Why Did Trump Become President?

You have no leg to stand on here. You've got 100% pure democrat propoganda in CNN/MSNBC and most of mainstream media and you want to act like fox is the problem? Get some perspective. Clearly there isn't a chance you'll be objective about anything.

Good call though on giving up your racism argument. You didn't have anything there either.

 

So everyone is wrong except Fox.

That is the logic of a cult.

How much "main stream media" do you watch?

 

No. I want to know more about the actual facts, not speculation or party political issues.

 

I read this the day you posted it but it slipped my mind to come back to answer.

No, I'm not word mincing at all. Your statement was they did not have a "shred" of evidence. Since we know they did have evidence and are still working on building their cases, you saying they don't have a shred of evidence is inaccurate.

Why are you all so unwilling to accept that he's a con artist? Do you seriously believe his decades of defrauding people, lying about assets, defaulting on loans, cheating his employees, six bankruptcies, etc. is all just made up because we're mad he wrote some mean tweets?

 

Well that is one view. A tad generalised but here is what I found.
1) Libya
In 2011 it was clear (and letter substantiated) that Gadaffi had blown up a )lane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, constitution an attack on NATO soil.
The war powers act you mention does specify the time a president must give before sending in forces and that mission must end within 60 days.
However by the time Obama prosecuted much of his war on Libya, March 2011, the entire issue had been taken over by NATO , discounting your statement that the US was not at war with Libya. In fact soon after Libya was declared an enemy by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, the UK , Qatar and Spain and the mission was to implement a UN resolution. No ground forces were used and the effort was headed by The UK and France.
To say the US and Libya were "at peace" is false. Libya had been policing and suppressing dissent in his own country, running a hugely corrupt government, violated human rights and financed terrorism for years.
If you were "at peace" you shouldn't have been.
I doubt if you would have preferred that the US sat back and watched while so many other allies tried to stop this despot. and frankly the sidestepping of clauses in law are expendable IMO when you are trying to coordinate multinational war activities. Such technicalities are in no way so terrible as to damn an entire presidency and IMO indicates a cooperative leadership which us far better than saying "excuse me for not supporting the allies while I get permission from congress" when the US was already there.

 

@Pollycy
No.2
Recess Appointments
These are for the rest of a senatorial term (from when made) and that would have been in this case 2 years.
TBH I read the summary a few times and can't fully understand the technicalities but it seems there is a difference of opinion about the timing and how the appointment was made. So I can't pass judgement or defend the issue. However I also don't think this is important enough to damn an entire presidency and smacks to me of desperation in trying to find some reason to dislike Obama.

sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42329.pdf

 

Trump became President because too many voters don't bother to inform themselves. Too many people are influenced by appearances and refuse to investigate in any depth. Contributing to this is the unfailing persistence of the duopoly that has seized control of the U.S. government to provide divisive and superficial candidates.
America is so fat and happy that it has forgotten what coöperation and constructive concession look like. Every issue is immediately reduced to facile, childish, egotistical bouts of name calling. It seems that everyone is constantly hunting for the opportunity to repeat the insults and epithets of their favorite t.v. characters.
It is so discouraging to think what a fantastic nation this could be compared to what it has chosen for itself.

 

@Pollycy
3) Mr. Bergdahl
The transfer came at a time when the USA was trying to open talks between the Taliban and the Afghani govt (called by some a US puppet govt). The idea was to allow Afghan POW to be released to Qatari custody for at least 1 year in order to prevent Taliban POW's from returning to Afghanistan and take up important positions.

The US spent years looking for Bergdahl and knew he was tortured. But the charge that he deserted is still not proven. It is unclear who wrote the message he was supposed to have written, whether he was drunk or even in the latrine when he was taken, and that it wasn't only Obama that said the US does not leave one of its own behind. (the UK says this too).

Bergdahl was part of the US policy at that time of freeing Taliban POW's into Qatar and this is what happened. They didn't go straight back to Afghanistan.
Whether the exchange was legalised under predetermined policy approved by congress relative to prisoner exchange or whether Obama had to go back to congres for permission is unclear.

