Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

JohnFalstaff

strandroad wrote: »

If they can make Trump lose it completely he can be shown to be unfit for office on mental health grounds.

Something to consider is whether Republicans would remove Trump in this manner as a sort of pre-emptive strike if they knew the outcome of Mueller's investigation was now inevitable?

The Republicans cut Trump loose, in exchange for a general pardon similar to how Nixon left office, install Pence in the WH and work to bring the investigation to a quiet end. An exercise in damage limitation.

It feels like what's been coming out the past few days is heading in that direction.

Larbre34

My sense is that bored toddler Trump would love to resign at this stage and leave Pence to it, but that he can only protect himself from indictment on conspiracy charges by remaining in office, so he has no choice. How deliciously ironic.

Zubeneschamali

Danzy wrote: »

Many of those who voted for him know the Democrats despise them as hicks, horn handed plebs etc.

So does Trump. See what he says about Sessions being an iggerant redneck.

amandstu

Fact>Fiction again?

Has anyone asked Jim Carrey what he thinks about the mole in the hole?:)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAzQ7Pn0Bbc

This adds further to the credibility of the Woodward book (I never heard of an administrative coup d'etat till then)

Leroy42

So now we have three separate book, Fire & Fury, Omaroras and the latest, and to add to that we have an Op-Ed in the NYT.

They are all saying roughly the same thing. They dismissed Fire & Fury on the bass the author was a bit crazy (though never actually showed it was inherently wrong), dismissed Omarosa as a disgruntled employee (yet never explained the tapes) and and now Woodward has no credability and its all lies apart from the tape he released so we know for a fact that he spoke to KAC and Graham and that Trump is lying about not being told about the request.

Add to that the latest Op-Ed and we are left we a strange position.

Either each of these very separate and unconnected people have all decided to risk their professional reputations (which vary) in the search of cheap thrills and to take on the POTUS and the entire WH for nothing more than baseless lies, or the central theme running through all of them, i.e. that the WH is totally dysfunctional, Trump is completely unable to handle the job, his staff are actively working to limit the damage etc, is grounded in reality.

So what other facts can we look at outside of the books and Trumps denials, as they are both biased, to help to decide which is the more likely. Well, we have Trumps erratic behaviour. His continuous lies (4500 and counting), his lack of detail when discussing any topic (can anyone point to anything other than a soundbite he has used! and we all remember is acknowledgment that he knew nothing of medical insurance). We know that many that were around him have left, and that none of them have released any books painting a different picture. We have seen how he treated TM, NATO, WTO, Mexico. We know he bandies about number and statements not based on any facts. His own lawyers, and Giuliani has stated this on TV, do not believe he can give evidence without perjuring himself.

Any and every American should be extremely worried about this at this stage. To have a man with no abilities to control himself or those around him and the very head of the country. A leader without the ability to lead. And worse than that, a leader who commands no respect and actually has his supporters working against him to try to save him.

For those that claim that he is making things better, all the evidence is that this is not based on any grand plan or strategy, but more about timing and luck. He continually talks about the economy and jobs, yet what has he actually done to drive that? What policy has he put in place? He talks about black unemployment, but I can see no EO or law passed that would drive that, apart from the growing economy. But even on the economy, which he loves to take credit for, this is clearly driven by a massive tax cut which all the projections say is going to lead to considerable deficit growth over the coming years. So he is spending other peoples money to make himself look good. But not spending it things that will drive long term growth. Things like education, investment in science, exploration, innovation, renewable energy, cutting reliance and old energy. He is spending money on buying a boost in areas that are going to continue to decline. Sure in areas like coal the extra spending has created a boost, but it will only last as long as they continue to be subsidised and is taking away from money that could be invested in longer term benefits.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

the central theme running through all of them, i.e. that the WH is totally dysfunctional, Trump is completely unable to handle the job, his staff are actively working to limit the damage etc, is grounded in reality.

But we all know that just by reading his tweets.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

. Things like education, investment in science, exploration, innovation, renewable energy, cutting reliance and old energy. He is spending money on buying a boost in areas that are going to continue to decline. Sure in areas like coal the extra spending has created a boost, but it will only last as long as they continue to be subsidised and is taking away from money that could be invested in longer term benefits.

COAB did you have to bring adult politics into it?:eek:

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

For those that claim that he is making things better, all the evidence is that this is not based on any grand plan or strategy, but more about timing and luck. He continually talks about the economy and jobs, yet what has he actually done to drive that? What policy has he put in place? He talks about black unemployment, but I can see no EO or law passed that would drive that, apart from the growing economy. But even on the economy, which he loves to take credit for, this is clearly driven by a massive tax cut which all the projections say is going to lead to considerable deficit growth over the coming years.

