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

Leroy42

The Nunes mess gets curiouser and curiouser.

Saw a clip last night that showed Nunes stating that he met with Paul Ryan (Speaker) prior to going to the WH. So, far from this being some sort of solo run by an apparent stooge or crazyman, this running to Trump was actually given the go ahead by Ryan.

(According to the report it stated that a visit to the Speaker means that any subsequent action is pre-approved, unless of course Ryan comes out to denounce which he hasn't).

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Nunes mess gets curiouser and curiouser.

Saw a clip last night that showed Nunes stating that he met with Paul Ryan (Speaker) prior to going to the WH. So, far from this being some sort of solo run by an apparent stooge or crazyman, this running to Trump was actually given the go ahead by Ryan.

(According to the report it stated that a visit to the Speaker means that any subsequent action is pre-approved, unless of course Ryan comes out to denounce which he hasn't).

I have largely stayed out about the rumours going on about Russia but if the Republicans keep trying to scupper any serious investigation then the only conclusion I can draw is that they are scared of the potential results.

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

I have largely stayed out about the rumours going on about Russia but if the Republicans keep trying to scupper any serious investigation then the only conclusion I can draw is that they are scared of the potential results.

It certainly appears that way. I'm with you, lots of rumours and 'potential' evidence flying around but at this point this is nothing concrete.

Nunes carrying on like this doesn't inspire confidence though

jooksavage

Rather than slow death by 1000 cuts, the steady, incremental revelations about Russia might help Trump weather the controversy. It might be better if further bombshells don't come to light until they appear together in a report from the FBI or a select committee.

If everything we've heard so far (Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Sessions, etc) had to be digested in a single sitting, it would have the appearance of overwhelmingly damning evidence of collusion. Even with reality-denial cranked to 11, Spicer would be hard pressed to spin that.

Leroy42

jooksavage wrote: »

Rather than slow death by 1000 cuts, the steady, incremental revelations about Russia might help Trump weather the controversy. It might be better if further bombshells don't come to light until they appear together in a report from the FBI or a select committee.

If everything we've heard so far (Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Sessions, etc) had to be digested in a single sitting, it would have the appearance of overwhelmingly damning evidence of collusion. Even with reality-denial cranked to 11, Spicer would be hard pressed to spin that.

I don't agree. It is the constant new revelations that are having the negative effect. Even today, the WH announced that Kushner had a previously unreported meeting with a Russian Bank. It, again, calls into question the very credibility of the administration. Everytime Spicer blocks off one attack he is met with another question about something new and needs to deal with that.

Russia is now a daily conversation piece. Had it all come out in one go, no doubt Spicer, Fox and the GOP would have spun like mad, Trump would announce some crazy idea via Twitter and everyone would move on in a few days.

We have seen in the past that Trump is very adept at overcoming a crisis that many others would have been nobbled by. The drip drip is keeping the late night shows in frsh stories, making Trump a laughing stock.

jooksavage

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't agree. It is the constant new revelations that are having the negative effect. Even today, the WH announced that Kushner had a previously unreported meeting with a Russian Bank. It, again, calls into question the very credibility of the administration. Everytime Spicer blocks off one attack he is met with another question about something new and needs to deal with that.

Russia is now a daily conversation piece. Had it all come out in one go, no doubt Spicer, Fox and the GOP would have spun like mad, Trump would announce some crazy idea via Twitter and everyone would move on in a few days.

We have seen in the past that Trump is very adept at overcoming a crisis that many others would have been nobbled by. The drip drip is keeping the late night shows in frsh stories, making Trump a laughing stock.

Perhaps you're right. Russia is certainly a cloud that will continue to hang over the administration. I wonder if the piecemeal delivery of information will turn it into background noise, a constant irritant that Republicans learn to live with and any report, barring the inclusion of ridiculously incriminating evidence, will just be a collection of things we already know and be dismissed as such.

If an investigation doesn't come up with physical, irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing, it's impact will hinge on the weight of the circumstantial evidence. I'd worry this will be diminished if Trump gets a chance to spin them one at a time.

