Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

InTheTrees

ECO_Mental wrote: »

things must me bad if your lawyer is "lawyering up".... brilliant

And considering Trumps lawyer is just a real estate specialist its more than likely trumps lawyers lawyer knows more about government and constitutional law than trumps lawyer.

It all gets weirder and weirder.

And the reason he's still using his new york real estate lawyer is that none of the big washington DC law firms want to work with him.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/four-major-law-firms-declined-to-represent-trump-on-russia-report/article/2625112

aloyisious

The Washington Post is running three stories but as I'm not a subscriber all I can copy and post is the following. The 1st is already mentioned above by others...............


Trump appears to confirm obstruction probe, attacks Rosenstein in tweets
The president fired off a rant of tweets attacking the special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and apparently, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.
By Abby Phillip

........................................................................................

Justice Department: Rosenstein sees no reason to recuse himself.

........................................................................................

Pence’s balancing act as Trump’s No. 2 shows signs of strain amid White House turmoil
The vice president and his team have made moves that seem aimed, in part, at returning him to his most comfortable role — supporting and defending the president — while also helping to insulate him from the administration’s problems.
By Ashley Parke

..................................................................................

CNN is covering Don's tweet and speculating that Ron might be called as a witness as he's the person who wrote the letter advising Don to fire J Comey and got himself snared in the russian collusion investigation side issues, due to Don's varying claims as to why he fired Comey.

Plus Don earned $288 million from his business's according to his business earnings returns released today, but no tax returns..... yet.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

The Washington Post is running three stories but as I'm not a subscriber all I can copy and post is the following. The 1st is already mentioned above by others...............

Thanks for taking the trouble to summarize. I try & summarize the articles I link to in order for folks to not hit paywalls should they follow the link or not to have to bother reading the full article.

Itssoeasy

So, as we hit the middle of June can the most ardent of trump supporters on the thread, admit that the VP and trumps personal lawyer lawyering up is a bad sign ?

For a "witch hunt" it's looking fairly serious truth be told.

Water John

The appointment of Mueller by Rosenstein and Comey, in their diff ways, has totally changed the dynamic. This is a process that will not stop and will dig very deep.
Trump will rue the day, he fired Comey. It was stupid.

BabyCheeses

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So, as we hit the middle of June can the most ardent of trump supporters on the thread, admit that the VP and trumps personal lawyer lawyering up is a bad sign ?

For a "witch hunt" it's looking fairly serious truth be told.

The dems lost seats in their midterm with Obama, very odd hmmm?

JRant

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So, as we hit the middle of June can the most ardent of trump supporters on the thread, admit that the VP and trumps personal lawyer lawyering up is a bad sign ?

For a "witch hunt" it's looking fairly serious truth be told.

Not sure if serious or not but you would need to be a complete numpty not to lawyer up at this stage if you were in their shoes. Anyway, employing a lawyer is not a bad sign at all just prudent.

Really Interested

JRant wrote: »

Not sure if serious or not but you would need to be a complete numpty not to lawyer up at this stage if you were in their shoes. Anyway, employing a lawyer is not a bad sign at all just prudent.

While I agree it is prudent, the big question is will Donald follow the advice of his lawyer. I would assume such advice would be all written communications are run by the lawyer before publication.

Memnoch

Water John wrote: »

The appointment of Mueller by Rosenstein and Comey, in their diff ways, has totally changed the dynamic. This is a process that will not stop and will dig very deep.
Trump will rue the day, he fired Comey. It was stupid.

He didn't have a choice really. Comey wasn't going to protect him and was going to slowly but surely expose the truth. So he was going to try and prevent that no matter what. That he's snookered either way shows just how far down the rabbit hole this all goes.

Overheal

JRant wrote: »

Not sure if serious or not but you would need to be a complete numpty not to lawyer up at this stage if you were in their shoes. Anyway, employing a lawyer is not a bad sign at all just prudent.

You know who never needed to lawyer up in 8 years? Two guesses.

