Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

robinph

Nody wrote: »

I'd frame it rather as a "you get to pick your legacy by deciding who'll replace you". That way it's about his legacy as a judge which would play to his pride and still get the same goal accomplished.

Possibly, but that would still need them to have changed their idea of what their profession is from being a lawyer to being more along the lines of politician. Wanting to leave a legacy is from the dictator school of thinking.

Wanting to interpret the law of the land is what these people have been doing since they picked what subject to study in school as teenagers. If they wanted a legacy then they would have gone into politics in order to change the law.

A supreme court judge wanting to play politics goes against their entire reason for existing, or at least should do.

dogbert27

How was this even allowed?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8886577/Donald-Trumps-Mar-Lago-resort-billed-THREE-DOLLARS-presidents-glass-water-summit.html

Imagine Obama hosting someone at his house and booking the event through WH expenses?

Trump should have not been allowed use his businesses for anything during his presidency.

robinph

dogbert27 wrote: »

How was this even allowed?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8886577/Donald-Trumps-Mar-Lago-resort-billed-THREE-DOLLARS-presidents-glass-water-summit.html

Imagine Obama hosting someone at his house and booking the event through WH expenses?

Trump should have not been allowed use his businesses for anything during his presidency.

It's not allowed. But nobody is telling him or his staff that as they are all too scared. It was known that he'd try to do these things back in 2016, he first said it wouldn't happen, then he said it would and it was OK because he's the president and he's not getting paid, then he said that he had nothing to do with any of his businesses because "look lots of paper", then the paper ended up being blank.

There isn't much ambiguity in the emoluments clauses that were discussed in great detail in 2016, but for some reason nobody has bothered to apply them. Back then they were mostly expecting it to be foreign heads of state staying in his hotels in Washington to funnel money to his personal accounts, not that he'd be charging for staying at his own property as the scam. Think there was something about the Secret Service being essentially cleaned out of their entire normal budget just from having to pay hotel fees and golf cart rental to chase him around his own golf clubs.

AbusesToilets

robinph wrote: »

It's not allowed. But nobody is telling him or his staff that as they are all too scared. It was known that he'd try to do these things back in 2016, he first said it wouldn't happen, then he said it would and it was OK because he's the president and he's not getting paid, then he said that he had nothing to do with any of his businesses because "look lots of paper", then the paper ended up being blank.

There isn't much ambiguity in the emoluments clauses that were discussed in great detail in 2016, but for some reason nobody has bothered to apply them. Back then they were mostly expecting it to be foreign heads of state staying in his hotels in Washington to funnel money to his personal accounts, not that he'd be charging for staying at his own property as the scam. Think there was something about the Secret Service being essentially cleaned out of their entire normal budget just from having to pay hotel fees and golf cart rental to chase him around his own golf clubs.

You'd hope a Biden adminstration would go after him for reimbursement at least.

Quin_Dub

L1011 wrote: »

'Encouraging' Thomas to retire has already been mentioned. Most likely to die during a potential 8 year term for Biden-and-or-Harris.

Thomas dying and Kavanaugh being impeached and both being replaced with their polar opposites is something the Republicans would be terrified of.

There's a potential numbers problem after the election, though.

Martha McSally is likely to lose her seat to a Democrat, who will take it immediately - not in January. This is because she is an appointee not an elected Senator.

Kelly Loeffer's seat has become more and more tenuous to hold on to, and again would be taken immediately.

This would change the numbers to 51-49 and with some likely de-seated and extremely pissed off Republicans blaming Trump for their fall from grace, it wouldn't be hard to see nobody getting through. Leaving an empty seat for January and a Democrat senate.

I don't think either of those are going to happen realistically.

Kavanaugh is not getting removed via impeachment - Requires 2/3rd's of the Senate which will simply never happen , ever.

Thomas is being talked about because he's the longest serving at this point - So they are talking about retirement on the basis of longevity, not ill-health.

Thomas will not retire under a Democrat Presidency so if Biden wins , he will hold out barring ill health (and to my knowledge he's pretty hale and hearty at this stage).

Samuel Alito has apparently been discussing potential retirement and indeed , might do so under a GOP Presidency , but again I can't see him leaving voluntarily with a Democrat in the WH.

