nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

notobtuse

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

metaoblivia wrote: »

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_apr10

He's currently at 51% disapproval and 48% approval according to your source.
Either way, 51% is hardly a vast majority. Only 31% strongly approve while 42% strongly disapprove.

Rasmussen is an outlier and always has been. In the past two weeks, Gallup, Ipsos and Quinnipiac have him at around 40% approval.

I believe Rasmussen was one of the better predictors in the past election based on the data they obtained.

BabyCheeses

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe Rasmussen was one of the better predictors in the past election based on the data they obtained.

Wouldnt that make them the most likely to be part of the deep state? They knew what the results would be.

Water John

If you hold that O'Bama leaned to, far left, you have been sniffing something.

notobtuse

Water John wrote: »

If you hold that O'Bama leaned to, far left, you have been sniffing something.

By American standards... yes. By European standards... no. IMO

Really Interested

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't believe they can use things not related to the warrant in court. But that doesn't stop them from illegally leaking information to the press in order to do what they can to take Trump down. Sort of an insurance policy against Trump.

So are you saying if during the search they uncover evidence of serious let’s say fraud by someone that they can not use such evidence. Can you post US case law to support your claim?

Professor Moriarty

notobtuse wrote: »

I believe Rasmussen was one of the better predictors in the past election based on the data they obtained.

Right. The average of all recent polls (including Rasmussen) is presently at 40.6%. But Rasmussen have The Donald at 48%. So Rasmussen are right and the rest are wrong? Okay.

Water John

O'Bama would not be considered left leaning, within the Democratic Party.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

It is obvious Democrats are favored by the Fourth Estate.

That's probably not an unreasonable stand-point , but it begs the question - Why?

notobtuse wrote: »

IMO, Sessions should resign and Mueller be fired. The both are not doing what they were appointed to do.

As others have said, I don't think any of us can really say if Mueller is "doing what he was appointed to" or not just yet. The documents released in the last week or so relating to the Manafort challenge would seem to suggest that he has a remit that allows him to follow any and all leads as he may find them and it appears that he's doing that.

For Sessions - Again whilst I wouldn't at all agree with what he's doing in terms of things like the mandatory sentencing around Drug dealing etc. I think what he is doing falls firmly under the remit of an Attorney General.

Now , what he is not doing is providing Air-cover for Trump , which is I suspect what Trump thought he was going to be getting ("Where's my Bobby Kennedy?") but that is absolutely not what an Attorney General is supposed to be appointed for.

notobtuse wrote: »

Why did they wait until after Trump got elected? Because nobody ever thought Trump would get elected to the presidency. I think the establishment Republicans had settled on keeping control of Congress with a Democrat president in office. That way they could maintain some level of balance in government. They did manage to keep Obama's wish to lurch the country to the far left in check and felt they could do the same with HRC, IMO, and Clinton would have just continued Obama's policies. Who knew Obama's efforts to move the country farther left then they felt comfortable with would put Trump in office.

I really can't grasp this theory at all - An all powerful deep state thought that the preferred scenario was a Dem President and a GOP controlled House/Senate but were asleep at the wheel during the Election and allowed Trump to win.

However , they've now suddenly awoken from their slumber and are all out to get him??

What????

notobtuse

oscarBravo wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I didn’t vote for Trump in the primary but am mighty happy about what he has done so far as POTUS.

Apart from appoint a conservative nutjob to the seat that the GOP disgracefully held open on the Supreme Court, and slash taxes for billionaires, what has he done that makes you happy?

He is installing conservative judges who will preside for decades
He enacted historic tax and regulatory reform that has unleashed economic growth.
He got NATO allies to kick in $12 billion more toward our collective security.
He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
He has taken a surprisingly tough line with Russia.
He repealed Obamacare's individual mandate.

Damn good start in my opinion.

Really Interested

notobtuse wrote: »

He is installing conservative judges who will preside for decades
He enacted historic tax and regulatory reform that has unleashed economic growth.
He got NATO allies to kick in $12 billion more toward our collective security.
He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
He has taken a surprisingly tough line with Russia.
He repealed Obamacare's individual mandate.

Damn good start in my opinion.

In relation to growth can you show any evidence that tax and regulation reform has increased GDP from levels 2010 to 2017?

[Deleted User]

notobtuse wrote: »

He is installing conservative judges who will preside for decades
He enacted historic tax and regulatory reform that has unleashed economic growth.
He got NATO allies to kick in $12 billion more toward our collective security.
He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
He has taken a surprisingly tough line with Russia.
He repealed Obamacare's individual mandate.

Damn good start in my opinion.

Nothing like getting rid of healthcare for the poor and low paid workers while giving tax breaks to the rich and corporations to show your in touch with the American worker.

[Deleted User]

How has he been tough on Russia? He won't have a bad word said against Putin.

Christy42

notobtuse wrote: »

He is installing conservative judges who will preside for decades
He enacted historic tax and regulatory reform that has unleashed economic growth.
He got NATO allies to kick in $12 billion more toward our collective security.
He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
He has taken a surprisingly tough line with Russia.
He repealed Obamacare's individual mandate.