JRant

Overheal wrote: »

You know who never needed to lawyer up in 8 years? Two guesses.

Me?

You don't mean the great race baiter himself, Obama?
Sure why would he need to lawyer up when he had an AG who described himself as his right hand man.

Christy42

JRant wrote: »

Me?

You don't mean the great race baiter himself, Obama?
Sure why would he need to lawyer up when he had an AG who described himself as his right hand man.

You, you know that Trump is not lawyering up over pressure from his AG who seems quite loyal to him.

Therefore your logic that Obama only did not need to lawyer up because he had a loyal AG is complete and utter bull. It is a passing attempt at a counterargument that kinda looks alright at first reading and falls to shreds the moment you think about it for 3 seconds.

Not too sure why you had to stick in the dog whistle in there but I will leave that bit alone and not give the desired reaction.

JRant

Christy42 wrote: »

You, you know that Trump is not lawyering up over pressure from his AG who seems quite loyal to him.

Therefore your logic that Obama only did not need to lawyer up because he had a loyal AG is complete and utter bull. It is a passing attempt at a counterargument that kinda looks alright at first reading and falls to shreds the moment you think about it for 3 seconds.

Not too sure why you had to stick in the dog whistle in there but I will leave that bit alone and not give the desired reaction.

I see humour has died around these here parts

WinnyThePoo

JRant wrote: »

I see humour has died around these here parts

No humour in what you said.

JRant

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

No humour in what you said.

To you maybe. It was a parody on a Donald tweet. After all the chap has had a meltdown on twitter these past couple of days and these last few pages have been all about that.

Seems I put the smiley in the wrong place in fairness but the eagerness of folks around here to jump on any posts is slightly disconcerting to be honest. Good to know the thought police are keeping tabs.

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

To you maybe. It was a parody on a Donald tweet. After all the chap has had a meltdown on twitter these past couple of days and these last few pages have been all about that.

Seems I put the smiley in the wrong place in fairness but the eagerness of folks around here to jump on any posts is slightly disconcerting to be honest. Good to know the thought police are keeping tabs.

I'll take my hat off to you, because that post was *exactly* what Trump fans would and do post with complete seriousness all over the internet. You basically did what The Onion does sometimes when it gets reported as real news and just got the satire way, way, way too accurately 'dead on'.

JRant

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll take my hat off to you, because that post was *exactly* what Trump fans would and do post with complete seriousness all over the internet. You basically did what The Onion does sometimes when it gets reported as real news and just got the satire way, way, way too accurately 'dead on'.

Billy, I shall take that as a compliment

Call me Al

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The dems lost seats in their midterm with Obama, very odd hmmm?

And yet somehow he managed not to be find himself the subject of federal investigation!

It takes a special level of incompetence, despite your party having both other houses, to find yourself in that situation....

StringerBell

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The dems lost seats in their midterm with Obama, very odd hmmm?

Are you saying you don't know why?

I would find it odd that anybody with even a passing interest in US politics doesn't get why the Dems lost the house in 2010 and the senate in 14

Billy86

JRant wrote: »

Billy, I shall take that as a compliment

'Twas intended as one.

Damnit now BabyCheeses has done it too, for the second time in a week if I'm correct. We live in confusing interesting times indeed.

BabyCheeses

StringerBell wrote: »

Are you saying you don't know why?

I would find it odd that anybody with even a passing interest in US politics doesn't get why the Dems lost the house in 2010 and the senate in 14

It does make sense, it's just the usual go to in the script.

jimmycrackcorm

BabyCheeses wrote:

The dems lost seats in their midterm with Obama, very odd hmmm?

Gerrymandering.

aloyisious

Now would appear to be the time for grassroots dems to start taking on the GOP machine at local level. City council and school board elections, things like that where the GOP would have its mandate to govern at the top reduced. Keep reminding your neighbour on how the GOP is wrecking the citizens private medical care system and other similar attacks on the citizens. Give the neighbour a reason that makes sense to change their party-of-choice vote. Take the GOP on by running as a tax-law change proponent giving more back AND reducing taxation.

