• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Surreal Presidency

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm not sure which is more absurd, the bizarre behavior of the president or the moronic losers who believe he's sticking it to the establishment for their benefit.

Of course, many of Trump's supporters see those four ex-presidents as symbols of a class of establishment elites that cost them the benefits of a political and economic system they believe left them behind.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/trump-reactions-cohen-comey/index.html
Click to expand...

Yes, Ms. Gump. Stupid really is as stupid does.
 
calamity said:
I'm not sure which is more absurd, the bizarre behavior of the president or the moronic losers who believe he's sticking it to the establishment for their benefit.



Yes, Ms. Gump. Stupid really is as stupid does.
Click to expand...



Self check: Incase you forgot. Trump is still the president.

Brought to you by:

64664511_A3_B2_4_BD0_9_CA7_7262_DE6_E36_EC.jpg
 
AustralianuS said:
Self check: Incase you forgot. Trump is still the president.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember people arguing about Nixon in 1972, and someone said the same thing.


18 months later Nixon was forced out of office.


Don't count your chickens.
 
calamity said:
I'm not sure which is more absurd, the bizarre behavior of the president or the moronic losers who believe he's sticking it to the establishment for their benefit.



Yes, Ms. Gump. Stupid really is as stupid does.
Click to expand...

It's been a year and a half now and you still can't get over the fact that Trump won the election. I love every piece of salt that goes into your wound.
 
I was considering starting my first thread ... on the paradoxes relating to this president, but I'll add my thought here, because "surreal" is the word for it.

It's amazing how hateful this president is, and how upset he gets that people don't like him. He can't seem to see a connection.
 
calamity said:
I'm not sure which is more absurd, the bizarre behavior of the president or the moronic losers who believe he's sticking it to the establishment for their benefit.



Yes, Ms. Gump. Stupid really is as stupid does.
Click to expand...




Yes, it's quite surreal to see acquaintances on facebook praising this wonderful, abused president for all the great things he has done, when pretty much what he has done is to accelerate the rate at which his cronies can suck America's resources dry.
 
Amelia said:
I was considering starting my first thread ... on the paradoxes relating to this president, but I'll add my thought here, because "surreal" is the word for it.

It's amazing how hateful this president is, and how upset he gets that people don't like him. He can't seem to see a connection.
Click to expand...

Who is he hateful towards?
 
Amelia said:
Who is he not hateful towards?

Oh yeah, white supremacists and his Mar-a-Lago buddies.
Click to expand...

Citations?

Gonna need to prove that he's hateful to all demographics of people except the 2 you mentioned.

Im patient, I'll wait. Good luck.
 
Amelia said:
Who is he not hateful towards?

Oh yeah, white supremacists and his Mar-a-Lago buddies.
Click to expand...

And Putin ... I forgot Putin. Sorry about that.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's been a year and a half now and you still can't get over the fact that Trump won the election. I love every piece of salt that goes into your wound.
Click to expand...

I wonder what kind of conniptions the right would have if Hillary had won and there was the slightest indication the Russians had helped her. What if many of her cabinet selections were indicted, investigated or resigned from her chaotic administration.

Be careful with that salt because your side is only pretending it's not severely wounded. When it's time to pay the piper, your boy Trump and every sycophant who defended him will look like the fools they are.
 
D_NATURED said:
I wonder what kind of conniptions the right would have if Hillary had won and there was the slightest indication the Russians had helped her. What if many of her cabinet selections were indicted, investigated or resigned from her chaotic administration.

Be careful with that salt because your side is only pretending it's not severely wounded. When it's time to pay the piper, your boy Trump and every sycophant who defended him will look like the fools they are.
Click to expand...

That was Russia's game plan right from the beginning. They wanted to sow discontent and American's doubt in the Democratic process. They themselves thought Hillary would win and they wanted to see the lunatic rabid right all up in arms claiming the election wasn't legitimate. They put themselves in a win win situation because after Trump won they still accomplished their same goal. The only difference is the rabid left are claiming the election wasn't legitimate instead of the rabid right. The rabid left fell right into Putin's trap.
 
D_NATURED said:
I wonder what kind of conniptions the right would have if Hillary had won and there was the slightest indication the Russians had helped her. What if many of her cabinet selections were indicted, investigated or resigned from her chaotic administration.

Be careful with that salt because your side is only pretending it's not severely wounded. When it's time to pay the piper, your boy Trump and every sycophant who defended him will look like the fools they are.
Click to expand...

"Conniptions" is a great word. But it's mild for what really would have happened.

They would have had aneurysms.
 
