Trump threatens government shutdown in September if no funding for wall

[lannarebirth]

The benefit of having a congenital liar saying stupid things is you can disregard whatever they say and carry on as per usual.

[lvr181]

20 hours ago, AsiaHand said:

Got any money that you want to put on about his removal ?

Jeez - of course he will be removed! Removal is a certainity, it is merely a case of how and when. 

[lvr181]

20 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Let's see how much weight that argument carries with Trump.

None - he doesn't understand. 

[selftaopath]

28 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

None - he doesn't understand. 

IMO tRump is a total waste of space.

[bumofdabeach]

Note he didn't say "shut the government down" he said "shut the 'country' down". Could be a poor choice of words or a scarry prediction. Shut it down, cancel the midterm elections and move in the troops. Walls keep things in as well as out

Sent from my Lenovo A1000 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing]

Note he didn't say "shut the government down" he said "shut the 'country' down". Could be a poor choice of words or a scarry prediction. Shut it down, cancel the midterm elections and move in the troops. Walls keep things in as well as out

Sent from my Lenovo A1000 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Sounds like he was trolling with that. We've never had a troll president before. If we survive this one may he be the last!

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[lvr181]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds like he was trolling with that. We've never had a troll president before. If we survive this one may he be the last!

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

A 'twittering troll'?  Somewhat poetic that.

[Thaidream]

Trump does not have the power to cancel elections or use US troops within the United States except in time of massive civil unrest in which the National Guard would be called out.  The orders  to move out troops in order to cancel elections would not be  followed as they are illegal. Trump would be impeached and convicted.

 

We are headed for much turmoil in the US if the Mueller report  shows that there is obstruction of justice or collaboration with the Russians.  Impeachment may take place but conviction is very difficult and has never occurred.  It would be much better for the country if Trump could be convinced to resign- then a pardon by Pence- sending him  to Mar A Largo or Trump Tower and the scraphead of History.

 

What is interesting with Trump is that he outlines the problems American faces quite well- it's his solutions to solve them do not and only create more problems and discontent.  He is a poor leader and a poorer manager not to mention a disgusting human being.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Thaidream

[Jingthing]

Where I'm at on attempts to remove "trump" has evolved. Let's castrate him as much as possible in the midterms. Then wait for the Mueller investigation. If he crushes it prematurely which is very possible, then I think it's time to move to remove him. If he lets it proceed, look at the conclusions. There will be something on "trump" you can bet the house on that. But how severe is the question. If it's not super severe, an impeachment attempt will be seen as purely partisan and political and won't progress to conviction anyway. So I think that would be a bad idea in the long run. If the Mueller conclusions are severe, then I think whether they can proceed to conviction or not, there is no decent choice other than the go for impeachment. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Jingthing

[Thaidream]

Agreed-  no reason to go for impeachment unless you think you can get a conviction so the Mueller report needs to have a real 'smoking gun' with  witnesses.  If the House goes Democrat  in November and the Mueller report is definitive on Trumps collaboration with the Russians - Trump may be convinced to resign as long as Pence will issue the pardons.

 

I remember the Nixon affair- and while he was never impeached- he was presented with an ultimatum- either resign for face impeachment and conviction- they had the votes to convict. HIs Reublican cohorts bailed on him like rats from a sinking ship.  i would expect the same from those Republicans who now support him. If they see definite evidence of wrongdoing- they will abandon Trump

 

The reason I would rather see a resignation is that if there is an impeachment and a trial  for conviction- this is a long term political fight that will drag on for months taking the country down a slippery path in which a distracted and bellicose Trump can do huge damage to America and its Worldwide interests. Trump has to be presented with an ultimatum that the votes are there to convict and be shown the names who will convict him . Also remember while an impeachment only needs a majority to impeach- a conviction needs the Senate to vote  2/3 or 67 members out of a 100 . Trump isn't going to leave easily- he will go out kicking and screaming. However,  President Pence issues the pardon and Trump can go back to kicking old ladies out of their homes so he can build car parks for his real estate. A more despicable person I never want to meet.

[JAG]

48 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

...this is a long term political fight that will drag on for months taking the country down a slippery path in which a distracted and bellicose Trump can do huge damage to America and its Worldwide interests.

1

Unfortunately, I rather suspect that Mr Trump is such a stranger to reality that he will believe, in the scenario you outline, that he is innocent, that the people likely to impeach/convict him are "bad men, very bad men", and will do just that.