If I was on the Dem vote-strategy board, I'd make Dons everyday actions a reason to change or stay away when it comes to voting, his track record on praising, promoting, hiring and firing the people he assures the nation are "GOOD PEOPLE, TRUST ME, THEY ARE GREAT", his attacking the agencies charged with securing their safety, and their nation's safety, while he's heaping praise on the nation attacking and laughing at the US. Keep accentuating how he and the Russian foreign minister were having a good laugh outside the Oval Office on how Don fired the man charged with overseeing the nation's safety from attack by the Russian Govt, like; how un-american and Benedict Arnold can you get?.

Don't go after the GOP in Washington, They'll only keep circling the wagons there. Zero in on Don there, make [if possible] him paranoid and sack-happy, break the Trump Admin up from the top.

Actually, para 1 above would also apply to grassroots GOP voters upset at the way Washington GOP and the [nominal] GOP Admin are wrecking the US from within, and breaking any ties the US has with its allies solely down to the paranoid [it's a witch-hunt] nutjob sitting in the Oval Office.

BabyCheeses

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/876394578777174021

Trump has gone numerically illiterate again. Rasmussen even said Trump would lose the popular vote, now Trump is admitting it's accurate that he did lose the popular vote. Even according to Rasmussen the worst president in the history of American was at about 45% at his worst. Numbers Trump would cheer for.

PropJoe10

BabyCheeses wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/876394578777174021

Trump has gone numerically illiterate again. Rasmussen even said Trump would lose the popular vote, now Trump is admitting it's accurate that he did lose the popular vote. Even according to Rasmussen the worst president in the history of American was at about 45% at his worst. Numbers Trump would cheer for.

The demented ramblings of a confused old idiot. John Oliver wasn't wrong.

Christy42

Just to put it in perspective about how much of an outlier the poll Donald picked was (and it still isn't even that good of a result)

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-art-of-cherry-picking-polls/

Igotadose

Good discussion on conspiracy theories in "The Atlantic:"

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/the-normalization-of-conspiracy-culture/530688/

Best line imo:

“Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories,” Uscinski (the article's author) says. “You can win the presidency on conspiracy theories, but it’s very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are for losers, and now he’s a winner.”

eire4

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering certainly was a factor in the house but not in the senate as those are state wide elections so no way to gerrymander them.

ECO_Mental

eire4 wrote: »

Gerrymandering certainly was a factor in the house but not in the senate as those are state wide elections so no way to gerrymander them.

Yeah but there is a pile a small states in the middle of nowhere that are Rep
Utah had a population of 3 million and two GOP senators. New York has a population of 20 million and has only two senators....... technically it's not gerrymandering but the GOP are over represented. Bull**** system

Billy86

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Yeah but there is a pile a small states in the middle of nowhere that are Rep
Utah had a population of 3 million and two GOP senators. New York has a population of 20 million and has only two senators....... technically it's not gerrymandering but the GOP are over represented. Bull**** system

While true it's still how the system has always been, a much more pertinent issue is voter suppression.

Igotadose

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Yeah but there is a pile a small states in the middle of nowhere that are Rep
Utah had a population of 3 million and two GOP senators. New York has a population of 20 million and has only two senators....... technically it's not gerrymandering but the GOP are over represented. Bull**** system

It's not a bull* system as far as the Senate goes. Alaska has fewer residents and 2 senators. It *does* prevent the tyranny of the majority, which was the concern of the Founders - Rhode Island needed as much clout as Virginia, back then.

The real concern is the Electoral college, where votes in smaller states have far more clout than in larger states. There were a number of articles around the 2016 election exactly around that, I think the votes in Wyoming were the most valuable if memory served, in terms of influence on electoral votes vs. population. As has been well documented, 100,000 votes gone HRC's way in the right places and we'd have been able to relegate Trump to the trash bin.
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes

Klinger

Who cares about the "popular vote". It means nothing in US elections, it's only a refuge for cry babies to call foul. The electoral college is what matters for a reason, and that's the game The Donald played. He is doing a FAB job.

