HawkShack.com

You know my vote which has changed as this has developed , particularly with the executive branch and AG obstructing congress legitimate oversight responsibility set forth in the constitution almost forcing an impeachment inquiry to get the facts , also muellers statement . But what do you all think ?

Doesn't there have to be lie limit as POTUS?

c_hawkbob wrote:Doesn't there have to be lie limit as POTUS?

Can you imagine Trump in a confessional booth, or better yet, can you imagine yourself being the priest that has to listen to him lie?

As far as the impeachment question goes, my position hasn't changed. Although I'll always keep an open mind to it, (1) my preference is to see him lose in in 2020 vs. being removed from office via the impeachment process and (2) I currently do not see a slam dunk impeachable offense having been committed.

I mentioned this in another thread, but Trump is going to go into a 4 corner offense and run out the clock. I have the feeling that there is an impeachable offense in there somewhere, most likely obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, but by the time the Dems are able to get to proving it, we'll already be in the 2020 election campaign.

And before we get very far into this thread, let's dispense with some common myths about impeachment. Impeachment and removal from office are two separate things. Bill Clinton was the 2nd POTUS to have been impeached, the other being Andrew Johnson, but neither were removed from office. Richard Nixon was never impeached, and although several impeachment resolutions were approved by committee, they never came before the full House for a vote prior to his resignation. The consensus opinion is that had he not resigned, Nixon would have been impeached and would not have survived a trial in the Senate.

Sorry if I appear to be acting like a know-it-all, but it will save us some time.

I'll chime in real quick.

Can the Dems flip the Senate to make impeachment proceedings meaningful? If not, then impeachment a waste of time. If they can, then maybe they accomplish their goal of removal. Trump has roughly 18 months left. I'd rather run the clock out. It looks like Biden has a real chance to beat Trump, though Trump and Biden haven't gone head to head yet and Hillary looked like she should beat him early on as well. Though I do think a lot of folks are tired of Trump. I think impeachment proceedings might give Trump fuel to drive his base and make the Dems look like they're trying to use an end around the vote to take Trump out. If the Dems have a winner in Biden, they should focus on issues the Dems can get traction with and let Biden show himself as a less volatile, annoying president bringing reasonable, polite, centrist governance back to the nation.

The Narcissist seems vulnerable at this point against Biden. If the Dems can't flip the Senate, I don't see the Repubs removing Trump from office via impeachment. Dems should back the strongest horse for the next 18 months and take Trump out in the next election.

As far as what I would like personally, I'd like to see a 3rd party rise focused mostly on economic freedom and flexibility for the middle and working class. I'm tired of having my medical coverage tied to my job and having to spend 30 years paying for a house and then renting my house from the government with exorbitant property taxes on top of paying tax on any wealth I accumulate. I believe a higher level of economic freedom is what the middle and working class desire, not some nebulous wealth equality as though the government can magically make working folk comparatively wealthy to the owners of multinational corporations. I feel people are more tired of having to work for some corp to have shelter and medical care. It limits their ability to take risk like starting a business, take time off for other reasons whether taking care of a family member or switching job skills, and generally ties you to this endless treadmill you don't get off for nearly 40 plus years of working,

That's my 2 cents.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'll chime in real quick.

Can the Dems flip the Senate to make impeachment proceedings meaningful? If not, then impeachment a waste of time. If they can, then maybe they accomplish their goal of removal. Trump has roughly 18 months left. I'd rather run the clock out. It looks like Biden has a real chance to beat Trump, though Trump and Biden haven't gone head to head yet and Hillary looked like she should beat him early on as well. Though I do think a lot of folks are tired of Trump. I think impeachment proceedings might give Trump fuel to drive his base and make the Dems look like they're trying to use an end around the vote to take Trump out. If the Dems have a winner in Biden, they should focus on issues the Dems can get traction with and let Biden show himself as a less volatile, annoying president bringing reasonable, polite, centrist governance back to the nation.

The Narcissist seems vulnerable at this point against Biden. If the Dems can't flip the Senate, I don't see the Repubs removing Trump from office via impeachment. Dems should back the strongest horse for the next 18 months and take Trump out in the next election.

Agreed. The Dems would be committing suicide if they proceed with impeachment in the House if they don't have the votes in the Senate. They need 20 Republican Senators and all 47 Dem/Independents in order to remove him from office and unless some bombshell goes off in the next 10 months, they won't have time prior to the next election to sway that many R Senators. We're stuck with this POS.

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as what I would like personally, I'd like to see a 3rd party rise focused mostly on economic freedom and flexibility for the middle and working class. I'm tired of having my medical coverage tied to my job and having to spend 30 years paying for a house and then renting my house from the government with exorbitant property taxes on top of paying tax on any wealth I accumulate. I believe a higher level of economic freedom is what the middle and working class desire, not some nebulous wealth equality as though the government can magically make working folk comparatively wealthy to the owners of multinational corporations. I feel people are more tired of having to work for some corp to have shelter and medical care. It limits their ability to take risk like starting a business, take time off for other reasons whether taking care of a family member or switching job skills, and generally ties you to this endless treadmill you don't get off for nearly 40 plus years of working,

That's my 2 cents.

