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

spacecoyote

Was listening to a bit of talk about him this morning, and he does seem to have a few strongly conservative leanings & opinions that would fit in with Trump's needs.

Remember, Trump specifically said, pre-election, that if he won, and he could get 2-3 SC picks, he would pick judges that would prioritise getting rid of the Roe ruling.

In line with that, he tried to block a pregnant teenage immigrant from getting an abortion, and was supposedly pi$$ed that his colleagues over-ruled him and allowed it.

As mentioned previously, he also has said that a sitting president should not be indicted.

Will be interesting to see if any of the red-state Dems are willing to stand up & be counted, or if the likes of Collins, who has said that she wouldn't approve of any pick who would move against Roe, will be actually willing to go against the party.

Christy42

Nah he'll walk through. He is there to protect Trump when the cards start to fall. Still there are worse choices given he seems happy with precedent and so not a terrible outcome given it was a Republican pick.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

From the little I've read about it there doesn't seem to be anything the Democrats can do to stop the nomination.

That's true. Unless they can flip a few republicans which is highly unlikely

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

You say it's important for Dems to be fair. I addressed that in my post above

That's what the article said, I don't care either way as I don't live there. From the little I've read about it there doesn't seem to be anything the Democrats can do to stop the nomination, fair or not.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Wasn't McConnell talking about a Presidential election year? Blocking picks every 2 years seems nonsensical.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/dems-misuse-mcconnells-fake-supreme-court-rule-get-scolded.html

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Later, in a Fox News interview, McConnell added, “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”

The Times pointed out that the “tradition” McConnell cited is entirely made up. But it’s important for Democrats to be fair: the majority leader did clearly state that his imaginary rule was about presidential years.

1) SC nominations are not every 2 years, or anything like it.
2) we are talking about postponing it for 5 months
3) the Senate vote for the SC and its a Senate election year. McConnell said "the American people deserve to have a voice in their selection of the next Supreme Court Justice". Postponing the vote on the SCOTUS enables the American people to have that voice

You say it's important for Dems to be fair. I addressed that in my post above

2 Scoops

Wasn't McConnell talking about a Presidential election year? Blocking picks every 2 years seems nonsensical.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/dems-misuse-mcconnells-fake-supreme-court-rule-get-scolded.html

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Later, in a Fox News interview, McConnell added, “All we are doing is following the long-standing tradition of not fulfilling a nomination in the middle of a presidential year.”

The Times pointed out that the “tradition” McConnell cited is entirely made up. But it’s important for Democrats to be fair: the majority leader did clearly state that his imaginary rule was about presidential years.

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but of interest, he wrote that after his own experiences of investigating Bill Clinton, who was in office at the time. He is fine with the impeachment process for keeping Presidents in line, and the writing was not particularly far from the mainstream, despite he current focus on it in the current news cycle.

Definitely conservative, as if we expected otherwise, but his reasonings in his opinions at the circuit level have been using more moderate argument. Strong believer in precedent, which is riling up conservatives who want him to overrule Roe, and tends to be a believer of Wheaton’s Law. He’s assessed as the fifth-most conservative in his Circuit, out of 17.

Considering there would be little to oppose a appointment of someone like Pryor, he’s about as moderate as anyone would expect the Republicans to put forward. Influenced by Kennedy, and competent enough that current SCOTUS judge Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard school of law. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html or http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html

Yep. But IMHO i don't care.

McConnell rule applies. There should be no vote in an election year.

But you see, what you will say now is that McConnell was wrong to do what he did, and the Dems will now just be as bad, aka a pox on both their houses.

So if the Dems object, they lose. If they don't, they lose.

It's nonsense.

And the idea that he will be impartial is complete and utter tosh. His first words were

"Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

As soon as he is nominated he is starting with this "Dear Leader" nonsense.

Anyway, there should be no pick for two reasons
1) the Mitch rule
2) No pres who is the subject of an ongoing investigation should get a pick.

And one last thing. I hear Mitch isn't too happy as he wanted a more conservative judge nomination. I don't believe any Rep who publicly criticises the Pres unless they back it up by voting against him. I'm sick of the likes of Graham and McConnell issuing "scathing comments" and then doing nothing when it comes to the crunch. The idea that they have independent thought of Trump is all an illusion

If the Pres wanted an experienced guy, maybe he should have nominated the head judge of the circuit on which Kavanaugh sits? A relatively unknown guy called.... "Garland?

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

Kavanaugh gets Supreme Court. Trump protects his ass. Kavanaugh believes a President shouldn't be subject to legal question.

