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

Zubeneschamali

BoatMad wrote: »

he cant do that as he is hostage to his campaign promises

He has just spectacularly demonstrated that he doesn't give a hoot about his promises. He promised to repeal obamacare day one and replace it with a system that covered everybody, great coverage, the greatest.

Instead he backed a system which would take coverage from 24 million Americans, and used all his influence to get waverers to back it. A kick in the teeth for people who believed his campaign promises.

Fortunately, even the House Republicans couldn't vote for that.

wonderfullife

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that is my point Demfad, it is all leaks and possibles. No evidence has actually been forthcoming.

Schiff says he has information and Nunes says there isn't. Why do you place more stock on Schiff? (I have no idea who is telling the truth, and sure Nunes looks a bit crazy, but crazy is not guilty)

The argument about "no evidence has been forthcoming" is the biggest red herring imaginable. It actually boggles my mind. This is an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI into links of co-ordination and collusion between Team Trump & Russia.

Let's say there has been a spate of murders and the police have a number of suspects. Do you want them to release their "evidence" to the public or do you want them to investigate, find the perpetrator(s) and build a rock-solid case to put them behind bars?

Of course you want them to do the latter.

Why on Earth are people looking for Comey or Schiff to release "evidence" now? They are both party to investigations into this. It would be a complete abdication of duty to release whatever evidence they already have, thus hampering their own investigation.

For example, let's say the FBI have evidence that Manafort was funneled millions of dollars through offshore bank accounts. Let's say they have evidence that these payments came directly after a meeting with Russian Intelligence. Let's say they have a clear electronic trail for all this....Why on earth would they make that public? Making it public just allows anyone else caught up in all this to cover whatever tracks they can.

Bottom line:

Evidence is not the same thing as 'proof'. Evidence is something presented in a court of law and it's up to a Judge and Jury to decide if there is proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. To ask "where is the evidence", as Sean Spicer does, to somehow claim there is no crime, is absolutely nonsensical. It's an ongoing investigation and the only time the evidence will be presented is when it reaches a Grand Jury.

As for why should people trust Schiff over Nunes? Well, Devin Nunes was part of the Trump Transition Team, not to mention sat in on meetings with Mike Flynn and Turkish politicians. Adam Schiff, in the past, has successfully prosecuted an FBI agent for treason - being a Russian spy. Literally the only successful prosecution of an FBI agent for treason was brought by Prosecutor Adam Schiff.

I know who I'd be trusting.

Mr.Micro

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that is my point Demfad, it is all leaks and possibles. No evidence has actually been forthcoming.

Even the FBI investigation doesn't prove anything other than there is a suspicion.

Schiff says he has information and Nunes says there isn't. Why do you place more stock on Schiff? (I have no idea who is telling the truth, and sure Nunes looks a bit crazy, but crazy is not guilty)

I just think it is so far from being what you are making it out to be that you can't possibly say it is that way as anything other than speculation and possibly hope.

I am not saying you are wrong, but it is a bit like saying that Trump isn't wrong about wiretapping as some wiretapping went on somewhere to someone, who possibly visited Trump Tower once.

It will all be brushed under the carpet, IMO. The Intel agencies are all just posturing and jockeying for power, trying to outdo each other.

BoatMad

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It will all be brushed under the carpet, IMO. The Intel agencies are all just posturing and jockeying for power, trying to outdo each other.

that or impeachment , we shall have to lay in a fair store of popcorn

BoatMad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He has just spectacularly demonstrated that he doesn't give a hoot about his promises. He promised to repeal obamacare day one and replace it with a system that covered everybody, great coverage, the greatest.

Instead he backed a system which would take coverage from 24 million Americans, and used all his influence to get waverers to back it. A kick in the teeth for people who believed his campaign promises.

Fortunately, even the House Republicans couldn't vote for that.

actually NO, as far as Trump was concerned the AHCA WAS his attempt to repeal Obamacare and replace it with " a terrific healthcare package , really "

remember thats the great thing about delusion , you believe you are doing the thing you said you did

Trump simply failed to deliver

( as he will fail to deliver on the vast majority of his campaign promises )

But He cant veer off his campaign rhetoric, remember its all about his popularity . SO he will stumble on , moronically attempting to introduce bills to deliver his campaign promises

I expect his budget to be so modified as to be unrealisable , nor will Republicans give him 25 bn to " build a wall "

Trump will be cut adrift by the GOP. of course I fully expect the midterms to cause eruptions

Manic Moran

wonderfullife wrote: »

You're forgetting that Bill Clinton's first major legislative bill was passed despite strong opposition in his own party, for one reason: The party said "We can't let our President lose this bill". So it passed by a single vote.