I'd love to see a 3rd party get some traction. At least on social issues, I'm more of a Libertarian than I am a Republican. Indeed, I voted for Johnson in 2016.

As far as my own personal situation goes, I'm retired, so the last thing I want to see happen is someone or some party come in and start moving the goal posts. I'm fortunate in that my former employer has a very good retiree medical program that I'm enrolled in, and my biggest fear is that the liberal Dems take control of all branches of the government, fundamentally change the health care system, and give my employer a pretense to pull the plug on their retiree medical program. I don't think Biden is a threat to do that, but certainly Warren and Sanders are both capable of sending us in that direction.

Another vote for no impeachment, much as if love to see it happen. The dems won’t be able to get it through the senate, and the last thing Trump needs is sympathy, which impeachment might give him. Having said that, I can’t think of any president not named Dick who deserves it more. What a coward for giving a new reason why he skipped out on serving in Vietnam. Does anyone believe his bone spurs story anymore?

The best medicine will be to see him lose in 2020 (which he’ll whine was fixed because that’s the kind of baby he is).

I-5 wrote:Another vote for no impeachment, much as if love to see it happen. The dems won’t be able to get it through the senate, and the last thing Trump needs is sympathy, which impeachment might give him. Having said that, I can’t think of any president not named Dick who deserves it more. What a coward for giving a new reason why he skipped out on serving in Vietnam. Does anyone believe his bone spurs story anymore?

The best medicine will be to see him lose in 2020 (which he’ll whine was fixed because that’s the kind of baby he is).

Just curious, did you ever vote for Bill Clinton? He was a worse draft dodger than Trump, and people didn't seem to think it enough to disqualify him from being POTUS. Or how about Al Gore, who's daddy was a sitting US Senator during the Vietnam War? How was Junior able to draw a cushy non combat assignment (once lying about being fired upon) then get several months cut off his tour? Even their war hero, John Kerry, was surrounded in controversy over his activities during his tour and shortly after his return to the states. Rich and/or famous people from both sides of the political spectrum received preferential treatment during that era.

That's why while you might hear some of the press talk about Trump's sketchy deferments, not very many Dems chime in as they know that Fox News is out there waiting with a ton of salt to pour into that old wound. As my old man would say, "People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks".

I, too, am worried about what Trump might do if he loses in 2020, if he will accept the results. He pushes, or rather creates, so many false narratives and is such a narcissist that if he loses, he's bound to claim that the election was rigged.

RiverDog wrote:
Just curious, did you ever vote for Bill Clinton? He was a worse draft dodger than Trump, and people didn't seem to think it enough to disqualify him from being POTUS. Or how about Al Gore, who's daddy was a sitting US Senator during the Vietnam War? How was Junior able to draw a cushy non combat assignment (once lying about being fired upon) then get several months cut off his tour? Even their war hero, John Kerry, was surrounded in controversy over his activities during his tour and shortly after his return to the states. Rich and/or famous people from both sides of the political spectrum received preferential treatment during that era.

That's why while you might hear some of the press talk about Trump's sketchy deferments, not very many Dems chime in as they know that Fox News is out there waiting with a ton of salt to pour into that old wound. As my old man would say, "People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks".

I, too, am worried about what Trump might do if he loses in 2020, if he will accept the results. He pushes, or rather creates, so many false narratives and is such a narcissist that if he loses, he's bound to claim that the election was rigged.

Clinton was the first out and out draft dodger to win the WH. After his election the letter he had written in college about his "loathing" for the military surfaced and I recall Rush got a lot of mileage out of it. I thought it was disgusting that we had a commander in chief that had ever held those beliefs about the troops.

But now we have a guy who took his 5 deferments, trashes a dead war hero to this day 9 months after his death, went on Howard Stern and called dodging STDs in the 70s his "personal Vietnam" and just a few days ago sat with Laura Ingraham with the bleached white crosses of the thousands of graves of heroes in Normandy as a backdrop and called our speaker of the house a loser, disgusting person etc as well as the senate minority leader and best of all he called war hero Bob Mueller who rehabilitated an injured knee for over a year so he could be accepted as a marine and get shot in Vietnam but refuse to be evacuated till his squad was accounted for while trump dodged the draft and grabbed pussy a "loser" in that setting.

Moments later he delivered an excellent speech that was written for him praising the heroes and our allies and the bonds that would never be broken. It was only learned later that the interview had been taped just before the remembrance. Talk about an amoral, hate filled vapid empty headed zombie. Oh I guess I better chill before I get called a clinically insane bed wetter with TDS No RD Trump takes the hand painted raindrop as the worst draft dodger of all time. Clinton is off the hook.

But I digress
First the impeachable offenses. And remember Lindsay Graham said in the Clinton impeachment that the president "doesn't even need to commit a crime" Just disgrace the office or words to that effect . Really it should be case closed right there by that standard . Unanimous vote in the house and senate if they weren't all sleazy political animals.

But lets list the actual crimes. Obstruction . Ill take Bob Mueller and now over 1000!!!!!former federal prosecutors at their word it was obstruction of an investigation into our greatest geopolitical foe tipping the election to the obstructor. Thats a felony.

