luncheon, Bolton said the planned response had gone through the full process and everybody in the White House had agreed on the retaliatory strike," Politico's Daniel Lippman writes. "But 'a high authority, at the very last minute,' without telling anyone, decided not to do it, Bolton complained."

That high authority, of course, was the president himself—who may have been convinced to change course, somewhat incredibly, by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Regardless of how weirdly Trump may have come to the decision, his willingness to pull back from a planned military strike is undeniably one of the strongest moments of his presidency. As I wrote at the time, Trump was absolutely right to conclude that killing an estimated 150 Iranians was "not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."

Unsurprisingly, Bolton felt differently. That difference of opinion may have eventually led to Bolton's dismissal on September 10. Another key point of disagreement seems to have been the Trump administration's policy in Afghanistan. Trump has ordered Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to conduct peace negotiations with the Taliban in advance of a possible withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Central Asian nation, where we've been at war for nearly 18 years.

The possibility of ending a conflict that seems to accomplish nothing positive for American national security was reportedly anathema to Bolton. During Wednesday's lunch, Politico reports, Bolton said the U.S. should keep 8,600 troops in Afghanistan and said it "doesn't make any sense" to enter into peace negotiations with the Taliban.

But what really doesn't make any sense is Bolton's neoconservative foreign policy, which has been repudiated by nearly two decades of expensive, bloody, and futile military engagements across the Middle East and Central Asia that have left chaos and new breeding grounds for terrorism in their wake.

Similarly, Bolton reportedly attempted to undermine the president's halting attempts to make peace with America's other enemies.

As Reason's Christian Britschgi noted last week:

    In April 2018, for example, Bolton seemingly attempted to sabotage his boss's peace overtures to North Korea by suggesting that the U.S. would pursue the "Libyan model" of disarming the country. (The U.S. helped to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after he had agreed to give up his country's nuclear program.)

    Bolton also helped to stall a U.S. exit from Syria. In December 2018, Trump announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing military forces from the country, only to have Bolton condition that withdrawal on a Turkish agreement to not attack Kurdish forces in Syria.

Whatever disagreements libertarians may have with Trump's foreign policy—and, indeed, there is plenty of room to criticize the president in that arena—his resistance to Bolton's warmongering ways and his eventual decision to cast off failed Bush-era "nation-building" policies should be applauded.

A world in which John Bolton says mean things about the president during lunch is far safer than a world in which John Bolton speaks to the president over lunch.

https://reason.com/2019/09/18/john-bolton-is-mad-that-trump-wouldnt-let-him-bomb-iran/?fbclid=IwAR3ACx8wU74fDXf2yS1JUZvzJq22BieSkLvIn8Y9wtTkiJlbSzn5NfOMOgY

[sandman]

John Bolton Is Mad That Trump Wouldn't Let Him Bomb Iran

Trump's recently fired national security adviser fumed about the president's unwillingness to launch another half-cocked war and says U.S. should stay in Afghanistan basically forever.

Recently fired national security advisor John Bolton is spending his first days of forced retirement complaining about how he was thisclose to finally starting a war with Iran—if only President Donald Trump hadn't stopped him.

Politico reports that Bolton, during a private lunch on Wednesday hosted by a neoconservative think tank, openly stewed about his inability to convince Trump to bomb Iran. In particular, Bolton claimed the United States should have attacked Iran in June, after the Islamic Republic was blamed for shooting down a U.S. drone.

"During Wednesday's luncheon, Bolton said the planned response had gone through the full process and everybody in the White House had agreed on the retaliatory strike," Politico's Daniel Lippman writes. "But 'a high authority, at the very last minute,' without telling anyone, decided not to do it, Bolton complained."

That high authority, of course, was the president himself—who may have been convinced to change course, somewhat incredibly, by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Regardless of how weirdly Trump may have come to the decision, his willingness to pull back from a planned military strike is undeniably one of the strongest moments of his presidency. As I wrote at the time, Trump was absolutely right to conclude that killing an estimated 150 Iranians was "not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."

