Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Call me Al

Laura Coates has just made s good point on CNN. She explained that Giuliani's interview has just traded up Trump's exposure in the Stormy hush money scandal. By l8nking the payment to the Oct 2016 interview v Clinton and the campaign, and saying Trump reimbursed Cohen, G has linked Trump to bigger legal problems.

Why would he do that? Is something worse on course to emerge in this investigation and the Trump team is now trying to get ahead of the situation or something ? Or is Giuliani not that smart and has unwittingly walked Trump into a bigger problem?

everlast75

Call me Al wrote: »

Laura Coates has just made s good point on CNN. She explained that Giuliani's interview has just traded up Trump's exposure in the Stormy hush money scandal. By l8nking the payment to the Oct 2016 interview v Clinton and the campaign, and saying Trump reimbursed Cohen, G has linked Trump to bigger legal problems.

Why would he do that? Is something worse on course to emerge in this investigation and the Trump team is now trying to get ahead of the situation or something ? Or is Giuliani not that smart and has unwittingly walked Trump into a bigger problem?

He was a very smart lawyer... 20 years ago. He now has a huge ego and probably half listened to Trump or else told Trump he would take care of it. I mean... its on Fox so he could relax!! They are the worst interviews you can do - your guard is down and you're surrounded by sycophants.


Btw - on the topic of that call.. Trump called Cohen soon after his arrest. If it was that one call and he said something like "stay strong" or "I'll look after you" trump is royally ******

Itssoeasy

Just when you think the Trump presidency has reached it's highmark, enter Rudolph Giuliani and he makes an utter mess of a story that they seemed to have straight. As has been said going on Fox News is clearly not a good strategy, as it's rightly seen as a home court for the Trump people. But it turns into a situation like it's a couple of lads on the lash and the tongue gets loose and you end up saying things you shouldn't. The only problem is this is being recording both in picture and sound, so the fake news claim can't be made.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Manic, in a two horse race you really do need to choose. By saying you don't like one, but don't like the other enough to vote you are effectively given a vote to the worse of the two.

In a multi party type things are different, or indeed if you live in a place like California, but even then had more non voters voted for HC the actual vote gap would be even wider than the 3m and call into even more question the electoral college system.

I have zero issues with the Electoral College system. There are very few countries where the popular vote winner will always win the election. Such 'reverse' results have happened in the UK a few times, for example, it is an inherent risk in any representative government. I feel it is a reasonable compromise between giving large states more weight without discounting the merits of smaller states.

I used to vote for what I considered the lesser evil shortly after I moved here. All I'm seeing is more evils to choose from. I've given up on that and now vote for the closest person to my ideas. I never don't vote. I want to reward those who best represent me.

Given the swing within the two parties, I don't think there's a need to have a third party (though I wouldn't mind, I find it unlikely to be successful). I'm happy enough for now with the solution implemented by California at the State level, we call it an 'Open Primary', but really it's a transferable vote, transferable once only. We've only had a couple of elections with this recently implemented system, but already we're seeing changes towards the centre in this heavily Democratic state. There is all but no chance of a Republican winning, but what happens is generally that California's voters are given a choice between a hard left person and a moderately left person. The hard left chap obviously gets the Democratic base, but that not-so-hard left candidate will not only soak up some of the Democrat votes, but will be more appealing to the centre and right in the district. As a result, for example, the current leader in the polls for Governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, is doing whatever he can to help the Republican leader, Cox, get into the election ahead of Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. Otherwise, he's not going to have the "D" home field advantage in the election, since both candidates would be Democrats. And Newsom is well aware that he is only particularly popular in the Bay Area: Villaraigosa has a lot of horsepower from being the Mayor of Los Angeles. So the chances are guaranteed that the Governor's Mansion will be a Democrat, but will he be a far left or a center left? This is probably Arnie's greatest political legacy. I can only dream that other states will follow through with a similar system.

