Leroy42 wrote: » Largely pro-business? He has been 100% pro-business.
pixelburp wrote: » I've heard it said a few times from a number of US mouthpieces in passing that the country's infrastructure was crumbling and in desperate need of rebuilding or modernisation to manage to larger numbers. Watching this video, I hadn't realised just how bad the problem was, thinking it was merely grumbling from commuters; obviously caveats apply as being one source, but the numbers and scale thrown around is eye watering. It's sometimes remarkable the country is regarded as top of the heap, as much of its internal economy often appears barely above Third World. Of course it was one of Trump's big promises, and while the Transition Team put together a hit-list of 50 big infrastructure projects, they were all shelved in 2017; Trump saying they wouldn't happen 'til after 2020. The author of the list itself, Daniel Slane - who modelled it on China's approach to economic downturns & infrastructure - arguing that it was a tactic to push it all onto the States, and consequently, the private sector. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvJSGc14xA
Penn wrote: » Rumours on Twitter that Julian Assange might admit (with some witness to back it up) that he was promised a pardon by the US Government if he said that Russia wasn't involved in the DNC hacking during the 2016 election, supposedly Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman passed the message to him directly from Trump.https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1230164682700443648 If true and depending on what evidence/witness he has to back it up, you'd imagine it'd be major. I mean, nothing will come of it because we live in F*ckyWorld, but still, might be entertaining for a few weeks. More here:https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears
Midlife wrote: » Erm... Attempted quid pro quo is not a crime??
SeamusFX wrote: » Even with fool-proof evidence, it won’t matter to Fox and the Deplorables. They’d either say it was fake news, or his right as President and just call the rest of us whiners.
everlast75 wrote: » Wait for the "Rohrabacher was just a coffee boy" defence...
In a 2016 conversation with fellow members of House leadership, the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, suggested that Donald Trump was on Vladimir Putin’s payroll. In an exchange first reported by the Washington Post, McCarthy said: “There’s …there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump … [laughter] … swear to God.” According to the transcript, speaker Paul Ryan immediately responded: “This is an off-the-record … [laughter] … NO LEAKS … [laughter] … alright?!”
briany wrote: » It's not cynical to say that there is a class of very rich people in the states who donate to political campaigns and have a vested interest in their hegemony being maintained. Anyway, Bloomberg v. Trump wouldn't be that different to 2016. It would be round 2 of Trump v. Blandness Personified, essentially. Largely, the backers want a stable system with themselves at the top of it. Trump has been erratic, but his political ignorance and shallowness has neutralised him quite a bit, too, and he's still been largely pro-business. Bloomberg, also, would be pro-business. Therefore it would be win-win for the CEOs.
listermint wrote: » And people think trump is going to walk it in 2020....https://twitter.com/IrishTimesWorld/status/1230213473440657409?s=20 Nope.
Penn wrote: » Reading on Twitter that the new prosecutors in Stone's case (after the previous ones all quit due to Barr's interference) are now arguing for the original sentencing of 7-9 years that the original prosecutors were looking for. Guessing they might be going for a different tactic of rather than a light sentence, go hard as possible and let Trump use that as justification for pardoning him directly.
everlast75 wrote: » And also get to claim that the DOJ is independent after all..
Quin_Dub wrote: » Whether Stone gets 7 years or 7 days ,Trump will complain about it and pardon him anyway..
TomOnBoard wrote: » Last night's Dem debate was a fiery affair. Bloomberg finally came out from behind his advertisement campaign and faced real public opposition for the 1st time. From the opening, the other Dem candidates rounded on him in what was the most vicious debate yet. Warren was very effective from the get-go, while Sanders (who is ahead by double-digits in polls) was Sanders... I'm sure he was glad Bloomberg was there, as the incoming fire he would otherwise have suffered was directed to the ex-Mayor instead. On the night, Bloomberg was the biggest loser, while Warren was a clear winner. Biden did well enough, but Pete and Amy didn't shine and capitalise on their performances in early primaries. Given the ability to get down and dirty with each other that they showed, I 'd say that Trump must have felt a bit less secure, as any of these candidates (except possibly Bloomberg who was really very shaky) would destroy him in a TV debate further down the road.
Deleted User wrote: » There's no way Trump will do a debate with anyone. He might even want to but I'd bet his campaign people won't let him. He's best at sending snarky tweets while watching TV. I imagine he would be very different face to face. Warren would cut him into little orange ribbons.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5e7421d1b72840ccd9e51db307da48ea.svg)