Which leads to the at a minimum near treasonous acts not addressed in the report. Helsinki where Trump threw our intelligence services under the bus regarding the meddling mentioning Dan Coates by name and said " Putin has given me a very strong denial. I have NO REASON TO BELIEVE HE DID". A day later upon returning to DC he was in a meeting with all the military and intelligence brass in the SITUATION ROOM after which he emerged with a correction that he had meant to say "I have no reason to believe he DIDN'T" a weak lie when listening to the entire statement in context. Just a few weeks ago he took a phone call from Putin and emerged to announce to the world that Putin had said the Mueller probe had started out as a mountain and wound up to be nothing. Trump again referred to the entire scandal as the "Russian hoax"

IMO and that of many political people including John McCain and even Nikki Haley, Military people, intelligence people the Russian actions were an act of war and Trump continues to this day to aid and abet them. This is a nation that nearly rammed a US warship day before yesterday and has recently caused the USAF to up their activities over the arctic to counter increasingly aggressive actions by Russian bombers and fighters in the region. When Trump was elected I thought he might get us into a war. Now I think he would definitely lose us any war we got into and it might be a horrible unthinkable one. A compromised, incapable , indecisive mentally unstable commander in chief.He absolutely should not be in charge of nuclear codes.

Campaign finance violations paying off porn stars and repaying Cohen with money out of the trust he is not to have anything to do with with signed checks as proof. Felonies that sent Cohen to prison for doing the bidding of Trump and its even on tape.

Theres more but Im getting carpal tunnel and have things to do. Ill return later with the rationale for why the chickenhearted Dems should pull the trigger on impeachment along with the one Republican Justin Amash who has some balls and some integrity. Jail to the thief!!!!MAGA when he gets fitted for pinstripes!!!!!

I-5 wrote:Another vote for no impeachment, much as if love to see it happen. The dems won’t be able to get it through the senate, and the last thing Trump needs is sympathy, which impeachment might give him. Having said that, I can’t think of any president not named Dick who deserves it more. What a coward for giving a new reason why he skipped out on serving in Vietnam. Does anyone believe his bone spurs story anymore?

The best medicine will be to see him lose in 2020 (which he’ll whine was fixed because that’s the kind of baby he is).

I don't believe politicians as it is. They all seem like liars to me, though some are better at it than others by being able to say nothing while making it sound really, really good. I guess that is a step up from lying.

But anyone that didn't think a salesman who wrote in his book how to work crowds by telling them what they want to hear and to make everything sound like it's the best ever as a sales tactic isn't going to lie like crazy is nuts. Trump is following his book's sales tactics when he speaks. To him he's not lying, he's selling.

Good luck with hiden' biden. I actually hope he is elected because he may be able to hide now but eventually he's going to have to make an appearance and we all know what a gaff machine he is. Heck, he's already done a Flip-Flop-Flip on the Hyde amendment which has now lost him the evangelical vote. Even in Hiden' he gets caught plagiarizing his policies, AGAIN!!!! Eventually, he's also going to have to answer for the apparent bribes he took from China and Ukraine for his son. Believe me, I think the repubs are quietly waiting for Biden to win the nomination and then the world is going to crash down on him.

New Question: Does anyone here think the FBI spied on the Trump campaign and transition team? If you think they didn't, I have a serious question for you.

idhawkman wrote:Good luck with hiden' biden. I actually hope he is elected because he may be able to hide now but eventually he's going to have to make an appearance and we all know what a gaff machine he is. Heck, he's already done a Flip-Flop-Flip on the Hyde amendment which has now lost him the evangelical vote.

Pot calling the kettle black. Compared to Trump and his almost daily changes in position, Biden's flip flops look as steady as the Rock of Gibraltar. Here's Trump's latest laugher:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday criticized NASA for aiming to put astronauts back on the moon by 2024 and urged the space agency to focus instead on “much bigger” initiatives like going to Mars, undercutting his previous support for the lunar initiative.

Trump’s statement, tweeted from Air Force One as he returned from Europe, appeared at odds with his administration’s recent push to return humans to the lunar surface by 2024 “by any means necessary,” five years sooner than the previous goal of 2028.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spac ... SKCN1T82L1

RiverDog wrote:
Pot calling the kettle black. Compared to Trump and his almost daily changes in position, Biden's flip flops look as steady as the Rock of Gibraltar. Here's Trump's latest laugher:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday criticized NASA for aiming to put astronauts back on the moon by 2024 and urged the space agency to focus instead on “much bigger” initiatives like going to Mars, undercutting his previous support for the lunar initiative.

Trump’s statement, tweeted from Air Force One as he returned from Europe, appeared at odds with his administration’s recent push to return humans to the lunar surface by 2024 “by any means necessary,” five years sooner than the previous goal of 2028.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spac ... SKCN1T82L1

I think your quotes don't support your statement.

I also notice that you didn't answer the double edge sword question about the FBI spying on US citizens of the Trump Campaign and transition team. Did you do that subconsciously or on purpose?

idhawkman wrote:I also notice that you didn't answer the double edge sword question about the FBI spying on US citizens of the Trump Campaign and transition team. Did you do that subconsciously or on purpose?

