Trump's Presidency: Is this the next domino to fall?

5,951 posts in this topic

Hank Aaron hits number 756 and 757; both of which were located in Trump's pants.

 

Quote

Hall of Fame outfielder Hank Aaron said Friday that he supports athletes who use their platform to speak about social and political issues, adding that he would not visit the White House today if he were part of a championship-winning team.

 

"There’s nobody there I want to see," Aaron said at a ceremony for the "Hank Aaron Champion for Justice Awards" in Atlanta, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 

 

"I can understand where the players are coming from. I really do. I understand they have their own issues and things they feel conviction about. They have a right to that, and I probably would be the same way, there’s no question about it."

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AlexTr said:

Maybe I wasn't clear. You are entitled to your opinion and no one can refute how you feel about things because feelings are not up for debate.

 

It isn‘t a feeling and of course it is up for debate. Otherwise you wouldn’t debate every topic that doesn’t fit into your feelings. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A.N.Other Okay, dude, present your facts. So far, you haven't given any. On what facts do you base your opinion that Hilary Clinton belongs to the set of people facing re-election as POTUS, which is obviously the topic of that slide based on the dates?

 

Who was president May 2011?

 

Who was president May 2003?

 

Who was president March 1995?

 

Who was president February 1991?

 

Who was president April 1983?

 

Who was president June 1979?

 

These are easy questions that a web search can answer for you. 

 

A better line of reasoning that would have taken a better skill set than whataboutism and non sequitur would have been to state that many of those presidents achieved a second term. This, of course, can be easily dismissed by pointing out the obvious discrepancy between the percentage of people who said they would definitely vote against any of those people and the percentage of people who say they will definitely vote against Trump.

 

However, this would still mean that everyone missed the overall point which is: LOOK HOW UNPOPULAR THIS GUY IS.

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

@A.N.Other Okay, dude, present your facts. So far, you haven't given any. On what facts do you base your opinion that Hilary Clinton belongs to the set of people facing re-election as POTUS, which is obviously the topic of that slide based on the dates?

 

You are now the one comparing apples and oranges, dude. 

 

I already presented my arguments on why his post is indeed on topic, as it indeed has to do with how wrong polls can be, especially concerning Trump. 

 

You are the one now setting the parameter that it has to be a current poll, with the current candidates, that we can already presume to be false. How exactly does that work?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, AlexTr said:

D7Kxy5SXoAYwyZL.jpg:large

 

@A.N.Other I posted this.

 

I knew everything it stood for and everything it didn't.

 

There was no valid argument made that any of these polls (and, if you read this slide, SEVEN (7) polls are mentioned) are invalid. There was a statement that ONE poll mentioned here, Quinnipiac, was inacurate, and then the ridiculous addition of Nate Silver, who is not connected to any of these polls, was mentioned as inaccurate. However, historically, everyone knows (that is, everyone who follows polls) that Quinnipiac is one of the most trusted polling groups and is cited by FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and Reuters.

Now, what facts do you have that counter any of that?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

 

However, this would still mean that everyone missed the overall point which is: LOOK HOW UNPOPULAR THIS GUY IS.

 

 

Ok. I‘ll answer your amended post.  

 

That would require 1) for me to be everyone 

2) for me to have missed that 

and 3) for your poll to be correct, which is exactly what I understand Balticus to be contesting. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A.N.Other said:

 

Ok. I‘ll answer your amended post.  

 

That would require 1) for me to be everyone 

2) for me to have missed that 

and 3) for your poll to be correct, which exactly what I understand Balticus to be contesting. 

 

And, as I just said, he contested it with the pitiful example of one error.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

 

And, as I just said, he contested it with the pitiful example of one error.

 

which does not make it out of place or off topic. That has been my point. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A.N.Other said:

 

which does not make it out of place or off topic. That has been my point. 

 

Any mention of Hilary Clinton with regards to that slide is off topic. Your point is not taken.

 

You keep moving the goal posts. 

 

First, you need to tell me how Hilary Clinton has anything to do with my slide. Then, you have to justify calling Quinnipiac inaccurate based on one error.

 

You wanted this discussion. Don't want none. Don't start none.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A.N.Other Wait. I think I see the problem. Answer this question: Which of the two candidates in the 2016 election was running for a second presidential term?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Manafort is still in prison and taking more people down with him every day.

Stephen Calk has been indicted for bribery. Here's a boom for you. This candyass ought to start rolling over any minute now.

 

Quote

Chicago banker Stephen Calk was charged by federal prosecutors with bribery for seeking a post in the Trump administration in return for $16 million in loans to a senior official in the Trump 2016 presidential campaign.

 
 
1500490357_STEVE_CALK

Stephen Calk

Source: The Federal Savings Bank

That official matches the description of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who received millions of dollars in loans from Federal Savings Bank of Chicago. Manafort isn’t named in court papers unsealed on Thursday.


Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team has said that Calk, age 54, conspired with Manafort to defraud his own bank when he pushed approval of Manafort’s loans in the hopes of winning a senior post in the Trump administration, prosecutors said.

 
 

Calk is set to appear in Manhattan federal court later Thursday.

 
 

The charge against Calk grew out of Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. As part of that probe, Mueller’s office accused Manafort of lying to three lenders, including Calk’s bank, to obtain $20 million in loans.

 
 

In Manafort’s trial last August, a witness testified that Calk expedited approval of two loans to Manafort despite red flags raised by his staff about Manafort’s ability to repay. Calk wanted Manafort to help him land a job in Trump’s administration as Treasury secretary or housing secretary, according to testimony at the Manafort trial by Dennis Raico, a former senior vice president at Federal Savings Bank. Jurors were also told that Calk was also interested in becoming secretary of the Army.