Yes, but of interest, he wrote that after his own experiences of investigating Bill Clinton, who was in office at the time. He is fine with the impeachment process for keeping Presidents in line, and the writing was not particularly far from the mainstream, despite he current focus on it in the current news cycle.

Definitely conservative, as if we expected otherwise, but his reasonings in his opinions at the circuit level have been using more moderate argument. Strong believer in precedent, which is riling up conservatives who want him to overrule Roe, and tends to be a believer of Wheaton’s Law. He’s assessed as the fifth-most conservative in his Circuit, out of 17.

Considering there would be little to oppose a appointment of someone like Pryor, he’s about as moderate as anyone would expect the Republicans to put forward. Influenced by Kennedy, and competent enough that current SCOTUS judge Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard school of law. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html or http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html

Rjd2

Seems like a sensible choice,although spare a thought for the resistance grifters and Trumpy trolls who were secretly gagging for a culture war over abortion. :eek:

Water John

Kavanaugh gets Supreme Court. Trump protects his ass. Kavanaugh believes a President shouldn't be subject to legal question.

2 Scoops

SScope wrote: »

Cheers to 2 Scoops and you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned don't believe everything you read on the internet (should know better at my age).

Ah sure I love a good conspiracy. That Palmer guy is a rotten individual though imo, at least when Keith Oldermann was all out Russia conspiracies he was kind of entertaining but Palmer's spin is pure hate. It annoys me people get duped by him and that he's allowed to spread disinformation. I hope his platform get's labelled as a fake news site like Infowars did.

mcmoustache

SScope wrote: »

Cheers to 2 Scoops and you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned don't believe everything you read on the internet (should know better at my age).

It happens to a lot of us. I got suckered by other dodgy sources before and I've been using the internet since 98. There's a lot of information online and some sources are better than others while others are outright disinformation.

It's a minefield but the more mainstream sources have an incentive to be correct - it's not uncommon for them to sack staff who mess up.

SScope

mcmoustache wrote:

It's not a good source by any stretch. I'm not sure what kind of editorial standards they have, if any, but they get too many things wrong to be taken seriously.

Cheers to 2 Scoops and you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned don't believe everything you read on the internet (should know better at my age).

Midlife

2 Scoops wrote: »

The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record.

So he should ask to see Trump's birth cert?

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

Palmer report, is that the guy who says F Trump 20 times in tweet replies every time the President tweets?

Stellar and neutral reporting I'd say. He's making money off useful idiots purely through hate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Report

The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record.

It's not a good source by any stretch. I'm not sure what kind of editorial standards they have, if any, but they get too many things wrong to be taken seriously.

VonZan

Christy42 wrote: »

Link as I found no such article. I certainly see nothing since relations went downhill again.

https://www.ft.com/north-korea

The Pompeo article yesterday that was sitting at the top for most of the day. You couldn't have missed it.

2 Scoops

Palmer report, is that the guy who says F Trump 20 times in tweet replies every time the President tweets?

Stellar and neutral reporting I'd say. He's making money off useful idiots purely through hate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Report

The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record.

[Deleted User]

Same was going in on Rotherham and the rest, people with connections bought cheap properties in the North of England then had them set up as foster and group homes and coined it in. Kids were moved from the south and any kind of support network they may have ever had. It's a sadly common story.

SScope

Apparently (though only saw sketchy reports, so could be incorrect), one of the foster care organisations that took in a number of the migrant children is a Christian non-profit, with financial links back to Betsy DeVos. Supposedly they're charging $700 per night, per child. Drain the swamp![/quote]

Just on this I read this article on the Palmer report about DeVos connections to a property in Michigan (not sure why these poor kids were moved so far ) and it's quite a damning piece.

www.palmerreport.com/analysis/money-cages-trump-reason/11240/

I don't know why I find it so believable the Trump would use these poor kids to line his cronies pockets but after everything else he's pulled it really is damning of the position he is in.

pixelburp

According to the ACLU, the administration are going to miss the Tuesday deadline to reunite the separated migrant children, with less than half of those 100 under-5s likely to be reconnected with their families.

Apparently (though only saw sketchy reports, so could be incorrect), one of the foster care organisations that took in a number of the migrant children is a Christian non-profit, with financial links back to Betsy DeVos. Supposedly they're charging $700 per night, per child. Drain the swamp!

Leroy42

Rigolo, how do you reconcile these, seemingly, different positions.

Right after the summit Trump announced that the nuclear issue was resolved, that people could sleep soundly.

Now we see that that isn't the case and you are claiming that this is a long term strategy and needs to be looked at in that context (which ignoring Trump for a second I agree with).