Itssoeasy

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have zero issues with the Electoral College system. There are very few countries where the popular vote winner will always win the election. Such 'reverse' results have happened in the UK a few times, for example, it is an inherent risk in any representative government. I feel it is a reasonable compromise between giving large states more weight without discounting the merits of smaller states.

I used to vote for what I considered the lesser evil shortly after I moved here. All I'm seeing is more evils to choose from. I've given up on that and now vote for the closest person to my ideas. I never don't vote. I want to reward those who best represent me.

Given the swing within the two parties, I don't think there's a need to have a third party (though I wouldn't mind, I find it unlikely to be successful). I'm happy enough for now with the solution implemented by California at the State level, we call it an 'Open Primary', but really it's a transferable vote, transferable once only. We've only had a couple of elections with this recently implemented system, but already we're seeing changes towards the centre in this heavily Democratic state. There is all but no chance of a Republican winning, but what happens is generally that California's voters are given a choice between a hard left person and a moderately left person. The hard left chap obviously gets the Democratic base, but that not-so-hard left candidate will not only soak up some of the Democrat votes, but will be more appealing to the centre and right in the district. As a result, for example, the current leader in the polls for Governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, is doing whatever he can to help the Republican leader, Cox, get into the election ahead of Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. Otherwise, he's not going to have the "D" home field advantage in the election, since both candidates would be Democrats. And Newsom is well aware that he is only particularly popular in the Bay Area: Villaraigosa has a lot of horsepower from being the Mayor of Los Angeles. So the chances are guaranteed that the Governor's Mansion will be a Democrat, but will he be a far left or a center left? This is probably Arnie's greatest political legacy. I can only dream that other states will follow through with a similar system.

Was he mayor of San Francisco ? If he is then he's the ex husband of Fox news presenter Kimberly Guilfoyle.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

I think this qualifies as big news (even by today's standards)

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/992087692656697345?s=19

Avenatti says texts were intercepted too....

Is there news on whom the call-interceptor party is, like authorised tap on Cohen's phones?

Manic Moran

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Was he mayor of San Francisco ? If he is then he's the ex husband of Fox news presenter Kimberly Guilfoyle.

He was. Currently he's Lt Governor. Extremely popular in San Francisco area, utterly hated in the Red part of the State (So shades of Clinton at the national level here), and generally approved of in Los Angeles. Villaraigosa is approved of in Los Angeles and San Francisco, though not overwhelmingly loved anywhere, but causes far less of a visceral reaction in something like 45 of California's 58 counties than Newsom does. The Unions have generally split the difference, with Newsom picking up Teachers and Nurses unions, while Villaraigosa has received Farm Workers and Police unions.

If it comes down to those two, I suspect Newsom will still win, he's a very astute political operator, but it will be an interesting fight and I think closer than he would like.

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there news on whom the call-interceptor party is, like authorised tap on Cohen's phones?

It says a White House number at the moment - nothing more

Note Trump has taken lately to using his private mobile. People said it was to circumvent Kelly but I wonder now...

ECO_Mental

everlast75 wrote: »

Managed to see more of Gulliani's interview. Included the line that if Mueller "went after" Ivanka the Country would turn on him and that Jared, although a fine gentleman.. well, men are disposable.

Firstly, how sexist is that? Men can be questioned but somehow women can't?


Secondly, maybe Trump thinks Jared is an acceptable loss if he is taken down and Trump survives and G is just echoing his thoughts. It would make me uneasy if i were Jared.
Thirdly, Ivanka is a paid assistant/advisor in the white house. Why can't she be questioned?
While G says he ran everything by Trump before the interview, the Wall Street journal had him on "clarifying" his statements and you can be damn sure Trump didn't compose that 3 part tweet today (no spelling errors, caps lock or screams of witch hunt) so they are on damage control for sure.

What hes doing here is looking for an excuse to pull the trigger on Mueller, Rosenstien Session and go nuclear.

