Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

[GRALISTAIR]

This sounds almost exactly like Brexit!

You are totally correct. Many political commentators actually used the phrase “The election of Donald Trump was like Brexit on Steroids “

Very polarizing in both cases.

 

[Bantamzen]

You are totally correct. Many political commentators actually used the phrase “The election of Donald Trump was like Brexit on Steroids “

Very polarizing in both cases.

Oh I agree, it was very polarising both times. Which is why in June 2016 I didn't vote either way, it felt like neither side were particularly interested in presenting the facts so I couldn't make an informed decision. And I remember during the 2016 Presidential campaign, I described the options as a "Hobson's Choice" to State-side friends of mine, with two almost equally odious characters vying for the position of "Nastiest Person In America".

However Donald Trump has gone way above and beyond this call, and now frankly makes Vlad The Impaler, sorry Putin look quite a reasonable chap, and even Kim Jong-un seems like an altogether more stable character. And whilst this might still look good in the eyes of his supporter base on State TV, sorry Fox & Friends, he is losing support left right and centre, making a lot of enemies on the hill, and making the US an ever more rogue state in the eyes of more & more nations.

As I said earlier, you should really care about this, even if it seems like it doesn't matter at the moment.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well we will have to agree to differ. Some of the comments you have expressed are exactly why many will dig their heels in even more. Same with Brexit. Some blue collar worker in the rust belt said in effect “good go ahead throw the grenade and I don’t really care and will even stand in the room while it is going off - I have nothing left to lose”. Same with Brexit. The world will realign. Over the millennia and centuries massive realignment happens from time to time. People don’t like being told how they should feel- like you have told me twice now how I should feel.

Sorry.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well we will have to agree to differ. Some of the comments you have expressed are exactly why many will dig their heels in even more. Same with Brexit. Some blue collar worker in the rust belt said in effect “good go ahead throw the grenade and I don’t really care and will even stand in the room while it is going off - I have nothing left to lose”. Same with Brexit. The world will realign. Over the millennia and centuries massive realignment happens from time to time. People don’t like being told how they should feel- like you have told me twice now how I should feel.

Sorry.

Well its your decision on how to feel, you've made it clear that you don't care so I don't expect to ever change it. But it doesn't change the fact that your country, the one that has put you in your winning situation, doesn't live in a bubble. If your president carries on the way he is, the chances of things going wrong for the US will increase. He is alienating not only a significant proportion of your citizens, he is also alienating entire nations. And a lot of those nations might turn away from the US in the future and tell you to stuff your products, services & even military support. Then you might want to focus a bit more on the consequences.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Glad you said “might”. Might not is just as plausible.

 

[Bantamzen]

Glad you said “might”. Might not is just as plausible.

Might is becoming more plausible all the time....

 

[A Challenge]

Quite right too. (My previous comment was a sarcastic one.)

I understood that, was trying to explain that the right to a free and fair trial should include the right (as it can be seen towards other people) for someone not to be let off because you happen not to want the people to be bad - and therefore can't be said to have done anything wrong. I realise that might not be a clear way of putting it, but basically we should count the right to a free and fair trial to include not misconducting a trial to either incorrectly convict or incorrectly exonerate.

 

[DaleCooper]

I understood that, was trying to explain that the right to a free and fair trial should include the right (as it can be seen towards other people) for someone not to be let off because you happen not to want the people to be bad - and therefore can't be said to have done anything wrong. I realise that might not be a clear way of putting it, but basically we should count the right to a free and fair trial to include not misconducting a trial to either incorrectly convict or incorrectly exonerate.

You can condense that to a single word - Justice.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Might is becoming more plausible all the time....

I don’t see it that way sorry.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don’t see it that way sorry.

And that's fair enough, understandable as well given your stated position. However the choice ultimately won't be yours, if countries became aggrieved with the changing face of US policy, it will be they that will look elsewhere for business. As you've noted China's economy is on the rise, and in some ways could one day overtake the US as your influence starts to wain. Take the proposed Huawei 5G contacts in the UK. Once upon a time the US saying this would be a security risk would be more than enough for us to walk away, but even Boris Johnson with one foot firmly in the Trump camp, cannot see his way to blocking them from up to 35% of our future network equipment needs.

The times, and the world, they are a changing....

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The times, and the world, they are a changing....

And right there I am in 100% agreement with you good sir.

 

[SteveP29]

Glad you said “might”. Might not is just as plausible.

I think there's a lot of countries that had have enough of the USA being the 'world police'
Have had enough of being destabilised, encouraged to fight against themselves, then invaded in a phony attempt to restore peace and democracy, with the end result being American companies taking the contracts the 'rebuild' that country.
Have had enough, much like the British Empire did, of being plundered for their resources and given aid to keep them just above third world status.

The might is certainly nearer to reality than might not.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And I hope too that the USA is no longer the world policeman. These other countries are quite right to be pissed off and say enough is enough. Trumps goal of course was to start no more wars and to start pulling out of other countries. I give him only 6/10 on that score at the moment. The USA has never been a truly reliable friend anyway. Britain got royally screwed after the second world war with regard to its technology etc. I think you will see China take on more of the plundering of resources role in the next 100 years if the world survives.