Moderate Right said:
That was Russia's game plan right from the beginning. They wanted to sow discontent and American's doubt in the Democratic process. They themselves thought Hillary would win and they wanted to see the lunatic rabid right all up in arms claiming the election wasn't legitimate. They put themselves in a win win situation because after Trump won they still accomplished their same goal. The only difference is the rabid left are claiming the election wasn't legitimate instead of the rabid right. The rabid left fell right into Putin's trap.
Click to expand...



I’ve already refuted this “trap” nonsense of yours. You just keep trolling. I don’t know what you define as the “rabid right” but Trump supporters were already agreeing before the election with their orange-glowing leader that the election was rigged, though they had absolutely zero evidence. So, based on your premise, Russia already won that leg of the race and, I agree, meet your Russian “trap” definition. I don’t either know what you define as the “rabid left”, but I doubt there aren’t near as many liberals that fell into this trap-crap of yours as there were of those Trump supporters. At least the "rabid left" had a legitimate claim of wrongdoing and thus their complaints of election interference had at least some justification. Again, as usual, you don’t have any evidence of fact to support your claim and, as I’ve said before, your claim is therefore dismissed as unfounded and need not be argued any further as the point of your debate point is lost. Troll-on.
 
bluesmoke said:
I’ve already refuted this “trap” nonsense of yours. You just keep trolling. I don’t know what you define as the “rabid right” but Trump supporters were already agreeing before the election with their orange-glowing leader that the election was rigged, though they had absolutely zero evidence. So, based on your premise, Russia already won that leg of the race and, I agree, meet your Russian “trap” definition. I don’t either know what you define as the “rabid left”, but I doubt there aren’t near as many liberals that fell into this trap-crap of yours as there were of those Trump supporters. At least the "rabid left" had a legitimate claim of wrongdoing and thus their complaints of election interference had at least some justification. Again, as usual, you don’t have any evidence of fact to support your claim and, as I’ve said before, your claim is therefore dismissed as unfounded and need not be argued any further as the point of your debate point is lost. Troll-on.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Obama's own intelligence stated what Russia's intent was before the election was even upon us. From there it was only a question of who would win and which side was going to go rabid claiming the presidency was not legitimate.
 
OscarLevant said:
Yeah, I remember people arguing about Nixon in 1972, and someone said the same thing.


18 months later Nixon was forced out of office.


Don't count your chickens.
Click to expand...

Trump has been told twice, as late as last week, that he is not a target.

That Russian lawyer has said that no one from Mueller's team has reached out to her, and she wonders why.

Adam Schiff, a few weeks ago, said Democrats can't count on Mueller to take Trump down.

The Steele dossier and Papadopolous thing are a crock.

Meuller's office said much of what the media is reporting is flat out wrong.

Not looking good for the fantasy.
 
AustralianuS said:
Trump has been told twice, as late as last week, that he is not a target.
Click to expand...

You can be a "person of interest", or a "subject" or a "target". Trump was informed that he is a "subject", and in that range,
it can lean either way to varying degrees. Being told he was a "subject" was NOT good news.

That Russian lawyer has said that no one from Mueller's team has reached out to her, and she wonders why.

Adam Schiff, a few weeks ago, said Democrats can't count on Mueller to take Trump down.
Click to expand...

No one is "trying to take Trump Down", they will either produce impeachable evidence, or they will clear Trump completely.

There is no "agenda' by Mueller, he was hired to investigate, prosecute where there is prosecutable evidence, etc. Let the chips fall where they may.

The Steele dossier and Papadopolous thing are a crock.
Click to expand...
Given the depth of reportage on the Dossier, and key elements of it have been confirmed, "crock" as a characterization is, itself, crock.

The Dossier was presented by Steel a raw intelligence, as "leads", not as evidence. That's all it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Veracity_of_certain_allegations

Much of it that hasn't been confirmed, hasn't been proven false, either. Steel himself said it was probably 75% true, so not all of it is expected to be confirmed.


Meuller's office said much of what the media is reporting is flat out wrong.

Not looking good for the fantasy.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't project to much into Mueller's statement, by "wrong" doesn't mean, necessarily, the outcome will be better than they are reporting, it could be far worse, it certainly was for Manafort and others.

There is no fantasy, there is only the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Moderate Right said:
That was Russia's game plan right from the beginning. They wanted to sow discontent and American's doubt in the Democratic process. They themselves thought Hillary would win and they wanted to see the lunatic rabid right all up in arms claiming the election wasn't legitimate. They put themselves in a win win situation because after Trump won they still accomplished their same goal. The only difference is the rabid left are claiming the election wasn't legitimate instead of the rabid right. The rabid left fell right into Putin's trap.
Click to expand...

The excuse that the Russians are playing all contingencies does not mean redemption for Trump. His people had meetings with the Russians where they discussed the dirt they had on Hillary. There was no meeting with the Clinton camp where the Russians offered some pee pee videos, or whatever. They worked for Trump's benefit and he let them, period.

