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

Leroy42

So looks like Repeal and replace is going to happen.

Still nothing to note on the Russia links. No corruption proved in the business.

Things may not have gone smoothly but so far Trump is sitting pretty.

Valord

Billy86 wrote: »

These people voted how they did out of desperation, but they were conned by a career con man, can't claim to have not known who he is and has been for decades, and can't claim that they weren't warned over and over again.

To be honest, that's not completely true. It was an unfortunate reality that despite his sordid business life, the major media networks were happy to embrace him and fulfill his narcissistic tendencies for decades. Donald Trump was a sort of Paris Hilton/Kim Kardashian figure in his younger days who lived for TV and tabloid attention that they were very willing to provide. More often than not, this was spun to portray him as an elite, savvy businessperson in the vain of Warren Buffet, even though he wasn't. His TV show (which he was originally supposed to only be a guest on) solidified that image further. He was a guy who got invited to award shows and White House dinners and who had the Clintons appear at his weddings.

Most people, at least before the election, didn't seem to know about his dubious business career. His bankruptcies due to poor management, his tendency to not pay people, his seedy mob ties. So when these things only start surfacing after, people tend to doubt them as partisan attacks. He was coddled and given what he wanted for too long before the election, and that enabled him.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But get away from Trump v Hillary for a minute.

Why the the Dems lost ground all over the country since Obama came to office ?

I think there are a few reasons. Gerrymandering and an unrepresentative voting system is one Dems like to bring up but I don't think it's the only one. Part of it is that I think liberals in America have a real tendency to only pay attention to the big office and when they had the president, they kind of stopped paying attention.

In a similar vein, conservatives seem to care more about their issues than liberals. Take guns for example. The public is broadly on their side in terms of adding more restrictions, but it never gets passed because most of the people who support it don't really care enough to do anything about it. In contrast, the NRA care about it a lot and will fight against any restrictions tooth and nail. They'll organise and petition politicians all the way from county level to US congress and will do everything they can to hurt politicians who support gun control.

Billy86 wrote: »

I take it those who only support Trump because something something terrorism will be off the bandwagon now...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-counter-violent-domestic-extremism-white-supremacism-cve-funding-freeze-10-million-a7715101.html

I wouldn't say so. To be honest, $10m isn't really a lot of money when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Sand wrote: »

Again, people did not vote for a Republican president. They voted for Trump who ran as a political insurgent, hostile to both the Democratic and Republican leadership.

While that might be true to some extent, I think it's pretty reductionist. Support for Trump was highly partisan. He's significantly more popular among Republicans than any other group, and the Republican leadership have all been behind him since Ted Cruz dropped from the primaries. He was historically unpopular primary winner who benefitted a lot from the crowded field he was up against early on too.

He never gained significant support from across the aisle for being a sort of independent outsider, there was no unusual crossover of Democratic voters or left-leaning independents supporting him, despite their own general dissatisfaction with their party. He's also far from the first person to run for president billing himself as a Washington outsider who's going to whip those lobbyists and clowns in congress into line and teach them a thing or two about the real America, despite that being a pretty dubious sentiment if you look at who its coming from. Being an insurgent who will shake things up is as generic a campaign strategy as saying America is great, supporting the troops, or praising small business.

Valord

Leroy42 wrote: »

So looks like Repeal and replace is going to happen.

Still nothing to note on the Russia links. No corruption proved in the business.

Things may not have gone smoothly but so far Trump is sitting pretty.

Just because they have house votes (and we can't even be sure they do) doesn't mean it will happen. I'm quite sure the house has passed other bills to repeal Obamacare before. It's been considered DOA once it reaches the senate.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So looks like Repeal and replace is going to happen.

Still nothing to note on the Russia links. No corruption proved in the business.

Things may not have gone smoothly but so far Trump is sitting pretty.

They still need the senate right? I mean they have only just about got it through the house by the looks of things which has a decent Rep majority as opposed to the slim one in the Senate.

Hopefully it gets stopped. With Obamacare I had hoped that the US would develop into a nation with proper rights for people. As is their educations system, workers rights and healthcare for the poor are severely lacking. I had hoped Obamacare would be a first step on this road but now they are attempting to go backwards.

Leroy42

But in Trumps world that is a success. He got the bill through the house, only for those crazy, out of touch, no good, anti american senators to go against the people's wishes.

He already started that last weekend by saying that the rules were archaic and needed to change. This is a perfect opportunity (again you'd almost think what he said, which was taken as crazy by the media, was actually part of a plan) to give 'proof' of this.