PropJoe10

Klinger wrote: »

Who cares about the "popular vote". It means nothing in US elections, it's only a refuge for cry babies to call foul. The electoral college is what matters for a reason, and that's the game The Donald played. He is doing a FAB job.

I think this clip really sums up the absolute drivel that this administration is spouting:

Fair play to Tapper for keeping a straight face.

InTheTrees

Klinger wrote: »

Who cares about the "popular vote". It means nothing in US elections, it's only a refuge for cry babies to call foul. The electoral college is what matters for a reason, and that's the game The Donald played.

You are witnessing what happens when a president loses the vote.

The very least it requires is that the winner attempt to reach out and heal the divisions but trump doesn't care and you're seeing the result. Enjoy!

ECO_Mental

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I think this clip really sums up the absolute drivel that this administration is spouting:

Fair play to Tapper for keeping a straight face.

Here's another clip from fox news chris wallace gave this dude a right grilling. Its like he was trolling him at one stage. It's impossible to defend trump you are a laughing stock. They must be getting paid big time because it can't be doing their reputations good

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5475610088001/?#sp=show-clips

mcmoustache

Klinger wrote: »

Who cares about the "popular vote". It means nothing in US elections, it's only a refuge for cry babies to call foul. The electoral college is what matters for a reason, and that's the game The Donald played. He is doing a FAB job.

Exactly. The popular vote doesn't matter. The president isn't chosen by popular vote. Thems the rules. The only time it should be brought up is when Donald Trump says "I won the popular vote" and you can say, "No you didn't".

aloyisious

There's a run-off election in Georgia on 20th June between GOP candidate Karen Handel and Dem candidate Jon Ossoff following on from none of the candidates in the April 18th election reaching a majority to take the seat formerly held by the new health Sec Tom Price. It's estimated that both parties have spent $30 million on this election.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi21qLKxMjUAhXIAMAKHVPUAZMQFggyMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGeorgia%2527s_6th_congressional_district_special_election%2C_2017&usg=AFQjCNEXR2Jv7vAZwDSiUeIltVbSJg8qxA

Sonny Purdue, one of Dons cabinet secretaries, being covered by Fox News as a rally asking GOP members to vote for the GOP candidate even if they are angry with President Trump.

Billy86

aloyisious wrote: »

There's a run-off election in Georgia on 2oth June between GOP candidate Karen Handel and Dem candidate Jon Ossoff following on from none of the candidates in the April 18th election reaching a majority to take the seat formerly held by the new health Sec Tom Price. It's estimated that both parties have spent $30 million on this election.

Republicans have won that seat for 22 straight elections. Things are hitting a tipping point already, but if Ossoff wins Republicans are likely to start jumping ship on Trump rather quickly.

StringerBell

Be pretty surprised to see Ossoff win though. Its gonna be the mid term elections that tell the tale.

Nody

StringerBell wrote: »

Be pretty surprised to see Ossoff win though. Its gonna be the mid term elections that tell the tale.

Not really; 23 D, 2 I and only 9 R Senate seats are being decided. The Democrats have more on the line than the R do with a 25 to 9 seats up for grabs with 2 Republic seats in states voting Hillary (Nevada and Virginia) but 3 Democrat seats in states voting Trump (Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan) and Indiana is likely on the line as well (6 previous rounds as Republican but won by Democrats after the Tea Party ousted the previous Republican and then the candidate went off and made a fool of himself)...

StringerBell

You said not really, then detailed why the mid terms are more important for the Dems....

Nody

StringerBell wrote: »

You said not really, then detailed why the mid terms are more important for the Dems....

