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

Podge_irl

Gbear wrote: »

Are the pay to play issues at Mar-a-Lago, nepotism and general self-enrichment of he and his family enough on their own for impeachment?

Impeachment is political and there is no point pretending otherwise. Trump could murder someone and not be impeached if the Republicans felt it politically advantageous. Equally they could magic up an impeachment on an extremely flimsy pretence quite quickly.

I have little doubt the House will move to impeach Trump if the Dems take control. That strikes me as a mistake to be honest and it won't go anywhere.

pixelburp

Again, is there any evidence that the Democrats are running on a platform of impeachment? I'm sure there are outliers and single congressional / senate reps. who are making noise - but to me it hasn't appeared to be an official platform, and a bit disingenuous to lambast the party as a result. The Democratic party does seem intent on shooting itself in the foot at every passing opportunity, but surely even they know there are a 1000 more immediate problems to canvas on than a hailmary impeachment play.

Podge_irl

pixelburp wrote: »

Again, is there any evidence that the Democrats are running on a platform of impeachment? I'm sure there are outliers and single congressional / senate reps. who are making noise - but to me it hasn't appeared to be an official platform, and a bit disingenuous to lambast the party as a result. The Democratic party does seem intent on shooting itself in the foot at every passing opportunity, but surely even they know there are a 1000 more immediate problems to canvas on than a hailmary impeachment play.

Officially? No. But I think there is enough of a core of people who will be keen to do it for show that an attempt will be made if they regain the House. It's supposition though, I will readily admit.

Captain Obvious

Podge_irl wrote: »

Officially? No. But I think there is enough of a core of people who will be keen to do it for show that an attempt will be made if they regain the House. It's supposition though, I will readily admit.

I don't think they'll go for impeachment unless they can topple Pence too. He will be even worse than Trump. They'll let Trump keep destroying the Republican party until his term is up and then roll to victory.

Hande hoche!

pixelburp wrote: »

Again, is there any evidence that the Democrats are running on a platform of impeachment? I'm sure there are outliers and single congressional / senate reps. who are making noise - but to me it hasn't appeared to be an official platform, and a bit disingenuous to lambast the party as a result. The Democratic party does seem intent on shooting itself in the foot at every passing opportunity, but surely even they know there are a 1000 more immediate problems to canvas on than a hailmary impeachment play.

It's just speculation at this stage, might get a bit more clarity after the primaries finish up. As you say the party seems perfectly capable of damaging themselves. I expect some very shred moves ahead of November. Equally I expect some absolute non starters. Slogans similar to Pizza joints and in a similar vein.

Podge_irl

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't think they'll go for impeachment unless they can topple Pence too. He will be even worse than Trump. They'll let Trump keep destroying the Republican party until his term is up and then roll to victory.

They'll know full well that it will get killed in the Senate so won't have any concerns in that regard.

If they expect Trump to destroy the Repub party and for them to roll to victory then they are a bit deluded to be honest. They should triumph in 2020 but they should have won in 2016 too.

Water John

The key point for the mid terms are not the polls themselves but which Party is energised and that seems to be with the Dems by a significant amount.
Trump and his antics along with the wider GOP behaviour have done that more than any other force.
Trump knows he needs to get his base out in Nov to limit his own impeachment.

kunst nugget

RIGOLO wrote: »

Poached the above from After Hours, and given this is the POTUS thread , the day thats in it and that theres been plenty mocking memes posted in this thread .

Happy 4th Of July.. Im off to 'impeach' a couple of Trump burgers , the Trump Tower burger is HUGE .

So you're actually Irish? I really thought you were some American come to randomly fight Trump's corner for him on an Irish forum...

Captain Obvious

Podge_irl wrote: »

They'll know full well that it will get killed in the Senate so won't have any concerns in that regard.

If they expect Trump to destroy the Repub party and for them to roll to victory then they are a bit deluded to be honest. They should triumph in 2020 but they should have won in 2016 too.