Here he is, trying to deliver on his election promise, voted on by the American people and giving him a huge EC victory, and an overall majority if it wasn't for the 5m illegals, and these guys, so out of touch, want to derail it.

Valord

Leroy42 wrote: »

But in Trumps world that is a success. He got the bill through the house, only for those crazy, out of touch, no good, anti american senators to go against the people's wishes.

He already started that last weekend by saying that the rules were archaic and needed to change. This is a perfect opportunity (again you'd almost think what he said, which was taken as crazy by the media, was actually part of a plan) to give 'proof' of this.

Here he is, trying to deliver on his election promise, voted on by the American people and giving him a huge EC victory, and an overall majority if it wasn't for the 5m illegals, and these guys, so out of touch, want to derail it.

It's a tough one for him to win on this issue though. Most senators have higher approval in their own states than Trump does, and the previous incarnation of this bill was exceedingly unpopular on both sides. It could very easily end up hurting some members of the house who vote to pass it, which was part of the reason they stopped the vote last time.

Professor Moriarty

Good analysis of the possible scenarios in Wapo:

1. This version of the AHCA dies in the House. While many Republican House members haven’t said where they stand, the number of explicit GOP “No” votes has been hovering around 20 in the past couple of days, with many others leaning against it or undecided; if they lose 23, the bill fails. I think this is the most likely scenario, but that’s just a gut feeling. The politics of this debate are just dreadful for Republican members, who are already terrified that 2018 will be a “wave” election that sweeps them out of office, and they’re acutely aware of the anger that has built up against their bill and how broadly unpopular it is. That may provide enough of an incentive for those last few to bail on it, especially if it looks as though it can’t succeed. There’s no great political outcome on offer, but it’s better to vote against something that failed than to vote for it. At least then you can claim you had something better in mind.

2. They pass a bill in the House, which then dies in the Senate. Although Republicans are trying to push this latest bill through the House before the Congressional Budget Office gives it a score, this is in many ways the same bill that the CBO said would result in 24 million Americans losing their health coverage. If it loses a mere three Republican votes in the Senate (where they have a 52-48 advantage), it’s over. In some ways, this is the best political scenario for Democrats: The ACA remains intact, but they get to savage GOP members of the House for voting for something so dreadful.

3. The bill passes in the House, gets radically changed by the Senate, and then fails when it comes back to the House. Members of the House leadership have been trying to persuade moderate Republicans to vote for this bill on the basis that once the Senate gets a hold of it, their version will be less horrifying, and then the two houses could pass something more like what the Senate produces. Which is possible — but the problem is that if the Senate moderates the bill, it could lose the support of the Freedom Caucus members who are now supporting the current version precisely because of the widespread suffering it would cause. “They better not change it one iota,” said Freedom Caucus member David Brat, visions of millions of people being kicked off Medicaid no doubt dancing in his eyes. “If they change it, you’re not going to have 218 [votes].” It’s impossible to know how many votes such a bill would lose in the House until we know what it contains, but the general presumption has been that nothing conservative enough to pass the House could pass the Senate, and nothing liberal enough to pass the Senate could pass the House.

4. The bill passes in the House, the Senate passes a version, then the two houses work out a compromise in the conference committee that majorities of both houses can support. This is the ultimate path to victory, but it depends on a lot. Among other things, Republicans in the Senate would have to craft a bill that meets the requirements of “reconciliation,” which mandates that only provisions with a direct effect on the budget are allowed. Otherwise, the bill would be subject to a filibuster, and be doomed. That means certain provisions that are policy changes without direct budgetary effects — such as allowing insurers in one state to sell plans in the other 49 states, something most Republicans want — couldn’t be included. They could pass some reconciliation-ready provisions without undoing the whole ACA, such as undoing its expansion of Medicaid or slashing the subsidies people now get to help afford insurance. But it’s clear that they’d rather rip the bandage off all at once.



Many a slip twixt cup and lip. Personally, for a variety of reasons, I hope this clusterfúck crashes and burns spectacularly.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

So looks like Repeal and replace is going to happen.

Still nothing to note on the Russia links. No corruption proved in the business.

Things may not have gone smoothly but so far Trump is sitting pretty.

Are you really going to make someone spell out all the evidence for corruption/collusion for the 15th time?

Yesterday Director Comey strongly indicated that 2 DOJ grand juries were in play for Trump Russia.