I don't think its so clear that the tax cut's having a positive effect on the economy at least not a direct one. Mostly used for share buybacks and corporate profit-taking. Wages still lag; wealthier (participating in the stock market) americans might be spending more because of them perceiving their wealth as growing, but in my view the economy's been in a long stock market rally mostly fueled by quantitative easing and what seems like artificially low interest rates. Come October, when the 1.5 tn new debt is issued by the USG, I think that'll slow it down, the dollar will weaken (Mnuchin I think was quoted as saying a weak dollar is a good thing, though he immediately tried to walk that back.)

And the trade war isn't helping the economy, nor is it particularly hurting China. However, with Trump, he doesn't care, it's about the soundbites and rewarding Putin's investments in him.

Rjd2

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a good question I haven't seen many people tackle. I'm sure the guy didn't write it because he got paid by the word. Why release this Op-Ed, and what's his or her end goal?

A lot of money to be made from the resistance, Cohen, Comey, Omeresa and many others have milked them. He will ultimately have to reveal himself which he knows and he wants that resistance money.

Nothing more honourable than that.

Rjd2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So does Trump. See what he says about Sessions being an iggerant redneck.

Wealthy white people hate poor working class people just as much as any demo in America. Its heart breaking that people believe the likes of Mitch, Ryan and Trump are any different and often vote against there own self interest.

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a good question I haven't seen many people tackle. I'm sure the guy didn't write it because he got paid by the word. Why release this Op-Ed, and what's his or her end goal?

Look at what it says:

• Republicans in the adminsitration are the actual Resistance at the coalface protecting America and the world from Trump's worst indulgences etc.
• Many of the policies passed have been good, we are responsible for those.

This is propaganda. The GOP are distancing themselves from Trump before the upcoming revelations. The other day Mike Pence praised Jeff Sessions after Trump's insulting quotes about him from extracts from Bernstein's book. First time Pence has really diverged from Trump in office.

The GOP have decided Trump is finished. This is the start of isolating him and insulating themselves from the upcoming fallout. It won't work.

dr.fuzzenstein

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Clinton would probably be at war with a dozen countries by now. She likes killing people.

Certainly Syria would be a utter disaster.

That said trump is too erratic to be president. I’d be inclined to agree with impeachment at this stage. The next democratic nominee has a chance of being anti war.

And before that people complained that Obama wasn't at war.
So Dems go to war>Warmongers, Babykillers, Murderers, Killary, etc...
Dems don't go to war>Weak, inneffective, supporting terrorism, wet blankets, etc...
But Rs go to war (prime example BUSH!!!!)>Gallant, unafraid leaders that risk everything in their valiant struggle to free the world from evil
Rs don't go to war> Diplomatic geniuses, the next Jesus, representatives of peace on Earth and fluffy pink unicorns.

That just as a side note. It's almost as if Republicans try to paint any action of the Democrats in a bad light and any action by the GOP as a stroke of genius. But what do I know...

On the subject of Syria. If we look at Libya in comparison you can see what happens when you meddle and when you don't.
Both countries are utter basket cases and are basically back in the stoneage. And to me it shows that you can't win if a country is tearing itself apart. The only way to win, would be to go in with thousands of troups, shoot everything that moves, lock down the country and put it under iron fist military rule.
Then establish a local government and support same for years with massive military power that can supress the different groups that are unhappy and want to claim power for themselves. The result will be a country that might appear calm (or not), but will be ravaged by terrorism and insurgencies for decades to come.
Or you leave well enough alone, and have a smouldering heap of rubble as a country for many years that is under a constant state of civil war, because there are too many factions and none has a decisive advantage.

My theory is, sometimes a country explodes and it will be an utter heap of sh*te for many years, no matter what you do.
And what has Trump done so far? He dropped the MOAB, got bored and never bothered with "sh*thole" countries again.

Stallingrad

Please let Mike Pence by the inside guy, please.

mcmoustache

Stallingrad wrote: »

Please let Mike Pence by the inside guy, please.

That would be too perfect.

My feeling is that it's someone with an important portfolio but isn't too well known.

Maybe Elaine Chao, Alex Acosta, Alex Azar or Linda McMahon.