Unsurprisingly, Bolton felt differently. That difference of opinion may have eventually led to Bolton's dismissal on September 10. Another key point of disagreement seems to have been the Trump administration's policy in Afghanistan. Trump has ordered Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to conduct peace negotiations with the Taliban in advance of a possible withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Central Asian nation, where we've been at war for nearly 18 years.

The possibility of ending a conflict that seems to accomplish nothing positive for American national security was reportedly anathema to Bolton. During Wednesday's lunch, Politico reports, Bolton said the U.S. should keep 8,600 troops in Afghanistan and said it "doesn't make any sense" to enter into peace negotiations with the Taliban.

But what really doesn't make any sense is Bolton's neoconservative foreign policy, which has been repudiated by nearly two decades of expensive, bloody, and futile military engagements across the Middle East and Central Asia that have left chaos and new breeding grounds for terrorism in their wake.

Similarly, Bolton reportedly attempted to undermine the president's halting attempts to make peace with America's other enemies.

As Reason's Christian Britschgi noted last week:

    In April 2018, for example, Bolton seemingly attempted to sabotage his boss's peace overtures to North Korea by suggesting that the U.S. would pursue the "Libyan model" of disarming the country. (The U.S. helped to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after he had agreed to give up his country's nuclear program.)

    Bolton also helped to stall a U.S. exit from Syria. In December 2018, Trump announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing military forces from the country, only to have Bolton condition that withdrawal on a Turkish agreement to not attack Kurdish forces in Syria.

Whatever disagreements libertarians may have with Trump's foreign policy—and, indeed, there is plenty of room to criticize the president in that arena—his resistance to Bolton's warmongering ways and his eventual decision to cast off failed Bush-era "nation-building" policies should be applauded.

A world in which John Bolton says mean things about the president during lunch is far safer than a world in which John Bolton speaks to the president over lunch.

https://reason.com/2019/09/18/john-bolton-is-mad-that-trump-wouldnt-let-him-bomb-iran/?fbclid=IwAR3ACx8wU74fDXf2yS1JUZvzJq22BieSkLvIn8Y9wtTkiJlbSzn5NfOMOgY

interesting stuff. thanks for posting. the comments I bolded above are powerful.

[tim_m]

John Bolton Is Mad That Trump Wouldn't Let Him Bomb Iran

Trump's recently fired national security adviser fumed about the president's unwillingness to launch another half-cocked war and says U.S. should stay in Afghanistan basically forever.

Recently fired national security advisor John Bolton is spending his first days of forced retirement complaining about how he was thisclose to finally starting a war with Iran—if only President Donald Trump hadn't stopped him.

Politico reports that Bolton, during a private lunch on Wednesday hosted by a neoconservative think tank, openly stewed about his inability to convince Trump to bomb Iran. In particular, Bolton claimed the United States should have attacked Iran in June, after the Islamic Republic was blamed for shooting down a U.S. drone.

"During Wednesday's luncheon, Bolton said the planned response had gone through the full process and everybody in the White House had agreed on the retaliatory strike," Politico's Daniel Lippman writes. "But 'a high authority, at the very last minute,' without telling anyone, decided not to do it, Bolton complained."

That high authority, of course, was the president himself—who may have been convinced to change course, somewhat incredibly, by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Regardless of how weirdly Trump may have come to the decision, his willingness to pull back from a planned military strike is undeniably one of the strongest moments of his presidency. As I wrote at the time, Trump was absolutely right to conclude that killing an estimated 150 Iranians was "not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."

Unsurprisingly, Bolton felt differently. That difference of opinion may have eventually led to Bolton's dismissal on September 10. Another key point of disagreement seems to have been the Trump administration's policy in Afghanistan. Trump has ordered Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to conduct peace negotiations with the Taliban in advance of a possible withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Central Asian nation, where we've been at war for nearly 18 years.

The possibility of ending a conflict that seems to accomplish nothing positive for American national security was reportedly anathema to Bolton. During Wednesday's lunch, Politico reports, Bolton said the U.S. should keep 8,600 troops in Afghanistan and said it "doesn't make any sense" to enter into peace negotiations with the Taliban.