No when Chris Wray says he wouldnt call the investigation "spying" that's good enough for me. But love on your Big fat walrus Bob Barr as he tries to decapitate the rule of law . There was a there there. Its a retarded question to ask.

If there was not a criminal conspiracy with Russia it was missed by a whisker. There was clearly cooperation, acceptance lying about contacts etc. Good lord man you're blind, a complete trumptard zombie.

Hawktawk wrote:
No when Chris Wray says he wouldnt call the investigation "spying" that's good enough for me. But love on your Big fat walrus Bob Barr as he tries to decapitate the rule of law . There was a there there. Its a retarded question to ask.

If there was not a criminal conspiracy with Russia it was missed by a whisker. There was clearly cooperation, acceptance lying about contacts etc. Good lord man you're blind, a complete trumptard zombie.

So "IF" it is not spying then there is no reason to claim "Sources and methods" right? No reason to keep anything hidden or "classified" for that reason then, right?

Im for seeing it all including the full Mueller report and all the supporting investigations and evidence. A majority of the american public is as well. Lay it all out there, every bit of it. This "spying " thing involves complete douchebag Carter Page, a tool of the Kremlin who was under investigation via a FISA warrant during the Obama administration, i believe in 2013. Guys like Manafort and Flynn who was fired by Obama and who warned Trump not to hire him were on the FBI radar long before Trump was the nominee. As I've said the guy Barr picked to lead this investigation has looked into scandals involving members of both parties and has a reputation for being fair but also slower than the second coming of Christ in finishing. This whole process by Barr which is an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars since the IG is already conducting a review is a political exercise. Use the fact that the FBI is under *investigation* as a 2020 talking point then when this guy finds there was no improper actions beyond some hate filled e mails from lifelong conservative law enforcement people who were disgusted with the criminal who was about to take power and ruin their party and who were summarily dismissed from Muellers team anyway. Its just a continuation of the track record of the walrus from writing a 19 page job application telegraphing what a political hack he was going to be, writing a fraudulent 4 page letter exonerating the President then withholding for weeks the report which said no such thing, perjuring himself before the congress when asked if he knew how Mueller felt about his conclusions while he was hiding 4 separate correspondences in which Mueller had made clear his displeasure. Welcome to the Bannana republic of america. Not MAGA at all....

Ok heres why Ive switched to a yes vote on impeachment. #1 the President will not allow a single bit of oversight of any aspect of his administration. As Pelosi says hes daring them to do it. I saw a poll yesterday that said 74% of all voters including a majority of republicans dont think a president should be able to ignore congressional subpoenas.

#2 This isn't Bill Clinton sitting at 65% getting impeached over ..... when it started out as a failed land deal. Its not even Nixon yet although I believe the crimes and threat to national security and our system of elections is far worse than a third rate burglary looking for dirt eventually taking out a once popular president who had won reelection in a landslide a couple of years earlier and was widely respected around the globe.

This is a guy who cant sniff 50% despite inheriting a 7 year economic expansion that is now 9.5 years in. I dont see how a daily parade of sleazeballs being grilled by the congress and either falling on their swords or further sullying this president is going to make him a sympathetic figure to anyone but the 33% bedrock supporters he has now. Those who support him with their hand over their nose, I cant see how actually hearing the evidence in the Mueller report and other investigations is going to endear them to him.

Yes I understand the Senate will not impeach him as it is currently configured but then the Repubs in the Senate weren't going to do it to Nixon either until they heard the tapes. The full court press to lock up witnesses by Trump shows how devastating he knows these public hearings would be for him.

I heard a commentator say after Mueller statement which really changed the narrative IMO ." The report is the book. Mueller statement was the trailer to the movie and impeachment would be the movie" While Americans are still not in favor of impeaching Trump right now the polls shifted from thirty something for and high 50s against to 42-52 with 10% unsure following Muellers statement.

#3 the democratic base favors impeachment 71% They turned out in 2018 to stop trump more than anything else. Force the issue or it could cost them with their base. Make these republican senators like McConnel who is polling in the 30s in Kentucky stand up and defend protecting this president. Repubs running in swing states will have an interesting choice to make.

Either way I would not rule out that Trump could be the first ever US president to be indicted after he leaves office assuming he loses in 2020.

RiverDog wrote:
Pot calling the kettle black. Compared to Trump and his almost daily changes in position, Biden's flip flops look as steady as the Rock of Gibraltar. Here's Trump's latest laugher:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday criticized NASA for aiming to put astronauts back on the moon by 2024 and urged the space agency to focus instead on “much bigger” initiatives like going to Mars, undercutting his previous support for the lunar initiative.

Trump’s statement, tweeted from Air Force One as he returned from Europe, appeared at odds with his administration’s recent push to return humans to the lunar surface by 2024 “by any means necessary,” five years sooner than the previous goal of 2028.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spac ... SKCN1T82L1

idhawkman wrote:I think your quotes don't support your statement.

Oh, come on, man! You're smarter than that.

