Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States

What are your feelings on President Trump's performance

  • Strongly Approve

    Votes: 13 10.5%
  • Approve

    Votes: 15 12.1%
  • Strongly Disapprove

    Votes: 72 58.1%
  • Disapprove

    Votes: 13 10.5%
  • No Opinion

    Votes: 11 8.9%

  • Total voters
    124
  • Poll closed .

Green Demon

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
1,448
Points
113
Who doesn't love a twitter post from the President with no context aka a normal Presidential twitter post...


So since unsurprisingly he saw a Foxnews segment and tweeted out as is his normal protocol here is some context from the government of all places, that actually gives all the numbers rather then a select view that can skew a narrative.


So first of to correct the tweet that 53000 number of DACA recipient that have a previous arrest record is correct but it is in no way even close to the majority of DACA recipients seeing as how the number of approved DACA recipients which was at about 770000 or if looking at it percentage-wise that would be around 8%, so again no where near the majority of DACA.

Now to drill down into the number further even if you still may think that the 53000 is "too high" it is important to note as is noted throughout the document by the USCIS that when it refers to arrest that can be referring to apprehensions as well which is an important note seeing as how they may have been arrested/detained just based on something related to their previously unsettled immigration status.

The data provided here also actually shows the actual offenses that were committed and the percentage of the approved DACA recipients so just by looking at those in the third table on page 4, anybody can see that the top 2 offenses are driving related offense excluding DUI's (so speeding, brake light, etc tickets) which come in at 20926 or 38.9% of DACA recipients and the other is unsurprisingly immigration related offenses which come in at 11861 or 22.05% of DACA recipients. So that would come out to about 60% of those "arrest" or about 31000 of them being for relatively minor offenses.

So looking at all those number put together to provide the actual context of the whole thing only about 22000 of the the total of the approved DACA recipients at about 770000 which would be slightly under 3% have what I guess could be considered a criminal record although there were a couple of minor categories such as curfew violations or the obstruction, fabrication, false claims which could again be related to there previous unsettled immigration status prior to DACA. I won't separate down any further because it would basically be just splitting hairs at that point since were talking about less then 1% for most of the rest of the offense. There are some harder crimes in there and I won't dispute that but again that is such a small percentage of the actual whole of the program that is doesn't seem fair to judge everyone based on a select few.


So TLDR... The president tweetedoutcontext-less numbers to fit his narrative and those numbers of course didn't tell the whole story
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
13,793
Reaction score
18,339
Points
123
Well, my friends, this may be the first time web sites have had to moderate during an impeachment proceeding.

Needless to say, all rules are still in place.

Please refrain from name-calling or inferring entire groups of people are:

Stupid, irrational, simply hateful, brain-washed, not freedom loving, traitors, Ravens fans, useful idiots, typical of "people born and bred in PA," Antifa nut-huggers, Gym Jordans or cult-members.

People are forewarned: Due to the tense political climate we are not going to be generous about giving people benefit of the doubt.


Actin' the fool has been fast-tracked to the Ban Bus.

So THINK BEFORE YOU POST!!!

Klar? Veilen Dank!
 

Phills14

Cleveland Sports Fan
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
10,667
Reaction score
13,279
Points
123
Trump went to Walter Reed hospital yesterday. The White House said he had some time this weekend and wanted to get a jump on his annual physical by getting some tests out of the way. It seems odd because this was out of the blue. A couple of points.

Presidential physicals do happen every year and from what we know, they are typically well planned out. As of Saturday morning, the physical did not appear on the President's public or private schedule. Trump had his physical in February of 2019 so having it in November of the same year seems odd. His twitter account has been active both last night and this AM. It could be him but also we know people in the administration do have access to his account.

This could be nothing or this could be a story. Still, I think it is something to keep an eye on.

I wish no ill will on anyone. I hope he is healthy.
 

Hurl Bruce

Sexual Tyrannosaurus
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
7,500
Reaction score
6,671
Points
113
Trump went to Walter Reed hospital yesterday. The White House said he had some time this weekend and wanted to get a jump on his annual physical by getting some tests out of the way. It seems odd because this was out of the blue. A couple of points.

Presidential physicals do happen every year and from what we know, they are typically well planned out. As of Saturday morning, the physical did not appear on the President's public or private schedule. Trump had his physical in February of 2019 so having it in December of the same year seems odd. His twitter account has been active both last night and this AM. It could be him but also we know people in the administration do have access to his account.