His line will be, "you are after my family now, this is confirmation that its a witch hunt therefore you are sacked":rolleyes:

As you say she is white house advisor up to her neck in Trump business and involved in the campaign but he wont spin it that way. Watching CNN this evening and they showed the clip to a panel and there was gasping on air they couldn't believe what Guillanni was saying. The mans a f**king dinosaur

Itssoeasy

Manic Moran wrote: »

He was. Currently he's Lt Governor. Extremely popular in San Francisco area, utterly hated in the Red part of the State (So shades of Clinton at the national level here), and generally approved of in Los Angeles. Villaraigosa is approved of in Los Angeles and San Francisco, though not overwhelmingly loved anywhere, but causes far less of a visceral reaction in something like 45 of California's 58 counties than Newsom does. The Unions have generally split the difference, with Newsom picking up Teachers and Nurses unions, while Villaraigosa has received Farm Workers and Police unions.

If it comes down to those two, I suspect Newsom will still win, he's a very astute political operator, but it will be an interesting fight and I think closer than he would like.

45 out of 58 is a high number of counties who if they hate him mean they are red counties, yet in any recent US election California(as is the west coast) is put up as this great democratic stronghold. But Reagan was Governor of the state before becoming president and Nixon represented the state in both the US house and Senate. That to me suggests a gradual change in the state, or at least it's perception.

EltonJohn69

http://time.com/5264898/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-rudy-giuliani-sarah-huckabee-sanders/

what !!! this cover story is beyond ridiculous

everlast75

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

http://time.com/5264898/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-rudy-giuliani-sarah-huckabee-sanders/

what !!! this cover story is beyond ridiculous

I think she is finally realising that Trump doesn't give two ****s about her; the caveat being that she cares what anyone else thinks.. which is doubtful

https://twitter.com/politiCOHEN_/status/992130946953564160?s=19

70!!!!!

Meanwhile Gulianni is mouthing off saying Sessions needs to step in re the russian probe.

I think things are about to get ugly real quick....

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

I think she is finally realising that Trump doesn't give two ****s about her; the caveat being that she cares what anyone else thinks.. which is doubtful

https://twitter.com/politiCOHEN_/status/992130946953564160?s=19

70!!!!!

Meanwhile Gulianni is mouthing off saying Sessions needs to step in re the russian probe.

I think things are about to get ugly real quick....

I've thought that for about a year and a half now, but somehow, Trump just keeps on truckin.

EltonJohn69

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

Giuliani is running the show now

Mumha

Guiliani can bluster all he wants, but the Mueller investigation moves on anyway. I really can't see how gets to the Mid terms without exploding and firing everyone in his way. This on top of wiretapping.

Mueller Seeks 70 Blank Subpoenas in Manafort Case

Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Thursday filed a request for 70 blank subpoenas in the Virginia court presiding over one of two criminal proceedings involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The two-page filing doesn’t offer much in the way of details, but each subpoena orders the recipient to appear at the federal courthouse in Alexandria on July 10 at 10 a.m. to testify at Manafort’s trial on charges stemming from Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Although Manafort faces no charges related to the Trump campaign, he is accused in cases filed both in Alexandria, Virginia and Washington, D.C. of hiding the work he did for and the money he made from a Russia-friendly political party in Ukraine and former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.

https://www.courthousenews.com/mueller-seeks-70-blank-subpoenas-in-manafort-case/

Leroy42

Apparently it is 35, 70 is the total with each one made up of two copies.

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apparently it is 35, 70 is the total with each one made up of two copies.

Still 35 subpoenas is still a lot and hardly a daily occurance.

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Still 35 subpoenas is still a lot and hardly a daily occurance.

I wasn't trying to reduce the seriousness, I mean 35 in a single day in an investigation that Guiliani said would be over by tomorrow and which Trump continues to claim as a witch hunt is incredible news.

everlast75

Guliiani is the mouth piece- he is drumming up the rhetoric so that when Trump moves on Rod (like a b*tch) the groundwork will have been set.