But what really doesn't make any sense is Bolton's neoconservative foreign policy, which has been repudiated by nearly two decades of expensive, bloody, and futile military engagements across the Middle East and Central Asia that have left chaos and new breeding grounds for terrorism in their wake.

Similarly, Bolton reportedly attempted to undermine the president's halting attempts to make peace with America's other enemies.

As Reason's Christian Britschgi noted last week:

    In April 2018, for example, Bolton seemingly attempted to sabotage his boss's peace overtures to North Korea by suggesting that the U.S. would pursue the "Libyan model" of disarming the country. (The U.S. helped to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi after he had agreed to give up his country's nuclear program.)

    Bolton also helped to stall a U.S. exit from Syria. In December 2018, Trump announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing military forces from the country, only to have Bolton condition that withdrawal on a Turkish agreement to not attack Kurdish forces in Syria.

Whatever disagreements libertarians may have with Trump's foreign policy—and, indeed, there is plenty of room to criticize the president in that arena—his resistance to Bolton's warmongering ways and his eventual decision to cast off failed Bush-era "nation-building" policies should be applauded.

A world in which John Bolton says mean things about the president during lunch is far safer than a world in which John Bolton speaks to the president over lunch.

https://reason.com/2019/09/18/john-bolton-is-mad-that-trump-wouldnt-let-him-bomb-iran/?fbclid=IwAR3ACx8wU74fDXf2yS1JUZvzJq22BieSkLvIn8Y9wtTkiJlbSzn5NfOMOgY

Credit to Trump for not allowing him to convince him to do this.

[tim_m]

Well so much for the credit i gave him yesterday, he's sending troops to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Sending more troops  in doesn't necessarily mean we are going to invade or bomb Iran. 

[tim_m]

I sure hope not.

[tim_m]

So much fuckery coming out lately. We have Trump asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent and we have Trump days before ordering aid withheld from Ukraine. This is conspiracy, extortion bribery and treason. Tell me now the Mueller report is bunk. I dare you.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The transcript on the call between Trump and the Ukraine leader comes out today. So we will get to know what was said.

We already know what was said by Biden regarding the pressure he put on Ukraine when he was VP.

[pilferk]

The transcript on the call between Trump and the Ukraine leader comes out today. So we will get to know what was said.

We already know what was said by Biden regarding the pressure he put on Ukraine when he was VP.

Not exactly.

Foreign leader calls are not actually transcribed, like you are thinking. Calling it a transcript is a little misleading....by the admin and media. Its more of a readout/summary, written by a national intelligence agency employee.

What will be more informative will be the whistleblower testimony to the intelligence committees later this week.

[tim_m]

The transcript on the call between Trump and the Ukraine leader comes out today. So we will get to know what was said.

We already know what was said by Biden regarding the pressure he put on Ukraine when he was VP.

Not exactly.

Foreign leader calls are not actually transcribed, like you are thinking. Calling it a transcript is a little misleading....by the admin and media. Its more of a readout/summary, written by a national intelligence agency employee.

What will be more informative will be the whistleblower testimony to the intelligence committees later this week.

Which makes sense for obvious reasons, you obviously don't want to reveal information that would be highly confidential that was discussed during said calls. So a word by word transcription is likely impossible.

[PermissionToLand]

if you genuinely want to help people, elected office is the last place you would go.

you go there for the control, the money, the power.

you're right about the salary. but there are connections and relationships and information that elected officials are privy to, that we are not. the higher the office, the higher the payoffs.

Right, because power certainly can't be used to help people! Working at a local food bank has a larger effect than national policy!

but dem voters are not helping by voting for lifelong politicians like Biden, Bernie, and Warren. same old shit with any of them.  

Yes, unlike those spring chickens in the GOP like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhoffe...

you really show your lack of life experience when the best example you come up with for helping people is working in a soup kitchen. also, how many politicians actually influence national policy? not a very large number. and those are set positions, so if it wasn't chuck schumer (or whoever), someone else would fill that role to carry forward the will of each party. there would be no void.

Let's hear your example then, Mr. Life Experience.