There are 2 choices really - Add more Seats or introduce Term limits to "age out" Thomas.

I think adding more seats just starts an "arms race" scenario so won't help longer term.

Term limits do though , at the very least it introduces a structure and cycle to things

Foxtrol

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think either of those are going to happen realistically.

Kavanaugh is not getting removed via impeachment - Requires 2/3rd's of the Senate which will simply never happen , ever.

Thomas is being talked about because he's the longest serving at this point - So they are talking about retirement on the basis of longevity, not ill-health.

Thomas will not retire under a Democrat Presidency so if Biden wins , he will hold out barring ill health (and to my knowledge he's pretty hale and hearty at this stage).

Samuel Alito has apparently been discussing potential retirement and indeed , might do so under a GOP Presidency , but again I can't see him leaving voluntarily with a Democrat in the WH.

There are 2 choices really - Add more Seats or introduce Term limits to "age out" Thomas.

I think adding more seats just starts an "arms race" scenario so won't help longer term.

Term limits do though , at the very least it introduces a structure and cycle to things

Impeachment is the messiest option of them all and will draw the thing out. We saw during the Trump one that GOP have no problem ignoring wrongdoing.

Add DC and PR as states is the best first step to provide some safety in the senate. I'd do both term limits and add seats. Adding term limits for an unbalanced court seems extremely risky. Do it early and quickly and hopefully it'll be glossed over by the mid-terms.

listermint

Foxtrol wrote: »

Impeachment is the messiest option of them all and will draw the thing out. We saw during the Trump one that GOP have no problem ignoring wrongdoing.

Add DC and PR as states is the best first step to provide some safety in the senate. I'd do both term limits and add seats. Adding term limits for an unbalanced court seems extremely risky. Do it early and quickly and hopefully it'll be glossed over by the mid-terms.

I'd be rolling out the gates with term limits and hold up the shenanigans of the last 6 years as to why. Done get it out there. Then move on to the rest of the repair work that has to be done.

Itssoeasy

So cnn have new audio of the legacy hire Jared kushner of the trump administration boasting in April that it was the Donald trump in control and not the doctors advising him. I’m not sure that Jared kushner understands that that quote isn’t as positive as he thinks it is.

CelticRambler

Foxtrol wrote: »

Add DC and PR as states is the best first step to provide some safety in the senate. I'd do both term limits and add seats. Adding term limits for an unbalanced court seems extremely risky.

You'd think that re-framing the rules for the appointment process would be an essential change too - a minimum length for the investigative/interview period, as well as a maximum period. Increasing the majority required for approval would also force the Senate to find a candidate that was acceptable to at least a minority of the other side.

But those would be all sensible steps to ensure good democracy, and we've seen how the US just doesn't do democracy in the sense that the rest of the (free) world understands. :rolleyes:

Igotadose

Foxtrol wrote: »

Impeachment is the messiest option of them all and will draw the thing out. We saw during the Trump one that GOP have no problem ignoring wrongdoing.

Add DC and PR as states is the best first step to provide some safety in the senate. I'd do both term limits and add seats. Adding term limits for an unbalanced court seems extremely risky. Do it early and quickly and hopefully it'll be glossed over by the mid-terms.

PR had a referendum on statehood in 2017 that had a tiny turnout. They need to run it again before statehood moves forward. Lots of entrenched supporters of the status quo

Foxtrol

CelticRambler wrote: »

You'd think that re-framing the rules for the appointment process would be an essential change too - a minimum length for the investigative/interview period, as well as a maximum period. Increasing the majority required for approval would also force the Senate to find a candidate that was acceptable to at least a minority of the other side.

But those would be all sensible steps to ensure good democracy, and we've seen how the US just doesn't do democracy in the sense that the rest of the (free) world understands. :rolleyes:

McConnell only moved the number of votes down to a simple majority to ram through these judges, it would be foolish for the Dems to go back and make it harder for themselves.

A bigger majority is good in principle but in practice at this point it would mean no one would ever get passed. GOP did everything they could over 8 years blocking Obama appointments and Dems are now rejecting nearly all GOP judges. Rejecting the other side's appointment is the new normal, I don't see it changing aside from a handful of senators that are in danger and up for reelection.