Damn good start in my opinion.

Any random Republican would do the first two. Also you were complaining about at least one of those conservative judges earlier as being part of the deep state so he can't have done that well there. Granted the economy has not actually motored that well since the tax cuts but for other (Trump related) reasons.

Yay screwing over our grandkids.

He has fought the senate/congress to take as light a lone on Russia as possible. Yo the point where they made it harder for him to undo their sanctions against Russia.

Hr attempted to get rid of Obamacare altogether and promised it. Turns out couldn't come up with anything better and Republicans couldn't even agree to get rid of it as he failed multiple times to get people who benefit from him doing well to agree with him.

Ronaldinho

Deleted User wrote: »

How has he been tough on Russia? He won't have a bad word said against Putin.

....U.S. sanctions against top Russian business executives wiped billions of dollars off Russian stock market values this week, prompting fears that the country’s already stagnant economy could be thrown back into recession.

Sanctioned businessman Oleg Deripaska’s company Rusal, an aluminum giant that employs 62,000 people worldwide, has lost more than half its stock market value since the sanctions were announced. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank, has lost some 15 percent on the stock market this week even though it was not sanctioned. Monday’s plunge of more than 8 percent in the benchmark MOEX Russia Index was the worst since March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, though the index recovered some of those losses Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-backers-warn-of-threat-of-war-with-us-as-syria-tensions-rise/2018/04/10/3a5fb4ec-3cbc-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d079b951a5db

[Deleted User]

Ronaldinho wrote: »

....U.S. sanctions against top Russian business executives wiped billions of dollars off Russian stock market values this week, prompting fears that the country’s already stagnant economy could be thrown back into recession.

Sanctioned businessman Oleg Deripaska’s company Rusal, an aluminum giant that employs 62,000 people worldwide, has lost more than half its stock market value since the sanctions were announced. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank, has lost some 15 percent on the stock market this week even though it was not sanctioned. Monday’s plunge of more than 8 percent in the benchmark MOEX Russia Index was the worst since March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, though the index recovered some of those losses Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-backers-warn-of-threat-of-war-with-us-as-syria-tensions-rise/2018/04/10/3a5fb4ec-3cbc-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d079b951a5db

Fair enough, I missed that. I was thinking of the sanctions that Congress imposed that he wouldn't implement.

everlast75

Ronaldinho wrote: »

....U.S. sanctions against top Russian business executives wiped billions of dollars off Russian stock market values this week, prompting fears that the country’s already stagnant economy could be thrown back into recession.

Sanctioned businessman Oleg Deripaska’s company Rusal, an aluminum giant that employs 62,000 people worldwide, has lost more than half its stock market value since the sanctions were announced. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank, has lost some 15 percent on the stock market this week even though it was not sanctioned. Monday’s plunge of more than 8 percent in the benchmark MOEX Russia Index was the worst since March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, though the index recovered some of those losses Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-backers-warn-of-threat-of-war-with-us-as-syria-tensions-rise/2018/04/10/3a5fb4ec-3cbc-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d079b951a5db

You are giving "him" the credit when in fact, he was extremely reluctant to do anything at all - even criticize him, never mind act.

It was only after sustained criticism and attention that he did act.

Surely you can see that?

aloyisious

notobtuse wrote: »

I think it is. By most average Republicans and Independents. Last week Rasmussen Reports had Trump at a 51% job favorable job approval rating amongst likely voters. I believe many people are starting to see all this as a witch hunt against a dully elected president. And they don't take kindly to it.

You are aware that Don said last week that he liked Rasmussen because of its poll results in his favour and he doesn't like those who don't....

Mumha

ECO_Mental wrote: »

This is the reason why the evangelicals support Trump and shamelessly Judas like turn a blind eye to him being a disgusting human being without any morals. He has given them at least one supreme court justice and packed a lot of the lower courts with real conservative judges that actually shape American law. The SC justice is the key because they rule on all constitutional case eg the gay baker case https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html

Yes, absolutely. The real battleground in the upcoming midterms is the fight for control of the Senate, because that will allow the Dems to block any Trump SC picks.

Mumha

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It's laughable, hypocritical and ironic that in a Democracy, judges and courts are independent of the Government, so that justice can be administered without fear, impediment or censure. That's the theory. The reality is many Judicial appointments are made by a Government, as you rightly state. Appointees who will do a Governments bidding, for as long as it takes, so where is the independence there?
I am completely opposed to Government appointed Judges and law officers. It breeds corruption and injustice.

In a lot cases, those judges selected are moderate. The problem arises when one side holds the Senate and the White house, and you get nut jobs like Scalia and Gorsuch.

Mumha

Ronaldinho wrote: »

....U.S. sanctions against top Russian business executives wiped billions of dollars off Russian stock market values this week, prompting fears that the country’s already stagnant economy could be thrown back into recession.