Who said anything about a void? You were talking about lifelong career politicians. Try to keep up with yourself, at least!

Yes, we all know parties can never be changed. Just ask the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders or your orange daddy.

but look at the people that have created their own initiatives to help people all across the country. they run these initiatives like a small business and make a difference in thousands of peoples lives. open your mind a little and you could come up with many ways to invest in others and make a career out of helping people.

You mean they run them to skim a profit off the work of others and take massive tax breaks? How charitable.

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE!!! In a country of 320 Million! 

Over here in reality, charities simply cannot meet the needs of the destitute, and are less effective and efficient than government safety nets.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2014-mar-30-la-fi-hiltzik-20140330-story.html

"To begin with, charitable organizations typically fall prey to the same economic pressures as the rest of society. “Giving falls when it’s needed the most,” observes Christopher Wimer, an expert on poverty and the social safety net at Columbia University."

"A 2007 study by Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy found that only 30% of individual giving in the benchmark year of 2005 was aimed at the needs of the poor — including contributions for basic needs, donations to healthcare institutions, for scholarships and allocations from religious groups. Philanthropy appears to be more about the pursuit of one’s own projects, a mechanism for the expression of one’s values or preferences rather than a mechanism for redistribution or relief for the poor. The largest single recipient of philanthropy is religion — 32% of the total"

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy/

It's also funny that conservatives hate "government handouts", but support private handouts, which actually have FAR fewer controls for abuse, if any.

[PermissionToLand]

it's always worth a try to end war through diplomacy and understanding the other side.

Funny how that wasn't the case when Obama did it... there's that selective amnesia again!

what war did Obama end? and how did he use diplomacy and understanding the other side to end it? and who said it was not worth a try when Obama did it? was it someone on this board? I was fairly active in the Obama thread and this is not ringing a bell. I am trying to better understand your "selective amnesia" comment.

Wow, this piddling response is all you have? 

That's it, boys! He's conceding every thing else I said!!!

You said "try to end a war". Man, you can't even comprehend your own comments? This is getting sad.

The answer to your questions is in the comment you are quoting. Hint: It's the part your cropped out because you wanted to ignore it.

Republicans were apoplectic when Obama talked with Raul Castro, and are now defending Trump literally saying he "fell in love" with Kim Jong Un. You cannot even write a more absurd parody of GOP hypocrisy. They have become an absolute joke of a party with zero pretense of credibility.

https://time.com/4265768/president-obama-cuba-trip-republicans/

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/marco-rubio-who-blasted-obamas-castro-meeting-praises-trumps-kim-summit-10434438

[PermissionToLand]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/10/politics/donald-trump-hbcu-conference/index.html

“African-Americans built this nation through generations of blood, sweat and tears," Trump said. "You are entitled to a government that puts your needs, your interests and your families first."

— President Trump

“The Justice Department undertook its own investigation and, in 1973, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html

"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that's guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that."

- Some racist loser named Drumpf

1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.

Trump called for the death of the Central Park Five and maintained his position even after they were found innocent. Racist.

Actions speak louder than the words of a pathological liar. How helplessly gullible are you people?

Unemployment for minorities is at a record low.  But Orange Man racist. 

Yes, as proven above, he is racist. He has done nothing to reduce unemployment for minorities, he is taking credit for the progress of Obama. You tell us some actual policy changes he has implemented that suggest he deserves credit for that fact. I'll wait...

The rate of decrease in unemployment has not significantly changed since Obama:



In the meantime, let's look at some other things you left out of your cherry-picking:

Black Homeownership Drops to All-Time Low

https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-homeownership-drops-to-all-time-low-11563183015

- The probabality of a loan denial is 36.9% higher for back-owned firm in comparison to their white, male owned business counterparts.
- While white families have a median wealth of $171,000, black families have a median wealth of just $17,600.
- When researchers from the institute looked at median wealth from 1983 to 2016 (adjusting for inflation), black families saw their wealth decrease by more than half, while white families saw theirs rise by 33 percent.
- Black families in America earn just $57.30 for every $100 in income earned by white families
- Nearly one in five black households has zero or negative net worth. The share of white households without any wealth is considerably smaller, at 9 percent
- If current trends continue, it will take 228 years for the average black family to reach the level of wealth white families own today.