Foxtrol

Igotadose wrote: »

PR had a referendum on statehood in 2017 that had a tiny turnout. They need to run it again before statehood moves forward. Lots of entrenched supporters of the status quo

They are running that referendum on statehood next Tuesday so we should have that answer pretty quickly

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/10/22/residents-of-puerto-rico-will-vote-on-statehood

eire4

Foxtrol wrote: »

They are running that referendum on statehood next Tuesday so we should have that answer pretty quickly

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/10/22/residents-of-puerto-rico-will-vote-on-statehood

As an FYI the referendum on Tuesday is non binding. Even if the people of Puerto Rico vote to become the 51st US state it does not mean it will happen. They would need to then petition the congress. Then things become a little unclear as there is no set procedure for granting or not granting statehood. But the generally accepted notion is that a vote to grant statehood would need to pass the house and senate before being signed by the president. If the Democrats win all 3 branches then it is possible although if the Democrats want it happen they will need to get on their bike and get it done soon as they could of course lose the senate in 2 years if they do indeed win it back next week. There is zero chance of statehood for Puerto Rico if the Republicans hold onto the senate.

Itssoeasy

And identity of the anonymous member of the administration who wrote that op Ed in 2018 is a mystery no more. It’s former DHS official miles Taylor.

Water John

eire4 wrote: »

As an FYI the referendum on Tuesday is non binding. Even if the people of Puerto Rico vote to become the 51st US state it does not mean it will happen. They would need to then petition the congress. Then things become a little unclear as there is no set procedure for granting or not granting statehood. But the generally accepted notion is that a vote to grant statehood would need to pass the house and senate before being signed by the president. If the Democrats win all 3 branches then it is possible although if the Democrats want it happen they will need to get on their bike and get it done soon as they could of course lose the senate in 2 years if they do indeed win it back next week. There is zero chance of statehood for Puerto Rico if the Republicans hold onto the senate.

I'm sure the Dems could do it in one month.

eire4

Water John wrote: »

I'm sure the Dems could do it in one month.

I hope they do so. Assuming it is what the people of Puerto Rico want which opinion polls suggest is the case it is what is best for them to not be in this second class state so to speak and actually be fully a part of the US.

Water John

It would be a change from the 50 States during all my life.
More stars on the flag.

eire4

Water John wrote: »

It would be a change from the 50 States during all my life.
More stars on the flag.

It would be a very big deal no question about it. Most importantly it would be good for Puerto Rico as well. For sure though the Democrats assuming they win all 3 branches next week will need to get going on it it though ( again assuming Puerto Rico vote in favour and then petition congress) as there is basically going to be a 2 year clock on them for sure being able to do anything big and I think this would qualify as something big.

Rjd2

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And identity of the anonymous member of the administration who wrote that op Ed in 2018 is a mystery no more. It’s former DHS official miles Taylor.

Credit where its due, a lot of top notch grifting last few years from MAGA loons," Never trumpers" etc but this dude one of the most brazen.


Played a big role in placing kids in cages, but also made absolute fortunes milking the anti Trump movement.

That's one other great thing about Trump losing, lets hope these guys lose their leverage in the media, the world doesn't need many more people who were content to work for Trump then "come clean" for huge money.

BonnieSituation

I'm watching Hannity live here, because it seems I have Fox News on my IPTV box.

Anyway... He's been ranting and raving about censorship on Twitter and then just out of nowhere calls Biden "a dementia-ridden corpse-like figure".

What the actual hell is that?

We now have Newt Gingrich referring to Trump as a bear that is strong enough to defend the American people, unlike the bunny rabbit that Biden is.

And they both keep referring to "multiple polls"... What polls you may ask? Trafalgar and Rasmussen.

Hannity gloating about how he can't wait to see the Left choke on the result of a Trump win.

Why am I still watching?

---

The strength of this mass delusion is just beyond my brain capacity. I've legitimately got an itchy brain.

---

Taking that in isolation, Trump would have to be really really worried if Hannity is jumping up and down more crazily than ever. It really isn't looking good.