This could be nothing or this could be a story. Still, I think it is something to keep an eye on.

I wish no ill will on anyone. I hope he is healthy.
I'd say there's a 10% chance that he went to the hospital just because he had some extra time and wanted to get a jump on the process that wasn't due to start for another two months.
 

Green Demon

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
1,448
Points
113
Trump Pardons 2 Service Members Accused Of War Crimes And Restores Another's Rank



@King Stannis

I've seen differing opinions on this one, well I guess mostly Republicans defending his deeds per usual but slightly different situation seeing as how these happened in a war zone. Just curious since I know at least Stannis has connection to active and well non active service members but are these pardons something that is seen as undermining the military judicial system and I guess how will these play with those groups just in general?
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
13,793
Reaction score
18,339
Points
123
Trump Pardons 2 Service Members Accused Of War Crimes And Restores Another's Rank



@King Stannis

I've seen differing opinions on this one, well I guess mostly Republicans defending his deeds per usual but slightly different situation seeing as how these happened in a war zone. Just curious since I know at least Stannis has connection to active and well non active service members but are these pardons something that is seen as undermining the military judicial system and I guess how will these play with those groups just in general?
Universal condemnation. We lead Soldiers, not a rabble or armed mob. Also these guys were convicted, not just accused.

We aren’t the Russians: We follow our rules of engagement.

We do that because we are the good guys.

Everyone is accountable, including officers.

Surprise, surprise, Trump understands none of this, rejected the advice of his military advisors and let the Stephen Millers of the world talk him into an action that damages the US.
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
13,793
Reaction score
18,339
Points
123
Aside from being a damning condemnation of Trumpism in general, Mattis clearly articulates that perhaps all of us have lost sight of the bigger picture, in part to Trumpism's pernicious effects on the Left and Right together.

In the end we have to remember that our democracy is what we make of it, and not what it makes us.TM



In 1838, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois. The subject was citizenship and the preservation of America’s political institutions. The backdrop was the threat posed to those institutions by the evil of slavery. Lincoln warned that the greatest danger to the nation came from within. All the armies of the world could not crush us, he maintained, but we could still “die by suicide.”

And now, today, we look around. Our politics are paralyzing the country. We practice suspicion or contempt where trust is needed, imposing a sentence of anger and loneliness on others and ourselves. We scorch our opponents with language that precludes compromise. We brush aside the possibility that a person with whom we disagree might be right. We talk about what divides us and seldom acknowledge what unites us. Meanwhile, the docket of urgent national issues continues to grow—unaddressed and, under present circumstances, impossible to address.

Contending viewpoints and vocal dissent are inevitable, and not the issue. A year ago I stepped down from the best job in the world, as our secretary of defense, over a matter of principle because of grave policy differences with the administration—stating my reasons in a letter that left no room for doubt. What is dangerous is not that people have serious differences. It is the tone—the snarl, the scorn, the lacerating despair.


"Cynicism is cowardice. And cynicism is corrosive when it saturates a society, as it has saturated too much of ours."


Are we unaware of the consequences of national fracturing and disunity? Do we want to bequeath such a country to our children? Have we taught them the principles that citizens of this democracy must live by? Do we even remember those principles ourselves?


Here is what we seem to have forgotten:

America is not some finished work or failed project but an ongoing experiment.
And it is an experiment that, by design, will never end. If parts of the machine are broken, then the responsibility of citizens is to fix the machine—not throw it away. The Founders, with their unsentimental assessment of human nature, brought forth a constitutional system robust enough to withstand great stress and yet capable of profound correction to address injustice. (The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. The Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.) The scale of the Founders’ achievement was unprecedented. Except in small pockets here and there, a democratic system such as ours had never before been tried; the Founders applied it to a nation that would soon span a continent. I think of our own document’s durable capacity when I consider the travails of the United Kingdom, which lacks a written constitution. The lesson is not that we can sit back in relief. It is that we must continue conducting the experiment.

