Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

circadian

I could see Bernie running as a VP with someone younger, Beto would be a good choice. They need a pairing that can come out of the blocks strong and hold no punches. Sanders has an excellent reputation with the blue collar workers and I reckon he'd have beaten Trump first time around, he has a message and would be a solid guiding hand around Washington for someone younger taking the reins.

serfboard

eire4 wrote: »

As for your comment about people making a choice not to have their voice heard. I get what your saying and why but in the case of the US that comment is not really 100% as their system of elections is so corrupted and their government so broken that I don't agree. There is a 2 party duopoly on power. The 2 parties make sure no alternative voices are allowed to emerge nationally and the only difference economically between the 2 parties is that the Republicans represent the richest 1% while the Democrats maybe stand for the richest 20%. In other words for the vast majority of Americans neither party represents them and has any intention of doing so at least economically. So I am not sure what choice it is the many who do not vote are supposed to make when they are stuck with such a fundamentally broken system. Never mind the fact that the politicians in DC are so bought and paid for that even in areas where the vast majority of Americans agree such as strict gun control background checks absolutely nothings gets done. Hard to find fault for people not voting when the system does not represent their best interests and is so utterly corrupted by money.

Noam Chomsky made the point recently that the biggest story in the 2016 elections was not Trump's election, but was how far Bernie Sanders got considering he took no PAC/corporate money. And in fact, were it not for the corruption of the Democratic Party, he would have won the nomination and probably beaten Trump (he would certainly have won the rust belt and that's all he would have needed along with the Blue States).

I said at the time of Trump's election, that I thought that it was a good thing that the Republicans won all three levels of the government - because then the people would get to see just how despicable they are. And, as the midterms demonstrate, the people are seeing it now.

There are possibilities for reform in American politics. There are a growing number of candidates, some of whom were successful in the midterms, who will not take corporate/PAC money. Therein lies salvation for the system.

And if that doesn't work? I'll finish with a quote from JFK:

JFK wrote:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.

Brussels Sprout

Chris Christie turning down the chief of staff role is hilarious if true.

Wanderer78

serfboard wrote:

Noam Chomsky made the point recently that the biggest story in the 2016 elections was not Trump's election, but was how far Bernie Sanders got considering he took no PAC/corporate money. And in fact, were it not for the corruption of the Democratic Party, he would have won the nomination and probably beaten Trump (he would certainly have won the rust belt and that's all he would have needed along with the Blue States).

Sanders may still run again, if that occurs, it ll be interesting to see the outcome

Oafley Jones

circadian wrote: »

I could see Bernie running as a VP with someone younger, Beto would be a good choice. They need a pairing that can come out of the blocks strong and hold no punches. Sanders has an excellent reputation with the blue collar workers and I reckon he'd have beaten Trump first time around, he has a message and would be a solid guiding hand around Washington for someone younger taking the reins.

I’ve never been Sanders biggest fan, but his silence on some of the most egregious bull**** that has gone on over the past two years is unforgivable.

UsedToWait

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Chris Christie turning down the chief of staff role is hilarious if true.

He asked to be removed from the shortlist as it wasn't the right time for his family, apparently, having met with Trump for an hour last night.

When you're trying to hire the guy you shafted in the transition, you're on slim pickings.

Only the power-crazed and infamy hunters would jump aboard the good ship Trump at this stage.

FrostyJack

serfboard wrote: »

Noam Chomsky made the point recently that the biggest story in the 2016 elections was not Trump's election, but was how far Bernie Sanders got considering he took no PAC/corporate money. And in fact, were it not for the corruption of the Democratic Party, he would have won the nomination and probably beaten Trump (he would certainly have won the rust belt and that's all he would have needed along with the Blue States).

