-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Trump now in hospital
- Thread starter x65943
- Start date
- Views 11,335
- Replies 167
- Likes 3
I wish him well and wish he gets slammed by the NY DA after he leaves the white house no one should be above the law not even trump and all the evidence suggest he's guilty of many financial crimes i'd lose even more faith in our country if biden wins but pardon's trump of any tax crimes but this isn't like nixon where his vp pardoned him
D
Deleted User
Guest
And from where I come, stopping funds or redirecting them when they have already been agreed by congress is illegal.And yes he was asking for a political favor, which was to find dirt on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Essentially, you get no money, money that congress agreed on (aka went through house and senate), unless you dig up dirt on my political opponent was what Trump was doing.
I know what trump did. He also got impeached. What do you think the proper punishment would have been?
I don't know if you started off misinterpreting me and caused a whole chain of confusion.
Still from where I sit.
You made a simple statement that he had not lobbed any bombs onto a middle eastern country.
This was untrue. The first citations were for that.
I don't know if you saw the word justification and assumed something (the initial phrase was about not discussing justification at this point). Either way you then went off about the 11th of September 2001 attacks and what if the people responsible attempted to justify it. They did, I linked said attempt at justification.
Cause and effect is a fun one. I did marginally broach the concept there but from where I sit it was not just a leave office and take office affair whilst it was all going on. Definite demarcation there and options to cease hostilities if it was deemed prudent.
If we do play the cause and effect game though where do we stop? Sykes-picot?
This is also ignoring the non middle eastern countries that had such fun and games too. Plus if Yemen is somehow not enough then earlier this yeah in Baghdad there was the whole killing of that general
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463
That was a standalone act as far as I can tell. One made years after any previous efforts or not as a continuation of anything in particular.
Lobbing bombs is not inherently immoral either. There are reasons to be doing it under most takes on morality, certainly those in common play in most of the world (pure pacifism does not) and used by the US, the UN, NATO and allies thereof, as well as various places in the middle east (though this can get murkier).
Whether it was or was not here, or was forced, was as yet undiscussed. I am less familiar with all this but can do a bit of reading to get properly up to speed if you really want to go there.
Guantanamo you say. Can't say I was a fan of the methods, results or justifications. For one that decried whataboutism in a previous post it is amusing that you would bring it up however.
D
Deleted User
Guest
to get remove from office. His actions severely violated what a United States president is supposed to do. He got impeached ,but the senate decided to say "oh well, he learned his lesson" and give a free pass, and then he started doing more illegal shit. Like for example, diverting funds that should of gone to the pentagon to his wall. In the executive branch you don't have the power to do that, and the courts agreed on that fact he couldn't do that. And this is just one example.
D
Deleted User
Guest
Just checked, wow, yeah they did. Welp, looks like separations of powers really don't exist anymore.
Probability wise its now a little clearer what happened, still no confirmation by the white house.
Two scenarios:
- President faked stronger symptoms, used Walter Reed as a PR opportunity to be in the press. And refused to self isolate, when he knew a close member of staff tested positive
- President has refused testing for at least a week or so, and then refused to self isolate, when he knew a close member of staff tested positive.
The first scenario just became more unlikely, because apparently you only get the antibody cocktail, when you have shown heavier symptoms, like problems with breathing, and low oxygen levels. Dexamethasone also is reserved for later stage treatment. The antibody cocktail is currently in clinical trials (about 200 people have gotten it) and was shone to be the cause of a worse outcome if prescribed too early. So your bodies immune system needs to fire and start producing, and then - when overwhelmed, you are go to take it.
The president reportedly has taken it. In general those symptoms (problems breathing) develop in the second week of you having the virus, not the first. Which is also an indication that Trump might have had the virus for a while.
Before the debate he arrived late and could not be tested (the broadcaster went ahead based on an honor system).
--
For the first scenario to be true (president was tested daily and the infection was caught early), treating with the antibody drug would be malpractice, but its still possible that that happened, because of 'VIP patients get what they want', so a slight tendency to overtreatment.
--
In any case, the white house refused to report, when Trump last tested negative, and there were time discrepancies in the statements by his personal physician. (He likely lied.)
---
In any case, Trump went to his last fundraiser, boarding a plane, knowing that his closest adviser tested positive, 'feeling groggy' and having a sore voice (as per staff comments), without protective equipment - and then held the fundraiser without protective equipment.
As a result republican party advisers, and campaignmanagers are droping like flies, being tested positive for Covid, and the White House has announced, that it will not make public the names of further people that get tested positive.