Yes because the mid term will not show if people are tired with Trump or not or if the Republican party will dump Trump or not; it's simply not the right seats for it. Hence it's not really important because it's not going to change the power in any noticeable way short of a landslide change of voting pattern.

StringerBell

Nody wrote: »

Yes because the mid term will not show if people are tired with Trump or not or if the Republican party will dump Trump or not; it's simply not the right seats for it. Hence it's not really important because it's not going to change the power in any noticeable way short of a landslide change of voting pattern.

Ah, I see.

I don't think mid terms will be the be all and end all but the mid terms will certainly provide a glimpse into the future for the GOP. As we saw in 2010, the entire balance of power does not need to shift in one fell swoop for strong seeds to be sown.

Look how badly the situation was for the GOP in 2009, lost the election, outgoing president had a terrible legacy/reputation, minority in both houses. State wise they held less than half of governorships and only about a quarter of state legislatures.

The seeds of what we see today in terms of the Republican party were sown in the 2010 mid term elections.

In the Senate, the dems need to gain 3 seats to gain control of the house, most important is obviously preventing the Republicans from getting to 60 seats, the Dems are defending more then attacking this year but the target should absolutely be continuing their gains from last time and getting the Senate majority back.

You do also have the 435 seats up for grabs in the HOR which are of course important along with around 40 governerships and plenty of other state and legislative elections.

I can't see how anybody can draw the conclusion the mid terms will not be of huge importance. You seem to be just referring to the Senate elections, when there is so much more at play.

demfad

StringerBell wrote: »

Ah, I see.

I don't think mid terms will be the be all and end all but the mid terms will certainly provide a glimpse into the future for the GOP. As we saw in 2010, the entire balance of power does not need to shift in one fell swoop for strong seeds to be sown.

Look how badly the situation was for the GOP in 2009, lost the election, outgoing president had a terrible legacy/reputation, minority in both houses. State wise they held less than half of governorships and only about a quarter of state legislatures.

The seeds of what we see today in terms of the Republican party were sown in the 2010 mid term elections.

In the Senate, the dems need to gain 3 seats to gain control of the house, most important is obviously preventing the Republicans from getting to 60 seats, the Dems are defending more then attacking this year but the target should absolutely be continuing their gains from last time and getting the Senate majority back.

You do also have the 435 seats up for grabs in the HOR which are of course important along with around 40 governerships and plenty of other state and legislative elections.

I can't see how anybody can draw the conclusion the mid terms will not be of huge importance. You seem to be just referring to the Senate elections, when there is so much more at play.

Crucially the HOR can impeach Trump.
Given that Trumps backers (Mercers etc.) are pouring massive money into Georgia, an Ossoff win in spite of the history, in spite of the $ adveryising and Facebok targetting via Cambridge Analytica, would be pretty significant.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Not really; 23 D, 2 I and only 9 R Senate seats are being decided.

Yes, but you would agree that IF all the Ds are returned and some of the Rs turn D, then that will send a message?

StringerBell

demfad wrote: »

Crucially the HOR can impeach Trump.
Given that Trumps backers (Mercers etc.) are pouring massive money into Georgia, an Ossoff win in spite of the history, in spite of the $ adveryising and Facebok targetting via Cambridge Analytica, would be pretty significant.

An Ossoff win would be pretty monumental I agree.

Billy86

I wonder will Trump make comment on what appears to be another terrorist attack last night in London.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but you would agree that IF all the Ds are returned and some of the Rs turn D, then that will send a message?

Democrats will struggle to keep their existing positions let alone turn R positions over but yes that would fall under the landslide change in voting listed in my post.

wes

Billy86 wrote: »

I wonder will Trump make comment on what appears to be another terrorist attack last night in London.

Well, considering the last time, he attacked the London mayor, its probably for the best that he keeps quiet.

PopePalpatine

Billy86 wrote: »

I wonder will Trump make comment on what appears to be another terrorist attack last night in London.

Nah, he'll dither for a few days just like with the Portland murders, and instead use that time to whine about le crooked MSM.