Defects are part of the human condition.
In a way, this is good news. Our imperfections can—and ought to—draw us together in humility, realism, patience, and determination. No one has a monopoly on wisdom or is free from error. Everyone benefits from understanding other points of view. The foundational virtue of democracy is trust—not trust in one’s own rectitude or opinion, but trust in the capacity of collective deliberation to move us forward. That kind of trust is diminishing. About two-thirds of Americans in a recent Pew survey expressed the view that declining trust—in government, in one another—is hampering our ability to confront the country’s problems. Yet trust is not gone. It binds the military, as I’ve seen firsthand in locales as varied as Fallujah and Kandahar, Fort Bragg and Coronado. It exists, in my personal experience, among members of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate and members of the Armed Services Committees of both houses on Capitol Hill—remarkable outliers in an otherwise poisonous environment. Trust is not some weather system over which we have no control. It is a decision about conducting the nation’s business that each of us has the power to make. Building trust means listening to others rather than shutting them down. It also means looking for the right way to define a given problem—asking questions the right way so as to enlist opponents rather than provoke them. There’s a famous observation attributed to Einstein: “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” Too often we define our great national challenges—climate change, immigration, health care, guns—in a way that guarantees division into warring camps. Instead we should be asking one another: What could “better” look like?



Acting wisely means acting with a time horizon not of months or years but of generations.

Short-term thinking tends toward the selfish: Better get mine while I can! Long-term thinking plays to higher ideals. Thomas Jefferson’s idea of “usufruct”—in his metaphor, the responsibility to preserve fertile topsoil from landowner to landowner—embodied an obligation of stewardship and intergenerational fairness. Our Founders thought in centuries. Such thinking discourages shortsighted temptations (such as passing an immense burden of national debt onto our descendants) and encourages the effective management of intractable problems. It conditions us to take heart from the slow accretion of small improvements—the slow accretion that gave us paved roads, public schools, and electrification. I remember being a boy in Washington State and the sense of wonder I felt as bridges replaced ferries on the Columbia River. I remember my grandfather pointing out new power lines extending into our rural part of the state. I think often of the long history of nuclear-arms control. Steady diplomatic engagement with Moscow over five decades—pursued until recently—ultimately gave us an approximately three-quarters reduction in nuclear arsenals, and greater security. Here’s the not-so-secret recipe, applicable to members of Congress and community activists alike: Set a strategic goal and keep at it. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, using his own Jeffersonian metaphor, likened the effort to gardening: a continual, never-ending process of tilling, planting, and weeding.

Cynicism is cowardice.
We all know cynics. From time to time, we all fall prey to cynicism. But cynicism is corrosive when it saturates a society—as it has long saturated Russia’s, and as it has saturated too much of ours. Cynicism fosters a distrust of reality. It is nothing less than a form of surrender. It provokes a suspicion that hidden malign forces are at play. It instills a sense of victimhood. It may be psychically gratifying in the moment, but it solves nothing.

Leadership doesn’t mean someone riding in on a white horse.
We’re deluding ourselves if we think one person has all the answers. In a democracy, real leadership is slow, quiet, diplomatic, collegial, and often frustrating. I will always associate these qualities with General Colin Powell, a personal mentor who understood that to lead also means to serve. A leader, Dwight Eisenhower noted, is not someone who barks “Rise” or “Sit down.” Leadership, he said, is “the art of getting someone else to do something that you want done because he wants to do it.” And it’s a two-way street. As Eisenhower put it, one thing every leader needs is “the inspiration he gets from the people he leads.”

Achieving results nationally means participating locally.
The scale of the country’s challenges can seem so vast that only grand solutions offer any hope of meeting them. We give up on singles and doubles, hoping some slugger will come along and swing for the fences. This is wrong on two counts. First, the steep decline of democratic participation is itself one of our central challenges, reflecting a loss of conviction that government is actually in our hands. Only participation can solve the participation problem. Second, the impact of participation trickles up. Rosa Parks didn’t start out by taking on all of Jim Crow; she started out by taking a seat on a local bus. National efforts on the environment, health care, highways, the minimum wage, workplace safety—all got their start in one state or another. And Washington isn’t synonymous with America, anyway. Community life is sustained locally, not only through government but through a wealth of civic associations that depend on the participation of ordinary people. The president famously possesses a bully pulpit, but the impetus for change just as often comes from the pews.

The “bonds of affection” Lincoln spoke about are paramount.
Maybe it’s a by-product of our success as a nation that Americans take for granted what we have in common. The freedoms we enjoy. The traditions we celebrate. Our rough-and-tumble sense of humor. We need one another the most at moments of crisis, and historically we have come together at such moments—after Pearl Harbor, after 9/11. The adversity of economic depression and world war served as a crucible for an entire generation of men and women, who created and sustained a stable world for half a century. Today we are coping with the consequences of pent-up neglect and intensifying tribal warfare, not of sudden attack. But we face a crisis nonetheless. The surest path to catastrophe is to sever those bonds of affection.

Our core institutions have value, even if all institutions are flawed.
We live in an anti-institutional age. The favorability numbers of virtually every institution except the military are low, and dropping. (John McCain once told me that the only people who liked Congress were family members and salaried employees. His wife, Cindy, turned to him and jokingly said, “Don’t count on family members.”) For all their imperfections, institutions are the best way to transmit what is good down the corridors of time. Civilization is more fragile than one might think; during my career in the military, I saw it destroyed in front of my eyes. We need to make institutions better and stronger, not tear them down. Virulent, take-no-prisoners attacks on the media, the judiciary, labor unions, universities, teachers, scientists, civil servants—pick your target—don’t help anyone. When you tear down institutions, you tear down the scaffolding on which society is built. Allowing institutions to erode—as we have allowed our educational system to erode—is as bad as tearing them down.

I have visited schools and spoken with students. I worry not only about budget cutbacks and funding inequities but also about classroom content. A proper understanding of our national story is absent. Students come away well versed in our flaws and shortcomings. They do not come away with an understanding of our higher ideals, our manifest contributions, our revolutionary aspirations. They do not come away with an understanding of the basic principles I have outlined. Or with an appreciation of how a thoughtful and clear-eyed person can also be—and indeed must be—a patriot.

Every generation since the Revolution has added to the legacy of the Founders in the endless quest to make the union “more perfect.” And every generation shoulders a responsibility to pass along our freedoms, and the wherewithal to secure and enhance them, to the next generation. Having traveled during the past few months to every corner of the country, I know that Americans in general are better—kinder, more thoughtful, more respectful—than our political leadership.

But are we truly doing our duty by future generations? For too many, e pluribus unum is just a Latin phrase on the coins in their hands—not a concept with a powerful moral charge. It is hard work, building a country. In a democracy, it is noble work that all of us have to do.



JAMES MATTIS, a former secretary of defense, served for more than four decades as a Marine infantry officer. He is the author, with Bing West, of Call Sign Chaos.
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
13,793
Reaction score
18,339
Points
123
Oh, hey!

The Secretary of the Navy just resigned in high dudgeon.


Read Navy Secretary Richard Spencer's Fiery Final Letter to Trump



Navy Secretary Richard Spencer claims that President Donald Trump's demand that service preserve the trident of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher fundamentally undermines good order and discipline, according to a copy of his resignation letter obtained by Task & Purpose.

Spencer resigned on Sunday at the request of Defense Secretary Mark Esper over "his lack of candor over conversations with the White House involving the handling of [Gallagher]," Chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.

The Washington Post first reported that Esper asked Spencer to resign after learning that he had promised White House officials that Gallagher would retire with his trident if they did not interfere with the service's planned review board.
https://taskandpurpose.com/richard-spencer-fired-gallagher-trident
In his resignation letter, Spencer claimed that at the core of his resignation is a fundamental disagreement with Trump over the handling of Gallagher's trident and their respective interpretations of "good order and discipline."

"The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries," Spencer wrote. "Good order and discipline is what has enabled our victory against foreign tyranny time and time again."

"Unfortunately, it has become apparent that in this respect, I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline," he continued. "I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defense the Constitution of the United States."

 

lukecfg

Towel Waver
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
243
Reaction score
171
Points
43
In more respectable times, statememts like this might give pause...

"I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defense the Constitution of the United States."

One would hope the GOP would keep Trump in check, but everyone in congress is Trump's bitch.
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
13,793
Reaction score
18,339
Points
123
In more respectable times, statememts like this might give pause...

"I cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defense the Constitution of the United States."

One would hope the GOP would keep Trump in check, but everyone in congress is Trump's bitch.
I think you're missing the point, sir.

The real point is that the Deep State has even infiltrated guys who whole-heartedly supported Trump so much he gave them positions like this.

Deep State is good. Very good.
 

Sumac13

Heretic
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
652
Reaction score
673
Points
93
From now to November 2020, the Democrats should hammer this message: "The rule of law is what sets us apart from our adversaries. Good order and discipline is what has enabled our victory against foreign tyranny time and time again."

Make a clear distinction between rule of law and rule by law. While it may not resonate with a chunk of the populace, I think it would enough with a good many independent/undecided voters to matter come next election. I want to believe that this principle still matters to the majority of Americans.
 

Radio

Top