And while you have nothing whatsoever to back up your claim that Trump deserves credit for black unemployment, here is copious evidence that he is HURTING black Americans:

- His Justice Department has ended investigation into police departments that discriminated against African Americans (for example, Baltimore).
- The Justice Department switched its position in gerrymandering and voter-ID lawsuits, supporting defendant states against plaintiffs challenging laws. This, despite the fact that states like North Carolina have had laws struck down for targeting black voters "with surgical precision", according to the appeals court judges.
- Rolling back environmental regulations, which overwhelmingly affect black Americans because they are exposed to 38% more polluted air than white Americans and are 75% more likely to live in communities that border service and industrial facilities that emit noise, odor, and chemical emissions.
- The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) canceled an imminent cut to its annual mortgage insurance premiums. This change will make it uniquely more difficult for black families to afford homeownership—nearly half of all African-American homebuyers in the United States rely on FHA insurance, compared to just one in five white homebuyers.
- He proposed to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice. The environmental justice office was created nearly 25 years ago to address, through grantmaking and coordination of federal policy across the entire cabinet, the concentration of environmental harms in minority communities.

I eagerly await you both addressing each one of these points with logical counter arguments.  

Nothing to say to any of this? You're conceding all this as well?

Or are the snowflakes hiding in their safe spaces to avoid FACTS that challenge their ideology?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The transcript on the call between Trump and the Ukraine leader comes out today. So we will get to know what was said.

We already know what was said by Biden regarding the pressure he put on Ukraine when he was VP.

Not exactly.

Foreign leader calls are not actually transcribed, like you are thinking. Calling it a transcript is a little misleading....by the admin and media. Its more of a readout/summary, written by a national intelligence agency employee.

What will be more informative will be the whistleblower testimony to the intelligence committees later this week.

Id also like to hear the whistle blower testimony.  I heard he did not have firsthand knowledge so Id be curious on what he really knows and how.

And now we have gone from the threat of impeachment to an impeachment inquiry by the house. They probably should have waited a few more days to let this whole Ukraine thing play out to hear the facts before playing their card.

So what snacks are being brought to the impeachment party?   

[pilferk]

I'd also like to hear the whistle blower testimony.  I heard he did not have firsthand knowledge so Id be curious on what he really knows and how.

I've heard they heard the actual call, and wrote up the complaint.

IDK if they heard it in real time, or as a recording, but they reportedly heard the actual words spoken.

The read out today, white washed as it might have been, was damning enough.  They say they want to buy more military equipment (the aid being with held) and Trump asks for a favor.

It doesn't even have to be quid pro quo, though.  Simply asking for the help is illegal.

And now we have gone from the threat of impeachment to an impeachment inquiry by the house. They probably should have waited a few more days to let this whole Ukraine thing play out to hear the facts before playing their card.

Literally taken from the Republican talking points memo.

They didn't need to wait.  They have enough, from the President's own admissions on TV and Rudy's interviews.  The quid pro quo is just a "bonus article".

So what snacks are being brought to the impeachment party?   

I'm too disgusted, and saddened, for our country to eat. 

Is this finally the bridge too far for most Trump supporters?  Probably not.....because party > country....and the captain of the R team can do no wrong.

The dead body is on 5th ave, and Trump was right. Repubs don't care.

[pilferk]

The hits just KEEP on comin'.....

Ukrainians understood Biden probe was condition for Trump-Zelenskiy phone call: Ukrainian adviser

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ukrainians-understood-biden-probe-condition-trump-zelensky-phone/story?id=65863043

[tim_m]

The house literally has no choice now, articles have got to be drawn and voted on regardless of what the whistle blower says tomorrow. He asked Ukraine to investigate a potential opponent and to report to his personal attorney and AG.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Sounds familiar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

2 wrongs dont make a right, but everyone seems to be trying to nail Trump on the same kind of thing thing we have Biden on video bragging about.

[tim_m]

There was an investigation and no wrongdoing was found.