Trump originally urged NASA to put men back on the moon by 2024, actually wanted them to accelerate the target date 4 years from 2028. Now he is critical of them, in the words of Reuters, "undercutting them" for trying to attain that objective, arguing that they should focus instead on "much bigger" initiatives like going to Mars.

If you can't see the flip flop in that position, then I guess it explains how you can't see Trump's almost daily inaccurate and inconsistent comments/tweets/positions, etc.

Trump did in fact make a public statement gushing over going to the moon which he also said was “part of mars”. A few days later a Faux talking head, cavuto I believe criticized the endeavor and he flipped 180. Biden is far from perfect but he’s the rock of Gibraltar compared to crazy man.

Hawktawk wrote:Trump did in fact make a public statement gushing over going to the moon which he also said was “part of mars”. A few days later a Faux talking head, cavuto I believe criticized the endeavor and he flipped 180. Biden is far from perfect but he’s the rock of Gibraltar compared to crazy man.

Yup. He even had Harrison Schmidt, the last astronaut to have walked on the moon, at his side when he made the announcement, urged them to advance their target date. It was a big ceremony, hard to believe that he just forgot about it. It wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't actually criticized NASA for going back to the moon, suggesting that they were nuts by saying "For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon – We did that 50 years ago,”

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12 ... -the-moon/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 383294001/

I wouldn't be nearly as bothered about Trump's gaffs if he'd ever come out and say something like "sorry, I misspoke" or "I was misinformed", some sort of conciliatory remark where he accepts responsibility for his statements. But no, he tries to backtrack and wiggle out of it.

RiverDog wrote:Oh, come on, man! You're smarter than that.

Trump originally urged NASA to put men back on the moon by 2024, actually wanted them to accelerate the target date 4 years from 2028. Now he is critical of them, in the words of Reuters, "undercutting them" for trying to attain that objective, arguing that they should focus instead on "much bigger" initiatives like going to Mars.

If you can't see the flip flop in that position, then I guess it explains how you can't see Trump's almost daily inaccurate and inconsistent comments/tweets/positions, etc.

And yet, you still don't post the full quote which I know you read because you selectively pulled info from that article and not the full quote. "IF" you post the full quote then we can discuss but trying to selectively pull the narrative you want is spin at best and fake news in all shapes and forms.

Hawktawk wrote:Trump did in fact make a public statement gushing over going to the moon which he also said was “part of mars”. A few days later a Faux talking head, cavuto I believe criticized the endeavor and he flipped 180. Biden is far from perfect but he’s the rock of Gibraltar compared to crazy man.

Laughable that you think the guy who has been in the US Congress or Vice presidency for 40 years is not the problem. They guy who has been there for 2.5 is the problem. Bwahahahahahahahahahahah

RiverDog wrote:Yup. He even had Harrison Schmidt, the last astronaut to have walked on the moon, at his side when he made the announcement, urged them to advance their target date. It was a big ceremony, hard to believe that he just forgot about it. It wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't actually criticized NASA for going back to the moon, suggesting that they were nuts by saying "For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon – We did that 50 years ago,”

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12 ... -the-moon/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 383294001/

I wouldn't be nearly as bothered about Trump's gaffs if he'd ever come out and say something like "sorry, I misspoke" or "I was misinformed", some sort of conciliatory remark where he accepts responsibility for his statements. But no, he tries to backtrack and wiggle out of it.

STill partially quoting I see.

idhawkman wrote:STill partially quoting I see.

Partially quoting my ass!

Here's the FULL quote, as if you can't read:

“For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon – We did that 50 years ago,” he wrote. “They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”

He contradicts himself within the same paragraph.

So which is it? Should we be going to the moon again or not? You can't have it both ways!

“For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago,” the president wrote on Twitter. “They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”

Taken directly from the linked article you posted River.

Now (mr. parser of words) can you tell the difference in messaging when you read that? Let me help you.

The word "Talking" is an imperative word here when referring to messaging. "IF" NASA keeps talking about putting a man and woman (also from the article you posted) on the moon in 2024 and a "sustainable human presence" on the moon by 2028 what is news there? NOTHING!!!! Its been done for the most part. In fact, Trump has gotten JEff Bezos to do this for him (also straight from the article you posted). NASA is just guiding the effort. What Trump is saying is that NASA should be giving the bigger picture of what and why they are doing this for which is the ultimate goal of putting someone on Mars. See the difference? He's saying stop talking about going to the moon, we've done that and its not inspiring, instead talk about going to mars and as a stepping stone to get to mars, we need a launching point from the moon. There's no conflict in his statement except for those tin foil hat folks looking for something that it doesn't really say.

“For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago,” the president wrote on Twitter. “They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”

idhawkman wrote:Taken directly from the linked article you posted River.

Now (mr. parser of words) can you tell the difference in messaging when you read that? Let me help you.