True. But thankfully we've seen the sparks of a resurgence and they might be getting their act together.

pixelburp

Well according to reports, last August Trump wouldn't let go of the notion to invade Venezuela, despite repeated attempts by aides and officials to talk him down; he even brought it up with Latin American officials during a private dinner at the UN, asking each rep in turn if they thought it a good idea.

Obviously the USA aren't at war with Venezuela but holy god, the constant course corrections his staff must do on a daily basis has to be exhausting. And even then it apparently doesn't work. He's a man child, screw the helicopter view, this septuagenarian is a fool and there is no grand plan at play here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/04/trump-suggested-invading-venezuela-report

[Deleted User]

Humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in Venezuela for years that will now be denied.
Trump asks aides and four South American presidents if military intervention would help.
Doesn't do anything.
People lose their shlt and call him a warmonge and brand it an attempt at a random invasion of peaceful and great country.

I am really hoping this hits peak outrage. I've only seen one post on it and already love it.

StringerBell

What an odd post and outlook in general.

WinnyThePoo

StringerBell wrote: »

What an odd post and outlook in general.

Very odd.

[Deleted User]

StringerBell wrote: »

What an odd post and outlook in general.

If you think my post was odd, you haven't been paying attention to what I think of most of you.

Sophia S.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sophia S. wrote: »

How do you all think the midterm elections will play out in November? For, or against Trump?

My gut is badly.

My desire is badly.

The reality is probably a minor democratic majority (save this post for posterity - because I'd ****ing LOVE to be wrong).

The only positive I can see is that Trump has not managed to improve the lives of the middle class in the USA. The problem is that the lower class seem to have entirely bought into him.

I'm predicting that trump's party gains in the senate, and manages to hold the house. That being said, I'm curious what you mean by "lower class". Do you mean economically less well off? If so, you might find it interesting to know that the median income of Trump voters in 2016 was higher than the median income of Hillary voters. $69,000 for Trump voters vs $63,000 for Hillary.

jooksavage

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in Venezuela for years that will now be denied.
Trump asks aides and four South American presidents if military intervention would help.
Doesn't do anything.
People lose their shlt and call him a warmonge and brand it an attempt at a random invasion of peaceful and great country.

I am really hoping this hits peak outrage. I've only seen one post on it and already love it.

Send in the troops, oust Maduro and... then what? Another Pinochet? Another Branco? Thats not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.

I thought one of Trumps USPs was precisely that he wasn't going to involve the US in foreign campaigns? Thats what his supporters were telling us 2 years ago anyway.

Dan Pfeiffer and Tommy Vietor spoke recently about Venezuela and other similar regimes. Ironically the man who wasnt going to drag the US into wars and was going to work everything out with his unparalled deal-making had gutted the state department to the point where his ability to exercise so-called soft power has been fatally undermined.

B0jangles

Ads by Google, why are apparently trying to make this about you and your feelings again? This is a thread to discuss the Trump presidency, not about you. It's almost like you take criticism of Trump personally, which is very peculiar.

It's not about you, no-one here is talking about you, you are not the focus of discussion or attention.

pixelburp wrote: »

Well according to reports, last August Trump wouldn't let go of the notion to invade Venezuela, despite repeated attempts by aides and officials to talk him down; he even brought it up with Latin American officials during a private dinner at the UN, asking each rep in turn if they thought it a good idea.

Obviously the USA aren't at war with Venezuela but holy god, the constant course corrections his staff must do on a daily basis has to be exhausting. And even then it apparently doesn't work. He's a man child, screw the helicopter view, this septuagenarian is a fool and there is no grand plan at play here.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/04/trump-suggested-invading-venezuela-report

The maddening thing is remembering how the pre-election narrative was always 'Clinton is an insane war-monger, the only way to avoid another war is to elect Trump, the isolationist!' Now that he has shown that he has no problem with going on half-baked military adventures anywhere that pops into his head, his fans are clapping along delightedly.

They don't hold him to any standards whatsoever - if he does it, it's good and must be defended at all costs.

[Deleted User]

jooksavage wrote: »

Send in the troops, oust Maduro and... then what? Another Pinochet? Another Branco? Thats not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.