[/URL]:

This is not true, or at very least unprovable, Clinton was ahead at the time when the DNC colluded against him. This was a very effective use of the wikileaks mails used by Russia and Trump just before the national convention to drive a wedge between HC and Bernie supporters. As a Bernie supporter, who thinks he would have won the presidential election, it is hard to swallow. They did not do anything critical other than not put their full support behind him. Clinton was a flawed candidate for years, the GOP have had a campaign against her before Bill was president, so it didn't take much effort to paint her as crooked Hiliary, with Uranium one, pizzagate, Bengazi, emails etc.

kilns wrote:

I didnt say they deserved to be influenced no democratic election does, I am saying can any quantify the influence Russia had on the election and it is definitely a legitimate thing to highlight when the US are so up in arms regarding someone trying to influence their election when they have no issues doing it to other countries for their own benefit

Antidotely speaking on just the social media I saw, normal college educated intelligent Americans, were sharing and commenting on what was clearly Russian fake news and using them as a source of hit points against Clinton. So I would imagine, lesser informed people were doing the same, this would have a had a big affect when added with the years of anti Clinton propaganda. No one is saying Russian meddling solely won the presidency for Trump, but it was a big factor along with, Comey's announcement, wikileaks, Clinton being a bad candidate etc. 80,0000 votes is what swung the election. The fact that one side still ignores it happened is what most people here have a problem with. Both sides were hacked but only DNC was released and weaponised. Next election it could be the other side around if lets say the GOP candidate is a John McCann type character Putin hates.

everlast75

UsedToWait wrote: »

He asked to be removed from the shortlist as it wasn't the right time for his family, apparently, having met with Trump for an hour last night.

When you're trying to hire the guy you shafted in the transition, you're on slim pickings.

Only the power-crazed and infamy hunters would jump aboard the good ship Trump at this stage.

Poor choice of words tbf.

You have what would be one of THE most prestigious roles in the world being turned down by multiple people. How can anyone say this admin is not a complete sh1tshow is beyond me.

Ultimately they will probably be fired by text and humiliated and they all know that.

That's what happens when you treat people like dirt. It all comes around.

Captain Obvious

An entire floor of the DC courthouse was sealed off for a secret grand jury case today. A lot of speculation that Trump has been subpoenaed to testify.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--politics/entire-floor-federal-courthouse-sealed-off-for-mystery-case/JyerATnO5wL4gJKcS6nVJP/

Muahahaha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree. I think she sees it as the ultimate PR exercise. Getting someone like Trump elected. particularly given when she took over, is actually quite a feat. Think of it like the bet in Trading Places. Simply doing it to show it can be done rather than any higher calling.

If you were a high profile person who got into trouble, KAC would be one of the first people I would look to to be the face of my PR.

SHS is different (totally my opinion based on nothing more than what i see on the TV). I actually believe that she believes in Trump, believes that he is serving a higher power and that anything he does wrong is simply the price for the overall good he is doing. Her defence of him is down to not wanting the heathens and immoral to destroy it and tear it down with their questions and facts.

Kelly Anne Conway is pure PR attack dog and is skilled at convincing people that black is white.

I get what you are saying about SHS coming across as serving a higher power and I used to think she was like that myself. That was up until the Jim Acosta incident with the intern in the WH. Infowars doctored the video of the incident to make it look like Acosta assaulted the intern and Huckabee Saunders used this video to defend Trump to the hilt, even in the face of people saying the video had been doctored. Everyone knew the vid had been doctored but SHS still went out and tried to convince the media that Acosta had assaulted the intern. There is no way she genuinely believed that Infowars had just published the video as it was, she knew well she was creating fake news by attacking Acosta like that using the doctored video. Trump and the WH were out to end the career of Jim Acosta and it was SHS who led that effort. For me that episode showed that SHS can stoop just as low as KAC.

I think both KAC and SHS are of the same ilk but they just have different styles. KAC is the blonde botoxed fiesty attack dog and SHS is the concerned empathetic mother. Despite their differing styles both of them lie through their teeth to protect Trump. The only difference is I think KAC is a psychopath who (like Trump) believes she is actually telling the truth whereas SHS knows well she is lying but accepts it as part of her job.