But which is it? Was Trump lying when he stated that or did he simply not understand what had been agreed.

There is a third option. What Trump stated was correct in that they had agreed and NK had gone back on that. But if that is true then Trump has been played as many claimed and what is Trump going to do about it. Recall that he was full of praise for Kim after the event, so surely we would have expected the type of remarks he is currently making about the EU and Canada?

I fail to see how you can reconcile these two positions and still retain any belief in Trump. At best, from his POV, he has merely proved that all his talk about other POTUS not doing things right has been shown to be false and that he is achieving nothing more than Obama did whilst giving plenty to NK.

Igotadose

Midlife wrote: »

Nor were any of them built by a single man telling everyone he's the greatest ever at this.

Something to bear in mind.

In Montana, here's what the POTUS said about NK (so, this is less than a week ago, but before NK shot back about gangster US behavior):
"But we signed a wonderful paper saying they're going to denuclearize their whole thing. It's going to all happen."
---
So, if you believe his lies, NK is no longer a problem. Kind of an amazing thing to say for a normal person, but this is POTUS Donald J. Trump.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/donald-trump-montana-speech/index.html

Read that if you want even more eye-openers, the racist dogwhistles abound. Let alone confusing DNA and rape kits, that was special too.

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had

8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011

20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.

50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.

12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.

12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.

So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .

To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.

Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…

Nor were any of them built by a single man telling everyone he's the greatest ever at this.

Something to bear in mind.

StringerBell

RIGOLO wrote: »

blah blah whataboutery blah blah misrepresentation blah blah deflection

I won't bother trying to engage in honest discourse with you because of the mountain of evidence to suggest that is foolish, leaving aside that your post has minimal relevance to the what you quoted. I'll simply say that if your positions are genuine (which I would not say they are) then in the words of Marlo "you want it to be one way, but it's the other way."

No amount of being made a fool of again and again by Trump has any affect on his apologists, and that's fine. It actually serves a purpose of it's own.

weisses

RIGOLO wrote: »

To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.

Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…

Sorry but it seems POTUS himself that told us that the threat of Nuclear war was gone after that half day meeting

Before taking office people were assuming that we were going to War with North Korea. President Obama said that North Korea was our biggest and most dangerous problem. No longer - sleep well tonight!

Its not anti Trump at all ..Its just listening to the man and then realizing his statement can be added to the other 3000 proven lies.

ancapailldorcha

Igotadose wrote: »

Fixed that for you!

Mod: Please read the charter before posting again. This is not serious discussion.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

To say Trump Administration has accomplished anything based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both mindless pro- Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has accomplished anything , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.

Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…

Fixed that for you!

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had

8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011

20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.

50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.

12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.

12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.

So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .

To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.

Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…

Good to see you back.

I asked for your opinion a while ago, and since we are on the topic of Trump and international affairs, can I ask you once more;

1) Do you think Russia interfered in the US Election
2) Do you think Trump aided them
3) Do you think Trump is compromised by Russia.

Thanks

Leroy42

100% Christy42.

Trump himself labelled it a great success, that the nuclear threat was gone. Anybody with any half decent knowledge of international diplomacy could have told him that was a nonsense, but he made that statement, that was the official line of POTUS after the meeting.

So, was Trump lying or simply mislead? Rigolo, you need to pick one. And neither is a good look for Trump.

If he was lying, than not only is that in itself an issue as it calls into question every statement he makes, but the fact that he was putting massive pressure on the US to concede to everything as he had already told everybody what he had (or as we now know hadn't) achieved meant that NK could put massive pressure on the US to give more.

If he was mislead, then it calls into question how easily manipulated he was, how poor a negotiator he was and how poorly he read their actual intentions or misunderstood the process. Again, none of that is good for POTUS to have shown up in such a public way.

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

StringerBell wrote: »

VonZan wrote: »

The perception of credibility is a moot point. The FT are reporting that Pyongyang want to sign a peace treaty with the US so think it's a bit naive at this point to call someone being played. If Trump concedes anything to Kim without something in return then he will get hammered by the Democrats again for being 'weak' and legitimising a despot.

But he already has conceded things to Kim while getting nothing in return?

The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had

8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011

20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.

50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.

12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.

12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.

So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .

To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.

Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…

We are measuring Trump and against his and his supporters standards.

If they want to say this is the long game then fine. He does not get credit for it until serious ground has been made on it. If he wants credit now, and he really desperately does, then he needs results now.

He can't have it both ways.

There have been several months of negotiations thus far by the way. The Singapore thing was just a photo op and maybe getting a bit of direction. That is however a short time for a negotiation.