Perhaps Trump should have started with something else, but ACA was a huge issue for the Republicans so their emphasis was understandable. So, too, at least to an extent, is the idea that the representatives hewed to the positions for which they were elected. The idea that they should have come together to allow Trump to start off with a win is silly. The reason to get together would be that they could agree in sufficient numbers to get a replacement bill passed, they failed to achieve this. As did Clinton on the same subject.

As for Gorsuch, that's more right-wing nonsense being spouted. If they let him through, then as soon as Ginsberg retires or dies, they'll be forced to filibuster then and the GOP will STILL go nuclear.

And that's not left wing nonsense? The Republicans may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. They are as aware as everyone else that they will eventually find themselves in the minority, just as the Democrats found out after they went nuclear on Presidential appointments. If they were going to go nuclear regardless, then they would have nominated a hard conservative to the position like Pryor, who was also on the short list. The nomination of Gorsuch was an olive branch to the Democrats to keep the rules in place. The Republicans are going to appoint what folks would consider a conservative, the Democrats had better get used to the idea. By choosing Gorsuch, a judge with impeccable credentials who was unanimously approved by both parties to his current position, they gave the Democrats a choice: Go with this guy, and keep the rules in place, or risk having someone far, far worse to your philosophies put onto the court. If Ginsburg (or anyone else) leaves, there is still no pressing reason for the Republicans to force through a Pryor type judge by going nuclear. They would be tipping the balance to 6:3, another 'reasonable' conservative would be good enough, and the Republicans get to keep the filibuster protection for when they are in the minority.

You think for one moment if Trump makes it to 2019 (Hint - he won't) that they'll stick by this nonsense of "Can't nominate in Final Year of Presidency"?? Not a prayer. Dems have no choice here. Filibuster him and make it clear to the nation that the GOP are forcing in a lifetime choice picked by a President who may well turn out to be a Russian traitor.

I agree that Garland got a raw deal and should at least have had a hearing. It's not unprecedented, a refusal by the Senate to seat a judge by an 'enemy' President has left a seat vacant for longer than the Scalia vacancy in the past, and Schumer embarrassingly stated the same position towards the end of the Bush presidency, though it never came to a head as a vacancy never opened. Whether I agree with it on moral grounds or not (my view is that a President is fully President for all four years, not three and then limited responsibilities), I also acknowledge that, in Obama's words, elections have consequences, and so there is little basis to complain about when the representatives of the majority decide to put on the brakes. If the Senate flips next year, then the Democrats can feel free to exact revenge. If it doesn't, then yes, I would expect a final-year nomination to be made and passed.

wonderfullife

Manic Moran wrote: »

The idea that they should have come together to allow Trump to start off with a win is silly. The reason to get together would be that they could agree in sufficient numbers to get a replacement bill passed, they failed to achieve this. As did Clinton on the same subject.

It's not silly on any level. The Presidency becomes a lame duck joke if the President can't get through his first major legislative bill. The Dems knew that with Bill Clinton and despite strong ideological problems with his first Bill, they got it through so to maintain the legitimacy of his office.

Clinton did fail to achieve healthcare, you're right.

Admit defeat & quit? Nope, he didn't. He never once publicly imploded and conceded defeat like man-child Trump just did.

As for Gorsuch, it's scandalous he could be appointed while a sitting President is under FBI Investigation for possible treason. The ramifications of that are unprecedented.

If Bill Clinton or Barack Obama were under FBI Investigation for collusion with a foreign power, you can bet your house the GOP would threaten to burn down Washington DC, nevermind allow it to function unchecked.

eire4

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He has just spectacularly demonstrated that he doesn't give a hoot about his promises. He promised to repeal obamacare day one and replace it with a system that covered everybody, great coverage, the greatest.

Instead he backed a system which would take coverage from 24 million Americans, and used all his influence to get waverers to back it. A kick in the teeth for people who believed his campaign promises.

Fortunately, even the House Republicans couldn't vote for that.

What is scary is the extremist wing of the Republican party which euphemistically calls itself the freedom caucus were against this terrible health care bill because it did not go far enough. They want health care to be completely left to unfettered friedmanite disaster capitalism free markets which means that no insurance company is going to offer health coverage to groups it cannot make lots of money from. Reality is thinking like that basically is a death sentence for many and financial ruin for many others.

