The Trump Presidency

[gillianren]

Seriously--you don't want to defend him?  Name a thing he's done wrong.

[jfb]

Stupid Tuesday has come and gone, and we're basically down to Biden and Bernie. 

=sigh=

I struggled.  Biden's the best choice by far from a foreign policy perspective (which is what we're gonna desperately need in the coming years), but unless we flip the Senate he's gonna get rolled harder than Obama ever was, and I'm not sure he has the coattails for a flip.  Domestically I wanted Warren (and who I wound up voting for after waffling between her and Biden), but she's effectively out of the race now (and I'd rather she stay in the Senate - we need her there, especially if the impossible happens and we flip it). 

Bernie - is making a shitload of promises he knows he can't keep, and I'm disappointed in all the "progressives" falling for it.  Despite what Cheney and Barr and Trump would have you believe, the President's powers are limited.  Less limited than they should be, for sure, but he (or she) can't simply create M4A by executive fiat, or legalize marijuana across all 50 states, or all the other unicorns he's tossing out there.  Ironically, I do believe Bernie has slightly longer coattails than Biden, and that if he managed to win, we would definitely keep the House and win the Senate.  But...Bernie.  I don't think he has the chops for the job, and while Biden would get rolled by the Republicans, Bernie would have opposition from Republicans and mainline Democrats. 

And Jesus Christ they're both OLD (77 and 78).  I'm old enough to remember when everyone was genuinely concerned about Reagan's age when we won his first term, and he was a sprightly 69.  It matters from a health and cognitive perspective. 

[LunarOrbit]

As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.

And yet you have done so repeatedly.

It sounds so familiar... sort of like when a conspiracy theorist says something along the lines of "I'm not saying the moon landings were faked, I'm just asking questions" and then say things that lead you to believe they think the moon landings were faked. And the way you dismiss any evidence that Trump is racist and corrupt is very reminiscent of the way conspiracy theorists dismiss all of the evidence presented to them that the landings really happened.

"You didn't witness the moon landings first hand, so you have no way to know for sure that they happened. It's all conjecture."
"You are not inside the mind of Donald Trump, so you have no way to know for sure what his beliefs or motives are. It's all conjecture."

In both cases we use the available evidence to form our beliefs. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that the moon landings really happened, and the belief that Trump is corrupt and racist is also supported by evidence. So if you want to keep using the "you're acting like a conspiracy theorist" argument, you might want to do some self-reflection first.

[LunarOrbit]

Stupid Tuesday has come and gone, and we're basically down to Biden and Bernie. 

=sigh=

Some opinions from an outside observer:

I liked Kamala Harris a lot, and Elizabeth Warren too. It doesn't make sense that they received so little support. Of the remaining people running (last time I checked) I'd vote for Warren. I also liked Andrew Yang a lot. People didn't take him seriously, but he at least seems to be aware of what is coming our way economically.

I would have been okay with Pete Buttigieg too, but he became more and more moderate during the course of his campaign. He's young, so I think it makes more sense for him to run for Congress or as a Governor first anyway.

I think American's have been programmed to fear Bernie Sanders, and I honestly don't understand why. He would benefit the vast majority of Americans (if he got his way, at least) but for some reason people want to protect billionaires while they funnel more and more money out of your bank accounts and into theirs. I would fight to protect the healthcare system we have in Canada, and can't imagine having to choose between dying or going bankrupt from hospital bills.

I think Michael Bloomberg is more interested in beating Bernie Sanders than he is in beating Trump. He just wants to protect his wealth and keep the trillion dollar tax break that Trump provided, so I can't take him seriously when he talks about things like fighting climate change. As far as billionaire politicians go, I liked Tom Steyer a whole lot more than Bloomberg.

I will accept Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. He just doesn't excite me. Plus you'll be hearing about nothing besides Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine for at least the next 4+ years if he wins.

[MBDK]

Then you should have absolutely no trouble producing one that supports your exact accusations.  I won't hold my breath.

Here, take your pick. There are a few to choose from

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1259

What part of "supports your exact accusations" don't you understand?  Let's see.  Instead, you have just ignored the specifics of my post, and made a shotgun response that includes trying to shift the burden of proof on me.  Congratulations for the CT trifecta!   

