President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Your picking out selective quotes. Much of what he was talking about Hillary could easily have spoken about but she plainly lied. She was all for a reset with Russia a long time ago. I can see it from her supporters point of view also. She was hassled and attacked by the GOP when the Democrats were in office so now they are throwing everything at Trump be it legal, illegal, gossip rumour and bad jokes to unseat and settle him. Precisely the sort of politics that the voters were moving against the partisanship of Washington and dividing the nation along Democrat Republican lines.

What quotes would you have picked? How are there so many that have him sounding like a babbling idiot from a single press conference.

At this point I can see people opposing Hillary but there is nothing left to defend Trump with. He lies about the most plainly obvious stuff, his cabinet picks frequently contradict him on issues like Russia, he doesn't even try to avoid lying at this point. Lying about the most basic stuff like his election victory. All he wants is an ego boost at this point. That is why he lied about his electoral victory (or spouts whst he wants to hear- I doubt he knows whether or not it is true when he says it). He uses the position to advance his own and his families brand.

I don't have enough faith in people to end this disgraceful presidency asap but it needs to be done. Honestly I could see him quitting at this point from sheer stress.

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

What quotes would you have picked? How are there so many that have him sounding like a babbling idiot from a single press conference.

At this point I can see people opposing Hillary but there is nothing left to defend Trump with. He lies about the most plainly obvious stuff, his cabinet picks frequently contradict him on issues like Russia, he doesn't even try to avoid lying at this point. Lying about the most basic stuff like his election victory. All he wants is an ego boost at this point. That is why he lied about his electoral victory (or spouts whst he wants to hear- I doubt he knows whether or not it is true when he says it). He uses the position to advance his own and his families brand.

I don't have enough faith in people to end this disgraceful presidency asap but it needs to be done. Honestly I could see him quitting at this point from sheer stress.

Well i can say to that is he is completely correct on his election victory unless you believe the reports that the Russians gave him the job. Conspiracy theories were rife during the Obama Presidency it seems this is likely to continue as a feature of American politics for the foreseeable future.

ThisRegard

You know things are really bad when Fox News question his sanity and defend a reporter from a rival agency

https://twitter.com/johnnydollar01/status/832329690601910273?s=09

Frank Bullitt

ThisRegard wrote: »

You know things are really bad when Fox News question his sanity and defend a reporter from a rival agency

https://twitter.com/johnnydollar01/status/832329690601910273?s=09

Reports of snow on the hills in Hell.

BabyCheeses

vetinari wrote: »

I don't know how you're able to subject yourselves to watching Trump talking live.

Reading his quotes is even better. I don't know which is worse, the words he manages to string together as an attempt of communication or that there are people who hear it and don't just think "what?"

Itssoeasy

ThisRegard wrote: »

You know things are really bad when Fox News question his sanity and defend a reporter from a rival agency

https://twitter.com/johnnydollar01/status/832329690601910273?s=09

Was just going to post this. Well it wasn't Fox News it was Shepard smith who is on the wrong network clearly. It's going to be awkward for Shepard at the next team building weekend away.

InTheTrees

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I don't know which is worse, the words he manages to string together as an attempt of communication or that there are people who hear it and don't just think "what?"

I agree, the mystery is why there's a large amount of people who hear him and think he's a great speaker.

I was watching a segment on the news interviewing some of his supporters and they're still fully on board. They see the various scandals surrounding him and consider it to be the " medias" fault.

MightyMandarin

ThisRegard wrote: »

You know things are really bad when Fox News question his sanity and defend a reporter from a rival agency

That's just Shepard Smith though, he's been defending CNN's credibility since the first disaster presser in NY back in January- the one with the stacks of blank papers they left out in front.

I doubt you'll see Tucker Carlson or Hannity do anything like this though. Those guys are just shills for Trump.

El_Duderino 09

Christy42 wrote:

Honestly I could see him quitting at this point from sheer stress.

You or I might quit from sheer stress of trying to stitch together so many lies. Trump is having a great time. I've never seen a president so comfortable with his position. Obviously he'd prefer the world's media covering him with adulation but I think he's perfectly happy to settle for them covering him with derision. It's almost all the same to him.

He's not a public servant, he's not trying to help the common man. He's promoting himself and it's not clear sting him anything among his core voters.

@BrianKing, did anything from the past three weeks reduce your admiration for trump at all?

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well i can say to that is he is completely correct on his election victory unless you believe the reports that the Russians gave him the job. Conspiracy theories were rife during the Obama Presidency it seems this is likely to continue as a feature of American politics for the foreseeable future.

This in no way attempts to defend him. I am well aware he won the election but you are dodging to that point as a deflection just like Trump. What I am saying is that he got the job while being entirely unqualified and is showing it now. He is also a ridiculous liar even by the standards of a politicians and to think that people said they liked him for telling it like it is.