The only problem for Trump is Gulliani cannot stay on message so he could be doing as mucb harm to the plan as he is advancing it

everlast75

Well this is disappointing

https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/992149957502210048?s=19

A rush to report as news, or a deliberate tactic to make trump et al do something Mueller wanted them to do?

I wouldn't be surprised at anything now..

Hande hoche!

Possibly carelessness on their part or desire to be the breakers of news. Either way expect the fake news brigade to have a field day.

everlast75

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Possibly carelessness on their part or desire to be the breakers of news. Either way expect the fake news brigade to have a field day.

Yep and they will.

It will of course escape their notice that correcting one's own story adds to your veracity.

They are happily and wilfully pig ignorant to their own lies and that of Trump....

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to reduce the seriousness, I mean 35 in a single day in an investigation that Guiliani said would be over by tomorrow and which Trump continues to claim as a witch hunt is incredible news.

I didn't say you were leroy. I just said it's not a daily occurence.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

I think she is finally realising that Trump doesn't give two ****s about her; the caveat being that she cares what anyone else thinks.. which is doubtful

https://twitter.com/politiCOHEN_/status/992130946953564160?s=19

70!!!!!

Meanwhile Gulianni is mouthing off saying Sessions needs to step in re the russian probe.

I think things are about to get ugly real quick....

She's been referring the reporters to the President's statements at the briefing a lot lately whenever they ask about inconsistancies between his tweets and stories fron other sources.

Itssoeasy

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Possibly carelessness on their part or desire to be the breakers of news. Either way expect the fake news brigade to have a field day.

It's one of the downsides of news being so much more instant. Everyone is so desperate to get a story out that it's leading to corrections and retractions because of the wrong link for example.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It's one of the downsides of news being so much more instant. Everyone is so desperate to get a story out that it's leading to corrections and retractions because of the wrong link for example.

That only affects those that have bought into Trump and believe the MSM is bogus.

Why would anyone else think that correcting a story is a bad thing. Trump waited months before correcting his story on Stormy's payment. And even then, whatever way it is spun its illegal.

The magnitude, intent and frequency of the untruths matter.

Magnitude- are they the same level of mistake? Absolutely not.

Intent - News outlets care about the truth. He does not.

Frequency - Trump since taking office has lied over 3000 times. How many times have the news media had to correct a story.

Its not the same, but to them, the MSM somehow is worse. They are a lost cause to a very large degree

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have zero issues with the Electoral College system. There are very few countries where the popular vote winner will always win the election. Such 'reverse' results have happened in the UK a few times, for example, it is an inherent risk in any representative government. I feel it is a reasonable compromise between giving large states more weight without discounting the merits of smaller states.

.

What's gas from an Irish perspective looking in is you consider democrats left or hard left....

They're just not in any global sense left. They are centre , if I'm honest it feels like you've been brainwashed since the day you arrived with those nonsense political ads played repetitively on tv and through your conversations with fellow citizens into believing you have a clue what left is. The two parties are so polarised that your vision of what left is has become polluted.

Democrats are neither left nor far left.

The republicans however.... Well speaks for itself when so called Christian values seem to drive your representatives and they are used as a tool.

spacecoyote

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have zero issues with the Electoral College system. There are very few countries where the popular vote winner will always win the election. Such 'reverse' results have happened in the UK a few times, for example, it is an inherent risk in any representative government. I feel it is a reasonable compromise between giving large states more weight without discounting the merits of smaller states.

What would be your thoughts on a combination of the two options?

Keep the electoral college to even out the weightings for the smaller states, but award the electoral college votes on a proportional basis.

So, Arizona, has 11 votes. Trump won 49%, Hilary won 45.5%

Rather than 11 votes going to Trump, why not go proportional & round to the nearest half-vote, trump would get 5.5 votes, Hilary would get 5, third party would get 0.5 votes.