The word "Talking" is an imperative word here when referring to messaging. "IF" NASA keeps talking about putting a man and woman (also from the article you posted) on the moon in 2024 and a "sustainable human presence" on the moon by 2028 what is news there? NOTHING!!!! Its been done for the most part. In fact, Trump has gotten JEff Bezos to do this for him (also straight from the article you posted). NASA is just guiding the effort. What Trump is saying is that NASA should be giving the bigger picture of what and why they are doing this for which is the ultimate goal of putting someone on Mars. See the difference? He's saying stop talking about going to the moon, we've done that and its not inspiring, instead talk about going to mars and as a stepping stone to get to mars, we need a launching point from the moon. There's no conflict in his statement except for those tin foil hat folks looking for something that it doesn't really say.

That's the whole point! It was Trump that instructed NASA to "keep talking about putting a man and a woman on the moon", barely 18 months ago. He told them that he not only wanted them to go back to the moon, he wanted the target date accelerated, so what does he expect them to talk about? Now he's chastising them for it!

Space exploration is a step-by-step process. The lessens learned on a return to the moon will be applied to a mission to Mars. You focus on the first step before taking the second. It's no different than Projects Mercury and Gemini being lead-ups to Apollo.

I'm sure even ID understands that Trump will literally say or twist anything possible to make himself look better and others look worse. That's his M.O. from day one, both as president and as a businessman, regardless of any relationship to the truth.

Even though his lies just during his time in office has been documented to cross the 10k figure, I don't think I've ever heard ID point even one lie he's uttered. I haven't followed every thread on here, so please point it out for me if it has happened.

I-5 wrote:I'm sure even ID understands that Trump will literally say or twist anything possible to make himself look better and others look worse. That's his M.O. from day one, both as president and as a businessman, regardless of any relationship to the truth.

Even though his lies just during his time in office has been documented to cross the 10k figure, I don't think I've ever heard ID point even one lie he's uttered. I haven't followed every thread on here, so please point it out for me if it has happened.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, Idahawk has never admitted that Trump has told even one untruth despite the fact that various forum members have shown him blatantly false statements Trump's made yet he still defends them.

I hesitate to call Trump's various half truths, exaggerations, and blatantly false statements "lies." A lot of the time, it's just plain incompetence or laziness as half the time he doesn't know what he's talking about, won't read briefings from his staff, won't prepare for press conferences, doesn't do his home work, and just "wings it". I get the sense that he spends half the day watching Fox and the other half tweeting about what he sees.

If any of you want to watch a movie that shows how Trump works, watch Glengarry Glen Ross. It shows you how salesman work. They're always selling, all the time. That's Trump. Always selling, all the time. Whether it's him as the best in the world or some policy or some idea or boosting his base, he's always pushing that sale in competition. If he has attack someone personally to weaken them, he will do it. This whole president and getting elected thing to him is a sales competition he's looking to win.

Whether what he says is true or not is about as far down the list on his priorities as worrying about someone's feelings. He's competing. Do what you gotta do to win. Each of his constituents is who he's selling to. When he gets in front of them, he's selling to them as hard as he can.

Trump knows best how to sell something in his opinion. Give him the cliff notes, he'll make the sale. That's likely what his briefings are like.

About the only thing I'm glad of is that he's not particularly interested in actual violent war as some people made it seem. Business is bad during war for someone like Trump. He'll play tough guy with Iran. I don't think he'll actually push war as some of his cabinet and supporters seem to want.

Not sure why IDhawkman doesn't want to admit that Trump doesn't care much about the truth or facts. I'm sure at this point Idhawkman is just about the Republicans winning and the scumbag Democrats losing. If you're going to be backing a bunch of people messing the country up, might as well back the horse messing it up the least in your mind. I don't see the Democrats offering a quality vision of America other than some overly sensitive, bureaucratic, politicized, rob from the rich to give to the drug addicts, lazy, and crazy of the world governance that craps on working people, taxes them too much, and creates an environment where the politicians get to live in ivory towers our taxes pay for while they expect us to tolerate the drugs addicts and criminals of the world because it eases their conscience rather than having some actual standards for good behavior. Then again I live in Washington State where this attitude by the Democrats is being pushed the hardest whether it's telling the cops to leave the homeless drug addicts alone as they rob cars and sleep on the streets or attack the businesses that have enabled Washington State to become as prosperous as it has been.

Just to remind Idahawk that the NASA moon vs. Mars misstatements aren't some anomaly and a product of fake news, here's another lie from an interview on Monday:

During his Monday morning interview with CNBC, President Donald Trump claimed that China has "lost 15 to 20 trillion dollars in value since the day I was elected."

Facts First: This isn't even close to true; nor is it clear what Trump is actually referencing here. The entire size of the Chinese economy is estimated to be around $13 trillion, so it's impossible for it to lose more than it is worth. On top of that, China's economy has continued to expand during Trump's time in office.

China's GDP growth has remained above 6% since Trump was elected in November 2016. While Chinese economic growth has started to slow, that trend was already underway before Trump was elected.

In 2017, China's GDP was $12.238 trillion, according to the World Bank. While current estimates are hard to come by, China's economy grew by 6.6% in 2018, which would put the size of the economy just over $13 trillion.