Now I have tried as much as time allows to present the full picture and resist a biased interpretation. If I had a general comment it would be that in some places the law and circumstances are not clear and in others, it is more prudent to ignore it and worry about it later, for the sake of a much more important issue. Because that is part of leadership.
However thank you for giving me the opportunity to explore these issues which I only saw from a European perspective. I remember Lockerbie happening and the shock and dismay was palpable for years and the event is still remembered with sorrow today.

 

Unfortunately this is also the case among its allies.
If one can say anything good about Russia today, it is that it has made the western alliance have to work together against an enemy it thought had been hobbled. That even Germany is sending military equipment is the first time since WW2. and I suspect hopefully that when this is over, the west will sharpen up its act and become more cooperative, more alert and more savvy.

 

I didn't say that nor did I even hint at it.

Totally agree. Your implication that this pertains to me is a joke.

Not a shred of it.....not fox, cnn, msnbc, abc, nbc, cbs, etc

 

Although in reviewing Obama's lawbreaking activities in further detail we get farther away from the central question of 'why Trump was elected', I'll ask everyone to remember just a few key points concerning Obama:

1. For Obama to topple the Libyan government because of the Lockerbie bombing is really far too much of a 'stretch'. The Lockerbie bombing occurred in 1988, twenty-three years before Obama sent our military forces to remove Gaddafi in 2011. Moreover, in fact, whether Gaddafi was any kind of Libyan "Thomas Jefferson" or not, his government was -- yes -- at peace with the United States of America.

And, worse, if you read the actual text of the War Powers Act of 1973, it is abundantly clear that, "It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". Obviously, none of those conditions applied in Obama's 'takedown' of the Libyan government... he broke the law.

2. The "Recess Appointments" issue of 2014 is quite clear... what Obama did was clearly unlawful 'on its face', and, as I said, not even his most reliable supporters on the Supreme Court, Kagan and Sotomayor, could exonerate him. Thus, the entire Supreme Court unanimously ruled Obama had exceed his constitutional authority as president!

3. Worst of all, because it was Obama himself who actually signed the law regarding the exchange of prisoners for hostages, it is especially galling to see how flagrantly he broke that law. Again, the wording of the law is quite clear, and it remains intact as originally written to this day... but Obama just flat-out broke it, and did so with impunity....

You asked why he was never charged, and I gave you my answer. Indeed, it's fair to say that if Obama had not been 'the first Black president', he probably would have faced an Article of Impeachment for the Libya affair alone! Republicans can easily cowed by vindictive raving from our 'woke' Leftist Democrats about anything, real or imagined, having to do with "racism". Democrats certainly wouldn't have held Obama accountable for breaking the laws of this country three times during his presidency, and Republicans wouldn't, either.

But we Americans are a strange lot, Pixie. Even when it seems like we are completely oblivious to what's right in front of our faces, we remember things, especially as they slowly accumulate. And I would suggest that by the time we had endured eight years under Obama, a very great deal of resentment, dismay, and unbridled anger had accumulated -- so much so that even a mercurial, temperamental, and brash 'outsider' like Donald Trump could win a presidential election here.

Truth? I voted for Trump -- twice! But, if there had been a Democrat candidate put forth who was even 1/10th as good as John F. Kennedy, I would have for voted for that person instead. That may be true of many Americans, Pixie -- we voted for Trump only because the alternative was so sickening -- and, sure enough, today, we have that "Obama 2.0" in the White House now... and just look at us!

 

Exactly.

Seventy-two percent of registered Republican voters still doubt President Obama’s citizenship, according to a recent NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll conducted in late June and early July of more than 1,700 registered voters. And this skepticism even exists among Republicans high in political knowledge.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446

 

Exactly what? That wasn't an answer to the question.

 

What explains...Seventy-two percent of registered Republican voters still doubt President Obama’s citizenship.....in 2016 after his US citizenship was established beyond any doubt?