Also, Trump was a laughing stock after pussygate, he still got elected.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

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).

In the presidential race his polling was bound to stay consistent because he promises the fundamental Christian conservatives (the CNP) everything they asked for. They were never going to walk away from those promises.

Also the recent decline is under Republican voters. That is significant.

One thing Trump has shown himself very good at is reading the mood and getting the right message out.

I guy called Cadell (and Mercer) had actually advised Bannon and Stone that a US (and worldwide) slide in belief in democracy meant that it was ripe for a 'strongman' populist outsider to come in and steal it.
He spoke their talking points: media are enemies, drain the swamp etc.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-hedge-fund-tycoon-behind-the-trump-presidency

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.

There was as much change as possible within the system under Obama.

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.

If Trump campaign members get charged for colluding with Russia then Trump loses the presidency.

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.

None of the ACTUAL evidence has been released. We know already about the lies and perjury. We know about Flynn's acting as a foreign agent for Turkey. This is concrete evidence. We know Flynn lied to the FBI which is a felony.

If there is an unbiased investigation then Sally Yates will provide the first tranche of real evidence. Minimum Trump/Pence knew for 22 days about Flynn lying and did nothing. Brennan and Clapper are also unhindered by investigation as Comey was. Their testimony would call for many more people to attend.

Nunes suicided his career to stop this investigation. Clearly, another bombshell (Yates testimony) could not be allowed to happen.

Real trouble would seem to be the Kushner news.
Was he recorded talking to a banned Russian (ex spy) from a banned bank?

That would be in line with the fact that the FISA warrant was for Russian banks. If the warrant was for laundering money into the Trump campaign, that might explain the Trump wiretapping tweets, Nunes desperate actions and place Kushner and Trump in a very serious situation.

The difference with Nixon is that the evidence and smoke is vastly thicker in this case. If the Republicans choose to be on the wrong side of history they are looking at the destruction of their party. The penny will drop soon.

Billy86

I remember some Trump supporters saying LGBT rights would be an issue that would cause them to drop their support for him immediately. Well...

‘Friend Of Gays’ Donald Trump Just Gutted Obama Order Protecting LGBT Federal Employees

Donald Trump signed an executive order yesterday allowing federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees.

Trump’s order revokes three previous orders signed by Barack Obama, including Executive Order 13673, the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Order”.

Signed in 2014, the order required companies receiving sizeable federal contracts to demonstrate that they have acted in compliance for at least three years with federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender stereotyping.

Leroy42

Thanks Demfad, that is very informative. Not sure I agree with it all but, well it is a discussion forum after all.

Anyway, in terms of the information coming out, you seem to have a good read on this, where would the info on Kushners alleged meeting come from. (for example) Now, I'm not asking that in an attempt to deflect, just curious as it seems that someone(s) has plenty of info and at what stage does Team Trump try to get ahead of the story rather than the constant rearguard action they are engaged in.

Leroy42

Billy86 wrote: »

I remember some Trump supporters saying LGBT rights would be an issue that would cause them to drop their support for him immediately. Well...

‘Friend Of Gays’ Donald Trump Just Gutted Obama Order Protecting LGBT Federal Employees

Its actually mad when you think about it. I mean, why would any company put forward a plan to actually discriminate and try to argue it is a good thing.

I am sure that plenty of them do it, but to sign an EO basically given them the rights to do it? It is one thing trying to deal with age-old issues but when the system has already been changed to actually go and change it back?

How does Trump, its all about jobs, think this EO will help provide more jobs?

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Thanks Demfad, that is very informative. Not sure I agree with it all but, well it is a discussion forum after all.

Anyway, in terms of the information coming out, you seem to have a good read on this, where would the info on Kushners alleged meeting come from. (for example) Now, I'm not asking that in an attempt to deflect, just curious as it seems that someone(s) has plenty of info and at what stage does Team Trump try to get ahead of the story rather than the constant rearguard action they are engaged in.