If China were to lose $15 to $20 trillion it would completely wipe the country off the face of the world's economic map.

https://www.nbc-2.com/story/40620694/fa ... -interview

There's not too many explanations for getting basic facts like the size of China's economy and their economic growth under his watch so completely wrong. One is ASF's explanation, that Trump is a slick salesman selling stories to people like Idahawkman that never bother to fact check him, believe every single word that comes out of the man's mouth or his tweets, and hence motivates them to keep up the fight against fake news and the ever present liberal MSM. No need to be accurate if his target audience is so gullible.

Or, perhaps it's what I'm arguing, that Trump is lazy, doesn't read his briefing material, doesn't prepare for interviews, doesn't do his homework and just "wings it", more often than not getting basic facts completely wrong.

And here's another blooper from the same interview, this time on French wine he's considering slapping tariffs on:

"You know, France charges us a lot for the wine. And yet we charge them very little for (American) wine. So the wineries come to me and say, 'Sir,' the California guys they come, 'Sir, we're paying a lot of money to put our product into France and you're letting, meaning this country, is allowing this French wine -- which are some great wines, but we have great wines too -- allowing it to come in for nothing. It's not fair," Trump said.

Facts First: This isn't quite true. While US tariffs on wine from the European Union are smaller than the EU's tariff on American wine, according to the Wine Institute, contrary to what Trump said, the US does not allow French wine "to come in for nothing."
The EU's import tariff on wine for a 750 ml bottle "can range from $0.11 to 0.29, depending on the type alcoholic content of the wine," the Institute states. By comparison, "the US import tariff on a 750 ml bottle is $0.05 for still wine and $0.14 for sparkling wine."

https://www.nbc-2.com/story/40620694/fa ... -interview

That one isn't as egregious as his statement on the Chinese economy and you could probably twist that statement around by suggesting that Trump was quoting "the California guys" and not himself claiming that France's wines "come in for nothing", but it's another example of Trump making exaugurated statements or repeating inaccurate and misinformed claims in an attempt to strengthen his position. Sort of like a certain somebody's claim about "soaring" stock markets and "no inflation".

And here's another one:

Earlier this month when asked about Meghan Markle's 2016 comment that she would move to Canada if Trump won, the President said this: "I didn't know that she was nasty. I hope she is OK."

Within 24 hours of making the initial comment, Trump tweeted: "I never called Meghan Markle 'nasty.' Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics ... index.html

We probably ought to start a separate thread that contains nothing but Trump's false statements followed by Idahawk's blind defense of them. Get out your popcorn!

RiverDog wrote:Just to remind Idahawk that the NASA moon vs. Mars misstatements aren't some anomaly and a product of fake news, here's another lie from an interview on Monday:

During his Monday morning interview with CNBC, President Donald Trump claimed that China has "lost 15 to 20 trillion dollars in value since the day I was elected."

Facts First: This isn't even close to true; nor is it clear what Trump is actually referencing here. The entire size of the Chinese economy is estimated to be around $13 trillion, so it's impossible for it to lose more than it is worth. On top of that, China's economy has continued to expand during Trump's time in office.

China's GDP growth has remained above 6% since Trump was elected in November 2016. While Chinese economic growth has started to slow, that trend was already underway before Trump was elected.

In 2017, China's GDP was $12.238 trillion, according to the World Bank. While current estimates are hard to come by, China's economy grew by 6.6% in 2018, which would put the size of the economy just over $13 trillion.

If China were to lose $15 to $20 trillion it would completely wipe the country off the face of the world's economic map.

https://www.nbc-2.com/story/40620694/fa ... -interview

There's not too many explanations for getting basic facts like the size of China's economy and their economic growth under his watch so completely wrong. One is ASF's explanation, that Trump is a slick salesman selling stories to people like Idahawkman that never bother to fact check him, believe every single word that comes out of the man's mouth or his tweets, and hence motivates them to keep up the fight against fake news and the ever present liberal MSM. No need to be accurate if his target audience is so gullible.

Or, perhaps it's what I'm arguing, that Trump is lazy, doesn't read his briefing material, doesn't prepare for interviews, doesn't do his homework and just "wings it", more often than not getting basic facts completely wrong.

This is why you get "he lies" so wrong. Losing xx trillion dollars is different than GDP. To come to his figures, first you have to see how much their stock market has fallen and equate that into dollars. Then add on top of that the weakening of their currency by them printing more money to offset the tariffs. Add that all up to real world purchase power and you get to the numbers that Trump is talking about.

Remember, the weaker chinese yen making a 6.6% gain is actually a loss if you factor in the amount the currency was weakened by. As I posted in the other thread, China has never experienced a recession but Xi is under pressure and wanting to make a deal with Trump now. Trump is making him wait to show him the actual peril that he "could" put him in if a longer term or more tariffs are placed on them.

RiverDog wrote:And here's another one:

Earlier this month when asked about Meghan Markle's 2016 comment that she would move to Canada if Trump won, the President said this: "I didn't know that she was nasty. I hope she is OK."

Within 24 hours of making the initial comment, Trump tweeted: "I never called Meghan Markle 'nasty.' Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics ... index.html

We probably ought to start a separate thread that contains nothing but Trump's false statements followed by Idahawk's blind defense of them. Get out your popcorn!

Oh, for pete's sake River. You take everything out of context and interpret them the worst possible way.