 

You have I think missed the point.
When Obama went into Libya he did so as part of a NATO alliance. Your congressional law did not cover such an alliance. It was applicable purely for independent USA military action.
I remember Lockerbie well. It primarily hit a school and the shape of the fuselage was dug deep into where the school had been. It took years to prove whose fault it was...it could have been any number of people . If you guess and get it wrong you can easily start a world war. Same reason why today NATO doesn't attack Russia even though we know precisely who the aggressor us. But Lockerbie is under Nato protection. There were other united nations agreements Gaddafi broke but had to be proven. Hence the time lag.obama did sign the law about exchange of hostages AND followed it. I explained that the law agreed to such as long as the Afghan prisoners went to Qatar for at least a year. They did.
I have no issues with what tribe one swears allegiance to but in reading around your 3 issues, you have IMO only seen the barest side and from only one side. Law is contingent often on circumstance and most certainly detail. It is important to remember under whose law Obama was operating. Some do supercede national law and both the UN and NATO do because you have signed agreements to that effect.
However I personally cannot imagine voting for the man who wanted to tear up international law and who, before the election, suggested the US could be allies of Russia. And it turns out, he still thinks it isn't a bad idea. The man is clearly unhinged and instead of being a fresh newcomer, knew nothing of foreign affairs even among his allies. I don't see how Obama meant the entire political ideology of the Dems was unsupportable , or that Biden is Obama in disguise.
I do not consider the things you accuse Obama of, and frankly haven't fully understood, nearly enough to damn an entire party with a new candidate, and vote for someone who was not only offensive but potentially dangerous.
And I don't see Biden repeating any of Obamas actions. I don't rate any national leader after only one year anyway. But if I do criticise a leader I try to get the details right and consider the immediate context. Sometimes it is better to break a law than to invite serious trouble.
So if these were reasons to vote for trump, I cant accept that they were nearly important enough to reject all the rest of what the Denms stood for AND accept what Trump was and is...a Russian stooge who would sell his own country out in order to strut with the despots.
BTW if racism is involved in any presumption or counter argument, I disregard it. I see no proof or suggestion that it either elected Obama or hobbled him. I don't hold with the charge that trump was racist...just ruthless and the first dissemination of fake news. Which is what it was.

 

citizenship has nothing to do with race.

YOU are making your assumptions based solely on race. Who's racist again?

 

Trump was an incredibly effective as president. He made grave political errors and that along with Covid cost him reelection.

Accomplishments?

Reduced corporate tax rates.-It is idiotic and ignorant to think that our corporations should be paying a higher rate of tax than foreign companies do. A sound argument could be made that we should not even have a corporate tax at all.

Reduced middle class tax rates. Increased the child tax credit. I did not agree with tax cuts for wealthy individuals.

Reduced oppressive regulations.

At least addressed the unfair economic relations with China and other countries.

Peace deals-Abrahamic accords-Trump brokered peace deals between Bahrain and the UAE with Israel which recognizes Israeli sovereignty and began diplomatic and economic relations between those countries. Had Obama done this the media would have called him the greatest man who ever lived.

Serbia-Kosovo peace deal.

Both Trump and Jared Kushner were nominated for a Nobel peace prize.

Embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem.

Reform at the VA. Gave vets more choice in their health care and made it more possible to fire bad employees.


Opportunity zones. Invested $234B up to this time in real property investments in our poorest neighborhoods.

 

Trump's greatest achievement was breaking up the royal cabal of the Bush and Clinton families. We did not need another one of them in the white house! He basically pushed them towards each other proving what a bunch of dirt balls they are. All part of the same elite swamp.

This moment was one of the most epic in the history of politics. Trump turned the entire republican party against the idiot war in Iraq.

Watch Jeb Bush's facial expressions because he thought Trump was making a huge political mistake not realizing republicans were tired of defending that stupid war.

 

I don't know or care. Heavy partisanship is not something I like.

 

What you said.

 

The same reason there will be another shake up in 2024. The Dems don't live up to their promises. And more and more citizens can see it.