Is anyone willing to attempt a serious defense of Trump?

recedite

From what DJT was saying there, the new Executive Order is nearly ready to go. This will be interesting.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

From what DJT was saying there, the new Executive Order is nearly ready to go. This will be interesting.

We will see. Djt said it so realistically we don't have serious evidence of it yet. I mean they have had time on it so I would presume it is nearly done (I had expected it before now) but given the rest of what he said I won't believe anything he says without evidence. He has quite clearly proven that he will lie at any given opportunity and see no reason to ever trust him.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

From what DJT was saying there, the new Executive Order is nearly ready to go. This will be interesting.

Well, he does have form for promising things imminently which either don't come for a long time, or never come at all. His (tweeted) response to his most recent legal reversal was "see you in court!", but in fact he hasn't appealed it.

We'll know when a new order is coming when it actually comes.

MightyMandarin

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/flynn-in-fbi-interview-denied-discussing-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador/2017/02/16/e3e1e16a-f3d5-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html?postshare=6201487281123313&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.45014a19c12a

Any particular reason why the FBI never charged Flynn? Mabe because he lied to them.

Lock him up.

Manic Moran

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It could be worse - imagine if his administration was a well oiled efficient machine...

His administration is about as well-oiled as an American-made car.

We make some pretty damned good cars these days, FWIW. I'm looking to swap out one of my German cars for a Cadillac.

El_Duderino 09

recedite wrote:

From what DJT was saying there, the new Executive Order is nearly ready to go. This will be interesting.

Am i right I .Saying there are usually a few executive orders at he start of a Presidency, then it almost stops? A few executive orders here and there but mostly the President influences legislation passed through the house and senate.

Will trump keep signing executive orders or will he let the legislative branch do its job?

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Am i right I .Saying there are usually a few executive orders at he start of a Presidency, then it almost stops? A few executive orders here and there but mostly the President influences legislation passed through the house and senate.

Will trump keep signing executive orders or will he let the legislative branch do its job?

There's a wide range of stuff that can, in theory, be implemented either by EO or by legislation. If it's urgent, or something quite short-term, or its controversial and you don't think you can get the legislation through Congress, then you'll use an EO. Otherwise you will prefer legislation since it has more support, is not so easily changed or revoked, and will endure longer.

In recent times, Obama signed 276 EOs over eight years, GW Bush signed 291, Bill Clinton 308, George HW Bush 166 (over four years). So there appears to be a fairly steady flow of EOs, averaging 35 to 40 a year. I can't say if they tend to be "loaded" to the start of the term, but I suspect not to any great extent.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote:

In recent times, Obama signed 276 EOs over eight years, GW Bush signed 291, Bill Clinton 308, George HW Bush 166 (over four years). So there appears to be a fairly steady flow of EOs, averaging 35 to 40 a year. I can't say if they tend to be "loaded" to the start of the term, but I suspect not to any great extent.

Those are interesting numbers. Cheers. I suspect we'll see a spike in the number of EOs by Trump. The legislative branch of government is very unpopular at the moment so he doesn't have as much to lose by bypassing it. It's much easier to explain something to people on Twitter than to get Congress to pass it.

He doesn't have any respect for accepted standards of democracy so for that reason too, I expect him to sign a record number of EOs.

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Those are interesting numbers. Cheers. I suspect we'll see a spike in the number of EOs by Trump. The legislative branch of government is very unpopular at the moment so he doesn't have as much to lose by bypassing it. It's much easier to explain something to people on Twitter than to get Congress to pass it.

He doesn't have any respect for accepted standards of democracy so for that reason too, I expect him to sign a record number of EOs.

He shouldn't have to bypass it; the Republican party has a majority in both Houses. And if Congress really doesn't like what you are doing by EO, in most cases they can legislate to reverse it; the range of stuff than can only be dealt with by EO is pretty small.

Scope to act by EO also depend of the branch of public affairs that you're dealing with. On foreign affairs or immigration, for example, the President has quite wide-ranging powers (though, obviously, not quite as wide-ranging as Donald thinks). On budget, taxation and expenditure, by contrast, he can do bugger-all without congressional say-so.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote:

Scope to act by EO also depend of the branch of public affairs that you're dealing with. On foreign affairs or immigration, for example, the President has quite wide-ranging powers (though, obviously, not quite as wide-ranging as Donald thinks). On budget, taxation and expenditure, by contrast, he can do bugger-all without congressional say-so.

That's interesting info.