[selftaopath]

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Where I'm at on attempts to remove "trump" has evolved. Let's castrate him as much as possible in the midterms. Then wait for the Mueller investigation. If he crushes it prematurely which is very possible, then I think it's time to move to remove him. If he lets it proceed, look at the conclusions. There will be something on "trump" you can bet the house on that. But how severe is the question. If it's not super severe, an impeachment attempt will be seen as purely partisan and political and won't progress to conviction anyway. So I think that would be a bad idea in the long run. If the Mueller conclusions are severe, then I think whether they can proceed to conviction or not, there is no decent choice other than the go for impeachment. 

I know: Let's send endless truck loads of cheeseburgers to the WH for the swamp king and let them do the work. lol lol 

[bumofdabeach]

Trump does not have the power to cancel elections or use US troops within the United States except in time of massive civil unrest in which the National Guard would be called out.  The orders  to move out troops in order to cancel elections would not be  followed as they are illegal. Trump would be impeached and convicted.
 
We are headed for much turmoil in the US if the Mueller report  shows that there is obstruction of justice or collaboration with the Russians.  Impeachment may take place but conviction is very difficult and has never occurred.  It would be much better for the country if Trump could be convinced to resign- then a pardon by Pence- sending him  to Mar A Largo or Trump Tower and the scraphead of History.
 
What is interesting with Trump is that he outlines the problems American faces quite well- it's his solutions to solve them do not and only create more problems and discontent.  He is a poor leader and a poorer manager not to mention a disgusting human being.

I didn't say call up the military I said call out the troops. These ultra rich folk have their own troops such as Blackwater and a bunch of white guys with arsenals at home. That would indeed create civil unrest.

Sent from my Lenovo A1000 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[selftaopath]

16 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Agreed-  no reason to go for impeachment unless you think you can get a conviction so the Mueller report needs to have a real 'smoking gun' with  witnesses.  If the House goes Democrat  in November and the Mueller report is definitive on Trumps collaboration with the Russians - Trump may be convinced to resign as long as Pence will issue the pardons.

 

I remember the Nixon affair- and while he was never impeached- he was presented with an ultimatum- either resign for face impeachment and conviction- they had the votes to convict. HIs Reublican cohorts bailed on him like rats from a sinking ship.  i would expect the same from those Republicans who now support him. If they see definite evidence of wrongdoing- they will abandon Trump

 

The reason I would rather see a resignation is that if there is an impeachment and a trial  for conviction- this is a long term political fight that will drag on for months taking the country down a slippery path in which a distracted and bellicose Trump can do huge damage to America and its Worldwide interests. Trump has to be presented with an ultimatum that the votes are there to convict and be shown the names who will convict him . Also remember while an impeachment only needs a majority to impeach- a conviction needs the Senate to vote  2/3 or 67 members out of a 100 . Trump isn't going to leave easily- he will go out kicking and screaming. However,  President Pence issues the pardon and Trump can go back to kicking old ladies out of their homes so he can build car parks for his real estate. A more despicable person I never want to meet.

I very much appreciate your view and somewhat agree. However part of me thinks your wise approach would be letting him off too easily. The punishment ought to fit the crime. In my mind that would suggest JAIL, a gigantic fine, and full detailed disclosure of all his misdeeds.

[manarak]

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Where I'm at on attempts to remove "trump" has evolved. Let's castrate him as much as possible in the midterms. Then wait for the Mueller investigation. If he crushes it prematurely which is very possible, then I think it's time to move to remove him. If he lets it proceed, look at the conclusions. There will be something on "trump" you can bet the house on that. But how severe is the question. If it's not super severe, an impeachment attempt will be seen as purely partisan and political and won't progress to conviction anyway. So I think that would be a bad idea in the long run. If the Mueller conclusions are severe, then I think whether they can proceed to conviction or not, there is no decent choice other than the go for impeachment. 

 

as much as I don't like Trump, one got to admit that he got some things right in recent months.

 

North Korea - issue seems to be progressing to a resolution.

 

The wall - now we see "the caravan", which resembles a host, preparing to flood the USA's south border. it becomes clear that the USA will need a wall there sooner or later.

 

Iran - Israel supports Trump by making public some "proof" about Iran making nuclear missiles. it remains to see wether that proof has more substance than the proof about mobile Iraqi chemical weapons laboratories, but at the moment it looks like Trump got the right opinion about Iran.

 

Also, the idea to reimpose tolls on some industrial supplies such as steel is not a bad one in my opinion. Free trade has made private individuals rich, but IMO is harming national economies in many sectors and destroying jobs as well as capacity to produce strategic resources.