Sanctioned businessman Oleg Deripaska’s company Rusal, an aluminum giant that employs 62,000 people worldwide, has lost more than half its stock market value since the sanctions were announced. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank, has lost some 15 percent on the stock market this week even though it was not sanctioned. Monday’s plunge of more than 8 percent in the benchmark MOEX Russia Index was the worst since March 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, though the index recovered some of those losses Tuesday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-backers-warn-of-threat-of-war-with-us-as-syria-tensions-rise/2018/04/10/3a5fb4ec-3cbc-11e8-912d-16c9e9b37800_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d079b951a5db

Those sanctions should have come in a year ago, but Trump stalled on implementing them. We will find out in due course whether the stalling has actually allowed those sanctioned Russians time to restructure their affairs to get around those very same sanctions.

enfant terrible

Mumha wrote: »

In a lot cases, those judges selected are moderate. The problem arises when one side holds the Senate and the White house, and you get nut jobs like Scalia and Gorsuch.

Is it only the Republicans doing it in your opinion?

Peregrinus

enfant terrible wrote: »

Is it only the Republicans doing it in your opinion?

Well, the democrats last had control of the Presidency plus both houses between 2009 and 2011. Prior to that, the last time it happened was from 1993 -1995.
Can you point to any "nutjob" appointments made during either of those periods?

Manic Moran

“ Nut job?” I have seen that used thrice now in the last few posts.

Look, I grant that you don’t agree with their judicial outlook or their guiding philosophies, but that is far from saying that they are nutjobs. They are/were both highly qualified and intelligent judges. As welded to their philosophies as folks like Ginsburg or Breyer to theirs. Neither position is wrong, they are just different. I do not believe he ever should have been nominated, but that’s because I disagree with the Senate blocking Garland’s nomination, not his qualities. In the year he’s been on, I also don’t recall any particular outliers or controversial rulings from him.

Besides, remember when Gorsuch was nominated alternatives being thrown up were folks like Pryor. If you want to call Gorsuch a nutjob, which epithet would you use had Pryor been selected? There was no way Trump/Republicans were going to propose a new Breyer. The reality of it was that the replacement would lean conservative, and Gorsuch was hardly the most so on offer. Can we avoid the hyperbole?

Peregrinus wrote: »

enfant terrible wrote: »

Is it only the Republicans doing it in your opinion?

Well, the democrats last had control of the Presidency plus both houses between 2009 and 2011. Prior to that, the last time it happened was from 1993 -1995.
Can you point to any "nutjob" appointments made during either of those periods?

Am I wrong in saying that the two most liberal judges currently on the Supreme bench are Clinton appointees from that era?

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

Am I wrong in saying that the two most liberal judges currently on the Supreme bench are Clinton appointees from that era?

Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed during that period. They are definitely on the liberal side of the court, but whether they are among the "most liberal" is a matter of judgment. But I think that's not tue question. The question is whether they can be categorised as "nutjobs".

You, wisely, don't like the categorisation (for either liberal or conservative judges) but would those who do apply it to Ginsberg or Stevens? More specifically, would they apply it to the appointment of Ginsberg or Stevens?

No, I think, has to be the answer. When Ginsberg was appointed, she had already served 13 years on the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit, and her reputation was as a moderate and cautious judge, who frequently togged out with more conservative colleagues, such as Scalia (who served with her on the Court of Appeals). I don't recall any very strong suggestion at the time that her appointment was outrageously ideologically-driven on Clinton's part. While my memories of Breyer's nomination are less clear, I don't recall such objections to him either.

aloyisious

Umm, Joe Duffy Advertising on what's on his show later that Don has tweeted a warning to Russia, re it's [apparent to Don] mention of air defence that missilles are on the way to Syria. If true, Don is publicly pre-empting any US close to launch order given, bypassing the usual military to military routes used to avoid unwanted international-forces collateral damage, in his usual way of displaying his "I'm the boss" status.

mcmoustache

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, Joe Duffy Advertising on what's on his show later that Don has tweeted a warning to Russia, re it's [apparent to Don] mention of air defence that missilles are on the way to Syria.

Twitter diplomacy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/984022625440747520

[Deleted User]

Looks like he woke up mid meltdown. I doubt there's anything in it and we'll possibly see something about the Cohen raid coming out soon.

Doltanian

Nothing takes away from internal corruption like beating the Drums of War and nationalism.

jooksavage

Why is "smart" in quotes. Are the missiles actually stupid? The use of title case for Gas Killing Animal makes Assad sound like a deathcore band.

MarinersBlues

His twitter posts today look like they are from the girl in the village who posts threats of physical violence to the father(s) of her child(ren) on facebook.

Or her cryptic threats to no-one visible for everyone.

"I'm coming for you! You know who you are!"

A TOTAL WITCH HUNT!!!

Attorney–client privilege is dead!

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

So much Fake News about what is going on in the White House. Very calm and calculated with a big focus on open and fair trade with China, the coming North Korea meeting and, of course, the vicious gas attack in Syria. Feels great to have Bolton & Larry K on board. I (we) are ....doing things that nobody thought possible, despite the never ending and corrupt Russia Investigation, which takes tremendous time and focus. No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!