Zubeneschamali

eire4 wrote: »

What is scary is the extremist wing of the Republican party which euphemistically calls itself the freedom caucus were against this terrible health care bill because it did not go far enough.

Well, yes, but they weren't the only ones against it.

Republicans on the centrist wing, on the right wing, and right up the middle were prepared to vote no. Chart from the WSJ:

FatherTed

demfad wrote: »

There has never been a successful impeachment but there has never been a federal investigation into a presidential campaign for treason. 65% of Americans now want an independent inquiry into Trump Russia.
This isn't going away. Adam Schiff has said he has seen evidence that would immediately warrant a grand jury. Nunes has exposed himself by his bizaare press conferences the other day and by cancelling the testimony of Yates, Brennan and Clapper for tomorrow. It's the coverup that got Nixon and the coverup is happening in earnest. Impeachment isn't remote, impeachment is inevitable.

Also the Whitehouse administration is deep filled with members of the Council for National policy. The christian white supremacist policies are been enacted all the time. As the conspirators (Mercers/Bannon) want small government these people are 'dismantlers' of their departments. For example the CNP sent Devos (her father was a founding member of CNP) a paper saying that there was NO NEED for a department of education.

When this blows up it will be Watergate x 100.
Many of the Trump campaign/transition team will be indicted and possibly even Trump himself. The fuller investigation will bring 100s of people down including many members of congress.

The Admin cannot survive this. There is no precedent for the US to resolve this situation.

But this is Trump and he will somehow sweet talk whomever to survive. And probably win in 2020 too. I refuse to ever right him off. Actually i take that back, it's more about those people who voted for him in the first place. They all still back him and it doesn't matter to them what's been happening or what will happen because they choose what they want to believe. People knew he was a clueless, lying, sexual predator when they voted for him so it doesn't matter what he does because they will back him regardless.

demfad

FatherTed wrote: »

But this is Trump and he will somehow sweet talk whomever to survive. And probably win in 2020 too. I refuse to ever right him off. Actually i take that back, it's more about those people who voted for him in the first place. They all still back him and it doesn't matter to them what's been happening or what will happen because they choose what they want to believe. People knew he was a clueless, lying, sexual predator when they voted for him so it doesn't matter what he does because they will back him regardless.

His approval rating is at 36% the lowest ever for a president at this point by 20 points. He won the election partly because the media was focused on the Russian email hack dumps instead of his connections to Russia/China/criminality. Believe me that won't happen with Trump again. The 'pussygate' scandal will like laughably Tiny compared with what he would have to face.
How does he sweet talk his way out of federal investigations? How will he sweet talk Flynn/Manafort who will face decades in a federal prison unless they cut a deal?

Water John

Nunes is farcical at this stage. Really has to step aside, involved up to his neck.

Couldn't make it up, his spokesperson is Jack Langer. Must hail from Cork.
Sometimes all one can do, is laugh. If it wasn't so serious.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Nunes is farcical at this stage. Really has to step aside, involved up to his neck.

Couldn't make it up, his spokesperson is Jack Langer. Must hail from Cork.
Sometimes all one can do, is laugh. If it wasn't so serious.

I'm waiting for the leak from junior W/H staff about his W/H source wondering if he''ll name the person first before congress.

PopePalpatine

demfad wrote: »

His approval rating is at 36% the lowest ever for a president at this point by 20 points. He won the election partly because the media was focused on the Russian email hack dumps instead of his connections to Russia/China/criminality. Believe me that won't happen with Trump again. The 'pussygate' scandal will like laughably Tiny compared with what he would have to face.
How does he sweet talk his way out of federal investigations? How will he sweet talk Flynn/Manafort who will face decades in a federal prison unless they cut a deal?

His approval rating may be at 36%, but if he can mobilise enough of them (and get Jeff Sessions to gut voting rights such that women and minorities have much more hassle in getting to the polls) in the right places, he has a decent chance especially if he keeps feeding them his "FAKE NOOOOZ" shtick.

Leroy42

demfad wrote: »

His approval rating is at 36% the lowest ever for a president at this point by 20 points. He won the election partly because the media was focused on the Russian email hack dumps instead of his connections to Russia/China/criminality. Believe me that won't happen with Trump again. The 'pussygate' scandal will like laughably Tiny compared with what he would have to face.
How does he sweet talk his way out of federal investigations? How will he sweet talk Flynn/Manafort who will face decades in a federal prison unless they cut a deal?