Clusterf.
Two scenarios:
- President faked stronger symptoms, used Walter Reed as a PR opportunity to be in the press. And refused to self isolate, when he knew a close member of staff tested positive
- President has refused testing for at least a week or so, and then refused to self isolate, when he knew a close member of staff tested positive.
The first scenario just became more unlikely, because apparently you only get the antibody cocktail, when you have shown heavier symptoms, like problems with breathing, and low oxygen levels. Dexamethasone also is reserved for later stage treatment. The antibody cocktail is currently in clinical trials (about 200 people have gotten it) and was shone to be the cause of a worse outcome if prescribed too early. So your bodies immune system needs to fire and start producing, and then - when overwhelmed, you are go to take it.
The president reportedly has taken it. In general those symptoms (problems breathing) develop in the second week of you having the virus, not the first. Which is also an indication that Trump might have had the virus for a while.
Before the debate he arrived late and could not be tested (the broadcaster went ahead based on an honor system).
--
For the first scenario to be true (president was tested daily and the infection was caught early), treating with the antibody drug would be malpractice, but its still possible that that happened, because of 'VIP patients get what they want', so a slight tendency to overtreatment.
--
In any case, the white house refused to report, when Trump last tested negative, and there were time discrepancies in the statements by his personal physician. (He likely lied.)
---
In any case, Trump went to his last fundraiser, boarding a plane, knowing that his closest adviser tested positive, 'feeling groggy' and having a sore voice (as per staff comments), without protective equipment - and then held the fundraiser without protective equipment.
As a result republican party advisers, and campaignmanagers are droping like flies, being tested positive for Covid, and the White House has announced, that it will not make public the names of further people that get tested positive.
Clusterf.
Last edited by notimp,
Makes NO sense:
Trump to be released from Walter Reed.
No mention of the antibody drug (which would indicate which stage of infection he was on), a slight uncomfortable 'nudge' to "president got his treatments 'very early'", which would be nonstndard treatment and potentially dangerous,
BUT at the same time releasing him from hospital, prior to the one week deadline, when people would know how treatment was working going into the crucial second week, where most people show worsening of symptoms.
And again another refusal to answer when the president had his last negative test.
Bunch of liars.
Still maintain, that the most likely scenario is, that Trump skipped covid testing for at least a week, and was infected 7+ days from now.
Trump to be released from Walter Reed.
No mention of the antibody drug (which would indicate which stage of infection he was on), a slight uncomfortable 'nudge' to "president got his treatments 'very early'", which would be nonstndard treatment and potentially dangerous,
BUT at the same time releasing him from hospital, prior to the one week deadline, when people would know how treatment was working going into the crucial second week, where most people show worsening of symptoms.
And again another refusal to answer when the president had his last negative test.
Bunch of liars.
Still maintain, that the most likely scenario is, that Trump skipped covid testing for at least a week, and was infected 7+ days from now.
Last edited by notimp,
Your own supreme court ruled he was within his remit. I think your feelings about the matter are valid but let's respect the decision of the highest court in your country shall we? They might know a bit more about this.
About the Impeachment - There's nothing wrong with a President renegotiating a trade deal.
About Trump's ride around - The Secret Service agents in the car and Trump were wearing masks and the agents volunteered to be in the car. I don't see why it would be okay for tens of thousands of people to go protest without masks, but it's wrong for consenting adults wearing masks to be in the same car. Makes you wonder how the protestors got the protests especially since none of them really are wearing masks. Hmm.....
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I'm also glad to see Trump hasn't fallen severely ill and will be returning to the White House today. That's the plan at least. Remember, even with the obesity and age the odds of him getting really sick or dying are extremely low.
About Trump's ride around - The Secret Service agents in the car and Trump were wearing masks and the agents volunteered to be in the car. I don't see why it would be okay for tens of thousands of people to go protest without masks, but it's wrong for consenting adults wearing masks to be in the same car. Makes you wonder how the protestors got the protests especially since none of them really are wearing masks. Hmm.....
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I'm also glad to see Trump hasn't fallen severely ill and will be returning to the White House today. That's the plan at least. Remember, even with the obesity and age the odds of him getting really sick or dying are extremely low.
Oh no, lobbing bombs isn't inherently immoral. Its whom they land on and how many they kill, and what social/political nightmares they set into motion that counts.
I find when people try to be intelligent and dissect things to the very basic (but undeniable) technicality, it belies that very intelligence they're trying to convey desperately. Its insincere and you're doing yourself a disservice.