Let's make it easier for you to respond, and/or CT tactic your way through another round.  What do you consider to be your BEST single piece of evidence that indicates I adore Trump?

There are plenty in there where you take the opposite view from a poster criticizing Trump.

In the instances where unsupported accusations have been made, pointing out the flaws in those accusations is, by necessity, an opposite view of their VALIDITY.

I cannot find one where you take agree with a poster criticizing Trump, or taking the opposite view of a poster praising Trump. Perhaps you can help prove that wrong by finding some...

I won't hold my breath.

More irrelevance as it pertains to my oft repeated stated intention for my posts.

As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.

And yet you continue to do so, to the point of personally attacking the owner of this very forum when he criticized your position.

Your interpretation of "defending" has been exposed above.  The "personal attack" (associating LO with having CTs for friends, at least historically) was an honest mistake based on unconfirmed information from several sources in the past.  I have apologized for this.

I think you are trying to pretend that you have not nailed your colours to the mast, but your body of work (which I have linked above) clearly indicates that you have.

If you have no interest in defending Trump, then stop defending him... it really is that simple?

What you think is not supported by the full context of my posts.

[MBDK]

Seriously--you don't want to defend him?  Name a thing he's done wrong.

I already did in my last reply to you.  Didn't you notice?

[MBDK]

As I repeatedly have stated, I have no interest in defending the man.

And yet you have done so repeatedly.

Not really, as explained in my responses to smartcookie.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that the moon landings really happened, and the belief that Trump is corrupt and racist is also supported by evidence. So if you want to keep using the "you're acting like a conspiracy theorist" argument, you might want to do some self-reflection first.

The "evidence" I have taken to task (with a couple of acknowledged and retracted errors), does not hold up to scrutiny, yet has been endorsed on this topic thread using the same tactics as CTs do.  That evidence is NOT all-inclusive of everything posted, nor has it EVER been claimed as such.  Yet, you and others continue to rabidly argue its authenticity without merit*.  I suggest YOU re-examine some of your arguments in an unemotional state, if you can.

*As an example, let's revisit the racism claim based upon one of Trump's businesses refusing to allow a couple of color to rent a dwelling.  There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy, or made such a demand in any way.  The statement by the person who denied the couple their due consideration only claimed the policy came vaguely from "above".  How many layers of management are there between that person and Trump?  That is an important factor to know.  How come none of his myriad other rentals, hotels  and like business had the same policy?  Others have claimed Trump lost the lawsuit brought by the couple, when in fact it never went to court. 

So, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing), and gigantic leaps of conjecture to insist a direct tie-in to Trump, yet no acknowledgement of these transgressions.  Instead, the replies are the extremely CTish, "but...but..all the OTHER evidence."  Sorry, but as you all SHOULD know, all the other evidence does NOT put bogus accusations on even footing.

[LunarOrbit]

*As an example, let's revisit the racism claim based upon one of Trump's businesses refusing to allow a couple of color to rent a dwelling.  There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy, or made such a demand in any way.  The statement by the person who denied the couple their due consideration only claimed the policy came vaguely from "above". How many layers of management are there between that person and Trump?

From what I understand, the Trump organization has always been fairly small, just him and a handful of others (not counting the contractors that he likes to rip off). Regardless, as the head of the organization he bears some of the responsibility. Or are you saying he was totally unaware of the problem until he found himself in court? Surely he could have overrode the decision of his underling if he disagreed with it and allowed the couple to rent, and I find it difficult to believe the opportunity to do so didn't exist before going to court.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy

Racists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing. That would allow it to be used against them in court later. The policy would most likely be an unspoken rule that could be easily denied. I'll also point out that a lot of racist people don't consider themselves racist and would deny it if accused. That is why we look at his behavior, not just at what he says. Actions speak louder than words.

So, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing)

That is not even close to being "provably false". At best you have made the case that it's unclear whether Trump personally blocked the couple from renting an apartment... but you have not proved that it wasn't his decision. You are using conjecture to pass the blame to some unknown employee who Trump permitted to make important decisions on his behalf. That person must have a name... what is it? Was it the same person that placed a Coca-Cola bottle on the Moon set? Or maybe the same guy who shot JFK from the grassy knoll?

And of course you ignore all of the other allegations of racism that have surrounded Trump for years. If it was just the one apartment rental case from 1973 I might agree that there is too little information available to start throwing around accusations. But that is not the only accusation, and the others are quite clear. Refusing to disavow the endorsement of David Duke, Obama Birtherism, the false accusations against the Central Park 5, calling poor countries that are mostly populated by brown-skinned people "shitholes", calling Mexicans rapists and murderers, locking children in cages... none of that sets off any alarms for you?

[MBDK]

*As an example, let's revisit the racism claim based upon one of Trump's businesses refusing to allow a couple of color to rent a dwelling.  There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy, or made such a demand in any way.  The statement by the person who denied the couple their due consideration only claimed the policy came vaguely from "above". How many layers of management are there between that person and Trump?

From what I understand, the Trump organization has always been fairly small, just him and a handful of others (not counting the contractors that he likes to rip off).

Wiki says differently - "The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner."

However, what it was like before being designated as The Trump Organization (1973), was undoubtedly smaller, but also undoubtedly NOT a mom and pop operation.

Regardless, as the head of the organization he bears some of the responsibility. Or are you saying he was totally unaware of the problem until he found himself in court? Surely he could have overrode the decision of his underling if he disagreed with it and allowed the couple to rent, and I find it difficult to believe the opportunity to do so didn't exist before going to court.

Conjecture based on no concrete evidence.  Would you let a CT get away with that?

From -
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html
"While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties, he was on hand while they were in place, working out of a cubicle in Trump Management’s Brooklyn offices as early as the summer of 1968."

Please note that I included the entire quote for accuracy, but despite the article's clear bias, the FACT is still there to be read - "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties"

There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy

Racists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing.

Rationalizing a dearth of evidence is also a common CT ploy.  Regardless, in this instance, the result is still no direct evidence.  Would you let a CT get away with this?

So, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing)

That is not even close to being "provably false". At best you have made the case that it's unclear whether Trump personally blocked the couple from renting an apartment... but you have not proved that it wasn't his decision.

First of all, your attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted.  Would you let a CT get away with this?

Secondly, please notice my parenthesized "the court thing".  My only mention of "court" in the post you quoted was this sentence - "Others have claimed Trump lost the lawsuit brought by the couple, when in fact it never went to court."

Now, I will admit, I could have worded it more pointedly, that the suit was not "lost" by Trump Management, instead, settled by consent decree which contained no admission of wrongdoing, and further investigation indicates a vastly more wide-spread investigation than just a couple (how the subject was first brought to my attention).  Also, the decree required the Trump firm to institute a series of safeguards to make sure apartments were rented without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (unquote)

Still, the FACT remains such a claim of loss is provably false.  Would you let a CT get away with such a false claim?

You are using conjecture to pass the blame to some unknown employee who Trump permitted to make important decisions on his behalf. That person must have a name... what is it?

Talk to the FBI.  They are the ones who redacted names from the complaint documents. 
https://www.spin.com/2017/02/fred-trump-told-me-not-to-rent-to-blacks-fbi-1970s-investigation-into-racism-at-trump-apartments/

And of course you ignore all of the other allegations of racism that have surrounded Trump for years.

Why do -YOU ignore the qualifying statement I made?  Would you let a CT do THAT?

The "evidence" I have taken to task (with a couple of acknowledged and retracted errors), does not hold up to scrutiny, yet has been endorsed on this topic thread using the same tactics as CTs do.  That evidence is NOT all-inclusive of everything posted, nor has it EVER been claimed as such.

[/quote]

[LunarOrbit]

From what I understand, the Trump organization has always been fairly small, just him and a handful of others (not counting the contractors that he likes to rip off).

Wiki says differently - "The Trump Organization is a group of about 500 business entities of which Donald Trump is the sole or principal owner."