A far more interesting answer would be you explaining why on Earth you would even think of asking me that question. It makes absolutely no sense unless you for some inexplicable reason believe I think military action in Venezuela would be good.

jooksavage wrote: »

I thought one of Trumps USPs was precisely that he wasn't going to involve the US in foreign campaigns? Thats what his supporters were telling us 2 years ago anyway.

He investigated and didn't do it. He even asked other powers in the region. That does not go against his campaigning in the slightest.

Why Trump investigating action and asking other presidents is a bad thing when you'd all assume he'd just launch a nuclear warhead at Maduro's head is beyond me. It's in no way surprising and it is fully expected, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

[Deleted User]

B0jangles wrote: »

Ads by Google, why are apparently trying to make this about you and your feelings again? This is a thread to discuss the Trump presidency, not about you. It's almost like you take criticism of Trump personally, which is very peculiar.

It's not about you, no-one here is talking about you, you are not the focus of discussion or attention.

Uh, this is nothing to do with me. My posts are quite clearly mocking the faux rage on display by so many here.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

jooksavage wrote: »

Send in the troops, oust Maduro and... then what? Another Pinochet? Another Branco? Thats not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.

A far more interesting answer would be you explaining why on Earth you would even think of asking me that question. It makes absolutely no sense unless you for some inexplicable reason believe I think military action in Venezuela would be good.

jooksavage wrote: »

I thought one of Trumps USPs was precisely that he wasn't going to involve the US in foreign campaigns? Thats what his supporters were telling us 2 years ago anyway.

He investigated and didn't do it. He even asked other powers in the region. That does not go against his campaigning in the slightest.

Why Trump investigating action and asking other presidents is a bad thing when you'd all assume he'd just launch a nuclear warhead at Maduro's head is beyond me. It's in no way surprising and it is fully expected, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

He is the POTUS. He should be able to figure out a few basic things by himself. If he is so isolationist why was that the solution he thought was worth investigating?

Why not ask what our options are instead of pushing the military line? Maybe we should stick in one of the people he asked? I mean they all copped pretty quick this is dumb, Trump did not. Even after his aides explained it to him he was still not convinced and he asked more people.

Honestly the excuses for this man get worse by the day. At best he is an idiot who can't figure out how bad an idea actually is until it has been explained repeatedly as well as being incredibly willing to go back on isolationist promises. At worst he was simply trying to find an excuse to bomb the country and no one gave it to him.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

Humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in Venezuela for years that will now be denied.
Trump asks aides and four South American presidents if military intervention would help.
Doesn't do anything.
People lose their shlt and call him a warmonge and brand it an attempt at a random invasion of peaceful and great country.

I am really hoping this hits peak outrage. I've only seen one post on it and already love it.

Maybe in your own outrage, you could stick to the debate instead of reductionist snark that somehow I'm claiming Venezuela a 'peaceful, great country'

That should scarcely need a response, as anyone with half a glance at the news could even see it's about 1 coup short of becoming a failed state (edit: scratch that, it pretty much is)

My 'faux outrage' was about a US President who once again has a lightbulb moment, and refuses to back down despite countless attempts by aides and officials. A brainfart, by the way, not about looking into removing or reducing the various economic sanctions and legal blocks between the two countries - which I'd 100% welcome, yes even from Trump :rolleyes:
- oh no. This was about sending in the troops and/or bombers. Literal gunboat diplomacy which if kept to airstrikes, would probably have the same effect as those bombings in Syria. Were it an actual invasion, I don't think it's hyperbole to suggest it could spell disaster for the region.

Do YOU think military action would help Venezuela's cause - or indeed help diplomatic relations between the US and a part of the world that is very keenly aware of America's history of interventionism in the region? There's a long, interesting debate about just which part of the world has suffered more from American military incursions: the Middle-East or Latin/South America (Related, I should point out that while meeting officials in Brazil, vice-President Pence remarked " .. just as the United States respects your borders and your sovereignty, we insist that you respect ours,".

Back to Trump though, and this kind of stubborn refusal to engage or back down is not isolated behaviour: witness having to have EU trade policy explained to him 11 times by Merkel; or more recently when he spitballed about taking "...the guns first, go through due process second".. Just two isolated cases of consistent, frankly scattershot behaviour.