His approval rating is largely irrelevant. Nobody gave him any chance of primaries, and certainly not the POTUS. And AR can change quickly. GWB was up at 90%+ (I think) in the period after 9/11 and the fact they were still at war no doubt played a large part in GWB being reelected).

One thing Trump has shown himself very good at is reading the mood and getting the right message out. People wanted change, and so far (and I accept that they probably aren't even thinking about it) the DNC have done nothing to show they will bring change.

Trump clearly has issues, but he has done a brilliant job as painting these issues as others out to get him, and keep you down. Drain the Swamp.

In terms of Russia, whilst Demfad and others have provided very informative details, in most cases it would seem that it is those around Trump that have potential issues, rather than Trump himself.

Of course where smoke exists etc, but it is a big difference between getting Gen Flynn to resign or Nunes to recuse himself and getting enough infor to actually start impeachment of a GOP president in a GOP controlled government.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

His approval rating is largely irrelevant . . .

Agreed. If you break down his approval rating by party support, he still enjoys approval ratings among Republican supporters in the high 80s. Among Democratic supporter, more like 10%. So his average rating in the 40% range conceals wide extremes - much wider than for previous presidents. He's a very divisive figure.

Electorally, what this means that most of the people who do not approve of him are people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway - they're likely Democratic voters. It's when his approval ratings among Republican supporters begin to slip that he's in real trouble.

Billy86

Peregrinus wrote: »

Agreed. If you break down his approval rating by party support, he still enjoys approval ratings among Republican supporters in the high 80s. Among Democratic supporter, more like 10%. So his average rating in the 40% range conceals wide extremes - much wider than for previous presidents. He's a very divisive figure.

Electorally, what this means that most of the people who do not approve of him are people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway - they're likely Democratic voters. It's when his approval ratings among Republican supporters begin to slip that he's in real trouble.

I don't know, Rasmussen (Rasmussen!!) has him at 45% even, with 55% disapproval... RASMUSSEN!

He's also showing a slide among white males, Republicans, non college educated, likely voters, and pretty much everyone - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/27/trumps-approval-hits-a-new-low-of-36-percent-but-thats-not-the-bad-news/?utm_term=.f1d88d761ae2

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Agreed. If you break down his approval rating by party support, he still enjoys approval ratings among Republican supporters in the high 80s. Among Democratic supporter, more like 10%. So his average rating in the 40% range conceals wide extremes - much wider than for previous presidents. He's a very divisive figure.

Electorally, what this means that most of the people who do not approve of him are people who wouldn't be voting for him anyway - they're likely Democratic voters. It's when his approval ratings among Republican supporters begin to slip that he's in real trouble.

It is remarkably high, but according to this poll (http://uk.businessinsider.com/trumps-approval-rating-craters-in-poll-and-his-base-is-the-culprit-2017-3?r=US&IR=T) he dropped from 91% to 81% in two weeks amongst Republican voters. And that was before the health care disaster. I like this too:

"Most alarming for President Donald Trump, the demographic underpinnings of his support, Republicans, white voters, especially men and those without a college degree, are starting to have doubts."

Billy86

This gets shadier and shadier by the day. As in almost every single day something dodgier than the last comes out, don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.

Trump-Russia investigation: House Intelligence Committee 'cancels all meetings this week'

Zubeneschamali

There is one reason his popularity doesn't matter - he won't be the Republican candidate in 2020, assuming he lasts that long as President.

B0jangles

Billy86 wrote: »

This gets shadier and shadier by the day. As in almost every single day something dodgier than the last comes out, don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.

Trump-Russia investigation: House Intelligence Committee 'cancels all meetings this week'

Yeah, it's really hard not to call this a blatant attempt at a cover-up:

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/846725850129162241

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is one reason his popularity doesn't matter - he won't be the Republican candidate in 2020, assuming he lasts that long as President.

That's true but many Republicans are up for election next year and he's their President.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's true but many Republicans are up for election next year and he's their President.

Oh, I think that by election season, many of them are going to discover that they never backed Trump.

And what will their voters do, vote Democrat? I don't think so.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I think that by election season, many of them are going to discover that they never backed Trump.

And what will their voters do, vote Democrat? I don't think so.

That's the thing for many of the districts - Reagan is a god to them, but if you could reincarnate him and Hitler, have Reagan put a (D) beside his name and Hitler and (R), there are a lot of them that would happily vote in Congressman Zombie Hitler.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I think that by election season, many of them are going to discover that they never backed Trump.