The manner in which you're failing to see why I said what I did, it is clear, perhaps you're so intelligent that what I say is simply flying under your radar, or smart but not quite enough to catch my drift. I know what I think, I am certain you think the opposite - and that's ok.
To harken back to Sykes-Picot agreement is infantile, irrelevant and unnecessary. You CAN judge the current situation on its own merit. This may come as a surprise, but not everything needs a citation, reference or precedent. One should, on occasion, try thinking for themselves.
A president doesnt negotiate a trade deal.
Trade deals are negotiated on the administration level, in this case bilaterally, for months and years, by mid level diplomatic grunts going back and forth, then when everything is ready - you have the PR part (signing...).
Same reason why its wrong to have Covid parties.
More in depth explaination, if people are out in the open aerosol based infections are 'close to zero' (there have not been high infection rate bumps correlated with mass protests). When people are working in meat processing plants (close proximity, inside, higher humidity) - they, likely, are more problematic. Now, sitting in the same hermetically sealed car is closer to the second one.
https://www.npr.org/sections/latest...mp-waves-to-supporters-outside-of-walter-reed
Which brings us to the logic step you love to ignore.
If you have a potentially fatal (to others) illness, you dont shop it around. Even if there is only 5% (or lower) risk of infection - do you really want to be the person, that has to say to yourself later in life - I guess I killed a guy, because I wanted to take a stroll?
Consenting is BS, if your job depends on being a yesman to a baphoon. There are pressures at work here - that make 'consenting' - not so 'consenting'. The next argument then is, but the secret service guys, are putting their lives at risk every day anyhow, thats their job, and the rebuttle there is - YES, but in this case its the president shooting bullets at them. This is entirely irresponsible.
Last edited by notimp,
There's nothing stopping a President to renegotiate a trade deal and yes some are indeed initiated with promises from Presidents. Obama set the terms and conditions on the large cash payment to Iran and that's probably not the only trade deal he had his hands in. What Trump did wasn't illegal and it wasn't close to quid pro quo. The Senate acquitted him because the case against him was utter bullshit. We do however have Joe on record bragging about quid pro quo and since it's now customary to impeach a President simply for winning the election I would support an early effort to impeach Biden, because you know, guilty isn't necessary and all.
A president doesnt negotiate a trade deal. This is not how trade negotiations work.
If its wrong or not, doesnt matter - it doesnt happen.
Its 'easy speak, max condensed down' for - 'the administration that came into place, when a new president was voted in'.
Reason: Highly complex stuff, very nitty gritty, not at all for the guy that has to keep an eye on the bigger picture, und in general too complex for one guy to handle. I think (not sure) it wouldnt even be common for a president to set 'red lines' (until there and no further) here.
edit: Here, read this:
https://psmag.com/economics/the-president-recently-gained-power-over-trade-deals
Trump imposed tariffs using emergency powers to influence procedure - otherwise he wouldnt be involved at all.
Last edited by notimp,
There's nothing stopping a President from negotiating trade deals and it's not uncommon for them to do so. The problem was the Liberals claimed there was quid pro quo when there was none. I also believe if you're trading that one side gives you something based on what you want and what you're willing to give them in return. What did the Liberals who supported the impeachment expect? Did they expect us just to give Ukraine aid and get nothing in return? LOL.
Presidents never influenced trade policy up to 1930 says my source, and after that, they started to get a bit more politically involved. But they never negotiated trade deals.
Their administration does.
The president signs.
You cant be so naive that you think, that trade deals are done on 1 on 1 negotiation basis with handshake agreements. The formalities surrounding them alone would make your head explode. And there is back and forth on legal points and definitions for months, sometimes years. Thats nothing a president does.
edit: Here is the extend the president is involved in the UK trade deal thats currently being wrapped up:
He says 'very unfair' for a bit, otherwise 'get it done'.
Their administration does.
The president signs.
You cant be so naive that you think, that trade deals are done on 1 on 1 negotiation basis with handshake agreements. The formalities surrounding them alone would make your head explode.
And there is back and forth on legal points and definitions for months, sometimes years. Thats nothing a president does.edit: Here is the extend the president is involved in the UK trade deal thats currently being wrapped up:
https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/blog/talking-trade-deals--presidential-blog--16-september-2020
He says 'very unfair' for a bit, otherwise 'get it done'.
Last edited by notimp,
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
There is an actual trailer with footage too. lol. Going to watch it tonight. Grabbed it from... a place. -
-
@
SylverReZ:
@Psionic Roshambo, JonTron's back yet again until he disappears into the void for another 6 or so months.+1 -
-