 

[Esker-pades]

Agreed. That is why the house trial done in secret was disgusting beyond contempt.

Some witness interviews were done in secret to which all members (if it was done by committee, it may well have been members of that committee only - of course there were a number of committees, and there were members of both parties on all of them) had access to. Given that they were the ones who ultimately had to vote on it, that doesn't negate fairness. In the same way that, in an actual trial, the court can sit in closed state with none but the jury (various reasons - national security/classified information and the like).

Of course, I was referring to the Senete Trial, where a majority of senators decided that there should not be witnesses or evidence heard before deciding. The House of Representatives did hear witnesses and evidence.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

For true fairness the defendant and his lawyers are allowed to confront and question the witnesses whistle blowers etc. This did not happen in the House. The Bidens would have been relevant witnesses too.

 

[Esker-pades]

For true fairness the defendant and his lawyers are allowed to confront and question the witnesses whistle blowers etc. This did not happen in the House.

As part of the main phase of the impeachment inquiry (after the closed-door committee hearings), part of the relevant bill included parts allowing Republicans to request witness testimony and documents and that there would be procedures as to allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.

The White House refused cooperation.

In trials in both the House and Senete, it is the job of representatives to ask questions. In situations like this, it will boil down to party lines. Republicans certainly took the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and ask questions such that Trump was painted in a good light, just as Democrats asked questions that would paint him as having committed the offences he was accused of.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Bidens were absolutely totally relevant witnesses

 

[Esker-pades]

Bidens were absolutely totally relevant witnesses

OK. And?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

OK. And?

And what?

 

[Esker-pades]

And what?

I don't understand the point. Are you now arguing that the trial wasn't free because Joe Boden wasn't called as a witness?

 

[najaB]

The Bidens would have been relevant witnesses too.

How would either Joe or Hunter Biden have been able to provide any information of any relevance to a phone call that they weren't involved in or present for?

 

[DaleCooper]

How would either Joe or Hunter Biden have been able to provide any information of any relevance to a phone call that they weren't involved in or present for?

Either he's fallen for the Trump fantasy hook, line and sinker or he's attempting a parody of a typical Trump sycophant. What next, telling us that the transcript (heavily edited notes of a portion) of the phone call exonerated Trump?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Either he's fallen for the Trump fantasy hook, line and sinker or he's attempting a parody of a typical Trump sycophant. What next, telling us that the transcript (heavily edited notes of a portion) of the phone call exonerated Trump?

Next you will be telling me the whistle blower was present and heard clear all sides of the conversation too but no no no the president wasn’t allowed or his lawyers to question in the senate that person for some reason but this was all extremely fair. Give me a break. Either you want it fair or you don’t.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The Bidens were the central plank. Do you think there is just a teensy Wendy tiny spec that the Democrats did not want the Biden’s called because it would have shown gross corruption and shown Donald Trump to be completely correct and Trumps lawyers would have made mincemeat of them? Just a teensy bit?

 

[najaB]

Just a teensy bit?

Nope.

Even if we assume that Hunter Biden was doing something illegal (zero evidence of this exists), and even if we assume that Joe Biden acted to cover this up (again, zero evidence that this is the case) none of that excuses withholding funds which had been approved by Congress, and making the release of those funds contingent on a request for a foreign government to investigate a US national.

(A foreign government which, by the way, needs those funds to fight a hot war against a stated opponent of the USA).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Nope.

Even if we assume that Hunter Biden was doing something illegal (zero evidence of this exists), and even if we assume that Joe Biden acted to cover this up (again, zero evidence this it case) none of that excuses withholding funds which had been approved by Congress, and making the release of those funds contingent on a request for a foreign government to investigate a US national.

(A foreign government which is, by the way, needs those funds to fight a hot war against a stated opponent of the USA).

So to use the argument used against Trump if the Bidens have nothing to hide why not have them as witnesses? Nothing to hide right?

 

[najaB]

So to use the argument used against Trump if the Bidens have nothing to hide why not have them as witnesses? Nothing to hide right?

Because they were not there when the call was made (or for any of the events leading up to it) and couldn't provide any useful evidence.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If you truly want fairness and the senate to have been allowed to call more witnesses e.g Bolton, you have to allow Trumps team to do so too- if you want fairness of course. If you think Trump is just a bar steward and want to get him no matter what - well let’s leave it there

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Because they were not there when the call was made (or for any of the events leading up to it) and couldn't provide any useful evidence.

So in that case call those who were there - was Bolton there Btw?

 

[najaB]

If you truly want fairness and the senate to have been allowed to call more witnesses e.g Bolton, you have to allow Trumps team to do so too- if you want fairness of course

They can and should have been allowed to call any witnesses who had relevant information to the charges being investigated.

So in that case call those who were there - was Bolton there Btw?

I don't believe he was there for the call itself, but he was Trump's national security advisor so he was definitely there for events leading up to and after the call.