The big rumour about the 'more than circumstantial' evidence is that it involves financial transanctions: Russian money laundered into the Trump campaign. Foreign intel agencies had this evidence but the FBI etc. could not verify it without a warrant. Purportedly he first Fisa warrant was applied for in July for persons being foreign agents or under influence of foreign agent (unwitting). It was rejected but the second one in October, aimed at Russian banks was accepted. FBI could now review the foreign Intel legally.

If true then the Senate knowing about Kushner's meeting is bad: this conversation was likely taped.

Nunes may have got his leak this source:

Michael Ellis. Ellis used to work for Nunes on the intel committee and was recently hired by the White House to work on national security matters. Convenient.

Trump may have got some vague tip off from Sessions or elsewhere and blutterred the wiretap accusation.

A senior figure close to Trump or including Trump caught discussing laundering with a Russian banker or two with financial transactions to back it is something that could put Kushner or Trump in jail.

The sense is that there is something big just out of sight here. You can see the shadow it casts in Nunes/Whitehouse terror.

demfad

Billy86 wrote: »

I remember some Trump supporters saying LGBT rights would be an issue that would cause them to drop their support for him immediately. Well...

‘Friend Of Gays’ Donald Trump Just Gutted Obama Order Protecting LGBT Federal Employees

I believe he has also cut them as a group out of the Census 2020? Maybe same law.


It has been reported that Bannon has started the healthcare conversation again with the Freedom Caucus.

Speculation but my worry would be that he is promising them every dastardly Christian Statist law they desire as quid pro quo for them passing a revised Bill. Early days.

There is push back from Trump University busting NY Attorney General Shneiderman.
http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2017/03/schneiderman-blasts-trump-administration-once-again/

He is also building emoulments cases against Trump as most of the Trump organisation based in NY.

Water John

Demfad, your right, it does feel that there is something just over the horizon and given all the clues to date, most will say, in hindsight, it was obvious, once the box is opened.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Well there isn't another presidential election for another 3 and a half years so he has loads of time to turn it around (start a war). The real danger would be if the republicans who are up for election would be better off to oppose him for the sake of their own re-election. That way he would become become useless an could even get a primary challenge. 
That all forgetting how good a campaigner he is. Once he gets back on the campaign trail he can get back to his best work. He has actually held campaign rallies since becoming president to capitalise on his strength as a campaigner

Billy86

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well there isn't another presidential election for another 3 and a half years so he has loads of time to turn it around (start a war). The real danger would be if the republicans who are up for election would be better off to oppose him for the sake of their own re-election. That way he would become become useless an could even get a primary challenge. 
That all forgetting how good a campaigner he is. Once he gets back on the campaign trail he can get back to his best work. He has actually held campaign rallies since becoming president to capitalise on his strength as a campaigner

While true and he is a good campaigner because salesmanship and over-promising are what he really excels at (all he excels at?), it will be a lot harder for him to do so on the back of years of cronyism and broken promises, especially as the rust belt situation will get worse. Sure, his hardcore base will lap it up but that's not going to be even nearly enough.

Quin_Dub

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That all forgetting how good a campaigner he is. Once he gets back on the campaign trail he can get back to his best work. He has actually held campaign rallies since becoming president to capitalise on his strength as a campaigner

That's the thing though..He thrives on the adulation , the feedback from the crowd etc.

For all his many many failings , he's a showman and very good at it.

However , take him off the stage and ask him to do the job he was elected for ?

He has clearly shown no interest , appetite or aptitude for that task.

Whilst going out campaigning may refuel/re-energise him personally , it's unlikely to have any positive benefit for the rest of the GOP.

If the GOP Congress continue to get reamed at town-halls for the next 12-18 months they will happily cut him loose.

InTheTrees

Quin_Dub wrote: »

However , take him off the stage and ask him to do the job he was elected for ?

He has clearly shown no interest , appetite or aptitude for that task.

You could use the healthcare bill as an example.

It was a superficial halfhearted attempt. The trump team spent a few days trying to convince republicans to vote for it and then they gave up. Trump doesnt really understand the issues or have any interest in finding out, so he quit.

Leroy42

If it continues at anything like the disaster it has been so far then even if he holds on re-election will be almost impossible.