Itssoeasy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

An entire floor of the DC courthouse was sealed off for a secret grand jury case today. A lot of speculation that Trump has been subpoenaed to testify.

https://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--politics/entire-floor-federal-courthouse-sealed-off-for-mystery-case/JyerATnO5wL4gJKcS6nVJP/

Checking stairwells on the floor as well according to that report. I mean whoever it is they don't want anything coming out about the case.

Muahahaha

In other news its being reported that Joe Biden is in Washington consulting with his political advisors about a run for 2020. Reports saying he plans to sit down with family over Xmas and discuss a bid for the White House. He has been asked about a run several times over the last few days and hasnt ruled it out. A CNN poll of 20+ potential candidates puts Biden on 30% with Sanders next on 14% then Beto on 9%

theguzman

Joe Kennedy III is my bet, but can't see the Donald losing tbh, not on the strength of the US economy at the moment.

UsedToWait

Muahahaha wrote: »

In other news its being reported that Joe Biden is in Washington consulting with his political advisors about a run for 2020. Reports saying he plans to sit down with family over Xmas and discuss a bid for the White House. He has been asked about a run several times over the last few days and hasnt ruled it out. A CNN poll of 20+ potential candidates puts Biden on 30% with Sanders next on 14% then Beto on 9%

Whoever it is, I think they need Beto on the ticket.

Itssoeasy

Mueller has hit back at Michael Flynn complaining about the FBI and him not being told about lying to the FBI, which even gives me I'd know not to lie to the FBI. He basically says that given Flynns career before Trump should have led him to know to not lie to federal investigators.

Itssoeasy

UsedToWait wrote: »

Whoever it is, I think they need Beto on the ticket.

Yeah I mean when you look back at the results from Texas senate races since it went dark red politically, and GOP candidates could have sat on the toilet for the campaign and still won well. My point is Beto O Rourke made the Texas senate race way more of a contest than it had any right to be. I'm sure that the dems can see how he could do well if they fully grasp his performance in Texas.

mcmoustache

theguzman wrote: »

Joe Kennedy III is my bet, but can't see the Donald losing tbh, not on the strength of the US economy at the moment.

Have you forgotten the midterms already? Or the stock market and other financial indicators?

mcmoustache

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah I mean when you look back at the results from Texas senate races since it went dark red politically, and GOP candidates could have sat on the toilet for the campaign and still won well. My point is Beto O Rourke made the Texas senate race way more of a contest than it had any right to be. I'm sure that the dems can see how he could do well if they fully grasp his performance in Texas.

I'm not a fan of the guy; it's something about how he speaks but whatever he's about, he's energised enough people to campaign and vote for him. I don't get him but he got results. I know that he raised a lot of money and all that but to get that far in Texas was impressive.

Water John

One would wonder has he the skill set to be POTUS? But then look at the present guy.

UsedToWait

Water John wrote: »

One would wonder has he the skill set to be POTUS? But then look at the present guy.

VP to a.n other for me.

eagle eye

It'd be insane to put Joe up against the Donald, hold him for another four and he'll get two terms.

eire4

mcmoustache wrote: »

Have you forgotten the midterms already? Or the stock market and other financial indicators?

or the fact that the gains in the economy have almost all gone to those at the top. 2018 was a record year for corporate stock buy backs as companies used the money they got from the Republican tax bill to reward their executives rather then pay raises for employees.

spacecoyote

eire4 wrote: »

or the fact that the gains in the economy have almost all gone to those at the top. 2018 was a record year for corporate stock buy backs as companies used the money they got from the Republican tax bill to reward their executives rather then pay raises for employees.

Given markets have, in essence, broken even so far this year, one would have to wonder, without the enormous levels of buybacks, what would the actual market levels be at, at this stage

26000 Elephants

Adam Schiff will probe Trump's personal finances and obtain Deutsche Bank records as HPSCI chair in Jan according to NewYorker mag.