I expect DT to push the boundaries and try to undermine the other branches of government at every good opportunity. Say what you like about the 'so called judge' comment. The effect was to put himself against the judicial branch of government on an issue of national security (notionally anyway). I'd expect him to do the same when the legislative branch opposes him (that would need republicans involved as well as democrats)

As you point out, there's plenty of scope for EOs per year on 30-40 average. I'd be shocked if he stays anywhere near that number.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd expect him to do the same when the legislative branch opposes him (that would need republicans involved as well as democrats)

Republicans would like to back repealing Obamacare, but are learning that it is really hard to do.

Republicans will certainly not allow taxes to be raised for Trumps grand infrastructure plan. They have all signed up to Grover Norquist's pledge never to raise taxes at all, ever. If they did, they would all lose their seats to a more right wing loon next time.

Harika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Republicans would like to back repealing Obamacare, but are learning that it is really hard to do.

Republicans will certainly not allow taxes to be raised for Trumps grand infrastructure plan. They have all signed up to Grover Norquist's pledge never to raise taxes at all, ever. If they did, they would all lose their seats to a more right wing loon next time.

The Donald seems to think it will go down quick

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832533430168608768

I think this will be the next slap in his face, after the travel ban. Even Republicans like the ACA so they will play the long game with it, or maybe Trumpcare will be so good that even the Dems can get on board. Would be his first big success, but how likely is a bipartisan solution by Trump where WallStreet people are working in secret on it?

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Republicans will certainly not allow taxes to be raised for Trumps grand infrastructure plan. They have all signed up to Grover Norquist's pledge never to raise taxes at all, ever. If they did, they would all lose their seats to a more right wing loon next time.

A long as tax goes down on the wealthy, does Norquist care about tax being raised in working people? I can't see trump raising tax on wealthy people or businesses. It could be easier to get around Norquist than you'd think. Usually republicans wasn't to cut tax for everyone (including the rich but also including he middle class). Raising tax on the middle class alone might not be a problem for Norquist

Zubeneschamali

Harika wrote: »

maybe Trumpcare will be so good that even the Dems can get on board. Would be his first big success, but how likely is a bipartisan solution by Trump where WallStreet people are working in secret on it?

The House Republicans have voted 60 times to repeal Obamacare, they are married to the idea, but they have no clue how to replace it. Obama actually adopted a Republican plan from Mitt Romney, of all people, hoping for bipartisan support. Obamacare is the most republican-friendly plan for increased healthcare coverage possible.

If they repeal it, millions will lose health care. If they don't, their Tea Party backers will go nuts.

They are screwed.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It could be easier to get around Norquist than you'd think.

Have you read the pledge?

the pledger promises to "oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."

Harika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The House Republicans have voted 60 times to repeal Obamacare, they are married to the idea, but they have no clue how to replace it. Obama actually adopted a Republican plan from Mitt Romney, of all people, hoping for bipartisan support. Obamacare is the most republican-friendly plan for increased healthcare coverage possible.

If they repeal it, millions will lose health care. If they don't, their Tea Party backers will go nuts.

They are screwed.

Republicans loved Romneycare, so from a PR perspective it should be possible to repeal Obamacare and put Trumpcare in place, that is basically the same as Romneycare or Obamacare or ACA just with some tweaks where the Republicans crippled it, for the sake of it. So basically fulfilling Obamas original plan. Oh what a sweet irony that would be. :pac:

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The House Republicans have voted 60 times to repeal Obamacare, they are married to the idea, but they have no clue how to replace it. Obama actually adopted a Republican plan from Mitt Romney, of all people, hoping for bipartisan support. Obamacare is the most republican-friendly plan for increased healthcare coverage possible.

If they repeal it, millions will lose health care. If they don't, their Tea Party backers will go nuts.

They are screwed.

Nah, they'll just vote for whatever because a Republican proposed it. Obamacare was actually first proposed by Gingrich in 1990s as a compromise for Clinton's health care plan.

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Have you read the pledge?

No but I've heard him speak. It would take a deal between himself and trump to allow the republicans to get on board with raising tax. As long as the money ultimately goes from public to private hands, I don't think he would really stop it

Fwiw it's obviously mental that a political party is beholden to one Individual on any issue of government.

Also I think trump will be inclined to just borrow money for his programmes. Borrowing was a problem for republicans when Obama wanted to do it - they're not actually opposed to borrowing necessarily.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As long as the money ultimately goes from public to private hands, I don't think he would really stop it

He couldn't stop it, but they would all lose their seats in the next Primary season. Norquist himself doesn't have to do anything - there's always a more-Tea-party-than-thou candidate out there, and the House districts are gerrymandered to hell - no Republican congressman needs to worry about being beaten from the left.

Billy86

Apologies to the mods if it's deemed below standards being from a comedy website, but this pretty much nails the dumbed down beyond belief 'low information' idiocy surrounding so much discussing of Trumps presidency thus far.