One based on the Foreign Agents Registration Act. (Russian Collusion)
One based on RICO (money laundering)
This doesnt count the tonne of brown stuff that Eric Schneiderman will unearth in NY state cases as NY AG.
The grand juries are in Eastern District. North Virginia. Thats where the TRump campaign headquarters were.

Does this sound like Trump sitting pretty to you?

Here's another one for you from The Netherlands from May 2nd.

Felix Sater in trouble again for money laundering with Bayrock (previously for money laundering via Trump Soho and several other Trump towers).

The American real estate development company Bayrock, through which Donald Trump constructed hotels and apartment complexes, used Dutch letter box companies in a network suspected of being involved in money laundering. A ZEMBLA investigation suggests that Bayrock siphoned off $1.5 million dollars by setting up a corporate structure in the Netherlands in 2007. In New York, Bayrock also stands accused of large-scale tax fraud. This incriminating information could place Donald Trump in an extremely difficult position, claims attorney F. Oberlander, who is prosecuting Bayrock on behalf of the State of New York: “The maximum jail term would be 30 years. So you’re in really serious trouble.”

And it gets worse:

ll Bayrock wants is to make clear to ZEMBLA that the Dutch corporate construction was established on the advice of an external legal counsel. ZEMBLA discovers that the firm in question is Bracewell & Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, and part owner of the law firm at the time, is also a Trump confidante.

Whatever Trump is, he sure aint sitting pretty.

Leroy42

No Demfad, I fully accept all that you have provided. I've said that a number of times already.

My point was that there is a big difference, and we have been through this point, between all the accusations and actually bringing Trump down.

There is no doubt that there is plenty to worry about for those around Trump, Flynn, Page etc etc, but I am talking directly about Trump (as this is the thread) and I think that he is still looking good. At the base of it all is the fact that a large amount of americans have lost trust in the media and are prepared to take Trumps word over that. Secondly, the GOP will be very slow to do anything to impeach Trump, and currently they have the numbers.

You only have to look at the type of questions the GOP delegates ask in the committee hearings to see what path they are taking.

Phonehead

Leroy42 wrote: »

At the base of it all is the fact that a large amount of americans have lost trust in the media and are prepared to take Trumps word over that.

To be honest I don't buy this "trust" in the media thing. The truth is that many of these people never watched or listened to the news outlets in the first place. I think it's slowly dawning on the liberal side that a large chunk of their fellow Americans despise everything they stand for, to them they are the enemy. Genuinely it's very hard to see how the Union survives, once the Liberals stop trying to make the relationship work then it's curtains.

*sorry if such speculation is off topic

Itssoeasy

http://www.house.gov/content/features/story2/

Live feed of the house proceedings. I taught that the house had voted but apparently not.

aloyisious

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good analysis of the possible scenarios in Wapo:

1. This version of the AHCA dies in the House. While many Republican House members haven’t said where they stand, the number of explicit GOP “No” votes has been hovering around 20 in the past couple of days, with many others leaning against it or undecided; if they lose 23, the bill fails. I think this is the most likely scenario, but that’s just a gut feeling. The politics of this debate are just dreadful for Republican members, who are already terrified that 2018 will be a “wave” election that sweeps them out of office, and they’re acutely aware of the anger that has built up against their bill and how broadly unpopular it is. That may provide enough of an incentive for those last few to bail on it, especially if it looks as though it can’t succeed. There’s no great political outcome on offer, but it’s better to vote against something that failed than to vote for it. At least then you can claim you had something better in mind.

2. They pass a bill in the House, which then dies in the Senate. Although Republicans are trying to push this latest bill through the House before the Congressional Budget Office gives it a score, this is in many ways the same bill that the CBO said would result in 24 million Americans losing their health coverage. If it loses a mere three Republican votes in the Senate (where they have a 52-48 advantage), it’s over. In some ways, this is the best political scenario for Democrats: The ACA remains intact, but they get to savage GOP members of the House for voting for something so dreadful.

3. The bill passes in the House, gets radically changed by the Senate, and then fails when it comes back to the House. Members of the House leadership have been trying to persuade moderate Republicans to vote for this bill on the basis that once the Senate gets a hold of it, their version will be less horrifying, and then the two houses could pass something more like what the Senate produces. Which is possible — but the problem is that if the Senate moderates the bill, it could lose the support of the Freedom Caucus members who are now supporting the current version precisely because of the widespread suffering it would cause. “They better not change it one iota,” said Freedom Caucus member David Brat, visions of millions of people being kicked off Medicaid no doubt dancing in his eyes. “If they change it, you’re not going to have 218 [votes].” It’s impossible to know how many votes such a bill would lose in the House until we know what it contains, but the general presumption has been that nothing conservative enough to pass the House could pass the Senate, and nothing liberal enough to pass the Senate could pass the House.