He had two main things going for him last time.

1 - He was a white male - so that is not going to change

2 - He was able to make any promise and say pretty much anything because there was no real public information, apart from information that he himself created, on which to judge him on. Obama had nearly the same. HC was weighted down by so many years in office/public life that is always going to carry failures. Trump simply had no failures in the same league as failed foreign policy/failed healthcare.

So won't have that next time. He will have to stand behind all the things he will do/not do it office. There was a lot of talk about him not being literal in what he said, well next time there will be clear evidence rather than just possible. As well as that, Pussygate, bankruptcy, Trump University, these are all things that didn't really effet most voters. They know him primarily from TV. Trump, whether good or bad, will have a noticeable effect on most americans lives by the time the next electio comes around.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

There was a lot of talk about him not being literal in what he said, well next time there will be clear evidence rather than just possible. As well as that, Pussygate, bankruptcy, Trump University, these are all things that didn't really effet most voters. They know him primarily from TV. Trump, whether good or bad, will have a noticeable effect on most americans lives by the time the next electio comes around.

Eh....being under investigation for treason might be brought up once or twice if he it doesnt bring him down before.

He can be re-elected: If he becomes authoritarian and gerrymanders the election. He can't be elected fairly (he never could)

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

If it continues at anything like the disaster it has been so far then even if he holds on re-election will be almost impossible.

He had two main things going for him last time.

1 - He was a white male - so that is not going to change

2 - He was able to make any promise and say pretty much anything because there was no real public information, apart from information that he himself created, on which to judge him on. Obama had nearly the same. HC was weighted down by so many years in office/public life that is always going to carry failures. Trump simply had no failures in the same league as failed foreign policy/failed healthcare.

So won't have that next time. He will have to stand behind all the things he will do/not do it office. There was a lot of talk about him not being literal in what he said, well next time there will be clear evidence rather than just possible. As well as that, Pussygate, bankruptcy, Trump University, these are all things that didn't really effet most voters. They know him primarily from TV. Trump, whether good or bad, will have a noticeable effect on most americans lives by the time the next electio comes around.

I agree - Peel away the showmanship and his entire schtick was "I'm a brilliant Businessman , not a politician , let me in there and I'll fix everything and clean house"

In 4 years time , based on current performance none of that will be true (it likely never was , but in 2019/2020 it may well be clearly and demonstrably not true".

I don't see his other angle - He has everything stacked in his favour right now - House , Senate etc.

If with all that he still can't get stuff done , he has no story..

El_Duderino 09

Billy86 wrote:

While true and he is a good campaigner because salesmanship and over-promising are what he really excels at (all he excels at?), it will be a lot harder for him to do so on the back of years of cronyism and broken promises, especially as the rust belt situation will get worse. Sure, his hardcore base will lap it up but that's not going to be even nearly enough.

Quin_Dub wrote:

That's the thing though..He thrives on the adulation , the feedback from the crowd etc.
For all his many many failings , he's a showman and very good at it.

That's it. He's great at campaigning and being re-elected is heavily dependent on campaigning.

Quin_Dub wrote:

However , take him off the stage and ask him to do the job he was elected for ?
He has clearly shown no interest , appetite or aptitude for that task.

Well that's true. He won because of how good he was at divorcing is campaigning from reality. He was willing to say the kind of things people want to hear - racist stuff, locker room talk etc. I wouldn't be surprised by anything that happens once he hits the campaign trail proper. I'd expect him to start campaigning extremely early given how much better he is at campaigning than any other part of the job

Quin_Dub wrote:

Whilst going out campaigning may refuel/re-energise him personally , it's unlikely to have any positive benefit for the rest of the GOP.
If the GOP Congress continue to get reamed at town-halls for the next 12-18 months they will happily cut him loose.

That could happen it could create a republican/Trump split. Outlets like fox news would have to pick a side. I'd assume they'd try to support both and hammer the democrats but it wouldn't be as effective as usual

Leroy42

demfad wrote: »

Eh....being under investigation for treason might be brought up once or twice if he it doesnt bring him down before.