"500 business entities" does not necessarily mean "many employees", since they could be businesses on paper only. And I'm not talking about the low level employees in his hotels and golf courses, I'm referring to top level executives.

From The New York Times:

Mr. Trump often boasts of the size of the Trump Organization. “It’s a big company,” he said in the interview last spring. A spokeswoman said the business employed “tens of thousands.”

But industry experts estimate that no more than 4,000 people work for the Trump Organization worldwide. And executives say that the three floors that make up the headquarters appear to have no more than 150 employees.

It is a family business, as everyone involved is quick to explain. And the management structure is informal if not confusing, with deputies constantly buzzing in and out of the boss’s office.

“We kind of run a little bit like a mom-and-pop in that sense,” Donald Trump Jr. said in a 2011 deposition for a lawsuit involving a Florida development. “I guess there is an organizational chart, but in theory, there is not too many levels.” He added: “Could I make one? Yes. Is there one officially? Not that I’m aware of.”

Regardless, as the head of the organization he bears some of the responsibility. Or are you saying he was totally unaware of the problem until he found himself in court? Surely he could have overrode the decision of his underling if he disagreed with it and allowed the couple to rent, and I find it difficult to believe the opportunity to do so didn't exist before going to court.

Conjecture based on no concrete evidence.  Would you let a CT get away with that?

So you're saying that Trump was unaware of the problem until it went to court. I find that hard to believe.

From -
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html
"While there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties, he was on hand while they were in place, working out of a cubicle in Trump Management’s Brooklyn offices as early as the summer of 1968."

Please note that I included the entire quote for accuracy, but despite the article's clear bias, the FACT is still there to be read - "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump personally set the rental policies at his father’s properties"

But the full quote is important. He might not have personally set the policies, but he was "on hand" while they were being enforced. But yeah, let's blame the guy who worked beneath him and whose name we conveniently don't know.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence Trump had such a policy

Racists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing.

Rationalizing a dearth of evidence is also a common CT ploy.

Don't be ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me that since the mafia doesn't have all of their intricate mob rules written down, it must mean the mafia doesn't exist.

So, we have a provably false allegation (the court thing)

That is not even close to being "provably false". At best you have made the case that it's unclear whether Trump personally blocked the couple from renting an apartment... but you have not proved that it wasn't his decision.

First of all, your attempt to shift the burden of proof is noted.  Would you let a CT get away with this?

You claimed something was "provably false" but you failed to prove your argument. If you had said there was uncertainty about whether Trump personally blocked the couple from renting the apartment I would agree with you, but you said it was "provable" that he didn't. But that would only be true if you could give me the name of the person who was responsible.

Also, there is a difference between "evidence" and "proof". I've never said that the discrimination lawsuit is "proof" that Trump is a racist. It's one piece of evidence.

Secondly, please notice my parenthesized "the court thing".  My only mention of "court" in the post you quoted was this sentence - "Others have claimed Trump lost the lawsuit brought by the couple, when in fact it never went to court."

What difference does it make? It doesn't have to go to court. The mere fact that he was accused of discrimination is damning. The fact that he settled out of court doesn't change that, it would help him more if he had gone to trial and was acquitted.

Still, the FACT remains such a claim of loss is provably false.  Would you let a CT get away with such a false claim?

You're focusing on the wrong detail. It doesn't matter if he lost the court case. That's a technicality. If he settled before going to trial it probably means he expected to lose.

You are using conjecture to pass the blame to some unknown employee who Trump permitted to make important decisions on his behalf. That person must have a name... what is it?

Talk to the FBI.  They are the ones who redacted names from the complaint documents.

My point is that you can't say it's "provably false" that Trump discriminated against people wishing to rent apartments if you can't prove that someone else made the decision. You have only argued that there is uncertainty about whether he was responsible or not.

And of course you ignore all of the other allegations of racism that have surrounded Trump for years.

Why do -YOU ignore the qualifying statement I made?