Being nasty to someone has different meanings to me when talking to someone. However, the press tried to turn that into being nasty sexually. See the difference? He didn't call her nasty (the presses interpretation) he called her nasty (as in her statement to leave the country).

You are seeing things and reacting to them without merit.

Excellent! Great theatre there, Idahawk! Let's try another one.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 425173001/

Donald Trump said the UK is America’s largest trading partner. It ranks 5th.

At a business roundtable on his visit to the United Kingdom, President Donald Trump said there was a great opportunity to expand the trading relationship between the two nations.

"We are your largest partner," Trump said June 4. "You’re our largest partner. A lot of people don’t know that. I was surprised. I made that statement yesterday, and a lot of people said, ‘Gee, I didn’t know that.’ But that’s the way it is."

Trump was right that the United States is Britain’s biggest trade partner, according to British government data. But he’s very wrong that the United Kingdom is America’s largest trading partner.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... ding-part/

Pass the popcorn!

RiverDog wrote:Excellent! Great theatre there, Idahawk! Let's try another one.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 425173001/

Donald Trump said the UK is America’s largest trading partner. It ranks 5th.

At a business roundtable on his visit to the United Kingdom, President Donald Trump said there was a great opportunity to expand the trading relationship between the two nations.

"We are your largest partner," Trump said June 4. "You’re our largest partner. A lot of people don’t know that. I was surprised. I made that statement yesterday, and a lot of people said, ‘Gee, I didn’t know that.’ But that’s the way it is."

Trump was right that the United States is Britain’s biggest trade partner, according to British government data. But he’s very wrong that the United Kingdom is America’s largest trading partner.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... ding-part/

Pass the popcorn!

You really have no idea how to blow smoke up someone's arse when talking with them, do you? Maybe we should hold impeachment proceedings after a 2 year probe over who our largest trading partner is and see if they have something on Trump for him to say that.... (queue twilight zone music....)

And the hits just keep on coming!

Although a bit short of a bold faced lie, here's another example of Trump giving inaccurate or misleading information in order to support a bill of goods he's trying to sell us ala what Aseahawkfan has alleged:

In remarks at the White House on May 9, Trump said, "So our country can take in $120 billion a year in tariffs, paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us. A lot of people try and steer it in a different direction. It’s really paid — ultimately, it’s paid for by — largely, by China. And businesses will pour back into our country."

His repeated message is that Americans shouldn’t worry about the economic impact of his tariffs, couching his claim by saying it's "mostly," "really," "largely" or "ultimately" paid for by China. Despite the hedging words he uses, experts told us the president is wrong to offer that sort of assurance.

"It is inaccurate to say that ‘countries pay’ tariffs on commercial and consumer goods — it is the buyers and sellers that bear the costs," said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist. "Purchasers pay the tariff when they buy popular products. Sellers lose market share when their products get priced out of markets."

"If the U.S. imposes a tariff on Chinese televisions, the duty is paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the border by a U.S. broker representing a U.S. importer — say, Costco," Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, wrote in September. "The Chinese government pays nothing."

Economists told us, however, that real-world examples of tariffs working as intended are rare, and consumers of the tariff-levying country are the primary victims of tariffs, by having to pay higher prices.

But hey, Chinese government or Chinese business, who's nitpicking? They're all Chinese, aren't they?

I also thought that you'd appreciate a quote from a fellow Idahoan.

What will it take supporters like ID to jump off the Trump wagon? He’s daring you to at this point. Inviting any and all foreign agents and powers to give him any dirt they have on his opponents? The president is a national security threat, and it didn’t start today. Some just won’t see it until it’s too late.

Is this what a traitor looks like? Just because we are not at war, does that make it different? Why is this behaviour acceptable at any time? To paraphrase an apt quote, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?“

I-5 wrote:What will it take supporters like ID to jump off the Trump wagon? He’s daring you to at this point. Inviting any and all foreign agents and powers to give him any dirt they have on his opponents? The president is a national security threat, and it didn’t start today. Some just won’t see it until it’s too late.

Is this what a traitor looks like? Just because we are not at war, does that make it different? Why is this behaviour acceptable at any time? To paraphrase an apt quote, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?“

Trump's hardcore supporters, which I would peg at about 30-35% of the voting population, will NEVER jump off Trump's bandwagon. They will rationalize Trump's behavior, his misstatements, and his bold faced lies in some way or another just as you've seen Idahawk defend all the false and misleading information that Trump has said (and what I've posted is literally a drop in the bucket) that I've thrown at him in my last several posts. But part of the reason why they don't jump off is that the opposition party does not offer an acceptable alternative, and their failure to do so has allowed Trump to maintain a stranglehold on the conservatives and the Republican party. The Democrats, specifically HRC, are the ones that enabled Trump and driven people into his camp.

But I'm stopping short of calling Trump a traitor. I do not think that seeking dirt on political opponents is necessarily an act against one's country nor is it necessarily a threat to our national security. That doesn't mean that I approve of it, just that I don't consider it in the same light as you apparently do.

He’s committing treason every time he talks about the Russian hoax and now he’s cast an open invitation to Russia to do it again. Dude should be in cufflinks and a pinstriped suit right now...