Scot_in_Dublin

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm watching Hannity live here, because it seems I have Fox News on my IPTV box.

Anyway... He's been ranting and raving about censorship on Twitter and then just out of nowhere calls Biden "a dementia-ridden corpse-like figure".

What the actual hell is that?

We now have Newt Gingrich referring to Trump as a bear that is strong enough to defend the American people, unlike the bunny rabbit that Biden is.

And they both keep referring to "multiple polls"... What polls you may ask? Trafalgar and Rasmussen.

Hannity gloating about how he can't wait to see the Left choke on the result of a Trump win.

Why am I still watching?

---

The strength of this mass delusion is just beyond my brain capacity. I've legitimately got an itchy brain.

---

Taking that in isolation, Trump would have to be really really worried if Hannity is jumping up and down more crazily than ever. It really isn't looking good.

Yeah, Newt Gingrich.

That bastion of the Republican party who while his wife was dying of cancer waltzed out and started stuping someone else.

On the censorship side I find a lot of this funny. The majority of folks on both side are using FB, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat etc. Yet, one side feels its biased.

If it was me, as part of one of those companies, I would say hey. Ok, that's cool. You do not have to use us.

pixelburp

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

Yeah, Newt Gingrich.

That bastion of the Republican party who while his wife was dying of cancer waltzed out and started stuping someone else.

On the censorship side I find a lot of this funny. The majority of folks on both side are using FB, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat etc. Yet, one side feels its biased.

If it was me, as part of one of those companies, I would say hey. Ok, that's cool. You do not have to use us.

I linked a Wall Street journal article the other week which revealed that, far from having a "liberal bias" as claimed by conservatives, Facebook has the complete opposite issue; that in trying to avoid accusations bias their weighted algorithms disproportionately punish left leaning outlets. Outlets suddenly finding their FB tethered revenue fall off a cliff because of this

Christy42

pixelburp wrote: »

I linked a Wall Street journal article the other week which revealed that, far from having a "liberal bias" as claimed by conservatives, Facebook has the complete opposite issue; that in trying to avoid accusations bias their weighted algorithms disproportionately punish left leaning outlets. Outlets suddenly finding their FB tethered revenue fall off a cliff because of this

It turns out being the bigger cry baby works. If you spew out enough lies they have to let some through or it looks like they are shutting everything from the right down.

Speaking of fake news Tucker Carlson has managed to "lose" the totally not entirely made up Hunter Biden files of which there is no copies.

dogbert27

Christy42 wrote: »

It turns out being the bigger cry baby works. If you spew out enough lies they have to let some through or it looks like they are shutting everything from the right down.

Speaking of fake news Tucker Carlson has managed to "lose" the totally not entirely made up Hunter Biden files of which there is no copies.

Mysteriously disappeared in the post, courier company doesn't know what happened!! :pac::pac::pac:

abff

I’ve just read that Jack Nicklaus has endorsed Trump. I don’t think that will necessarily influence anyone to vote, but it certainly destroys any respect I had for Nicklaus.

EltonJohn69

abff wrote: »

I’ve just read that Jack Nicklaus has endorsed Trump. I don’t think that will necessarily influence anyone to vote, but it certainly destroys any respect I had for Nicklaus.

If the democrats win they will seize all golf courses and turn them into gender free bathrooms.

dogbert27

abff wrote: »

I’ve just read that Jack Nicklaus has endorsed Trump. I don’t think that will necessarily influence anyone to vote, but it certainly destroys any respect I had for Nicklaus.

Especially when he said his reason was because Trump delivered on his promises :rolleyes:

EltonJohn69

dogbert27 wrote: »

Especially when he said his reason was because Trump delivered on his promises :rolleyes:

Well he probably did massively benefit from Trumps tax cut

serfboard

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

If the democrats win they will seize all golf courses and turn them into gender free bathrooms.

If the Democrats win they should seize all golf courses within city boundaries and turn them into housing.

robinph

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

If the democrats win they will seize all golf courses and turn them into gender free bathrooms.

Well there is a very good reason for seizing anything with a Trump badge on the front gate and selling that off to recoup the losses that Trump caused to the state and to cover any taxes he owes.