Do you forget where this discussion stems from? Several people asked you why you have repeatedly defended Trump. You've defended him regarding that 1973 discrimination lawsuit by saying it's "provably false" that Trump was responsible. And by pretending that the other accusations don't exist or aren't important, you're essentially defending him. Accusing President Obama of not being a real American just because he has brown skin and a Muslim sounding name is a racist conspiracy theory. Are you defending it or not? Calling for the Central Park 5 to be executed even after they were found innocent is a racist conspiracy theory. Are you defending it or not?

[smartcooky]

Racists, while generally pretty stupid, are not always so stupid that they would put their racist policies in writing. That would allow it to be used against them in court later. The policy would most likely be an unspoken rule that could be easily denied. I'll also point out that a lot of racist people don't consider themselves racist and would deny it if accused. That is why we look at his behavior, not just at what he says. Actions speak louder than words.

THIS

Anyone... ANYONE who refers to white supremacists as "fine people"; or who says "after seeing America, Nigerians would never 'go back to their huts' "; or says that El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and African countries were "shithole countries"; or says that Congresswomen of colour should 'go back to the countries they came from' is a racist.

Trump did all of the above... he is undeniably a stone cold racist.

[MBDK]

More conjecture in your last reply, as well as failure to answer my questions.

And when you attempt to reconcile your conclusions with, "The mere fact that he was accused of discrimination is damning", just shows why you should never be on a jury.

But, to address your pertinent concerns...

Do you forget where this discussion stems from?

Of course not.  You seem to have forgotten, or perhaps failed to noticed, my reason for interjecting, though.  Allow me to repost part of my very first post on this topic.
From Reply#612:
"Just want to point out that despite having only bothered to read the first couple of pages of posts written in this discussion topic, I find it appalling to find so many, who supposedly promote critical thinking, facts, truth, and accountability, getting emotionally invested and forgetting everything they have chastised the conspiracy theorists about.

First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.  However, during the course of his presidency I have noted a constant concerted effort to find flaws in everything he does, manufacture them where they don't exist, shout it all out to the world, and, if not outright defiant in the face of facts, remain utterly silent when such claims come up empty or are proven false.  That said, I won't defend his many faults, but I still feel it is important to maintain the standards we want in our Apollo discussions, by NOT using out-of-context evidence, false narratives and hearsay in lieu of facts and reason."

For transparency, I will reiterate that the first example I used was wrong, and I retracted my claim (for that first example) in Reply #636.

Several people asked you why you have repeatedly defended Trump.

And I have repeatedly answered this truthfully.  Just as in my first post, I am not here to defend him, just to point out that some bits of "evidence" used to lambaste him are similar in context, if not identical, to CT tactics.  You, and others seem to have just ignored this only expressed reason for my posts, and run amok pursuing your own agendas.  Sound familiar?

pretending that the other accusations don't exist or aren't important, you're essentially defending him

No. Other accusations are irrelevant, when considering a specific one that has no tangible support.  That's would be like giving validity to a claim that Jeffery Dahmer was responsible for one or more missing persons in his town based solely on the fact that he was so evil.

EACH claim should be evaluated individually, without prejudice.  That is how science works, and how the law is supposed to work.

Why people have short-circuited their reasoning capabilities and insist on galloping in their own closed loop just shows (IMHO) what happens when emotions and/or beliefs are allowed to rule.  I have been guilty of doing that, and undoubtedly will do so again.  That's just part of the human condition.  However, being aware of it, and trying to recognize and temper it, can only enhance logical discourse.

[smartcooky]

First of all, I want you to know that I do not like Trump as our President, particularly regarding his disregard of competent science, and did not vote for him, but I also did not vote Democratic, as they are just as flawed in their own fashion.

Yeah, there are good people on both sides 

[gillianren]

Seriously.  If you're not here to defend Trump, you're doing an awfully good impersonation of someone who is.

List things he does that you disagree with.  Go for it.  I can tell you things about any number of candidates I support that I disagree with--and did, when Hillary Clinton was running.  But you even defended his firing of the pandemic response team with "I don't see why it's a problem."

[Zakalwe]

MBDK, what do you think of the stable genius's latest claim about the COVID19 death rates? Apparently he knows more than the WHO.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/05/trump-coronavirus-who-global-death-rate-false-number

The man is a blithering idiot and a dangerous one at that.