[bumofdabeach]

Ok. North Korea while it looks promising has signed many agreements in the past and broke all of them. If change does come about it will be because their young leader might actually care about his people. He has his nukes as a bargaining chip and could actually turn his attention to the strugglees of everyday folk
The 'caravan' was an annual March from central America to Mexico city. Only a handful actually went all the way to the border where they are applying for aslyum in an orderly fashion, not bum rushing the border
Iran is what it is a major player in the middle East much to the dismay of Israel and Saudi Arabia
Tariffs will only hurt the consumer by raising prices on everything and oh yes the rich will get richer
The tax cut has only made the rich richer. Yesterday Rubio stated it seems they're not passing those riches down but pocketing them, imagine that, it's not trickling down again

Sent from my Lenovo A1000 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, manarak said:

 

as much as I don't like Trump, one got to admit that he got some things right in recent months.

 

North Korea - issue seems to be progressing to a resolution.

 

The wall - now we see "the caravan", which resembles a host, preparing to flood the USA's south border. it becomes clear that the USA will need a wall there sooner or later.

 

Iran - Israel supports Trump by making public some "proof" about Iran making nuclear missiles. it remains to see wether that proof has more substance than the proof about mobile Iraqi chemical weapons laboratories, but at the moment it looks like Trump got the right opinion about Iran.

 

Also, the idea to reimpose tolls on some industrial supplies such as steel is not a bad one in my opinion. Free trade has made private individuals rich, but IMO is harming national economies in many sectors and destroying jobs as well as capacity to produce strategic resources.

Another case of  "I don't like Trump but..."

If the Korean situation does resolve well, yes, I think Trump does deserve some credit. But it's early days yet and Kim's promises are about as much to be counted on as are Trump's..

As for the wall and the caravan.It proves the USA needs one.? Really? So exactly how was this caravan stopped without said wall in place?

Until such time as "proof" is seen, there's no reason to assume Israel has it. So why do you infer that Trump has got it right about Iran?

The way Trump imposed those rules, then backtracked, has seriously affected the planning of people who depend on certain imported steels for manufacturing and building. In addition, the least effective tariffs are those imposed on raw materials like steel which are not labor intensive. If you want to save more jobs, go downstream not upstream. And of course, these kind of interventions will inevitably invite retaliation from the countries whose goods tariffs are imposed on. Do you honestly  believe that the USA's allies are going to take this lying down?

 

[attrayant]

40 minutes ago, manarak said:

As much as I don't like Trump, one got to admit that he got some things right in recent months.

 

North Korea - issue seems to be progressing to a resolution.

 

Stop right there.  I keep hearing that, but totally unsupported by actual evidence of action from Trump.  What exactly did Trump do to precipitate these events?  Moon was elected with a mandate to engage North Korea, and he seems to be doing that absent any action from Trump.

 

NK has pledged to denuclearlize four times in the past:

 

In 1992 they sign a denuclearization agreement with the south.

In 1994, signed another agreement with the USA. 

In 2005, signed an agreement with the south, Japan, China, Russia and the USA. 

In 2012, they signed yet another agreement with the USA.

 

So let's not plan a party just yet.  However, some things that make this time look a little different: North Korean TV is blasting news of the north-south meeting all over the country. Kim seems to be doing a lot of little linguistic things to generate good will, like using South Korean terms and slang.  He even referred to NK by its South Korean name.  By North Korean standards, these are pretty significant.

 

But back to my main question: What exactly did Trump do?

[notmyself]

2 hours ago, manarak said:

Iran - Israel supports Trump by making public some "proof" about Iran making nuclear missiles. it remains to see wether that proof has more substance than the proof about mobile Iraqi chemical weapons laboratories, but at the moment it looks like Trump got the right opinion about Iran.

 

Tell you what dear member... I used to laugh at these kind of ridiculous comments regarding Iraq not having WMDs but over the years they have actually become quite offensive if for no other reason than pure ignorance. What happened during enquiries spanning 2-3 years after these statements by both the UK and the US? They were not happy to do so but after being dragged kicking and screaming they were forced to admit to selling chemical weapons (WMDs) to Saddam for use against Iran. Sometimes information takes a while to filter down so not knowing something can be put down to time but so long has passed that not knowing now is nothing short of wilful ignorance.

 

A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere. The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, since World War II it has come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

 

Even Wiki has a page on it ***

 

It should also be noted that France sold Saddam WMDs but their administration was never taken to task and so have never admitted it.

 

See, things such as this have a chemical signature akin to that of DNA which is why we can tell exactly where it came from though not necessarily who used at as it could have been stolen. This is the argument the UK offered with regard to the recent poisoning in Salisbury but Russia refuses to even acknowledge ownership/ origin.