He can be re-elected: If he becomes authoritarian and gerrymanders the election. He can't be elected fairly (he never could)

Yes, well I was assuming that if he was to run again in 4 years that the investigations will be over and done with.

If he is found guilty then, well he will have bigger problems than re-election.

If he is cleared that it isn't really something that can be held against him. Of course it will be brought up, but he will simply shout back that it proves the fake news and MSM are always against him.

'Built that wall across Canada and get them to pay'. Or he might een start to blame Alaska!

demfad

One of the billionaires behind Trump Rebecca Mercer will launch a 10 state advertising blitz in States where a democrat Senators are soon up for re-election. It is a warning shot for the senators against 'piling in' against Trump.

Mercer runs the 'Making America Great' SuperPac for the campaign. Involved also is Dave Bossie who Trump hired to be deputy campaign manager in September 2016.

Bossie previously fought the successful Citizens United Vs the Federal Election Commission case which allowed Billionaires like the Mercers to invest heavily in political campaigns.

ligerdub

BoatMad wrote: »

If it wasn't so serious , I d say the whole thing is hilariously funny. Personally I watch John Oliver for serious political opinion

Bit late to this party but John Oliver is a total idiot.

CMOTDibbler

ligerdub wrote: »

Bit late to this party but John Oliver is a total idiot.

Can't say I agree there. I find him very funny.

MadYaker

He is funny but it's totally one sided and not proper analysis. It's for entertainment only.

dudara

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its actually mad when you think about it. I mean, why would any company put forward a plan to actually discriminate and try to argue it is a good thing.

I am sure that plenty of them do it, but to sign an EO basically given them the rights to do it? It is one thing trying to deal with age-old issues but when the system has already been changed to actually go and change it back?

How does Trump, its all about jobs, think this EO will help provide more jobs?

It's quite worrying how retrograde this administration is. Rolling back environmental legislation, rolling back Federal LGBT protection etc, trying to send healthcare back to the open capitalistic market etc. There are things that we, society, as a whole have to address, or we won't have a decent society or environment to hand to our descendants. Pandering to right wing, religious notions isn't good. These measures may suit in the short term, but they are worrying for the long term

20Cent

Republicans in congress just voted to repeal rules banning ISP's from sharing data, such as e-mails, geo location data and web history, with third parties without user consent. Donal Trump is expected to sign it into law. His 4Chan and the Donald fans won't be happy.

Billy86

20Cent wrote: »

Republicans in congress just voted to repeal rules banning ISP's from sharing data, such as e-mails, geo location data and web history, with third parties without user consent. Donal Trump is expected to sign it into law. His 4Chan and the Donald fans won't be happy.

This is genuinely hilarious - https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/62733g/lets_discuss_this_isp_privacy_bill/

As soon as it effects them, serious discussion actually takes place for one of the only times ever... and questions are even asked of Trump by a good few (word search for 'Trump' on that page), which is usually -no joke- an automatic banning offense there.

Very, very, very interesting though... because a lot of Trump's hardcore fanbase and has been built up from online trolls like T_D spreading jibberish and if the standard crap on that forum is anything to go by, they're mostly kids (and "brahs") with few responsibilities in life who would not feel the effects of many of Trump's draconian proposals - not immediately at least. This on the other hand would, and all of a sudden we're seeing them take the issue seriously and even getting ready to get their snowflakes out. Funny how that happens as soon as it hits close to home.

As for 4chan, apparently they're losing their sh*t quite a bit over there. I wouldn't know though, it's one of the absolute ugliest and worst websites on the entire internet to navigate

Good article here - http://www.spin.com/2017/03/trump-supporters-internet-privacy-fcc/



I'm actually thinking it might be quite smart politically for Trump to veto this bill, but will he?

El_Duderino 09

Billy86 wrote:

I'm actually thinking it might be quite smart politically for Trump to veto this bill, but will he?

That would mean going against his republicans who he'll need to get other things done. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

It'll be a calculated risk in either case. Needless to say, lookin out for the little guy's privacy won't feature in the calculation