And what will their voters do, vote Democrat? I don't think so.

Indeed there is a cohort that would vote for Trump even if he had a dump on their heads whilst setting their mother on fire. However, there is a middle ground that is becoming increasingly disillusioned. Those are the votes that will make the difference.

Igotadose

The clown car keeps rolling along; if this already hasn't compromised US security or Intelligence, it's just a matter of time:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-visitor-logs-mar-a-lago-236564

Summary: Buy a ticket, visit Mar-a-Lago. No logs kept of who attends dinners there. So... drop off a few high tech bugs, take a few surreptitious pictures, find out who works there... no problem, just buy a ticket.

Amusingly, some Senator has introduced an act calling on the Secret Service to ensure everything's squeaky-clean at these sites, called the “Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act,” or the Mar-A-Lago act. Props for a sense of humor.

I'm convinced, it's the gang that couldn't shoot straight. All they seem to do is ineptly repeal things, and fail to pass any meaningful legislation, because they're perpetually unprepared. Not that anything they've proposed so far is GOOD, but really, what an inept crew. Conversely, I guess it is preventing real disaster if indeed Trump cared enough to get anything done, other than golf, and ogle Japanese translators: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/was-trump-obsessed-with-a-japanese-translators-breast/

Professor Moriarty

Perhaps this is why Kushner is so eager to get his retaliation in first:

The Russian bank chairman who met with Jared Kushner in December isn't your ordinary banker.

His state-run bank has been under US sanctions for nearly three years.

He was appointed to his job by Russian President Vladimir Putin after eight years at Russia's biggest state-owned commercial bank. And he graduated from the Russian academy of Federal Security Service, which trains people to work in Russia's intelligence and security forces.

Sergey Gorkov's meeting with Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, will be scrutinized by congressional investigators probing links between Trump associates and the Russian government. Gorkov is chairman of VneshEconomBank, or VEB, a Russian development agency that has been under US sanctions since July 2014.

The meeting is raising questions both because of the sanctions and because Kushner spent years as a real-estate developer and was trying to attract financing for a building project of his in Manhattan.

Billy86

Might this be the tipping point?

First GOP Congressman lawmakers calls on Nunes to recuse himself.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) on Tuesday told The Hill that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) should "absolutely" recuse himself from his panel's investigation into Russia's meddling in last year’s election.

Jones, a member of the House Armed Services Committee who frequently bucks leadership, is the first Republican in Congress to call on Nunes to step aside.

"How can you be chairman of a major committee and do all these things behind the scenes and keep your credibility? You can't keep your credibility," Jones said just off the House floor.

“If anything has shown that we need a commission, this has done it by the way he has acted. That's the only way you can bring integrity to the process. The integrity of the committee looking into this has been tainted."

Jones was one who was going to vote no on the AHCA as well will be interesting to see if it starts there, but with how politically poisonous they must know continuing to turn the other cheek must be it probably won't take too many to start an avalanche. For a majority vote on a matter like this in Congress, it would take 23 Republicans to side with what would be an obvious unanimous Dem vote to make a majority.

aloyisious

Maybe the republicans figure Nunes might be dumped by them off the committee and replaced by some-one at a bipartisan-agreement level to ensure the house, and not the Trump Admin, decide who they can interview, seeing as how any impeachment would be done not by approval of Don, but by the house and senate. It look's like Don is trying to nobble the horse while it's in the stable.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is remarkably high, but according to this poll (http://uk.businessinsider.com/trumps-approval-rating-craters-in-poll-and-his-base-is-the-culprit-2017-3?r=US&IR=T) he dropped from 91% to 81% in two weeks amongst Republican voters. And that was before the health care disaster. I like this too:

"Most alarming for President Donald Trump, the demographic underpinnings of his support, Republicans, white voters, especially men and those without a college degree, are starting to have doubts."

80%-90% approval rating from supporters of one's own party is pretty much the normal range for American presidents. Even Nixon had an average approval rating, among Republican supporters, of 75% - and that's made up of well over 80% for most of his time in office, but a steep slide in his final year down to to about 55%.

If Trump's approval rating among Republican supporters gets down to the 50%-60% range, then he's in real trouble - like, almost Nixon-level trouble. But what did for Nixon was his low approval ratings coupled with the fact that the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Even if Trump's approval falls to that level, therefore, he'll still be in a stronger position than Nixon was.