 

Manafort’s request “didn’t go through the normal process because Mr. Calk was expediting the loan and pushing it through, notwithstanding the red flags,” prosecutor Greg Andres said during Manafort’s trial. “So there was agreement between Mr. Manafort and Mr. Calk to have the loans approved, they were approved, and in turn, Mr. Manafort proposed Mr. Calk for certain positions within the administration.” Calk didn’t receive a position in the administration.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

You wanted this discussion. Don't want none. Don't start none.

 

Never said I didn’t. It would just be nice if you stopped trying to „move the goalposts „ as you put it. My contention is, and always has been, that Balticus‘ response was on topic. 

 

Whether or not he provided sufficient evidence is suddenly now your new goalpost.

 

The only person who has brought Hillary into this is you. Balticus certainly can‘t be held responsible for the fact that her name is present in false predictions of the past. 

 

Stay on topic, dude

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

@A.N.Other Wait. I think I see the problem. Answer this question: Which of the two candidates in the 2016 election was running for a second presidential term?

 

And yet another goalpost. Now we need false predictions from the past concerning a second term candidate. You are unbelievable. 

 

PS: As stated. I hate Trump and hope he doesn’t win. That has nothing to do with my opinion concerning your statement to Balticus, though. I think you’re just a bully who is used to getting her way with flimsy, yet loud, arguments. Very Trump-like. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A.N.Other They're all the same goal post. Compare like to like and hit something between the uprights. Really. You don't need my approval. I don't want yours. Move on. You might want to consider why you need so badly for me to agree with you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AlexTr said:

@A.N.Other They're all the same goal post. Compare like to like and hit something between the uprights. Really. You don't need my approval. I don't want yours. Move on. You might want to consider why you need so badly for me to agree with you.

 

In other words, you have no argument on topic and with foundation. 

 

I can live with that, but then stop policing the thread. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@A.N.Other Nope, I have laid out a complete and absolute refutation of everything you and Balty posited. It's enough for me. Have a nice day. Come back when you have any facts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

@A.N.Other Nope, I have laid out a complete and absolute refutation of everything you and Balty posited. It's enough for me. Have a nice day. Come back when you have any facts.

 

 

😂😂

 

Below is my argument the entire time. Never changed or wavered. No. You have not countered that. 

 

Very trump-like to declare yourself winner, anyone who disagrees loser, then give yourself a trophy. 

 

AB82084E-389A-4589-8541-44CD3A9D7553.png

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did not question all poll results. He questioned Quinnipiac's and then added Nate Silver for no good reason. RIF.

 

Here

 

1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

 

@A.N.Other I posted this.

 

I knew everything it stood for and everything it didn't.

 

There was no valid argument made that any of these polls (and, if you read this slide, SEVEN (7) polls are mentioned) are invalid. There was a statement that ONE poll mentioned here, Quinnipiac, was inacurate, and then the ridiculous addition of Nate Silver, who is not connected to any of these polls, was mentioned as inaccurate. However, historically, everyone knows (that is, everyone who follows polls) that Quinnipiac is one of the most trusted polling groups and is cited by FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and Reuters.

Now, what facts do you have that counter any of that?

 

 

Here.

 

1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

 

And, as I just said, he contested it with the pitiful example of one error.

 

 

And here.

 

1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

 

Any mention of Hilary Clinton with regards to that slide is off topic. Your point is not taken.

 

You keep moving the goal posts. 

 

First, you need to tell me how Hilary Clinton has anything to do with my slide. Then, you have to justify calling Quinnipiac inaccurate based on one error.

 

You wanted this discussion. Don't want none. Don't start none.

 

Really. I know you were in the US when RIF was a thing. Come on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump-like belittling of people who disagree. Now I can‘t read, just because I don‘t agree with the conclusion you came to and your current set of parameters. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Trump would like for his followers to believe that the Washington legislative gridlock is Pelosi's and Schumer's fault, we all know that it's actually just him. Gaslighting until the bitter end.

 

Quote

 

Fuming about longstanding Democratic investigations, Trump refused to shake hands with Democrats Wednesday and walked out of a meeting, prompting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to accuse the president of throwing "a temper tantrum for us all to see."

Trump disputed the characterization in a tweet late Wednesday. 

 

"This is not true. I was purposely very polite and calm, much as I was minutes later with the press in the Rose Garden," Trump wrote. "Can be easily proven. It is all such a lie!"

 

The president returned to that characterization Thursday morning. 

 

"I was extremely calm yesterday with my meeting with Pelosi and Schumer, knowing that they would say I was raging, which they always do, along with their partner, the Fake News Media," the president tweeted. "Well, so many stories about the meeting use the Rage narrative anyway - Fake & Corrupt Press!"

 

Trump has already indicated he's prepared to push most of his legislative agenda off until after the 2020 election, a recognition that Democrats and Republicans were unlikely to reach consensus on much of anything as nearly two dozen Democratic presidential candidates barnstorm early primary states in the hunt for the nomination. 


Trump appeared to further close the door on bipartisan agreement with a hastily called statement Wednesday in the Rose Garden in which he indicated Washington could not be on an "investigations" track while also pursuing legislation. 

 

"Let them play their games. We're going to go down one track at a time," Trump said of Democrats. "Let them finish up. And we'll be all set."

 

Some people are not born for the deep end of the pool. Stick to the shallows if they suit you better.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now