Whoever it is, I'd say we'll know before the weekend is over.

murphaph

Stallingrad wrote: »

Please let Mike Pence by the inside guy, please.

https://perezhilton.com/2018-09-05-donald-trump-mike-pence-ny-times-op-ed-evidence-lodestar/

Is "lodestar" the smoking gun? Who knows.

mcmoustache

murphaph wrote: »

https://perezhilton.com/2018-09-05-donald-trump-mike-pence-ny-times-op-ed-evidence-lodestar/

Is "lodestar" the smoking gun? Who knows.

There was a story a while back ago about leakers using expressions that other staff members use.

“To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers’ idioms and use that in my background quotes. That throws the scent off me,” the current White House official added.

Whoever leaked this would have wanted to cover their tracks although they must know that they'll be found out soon enough. We probably shouldn't rule out the idea that this is from multiple people too.

swampgas

mcmoustache wrote: »

There was a story a while back ago about leakers using expressions that other staff members use.



Whoever leaked this would have wanted to cover their tracks although they must know that they'll be found out soon enough. We probably shouldn't rule out the idea that this is from multiple people too.

Yeah, "lodestar" seems remarkably specific. It's impossible to know whether it's a case of someone impersonating Pence, Pence subtly taking credit for the article, Pence accidentally exposing his authorship, or perhaps as you say, the combined work of multiple authors.

Has anyone challenged Pence about it yet? Has he denied being the author?

everlast75

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Clinton would probably be at war with a dozen countries by now. She likes killing people.

Certainly Syria would be a utter disaster.

That said trump is too erratic to be president. I’d be inclined to agree with impeachment at this stage. The next democratic nominee has a chance of being anti war.

swampgas wrote: »

Yeah, "lodestar" seems remarkably specific. It's impossible to know whether it's a case of someone impersonating Pence, Pence subtly taking credit for the article, Pence accidentally exposing his authorship, or perhaps as you say, the combined work of multiple authors.

Has anyone challenged Pence about it yet? Has he denied being the author?

If Lodestar is Mike Pence, and his wife helped him write the Op-Ed, would that make the piece on Trump the "Motherlode-star?

WinnyThePoo

mcmoustache wrote: »

That would be too perfect.

My feeling is that it's someone with an important portfolio but isn't too well known.

Maybe Elaine Chao, Alex Acosta, Alex Azar or Linda McMahon.

Whoever it is, I'd say we'll know before the weekend is over.

It was me all along Trump!. Even my immediate family bought it!

murphaph

It's kind of sad that it would be a good thing for mankind that POTUS be replaced by an ultra conservative like Pence :-(

circadian

mcmoustache wrote: »

That would be too perfect.

My feeling is that it's someone with an important portfolio but isn't too well known.

Maybe Elaine Chao, Alex Acosta, Alex Azar or Linda McMahon.

Whoever it is, I'd say we'll know before the weekend is over.

Stop the bus. Linda McMahon of WWE fame?

The op-ed is definitely damage control from the GOP. It's clear the walls are closing in on Trump and anyone implicit in anything he's done that warrants removal from office. I wouldn't be too sure if Pence can get off scott free, in fact, regardless of the letter, I'd say a significant number of people in the Whitehouse are in the firing line for a variety of reasons. This is just the GOP boxing Trump off to try and recover from the fallout of whatever is coming down the line.

Leroy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

A lot of money to be made from the resistance, Cohen, Comey, Omeresa and many others have milked them. He will ultimately have to reveal himself which he knows and he wants that resistance money.

Nothing more honourable than that.

You seem to be deeming that as not honourable, yet Trump has shown at every turn that the main driver of his presidency is money. Money for himself, his companies, his children.

So I think you maybe using Trumps own values to place on top of others. It might be true, but I certainly wouldn't place Woodward in that category. Sure he will make money from it, but he seems a very serious journalist and interested in the truth. Had there been nothing to say he wouldn't have said it.

In terms of the NYT Op-ed, IMO it is about covering their ass. Demfad made the point the GOP are starting to turn, they see the cost/benefit of Trump as scewing towards cost and are getting ready to ditch him, if needed.

But whatever about the motives, such an Op-ed is unprecedented. For Trump for demand the persons name, on the silly notion of national security, shows how rattled he is and that this is clearly something that is both true and deeply hurtful to Trump.

A better man, if it were false, would have simply laughed it off and claimed the source was not from inside the WH. But he knows that it definitely is, because everything it says makes sense in terms of how Trump is operating.

To Trump supporters, why would Trump be demanding the person name if it was simply made up nonsense?