My contention to you, in attempting to affect balance against a perception of 'faux outrage' from us teeming masses of haters, is that here we have a President who aside from lacking a basic understanding of national or international law & diplomacy, functions from thought to thought, vacillating between being incapable of maintaining consistency for a few days (see his comments on the recent Goodlatte immigration bill), or stubbornly fixating on a single policy or approach, despite strong evidence against it. When this obsession veers into military action that would have far-reaching consequences, who seriously wants a US President that flippant?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in Venezuela for years that will now be denied.
Trump asks aides and four South American presidents if military intervention would help.
Doesn't do anything.
People lose their shlt and call him a warmonge and brand it an attempt at a random invasion of peaceful and great country.

I am really hoping this hits peak outrage. I've only seen one post on it and already love it.

So hold on, are your suggesting that Trump was looking to help in some sort of idealistic global betterment policy?

I assume, given that he has such concerns, that he has signed an EO giving all Venezuelans open entry to the US on humanitarian grounds. Or does he think bombing them is really what they want?

Because he certainly doesn't seem to care too much about Puerto Rico. Or what about the people of NK? Or how about all the refugees from Syria?

Or the plight of the palestinians?

Trump was simply trying to throw his weight around. Spare us all the pretense that this was anything another than Trump wanting to move some toys around the board and pretend he is a general.

ancapailldorcha

Ads by Google will be taking a few days off.

amandstu

Some light relief

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44721465

everlast75

So Scotty Pruit is under 14 (yes fourteen!!) separate investigations for ethics violation and DJT hasn't an issue with him. There are 2 reasons for that -

1) he is like a lumberjack through Environment protection regulations

2) he doesn't give two hoots about ethics and probably views those indiscretions as a badge of honour

AbusesToilets

Could be worse, he wanted to be AG.

relax carry on

amandstu wrote: »

Some light relief

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44721465

That's brilliant.

Rjd2

jooksavage wrote: »

That's a misrepresentation of their position. Calling for ICE to be abolished is not a call to open borders.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/calls-to-abolish-ice-not-open-borders/

I don't know about the new flavour of the month, but Ellison has called for open borders so the poster is at very least somewhat correct.

Igotadose

Rjd2 wrote: »

I don't know about the new flavour of the month, but Ellison has called for open borders so the poster is at very least somewhat correct.

Breitbart and the loony right claim this, back it up with something original (washingtonexaminer, dailycaller, fox, all lying reactionary rags.)

Wearing a T-shirt with a slogan in Spanish doesn't count.

RIGOLO

The Gallup Economic Outlook numbers came out this week.
It reflects alot of the back and fro discussion that took place here earlier this week.
The numbers do highlight the improved job and economic situation for ordinary Americans under Trump. Atleast thats my reading of the NUMBERS and the charts, others may disagree with Gallup and the numbers and charts.
There was very little feel good in the later years of Obama, very little optimisim or positive outlook for getting a well paid job and for the economy in general.
Yes many Americans felt/were left behind under Obama, and the numbers tell that same story, whihc as we all know was reflected in the polling station.
Whilst their was a recovery from rock bottom, things had flightlined and stagnated , but gathered pace and momentum post Trumps election
This is from Gallup, who tend not to be politically biased . They may get things wrong sometimes, but I dont see them as politically motivated.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1609/consumer-views-economy.aspx
And these numbers are old , Feb , but again by State they reflect above average outlook for the 'fly over states' the ones who came out and swung the election for DT.
The map on this link is very interesting if your a numbers nerd, if one were to overlay the States Trump won with the states feeling above avg economic confidence outlook they would nearly match, with California and NY (popular vote winners) showing a below avg outlook.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/226772/wyoming-north-dakota-utah-lead-economic-confidence.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=tile_2&g_campaign=item_1609&g_content=Wyoming,%20North%20Dakota,%20Utah%20Lead%20in%20Economic%20Confidence
I like these charts cos they reflect personal consumer, mom and pop outlook, the wisdom of the crowd type thing .