Truly, Putin has twice the intellect of our illustrious leader if he can play us so easily. I think you make a great case for a more rational electoral process where the GOP cares as much about Russians voting as Mexicans, who don't. I have seen this president tippy-toe around the Russians and I wonder why you haven't noticed.
 
OscarLevant said:
You can be a "person of interest", or a "subject" or a "target". Trump was informed that he is a "subject", and in that range,
it can lean either way to varying degrees. Being told he was a "subject" was NOT good news.



No one is "trying to take Trump Down", they will either produce impeachable evidence, or they will clear Trump completely.

There is no "agenda' by Mueller, he was hired to investigate, prosecute where there is prosecutable evidence, etc. Let the chips fall where they may.


Given the depth of reportage on the Dossier, and key elements of it have been confirmed, "crock" as a characterization is, itself, crock.

The Dossier was presented by Steel a raw intelligence, as "leads", not as evidence. That's all it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Veracity_of_certain_allegations

Much of it that hasn't been confirmed, hasn't been proven false, either. Steel himself said it was probably 75% true, so not all of it is expected to be confirmed.




I wouldn't project to much into Mueller's statement, by "wrong" doesn't mean, necessarily, the outcome will be better than they are reporting, it could be far worse, it certainly was for Manafort and others.

There is no fantasy, there is only the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...

A lot of media outlets have made a lot of money suggesting that Trump has been on the verge of being removed from office. This only hurts their credibility further.
 
Moderate Right said:
No you haven't. Obama's own intelligence stated what Russia's intent was before the election was even upon us. From there it was only a question of who would win and which side was going to go rabid claiming the presidency was not legitimate.
Click to expand...



Again, we’ve already gone over this point, troll. I’ve agreed that Russia’s intent was to undermine our democracy and have never said otherwise. What you fail to comprehend is that to point out election interference by “liberals” is in defense of our democracy. You mischaracterize that as “falling into a trap.” So, by protesting an attack on the democratic institution of our election process, you say the “liberals” are falling into Russia’s “trap.” Nonsense. Exercising, rather than purposely avoiding, our right of self-expression and free speech is what our democracy is all about. Troll-on.
 
D_NATURED said:
The excuse that the Russians are playing all contingencies does not mean redemption for Trump. His people had meetings with the Russians where they discussed the dirt they had on Hillary. There was no meeting with the Clinton camp where the Russians offered some pee pee videos, or whatever. They worked for Trump's benefit and he let them, period.

Truly, Putin has twice the intellect of our illustrious leader if he can play us so easily. I think you make a great case for a more rational electoral process where the GOP cares as much about Russians voting as Mexicans, who don't. I have seen this president tippy-toe around the Russians and I wonder why you haven't noticed.
Click to expand...

Hillary and the DNC paid foreign governments for the dossier on Trump to get dirt on him. So? It's what politicians do.
 
bluesmoke said:
Again, we’ve already gone over this point, troll. I’ve agreed that Russia’s intent was to undermine our democracy and have never said otherwise. What you fail to comprehend is that to point out election interference by “liberals” is in defense of our democracy. You mischaracterize that as “falling into a trap.” So, by protesting an attack on the democratic institution of our election process, you say the “liberals” are falling into Russia’s “trap.” Nonsense. Exercising, rather than purposely avoiding, our right of self-expression and free speech is what our democracy is all about. Troll-on.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html
 
bluesmoke said:
Again, we’ve already gone over this point, troll. I’ve agreed that Russia’s intent was to undermine our democracy and have never said otherwise. What you fail to comprehend is that to point out election interference by “liberals” is in defense of our democracy. You mischaracterize that as “falling into a trap.” So, by protesting an attack on the democratic institution of our election process, you say the “liberals” are falling into Russia’s “trap.” Nonsense. Exercising, rather than purposely avoiding, our right of self-expression and free speech is what our democracy is all about. Troll-on.
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-wants-undermine-u-election-103555927.html

Funny how Obama's team was so afraid to respond to the Russians in the leadup to the election but then after Hillary's loss they didn't seem afraid at all to have repurcussions from calling Russia out.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-wants-undermine-u-election-103555927.html

Funny how Obama's team was so afraid to respond to the Russians in the leadup to the election but then after Hillary's loss they didn't seem afraid at all to have repurcussions from calling Russia out.
Click to expand...



I already covered this in great detail. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as is in your case. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker and if he or she does not meet it then the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim, as I need not argue any further in your case.
 
bluesmoke said:
I already covered this in great detail. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as is in your case. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker and if he or she does not meet it then the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim, as I need not argue any further in your case.
Click to expand...

An exact description of the investigations into the Trump campaign of colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Looks like we're on the same page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom