Trump Consciousness

Actually what she did was commit a felony. Ironic for someone who said more than anyone else, "No one is above the law."

18 U.S.C. § 2071, Section 2071 (a)

US Code prohibits the destruction of government records

This violation is punishable by up to three years in prison
Presuming you are being facetious as she did not destroy a record Sam. The record remains intact. She tore her copy of a public speech from the POTUS.

Do you have a serious response to my question?
 
Presuming you are being facetious as she did not destroy a record Sam. The record remains intact. She tore her copy of a public speech from the POTUS.

Do you have a serious response to my question?
Yes, do your homework. The document she tore up is the official government document of the speech for the House of Representatives. Just like her pens, there are more than one.
 
Yes, do your homework. The document she tore up is the official government document of the speech for the House of Representatives. Just like her pens, there are more than one.
The document may be official but the law you cited doesn't pertain to documents. It's specific to records. Those are not equivalent. If her copy was the only one, you'd have an argument. Ask an attorney Sam. I'm quite confident in my understanding here.

I'll continue to await a serious response to the question I raised.
 
The document may be official but the law you cited doesn't pertain to documents. It's specific to records. Those are not equivalent. If her copy was the only one, you'd have an argument. Ask an attorney Sam. I'm quite confident in my understanding here.

I'll continue to await a serious response to the question I raised.
The document is an official record provided to the House. A duplicate is provided to the Senate (given to the head of the Senate, Mike Pentz). Courts are there for deciding such matters. Various lawyers have taken the same position I expressed. Buy some popcorn... you have a long year ahead of you.
 
I only really know the colour of your dog, but I am guessing you are white. Do you really want to pursue this black vs white nonsense - I mean it is really just as demeaning as if you backed your own skin colour.

The fact remains that Trump has quite a few black supporters who say they are better off. A big part of being better off is actually having a job, and the unemployment rate is extremely low at the moment.

David
 
Hi David,

Can you explain what you mean "let drop for a bit"?

Thanks
Well this thread attracts so many posts that some people think it rather eclipses the rest of Skeptiko. I certainly don't want to close the thread, but it would be nice if everyone directed a bit more energy to the rest of the forum.

Unfortunately it would seem the Dems really have a death wish, and want to restart the stupid investigation in the house - so maybe forget what I wrote!

David
 
Last edited:
For anyone who still believes the president did something wrong, I would urge them to view this senate hearing about Hunter Biden. I'm not quite sure who the speaker is (presumably a GOP senator) but she goes through all the evidence against Hunter Biden (and by implication against his father). This video is the second video on the page, and remember, this is a Senate session, not some figment of Fox News imagination.

Remember, this evidence cuts to the heart of the Democrat's case for impeachment - HB was obviously involved in corruption!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...confidential-info-on-hunter-biden-report-says

Jim,

I'd really like yo to fill in some more details on this - when did this senate hearing take place (was it post acquittal?) and can you find a way to post this video directly in this thread?

David
 
For anyone who still believes the president did something wrong, I would urge them to view this senate hearing about Hunter Biden. I'm not quite sure who the speaker is (presumably a GOP senator) but she goes through all the evidence against Hunter Biden (and by implication against his father). This video is the second video on the page, and remember, this is a Senate session, not some figment of Fox News imagination.

Remember, this evidence cuts to the heart of the Democrat's case for impeachment - HB was obviously involved in corruption!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...confidential-info-on-hunter-biden-report-says

Jim,

I'd really like yo to fill in some more details on this - when did this senate hearing take place (was it post acquittal?) and can you find a way to post this video directly in this thread?

David
I've posted a couple of videos about the evidence against Biden.

This video in the post below is from the impeachment trial in the senate. Pam Bondi is a lawyer on Trump's defense team, she reviews the evidence against Biden. Is that the video you are asking about in your which I have included above?

Trump impeachment trial: Pam Bondi argues Biden corruption concerns are legitimate


The next post includes a video by Rudi Giuliani who is Trump's personal laywer. He went to Ukraine to gather information on what happened so he could defend Trump. The video is an episode of Giuliani's personal podcast it is not part of any official government proceeding or conducted for any client.

According to Rudi Giuliany, the Biden family has been illegally profiting from Joe's public office for years. He explains what happened in Ukraine here:

Giuliani's twitter feed is here it has a lot of information on Biden: https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani

His web site has more information too including a podcast: https://rudygiulianics.com

People try to defend Biden by saying he thought the Ukrainian prosecutor he got fired was corrupt. But that explanation is not really supported by the evidence. This is outlined in the article I linked to in this post:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

09/26/19​
Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story​
Former Vice President Joe Biden, now a 2020 Democratic presidential contender, has locked into a specific story about the controversy in Ukraine.​
He insists that, in spring 2016, he strong-armed Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor solely because Biden believed that official was corrupt and inept, not because the Ukrainian was investigating a natural gas company, Burisma Holdings, that hired Biden's son, Hunter, into a lucrative job.​
There’s just one problem.​
Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.​

The problem for Biden is not just getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired, it is the fact that his son was getting a lot of money from the Ukrainian company when his only qualification was that he was Biden's son. That by itself is reason enough to investigate whether or not Biden was corrupt.
 
Last edited:
Well this thread attracts so many posts that some people think it rather eclipses the rest of Skeptiko. I certainly don't want to close the thread, but it would be nice if everyone directed a bit more energy to the rest of the forum.

Unfortunately it would seem the Dems really have a death wish, and want to restart the stupid investigation in the house - shrug!

David
It sounds like you are okay with some amount of posting to this thread but if there is too much you might close the thread. Is that right?

I wish you would be more specific because I would like to continue posting but I don't want to post so much that it causes you to close the thread.

I am not really interested in posting to Alex's podcast threads because I rarely listen to the podcasts and my impression is that Alex does not like people posting who don't listen.
 
I've posted a couple of videos about the evidence against Biden.

This video in the post below is from the impeachment trial in the senate. Pam Bondi is a lawyer on Trump's defense team, she reviews the evidence against Biden. Is that the video you are asking about in your which I have included above?
Thanks - I had just assumed that this must be something fresh because I couldn't imagine the Dems would have gone on with their case with that litany of evidence against the Bidens!!!!!

She is also a remarkable lady!

David
 
It sounds like you are okay with some amount of posting to this thread but if there is too much you might close the thread. Is that right?
Well if the Dems seriously want to go on pursuing this, I guess I don't want to restrict you at all!

It is really just that a couple of people have muttered to me that this thread was taking over a bit.
I wish you would be more specific because I would like to continue posting but I don't want to post so much that it causes you to close the thread.
Right - and I would try to focus on the corruption issue.
I am not really interested in posting to Alex's podcast threads because I rarely listen to the podcasts and my impression is that Alex does not like people posting who don't listen.
I think you might like his latest interview - with Kevin Annett. It is far more philosophical than the previous one with Kevin. I intend to listen to it all again.

David
 
The document is an official record provided to the House. A duplicate is provided to the Senate (given to the head of the Senate, Mike Pentz). Courts are there for deciding such matters. Various lawyers have taken the same position I expressed. Buy some popcorn... you have a long year ahead of you.
Sam,

For the record, I'll be fine. I get the sense folks think I am a leftist, liberal, anti Republican or whatever. I'm not. I'm also very supportive of Trump's pro business agenda. I'm personally paying lower taxes as one example.

I really don't have any problems with the majority of his policies.

I do not respect the man, however. And what I find fascinating is his supporter's facile unwillingness to discuss this point. My question still stands and seems worthy of discussion.
 
Sam,

For the record, I'll be fine. I get the sense folks think I am a leftist, liberal, anti Republican or whatever. I'm not. I'm also very supportive of Trump's pro business agenda. I'm personally paying lower taxes as one example.

I really don't have any problems with the majority of his policies.

I do not respect the man, however. And what I find fascinating is his supporter's facile unwillingness to discuss this point. My question still stands and seems worthy of discussion.
So let me get this clear, you object to one extremely technical issue as to whether each copy of SOTU speech was itself an official document, but you like a lot of his policies, and yet you don't respect him?

If you actually get all that, then the issue of your lack of respect for him might be based on a myriad of unproven allegations against him which are used to smear him.

I guess you don't respect President Kennedy, who seems to have used his time in office to attract as many pussies as possible, or President Clinton, who maybe did rather less of that, but has a rape allegation against him - so which former presidents do you respect, I wonder?

You generally write to attack other people's views in many Skeptiko threads, but somehow we never get to read much of your own views.

David
 
Sam,

For the record, I'll be fine. I get the sense folks think I am a leftist, liberal, anti Republican or whatever. I'm not. I'm also very supportive of Trump's pro business agenda. I'm personally paying lower taxes as one example.

I really don't have any problems with the majority of his policies.

I do not respect the man, however. And what I find fascinating is his supporter's facile unwillingness to discuss this point. My question still stands and seems worthy of discussion.
Some of us have seen through the illusion, some of us haven't. When one does, one understands. The public believes the theater. The public believes the handful of politicians they feel they "respect"... that they believe are "getting the job done" as best these "respectable politicians" can.

Then you get 'a bull in the china' shop that actually does strive to fight all the forces that want to stop him and his agenda, a force that can be crude and rude and THAT is what the folks focus on when, in reality, it is actions and results that really matter.

That's the whole bottom line here because you have a one man force with a small circle of trusted individuals within his family, his administration, (with an ongoing weeding out process), and a few high profile media opinion pundits - all fighting an entire mainstream media, an entire political party - the Dems (in a country with only two), a deeply embedded administrative state, a faction within the intelligence/military community, and within all that, a group united by their participation in massive financial corruption (affiliated with one or the other political parties) siphoning off billions of tax payer contributions where wars and weaponry (both white and black markets), human trafficking, drug trade, pedophilia are all part of the dynamic and yet, that Trump blows off shaking Nancy Pelosi's hand is the big deal? That Trump can be crude and bruise people's egos with his words is the big deal?

That ever since late 2015 when "they" realized Trump may very well be a threat to all the above (knowing all the rest are career politicians who, whether they are in on it or not, see the dynamic as "the status quo" and thus will never threaten it) and his decision to not shake the hand of the "front (wo)man)" of a never ending coup attempt put forth by the operatives within what I described above is the big deal?

I can overlook the meaningless... when what is actually and effectively meaningful is at stake... and it has been and still is.

For the record, my reference to popcorn (and I buy the 60 package box at Costco for about $12 after tax), is in reference to the fact that this will never, ever end.
 
Last edited:
So let me get this clear, you object to one extremely technical issue as to whether each copy of SOTU speech was itself an official document, but you like a lot of his policies, and yet you don't respect him?
Context David. The legal question was raised by Sam. I responded. You can follow that, right? Take it up with Sam if you feel this issue is exceedingly minor (I agree by the way, and pretty well said as much). Its yet another sleight of hand tactic used by both parties' supporters; a non-issue.

The question I raised was in response to an article Jim posted. He had posted an interesting article where the author criticized Pelosi's childish antics and chastised her for her behavior. How she had "shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever". That she was not "preserving the tradition of her office". That if she could not "maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office" that she should resign.

This struck me and I asked to those who support Trump: Is there a double standard here, or should we hold all elected officials, including Trump, to the same benchmark?

I have yet to receive any sort of direct response to this question. That's too bad as its at the heart of my interest in this discussion.

If you actually get all that, then the issue of your lack of respect for him might be based on a myriad of unproven allegations against him which are used to smear him.
I have no more actual insight into the details of the various allegations against him than you or anyone else here. I remain open to the possibilities either way as neither "side" appears to offer anything more than a biased attack or defense with sparse to no evidence. I see it as the only prudent position. I understand others here may feel they are on solid ground either condemning Trump or absolving him. I see both positions as untenable to the common man as there is no unbiased source to which either side can attribute their conviction. That's reality and all we have with which to square our views on politicians, but it doesn't make it rigorous or intellectually forthright. Its just emotion and bias confirming one's own political worldview at the end of the day. Pretty much what its always been on these types of issues.

My lack of respect for him is based entirely on his own public comments. How he refers to those with whom he disagrees. His ego. His looseness with words and "facts". People in my personal sphere with these attributes have always proven to be less often worse. Those in my personal sphere who have proven to be more have been careful with words, quick to apologize when wrong, not verbally abusive, kind, etc. Pretty simple stuff.

I guess you don't respect President Kennedy, who seems to have used his time in office to attract as many XXXXXXX as possible, or President Clinton, who maybe did rather less of that, but has a rape allegation against him - so which former presidents do you respect, I wonder?
Kennedy was a bit before my time, so that's a tough one for me to answer.

Clinton was a great disappointment to me. The entire Lewinsky ordeal was ridiculous and so beneath the office of the POTUS. Yes, I lost respect for the man.

I thought Jimmy Carter was a wonderful guy but I was pretty young during his time in office; likely well centered with his heart/morals in the right place. Not so sure how good a POTUS he was.

Reagan struck me as a younger man as being a tad underqualified considering his life's work, but he clearly made a good POTUS. I didn't agree with all of his policies but I respected the man. Agree or disagree with his politics (since you'll never agree with every POTUS) he carried himself well.

Bush Sr seemed a patriot. HIs son was harder for me to warm up to, but in the end I also think his heart was in the right place. I was thrilled to see the "only white men" barrier broken by Obama. I saw that as an important social milestone for our country. He was also someone who's prior experience (lack) was a concern for me. I do think, however, he is a good man. Again, don't agree with everything he did but I respect him.

I don't think it is unreasonable for America to demand a few basic things from its presidents. Be a patriot, understand you are serving the people. Be respectful; maintain the dignity of the office as you are representing me and every other citizen. Make us proud not only in what you do, but how you do it. Be inspiring. Be someone parents will tell their children to model themselves after. Be strong. Protect us and defend our liberty and our nation's interests.

You don't have to insult political opponents to be effective. You don't have to lie at least not at every turn. You should be gracious to defeated political opponents who served their country. You should be a unifier; THE most important voice to bring the country together.

I shared this story before, but a group of retired business owners and professionals including a close family member of mine were having lunch recently. To a man they were all lifelong Republicans and had voted for Trump. A question was asked that speaks to my interest in this thread: "Would you have hired Trump?" This was in context of these now retired men being back in their respective fields. Again, to a man the answer was "no". I would venture to say they'll all vote for him again, but not because they have a real choice. The alternative is anathema to them.

We should be demanding of Trump to be better in this regard. Not the hysterical raging of the left, but the center and most importantly his supporters. Restore the dignity of the office. Be better.

You generally write to attack other people's views in many Skeptiko threads, but somehow we never get to read much of your own views.
Attacking people's views? Are we that shallow? I'm challenging ideas and asking questions. If that has offended anyone, I'm truly sorry.
 
Then you get 'a bull in the china' shop that actually does strive to fight all the forces that want to stop him and his agenda, a force that can be crude and rude and THAT is what the folks focus on when, in reality, it is actions and results that really matter.
Thanks for the response Sam. Appreciate it.

I picked this quote because I think its the core of the discussion I've been pushing.

I'm not sure that you can say "in reality" here. We don't yet know the full impact of means being used. The contribution these means may be making to further divisiveness. We also don't know yet what ends have been achieved. He's 3 years in and as we all know decisions made by administrations often stretch well beyond their time in office. We may be benefiting from things who's cause predate Trump. We may suffer from "ends" he's achieving now long after he's left office.

Perhaps its all ideological; I don't really know. I just know at my core that means here do matter when talking about how people treat and speak to each other. They always have. The bull in the china shop certainly can shake things up, but there's always the need for someone to come in after and clean things up. No free lunch as the saying goes.
 
Context David. The legal question was raised by Sam. I responded. You can follow that, right? Take it up with Sam if you feel this issue is exceedingly minor (I agree by the way, and pretty well said as much). Its yet another sleight of hand tactic used by both parties' supporters; a non-issue.

The question I raised was in response to an article Jim posted. He had posted an interesting article where the author criticized Pelosi's childish antics and chastised her for her behavior. How she had "shredded decades of tradition, decorum and civility that the nation could use now more than ever". That she was not "preserving the tradition of her office". That if she could not "maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office" that she should resign.

This struck me and I asked to those who support Trump: Is there a double standard here, or should we hold all elected officials, including Trump, to the same benchmark?

I have yet to receive any sort of direct response to this question. That's too bad as its at the heart of my interest in this discussion.


I have no more actual insight into the details of the various allegations against him than you or anyone else here. I remain open to the possibilities either way as neither "side" appears to offer anything more than a biased attack or defense with sparse to no evidence. I see it as the only prudent position. I understand others here may feel they are on solid ground either condemning Trump or absolving him. I see both positions as untenable to the common man as there is no unbiased source to which either side can attribute their conviction. That's reality and all we have with which to square our views on politicians, but it doesn't make it rigorous or intellectually forthright. Its just emotion and bias confirming one's own political worldview at the end of the day. Pretty much what its always been on these types of issues.

My lack of respect for him is based entirely on his own public comments. How he refers to those with whom he disagrees. His ego. His looseness with words and "facts". People in my personal sphere with these attributes have always proven to be less often worse. Those in my personal sphere who have proven to be more have been careful with words, quick to apologize when wrong, not verbally abusive, kind, etc. Pretty simple stuff.


Kennedy was a bit before my time, so that's a tough one for me to answer.

Clinton was a great disappointment to me. The entire Lewinsky ordeal was ridiculous and so beneath the office of the POTUS. Yes, I lost respect for the man.

I thought Jimmy Carter was a wonderful guy but I was pretty young during his time in office; likely well centered with his heart/morals in the right place. Not so sure how good a POTUS he was.

Reagan struck me as a younger man as being a tad underqualified considering his life's work, but he clearly made a good POTUS. I didn't agree with all of his policies but I respected the man. Agree or disagree with his politics (since you'll never agree with every POTUS) he carried himself well.

Bush Sr seemed a patriot. HIs son was harder for me to warm up to, but in the end I also think his heart was in the right place. I was thrilled to see the "only white men" barrier broken by Obama. I saw that as an important social milestone for our country. He was also someone who's prior experience (lack) was a concern for me. I do think, however, he is a good man. Again, don't agree with everything he did but I respect him.

I don't think it is unreasonable for America to demand a few basic things from its presidents. Be a patriot, understand you are serving the people. Be respectful; maintain the dignity of the office as you are representing me and every other citizen. Make us proud not only in what you do, but how you do it. Be inspiring. Be someone parents will tell their children to model themselves after. Be strong. Protect us and defend our liberty and our nation's interests.

You don't have to insult political opponents to be effective. You don't have to lie at least not at every turn. You should be gracious to defeated political opponents who served their country. You should be a unifier; THE most important voice to bring the country together.

I shared this story before, but a group of retired business owners and professionals including a close family member of mine were having lunch recently. To a man they were all lifelong Republicans and had voted for Trump. A question was asked that speaks to my interest in this thread: "Would you have hired Trump?" This was in context of these now retired men being back in their respective fields. Again, to a man the answer was "no". I would venture to say they'll all vote for him again, but not because they have a real choice. The alternative is anathema to them.

We should be demanding of Trump to be better in this regard. Not the hysterical raging of the left, but the center and most importantly his supporters. Restore the dignity of the office. Be better.


Attacking people's views? Are we that shallow? I'm challenging ideas and asking questions. If that has offended anyone, I'm truly sorry.
That was an interesting reply - I hope you keep the new style.

Strangely, your position is not that different from mine. I was less keen on Reagan to begin with because he seemed too belligerent. I didn't just not warm up to Bush junior, I oscillated between feeling that he was a man being used by people like Cheney, and loathing him. Clearly he got us (the UK was involved too) into an utterly pointless war in Iraq, that did far more harm than it did good - getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I too was very pleased with Obama in his first term, but then things went badly wrong. Stirring up trouble in the Ukraine was a terrible thing to do, and could have ended up in war with Russia. Arming opponents to Assad was an equally awful choice, and has caused waves of refugees to leave that country - for what?

Although President Trump is a poor speaker, and might not be someone you would hire for most jobs, paradoxically I think he has proved an excellent choice for POTUS. He seems to have a hatred of corruption, and also has a real sense of the futility and cruelty of war. When that drone was downed by Iran, he initially authorised some sort of reprisal raid, but then checked how many casualties this was likely to produce. When the answer came back that over 200 Iranians were likely to die, he had the guts to cancel the raid - which possibly didn't get him much credit except from people like me (and Jim I think) - he really does not want to be responsible for the death of essentially innocent people. He took action later, which killed three (I think) people, all of whom were implicated in terrorism.

The job of POTUS must be extremely onerous, and Trump has been subjected to an onslaught of insults from everyone. The Labour mayor of London even permitted some people to fly an effigy of him in diapers when he came on an official visit to London! He has been investigated twice, and found not guilty, he had to endure a barrage of false sleazy reports about his sexual exploits in Russia, and he was attacked vigorously because he paid off a prostitute who threatened to claim that he had sex with her just before the election. Whether he had sex or not, I would have thought that was blackmail. I get the impression that he gets as much attention from women as he wants, so I doubt he would want sex from a prostitute.

Since you mention hiring people, many years ago I was one of a group of three people assessing possible candidates for a software developer job. One guy interviewed awfully, he mumbled and seemed extremely awkward. However, some time previously we had interviewed a man who seemed amazingly good, but who turned out to be useless and inclined to blame his failures on others. As a result, we introduced an actual software test to see what the candidates could achieve in about 3 hours. You have probably guessed it, the mumbler was the only one to get something running in the time available, so we took him on. He turned out to be a real asset to the company, but it took him a while before he could handle phone calls from customers!

David
 
Then you get 'a bull in the china' shop that actually does strive to fight all the forces that want to stop him and his agenda, a force that can be crude and rude and THAT is what the folks focus on when, in reality, it is actions and results that really matter.
This is where I disagree. I think that we ought to be concerned with the way that such actions and results come about. And David, please don’t start deflecting by saying that Pelosi and Schiff & co are worse. You may be correct, but that isn’t what we’re discussing. We’re talking about Trump. He encourages a “race to the bottom.”

I assume those of you who appear content or even ‘in love’ with Trump agree with your assertion? I surmise that our anti or pro Trump stance somewhat parallels our view of acceptable behaviour in the real world, or as you put it, reality. From what I’ve seen of Trump, I think that I could provide good evidence of him at least being a liar, a bully, a narcissist. Maybe this doesn’t bother you much, maybe this is because you are quite happy having a ‘tough guy’ at the helm as the USAs leader. I think that he lacks any integrity, or decency, therefore he can’t be trusted. He says he’s USA first, but I don’t even believe that. If I were a leader of another country that was forced into dealing with him, I think I’d be a fool or at best naive to put any trust in the man. On the evidence!

It seems to me that Trump and many others in America are happy with life, as long as they are winning and couldn’t care less about other, non Americans. This selfish attitude will have to change. I am hopeful it will, but it will take a long time.
 
Top