Ever decreasing circles.

mcmoustache

In case anyone didn't see it, this interview be Nichole Wallace and James Comey is rather interesting. There's no new information that hasn't been disclosed before from other sources but it's quite candid and professionally done. He obviously has a lot to say about Trump, as far as he can without interfering with Mueller's stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xqGu66D6VU

Itssoeasy

It's funny that Nicole Wallace(a George W Bush loyalist) is working for MSNBC and does such a good job of pulling Trump and his administration for all the rubbish they have said the past two years. She's great.

jooksavage

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It's funny that Nicole Wallace(a George W Bush loyalist) is working for MSNBC and does such a good job of pulling Trump and his administration for all the rubbish they have said the past two years. She's great.

Theres a lot of the old Bush guys who have it in for Trump. Neo-cons Bill Kristol and particularly David Frum spend every waking hour attacking him. Bushs ethics lawyer Richard Painter (who's stony face is what i imagine Judge Dredd must look like) is a regular on the networks, tearing Trump to shreds in a wonderful midwestern drawl.

I remember hating some of those guys, particularly Kristol, back when they were pushing for war in Iraq and later attacking Obama. At least they're consistent though - Frum and Kristol do seem actually disgusted by Trumps corruption and their stand against "America First" is rooted in genuinely held ideas about the US' role as the worlds policeman. I might not agree with it, but at least they have a principle.

jooksavage

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It's funny that Nicole Wallace(a George W Bush loyalist) is working for MSNBC and does such a good job of pulling Trump and his administration for all the rubbish they have said the past two years. She's great.

Theres a lot of the old Bush guys who have it in for Trump. Neo-cons Bill Kristol and particularly David Frum spend every waking hour attacking him. Bushs ethics lawyer Richard Painter (who's stony face is what i imagine Judge Dredd must look like) is a regular on the networks, tearing Trump to shreds in a wonderful midwestern drawl.

I remember hating some of those guys, particularly Kristol, back when they were pushing for war in Iraq and later attacking Obama. At least they're consistent though - Frum and Kristol do seem actually disgusted by Trumps corruption and their stand against "America First" is rooted in genuinely held ideas about the US' role as the worlds policeman. I might not agree with it, but at least they have a principle.

Igotadose

jooksavage wrote: »

Bushs ethics lawyer Richard Painter (who's stony face is what i imagine Judge Dredd must look like) is a regular on the networks, tearing Trump to shreds in a wonderful midwestern drawl.

Poor guy has shingles, causing facial paralysis. If you can, get the shingles vaccine (there's a new, even more effective one in the US called 'shingrix' that's 90% effective, where the current one, available in Ireland, is less.) My brother and the wife's cousin both suffer from it, recurring bouts of shingles that get worse as you get older.

It's misery when it flares up. There's anecdotal evidence that suicide due to shingles and the pain side-effects is a contributor to the lowering of life expectancy in the US in white males.


Now, back to Trump (vaccine's get me excited, apologies.) Seems like he's crowing about a Federal judge ruling against Obamacare due to a very fuzzy interpretation of what Congress did regarding the individual mandate - Congress removed the penalty but not the mandate, the Judge interpreted that to mean the PPACA isn't a tax so the 2012 SCOTUS ruling that said it was, was no longer valid. Legal experts saying that the Judge's ruling will be thrown out by the SCOTUS.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/421511-federal-judge-in-texas-strikes-down-obamacare

Igotadose

Mulvaney, late of the CBO and the CFPB, water-carrier for the so-called Freedom Caucus, now acting Chief of Staff: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-announces-mick-mulvaney-as-new-chief-of-staff?ref=scroll

This ought to be interesting. Mulvaney's big on hiding from the press, in this job he'll have a lot more visibility. I give him 6 months tops, though to be fair I expect the WH to start ignoring DC and focusing on the 2020 campaign, it's where creepy Nick Ayers went.