As things stand, Trump gets the whole state, on the basis of around 90,000 votes.

I'm not sure what the difference to the election result would have been if they used this methodology, but I'd guess that Hilary would likely have won

*edit, did a quick run with the state result numbers listed on Wikipedia and the doing proportional votes using the electoral college weightings the result would be (I went really crude with this & didn't bother with any rounding in the calculations at state level, but rounded to the nearest half for the final totals):

Hilary Clinton: 252.5 Votes
Donald Trump: 247 Votes
Gary Johnson: 18 Votes
Jill Stein: 5.5 Votes
Evan McMullin: 3.5 Votes
Others: 4.5 Votes

Quin_Dub

spacecoyote wrote: »

What would be your thoughts on a combination of the two options?

Keep the electoral college to even out the weightings for the smaller states, but award the electoral college votes on a proportional basis.

So, Arizona, has 11 votes. Trump won 49%, Hilary won 45.5%

Rather than 11 votes going to Trump, why not go proportional & round to the nearest half-vote, trump would get 5.5 votes, Hilary would get 5, third party would get 0.5 votes.

As things stand, Trump gets the whole state, on the basis of around 90,000 votes.

I'm not sure what the difference to the election result would have been if they used this methodology, but I'd guess that Hilary would likely have won

*edit, did a quick run with the state result numbers listed on Wikipedia and the doing proportional votes using the electoral college weightings the result would be (I went really crude with this & didn't bother with any rounding in the calculations at state level, but rounded to the nearest half for the final totals):

Hilary Clinton: 252.5 Votes
Donald Trump: 247 Votes
Gary Johnson: 18 Votes
Jill Stein: 5.5 Votes
Evan McMullin: 3.5 Votes
Others: 4.5 Votes

I had a discussion about the Electoral college with some US colleagues and one of the floated suggestions was a "Popular vote bounty"

For example , broadly speaking , reduce the electoral college votes in each state by 1 (with some adjustments for those small states with only a handful of votes) to create a 50 vote "bounty" for winning the popular vote.

That would mean that the minority voter (meaning blue voters in a red state and vice-versa) would have an incentive to come out and vote as they could impact the bounty vote.

Christy42

spacecoyote wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have zero issues with the Electoral College system. There are very few countries where the popular vote winner will always win the election. Such 'reverse' results have happened in the UK a few times, for example, it is an inherent risk in any representative government. I feel it is a reasonable compromise between giving large states more weight without discounting the merits of smaller states.

What would be your thoughts on a combination of the two options?

Keep the electoral college to even out the weightings for the smaller states, but award the electoral college votes on a proportional basis.

So, Arizona, has 11 votes. Trump won 49%, Hilary won 45.5%

Rather than 11 votes going to Trump, why not go proportional & round to the nearest half-vote, trump would get 5.5 votes, Hilary would get 5, third party would get 0.5 votes.

As things stand, Trump gets the whole state, on the basis of around 90,000 votes.

I'm not sure what the difference to the election result would have been if they used this methodology, but I'd guess that Hilary would likely have won

*edit, did a quick run with the state result numbers listed on Wikipedia and the doing proportional votes using the electoral college weightings the result would be (I went really crude with this & didn't bother with any rounding in the calculations at state level, but rounded to the nearest half for the final totals):

Hilary Clinton: 252.5 Votes
Donald Trump: 247 Votes
Gary Johnson: 18 Votes
Jill Stein: 5.5 Votes
Evan McMullin: 3.5 Votes
Others: 4.5 Votes

That would be the best solution in my view.

It would mean there are more than a few relevant states which is a flaw with both the current system and the popular vote.

I think a few states do this already (well sort of) but if only a few do it it reduces them to complete irrelevancy. It is hard to go and cause a big swing in such a state so why bother when you can try and tip all the votes in Florida? It has to be every state doing this for it to work.