The Mid-terms will tell us a lot. A bad night then could see the beginning of the end. I also think that many in the GOP feel very uneasy with how Trump treated the death of McCain. He was a well known, well respected member of the GOP, a senior member. And Trump didn't even stay off twitter during the service. A complete lack of respect. It may, only may mind, have brought home to many in the GOP that Trump is not a GOP, cares nothing about the GOP and only cares about 2020 for himself. He only wants the GOP to win seats to protect himself, not out of any desire to see the GOP do well.

Rhineshark

Various possibilities;

It is absolutely as he says and these people are trying to protect the country in their own eyes.

It is absolutely as he said but they are trying to protect certain ideological notions they want passed and need the cover of the fruitcake thry can more or less get around plus their numerical advantage to pass them, see tax cuts, Supreme Court shenanigans.

Shame - they know they are selling out the country here by propping up a dangerous and unstable man with far too much power and thus is an attempt to justify the public toadying neccessary to not fall into Trump's bad books.

While there are elements of cynicism to all the above, I would *think* from what Lodestone Guy wrote that it is not an attempt to undermine Trump publically. That is of course an inevitable side-effect, but I don't think it's worth risking rage of the Trumpists to tell them that there is in fact a deep state conspiracy to stop Trump doing insane stuff and deliberately draw attention to his close staffers. So I don't think this is *for* that purpose, even if they are probably going to be deluged in Pepe memes anyway.

Fourth possibility - someone's doing a very elaborate and reasonably subtle backstab on Pence by the use of one of his words (lodestone) to get Trump to turn on him. Eh, maybe. Seems unusually subtle though.

I'd go with 2, 3, 1 and eh 4 in that order. Maybe mixed elements.

everlast75

demfad wrote: »

Look at what it says:

• Republicans in the adminsitration are the actual Resistance at the coalface protecting America and the world from Trump's worst indulgences etc.
• Many of the policies passed have been good, we are responsible for those.

This is propaganda. The GOP are distancing themselves from Trump before the upcoming revelations. The other day Mike Pence praised Jeff Sessions after Trump's insulting quotes about him from extracts from Bernstein's book. First time Pence has really diverged from Trump in office.

The GOP have decided Trump is finished. This is the start of isolating him and insulating themselves from the upcoming fallout. It won't work.

Agreed. You can even see it with Cohen, Omarosa etc. Rats deserting a sinking ship.

Also, in a way, you can see it with Companies too. Levis, Nike - they have all done their research and can tell which way the wind is blowing. They are waging their profits on Trump losing and losing soon

mcmoustache

circadian wrote: »

Stop the bus. Linda McMahon of WWE fame?

Yes. And by most accounts, a very competent member of the administration who takes her job seriously.

StringerBell

John Dean would be have Kelly at the top of his list apparently.
I subscribe to demfads theory this is the GOP on a damage control mission.

For Forks Sake

After last night's string of nonsensical tweets, he's up and running for today (3 already) including this zinger
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037656324010663937?s=19

Franz Von Peppercorn

StringerBell wrote: »

Can you spot the difference?

Sure but irrelevant to the claim that sanders couldn’t win. After all sanders was the more serious candidate. In fact I think he would have won vs trump. Gotten more votes out, and lost fewer in the rust belt.

dr.fuzzenstein

For Forks Sake wrote: »

After last night's string of nonsensical tweets, he's up and running for today (3 already) including this zinger
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037656324010663937?s=19

He just needs a ringing endorsement from Putin and he's golden!

StringerBell

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Sure but irrelevant to the claim that sanders couldn’t win. After all sanders was the more serious candidate. In fact I think he would have won vs trump. Gotten more votes out, and lost fewer in the rust belt.

The more serious candidate? Compared to Trump? Pretty sure whoever ran against Trump would be the more serious candidate. The difference is key to the claim Sanders couldn't win

I'm not sure you do see why a candidate like Trump could win and why it would be even harder for a candidate like Sanders to win.

He definitely would have lost v Trump and as he is seen as a commie in the rust belt I don't see how he would have managed to get more votes.
He is too far to the left for America is my firm opinion on him and obviously by European standards he ain't exactly hard left.

He'd be torn apart in a general election. He has his base and that's it, he wouldn't get people holding their nose and voting for him the way the Republicans manage to hold their nose and vote for whatever candidate is running under the R.

A run v Trump in 2020 would be his best shot I'd agree, but I wouldn't bet on him at all. I'd be more surprised if Sanders could get elected than I was that Trump managed it.