 

Hillary underestimated the extent of the cheating she'd need. the Democrats got it down for 2020 with their emergnecy 3 am ballot drop when it was apparent Trump was winning by a landslide. Betcha HRC was apoplectic when she saw th stops pulled out to install Biden that she didn't get.

 

Right. It was a total farce. And the public knows it.

 

Why are folks still using race in 2021?

 

I hope that no one objects to continued discussion about this matter about Trump becoming president (thread topic) -- because it was the sharp contrast between his predecessor, Obama, and himself that was a catalyst for Trump's election, IMHO.

Now, we've been talking about the pretext that Obama used to overthrow the legitimate government of Libya... that it was because the U. S. was 'obligated' to engage in military hostility against Libya because of our membership in NATO (?). It will be instructive to examine "The North Atlantic Treaty", Article 5 (with my added emphasis):

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Truth? Libya did not stage an "armed attack" on any NATO member-country, including the United States. Moreover, even if Libya had, Obama was still obligated under the law of the United States to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. Two main points: A U. S. president must observe U. S. Law and our Constitution above all else because they supersede the authority of treaties with foreign countries. The key here is that the NATO Treaty neither obviates the need to find domestic U.S. legal authority to use force (again, the War Powers Act of 1973), nor forecloses a decision not to use force at all! Link: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/a...ire-the-us-to-“automatically”-use-force-to-de . More truth -- Obama deliberately overthrew the legitimate government of Libya on his own volition, and did so without even bothering to comply with the War Powers Act. He should have been thrown out of office for that, even if for no other reason... and we who voted for Trump years later never forgot that.

The saboteurs of the Lockerbie Pan Am flight were identified by the Central Intelligence Agency as a Damascus-based radical Palestinian faction, hired by Iran to carry out the operation. Nevertheless, Muammar Gaddafi took responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid compensation to the victims' families in 2003, though he maintained that he had not ordered the attack. That's the outline of the Lockerbie incident, but it does not explain why Obama would come along all those many years later and overthrow Gadaffi in 2011 for it....

The law forbidding the exchange of prisoners from the Gitmo facility did not have a 'loophole' allowing them to be traded if they "went to Qatar for at least a year". Sorry, if you read the law, you will discover quickly that such verbiage is simply not there, nor is anything similar. For more insight, let me share this link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-with-guantanamo-transfer-for-bowe-bergdahl/ Once again, Obama flat-out broke the law, and it was a law that he, himself, had signed into law only the year before!

Subjective interpretations of the law, such as Obama relied on fairly often, do occur but they melt away when and if they are measured against what those laws actually say in 'black on white' printed words. Surely Obama had a staff of attorneys who were experts on the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and yet, as I have pointed out, he broke the law anyway.... Nobody dared to challenge him for fear of being called a 'racist', so, he got completely away with it.

And yet, as we Americans approached the election in 2016, we saw that Hillary Clinton would simply be an "Obama 2.0" because her entire prospective platform reeked of it... 'more of the same'. And most of us had already had a 'gut-full' of Obama, and certainly didn't want an "Obama 2.0". Biden? Same thing, essentially, except that with ~51%+ of Americans drawing welfare or 'subsidy' benefits from the government of one kind or another, "Obama 2.0" sounded good to enough of us for Biden to be elected on a platform that promised lots of 'something-for-nothing'. As I said, many of us didn't vote for Trump because we idolized him, but because the Democrat alternative was so nauseatingly familiar and, to us, horrible!

To this I would only reply, briefly, that during the entire span of Donald Trump's four years in office, we did not see the kind of open, hostile aggression against the U. S. and our interests that we have already seen during Biden's first year in office. Trump was too unpredictable, too mercurial, too temperamental, and too dangerous for Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, the Islamo-Nazi priesthood that rules in Iran, or Vladimir Putin to risk provoking. They had never seen anything quite like Donald Trump before, but they've taken Joe Biden's measure with great confidence, and now ALL of them are acting accordingly....