4. The bill passes in the House, the Senate passes a version, then the two houses work out a compromise in the conference committee that majorities of both houses can support. This is the ultimate path to victory, but it depends on a lot. Among other things, Republicans in the Senate would have to craft a bill that meets the requirements of “reconciliation,” which mandates that only provisions with a direct effect on the budget are allowed. Otherwise, the bill would be subject to a filibuster, and be doomed. That means certain provisions that are policy changes without direct budgetary effects — such as allowing insurers in one state to sell plans in the other 49 states, something most Republicans want — couldn’t be included. They could pass some reconciliation-ready provisions without undoing the whole ACA, such as undoing its expansion of Medicaid or slashing the subsidies people now get to help afford insurance. But it’s clear that they’d rather rip the bandage off all at once.



Many a slip twixt cup and lip. Personally, for a variety of reasons, I hope this clusterfúck crashes and burns spectacularly.

If it did manage to pass through both House and Senate, there's still the Don factor. Would it be passable enough (no trace of Obama-health-care) for Don to sign it without him just being anti-swamp deals, throw a tantrum and say NO!

Billy86

aloyisious wrote: »

If it did manage to pass through both House and Senate, there's still the Don factor. Would it be passable enough (no trace of Obama-health-care) for Don to sign it without him just being anti-swamp deals, throw a tantrum and say NO!

It literally does not matter one tiny bit what any of it says in any part, he will sign it out of a mix of desperation and not giving a f*** about the people it will affect.

Igotadose

Itssoeasy wrote: »

http://www.house.gov/content/features/story2/

Live feed of the house proceedings. I taught that the house had voted but apparently not.

The bill passed by a narrow margin. On to the Senate. Big win for the GOP, they can claim they did what they promised to do. Loss for those benefiting from the ACA, but elections have consequences and this was obviously one. Trump delivers on a campaign promise, in part at least.

Phonehead

Billy86 wrote: »

It literally does not matter one tiny bit what any of it says in any part, he will sign it out of a mix of desperation and not giving a f*** about the people it will affect.

And the people who it affect will still vote for Trump because it's the liberal city dwelling people who ultimately screwed up everything for them anyway. You see it here and you see online where both sides try to debate, facts are irrelevant! Liberals are the enemy.

Itssoeasy

The GOP need to cool their jets. The bill just got through the house and it has to go to the senate, which will be a lot tougher and then if the senate amend the bill will it be acceptable to the house GOP ?

Obamacare is still the law of the land in regards to healthcare.

Water John

GOP trying to put a good wind behind the Bill to force the hand of Senators as much as possible.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

GOP trying to put a good wind behind the Bill to force the hand of Senators as much as possible.

Even republicans are saying it won't be as easy as that. I mean all this does is give the house republicans something to hang their hat on as an achievement when they go home next week.

Leroy42

But don't the gop control the Senate as well? Why would they force it back to the House?

Water John

Any changes in the Senate, and there will be, if it ever gets through it, means it has to go back to House of Representatives.

Billy86

Their lead is a lot slimmer at 52/48 - only 3 Reps would have to flip, and it just squeaked through by 217-213 in the House where they have 45 extra seats. Also the research done has shown their states would be hit worst, some devastated by it, which will worry them on the vote in some instances (in others, they know people will vote for the letter R even if it literally means committing suicide). Several senators have already been voicing concerns including some very influential ones like Cruz, McCain and Paul. And then of course there's the filibuster... do the Reps want to go nuclear twice in 2-3 months?

Water John

Trump's first foreign visit is to Saudia Arabia, enough said.

Billy86

Water John wrote: »

Trump's first foreign visit is to Saudia Arabia, enough said.

Well he probably hasn't had the chance to meet all the friends and business associates he's built up there over the many years of close dealings with them and the House of Saud.

Water John

He wants to learn more on how to respect women, I'd say.

Christy42

Water John wrote: »

Trump's first foreign visit is to Saudia Arabia, enough said.

Could you imagine if Hillary went there first!

Yeah the Republicans are a little too proud about not fighting with each other quite as much as they were.

Leroy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Their lead is a lot slimmer at 52/48 - only 3 Reps would have to flip, and it just squeaked through by 217-213 in the House where they have 45 extra seats. Also the research done has shown their states would be hit worst, some devastated by it, which will worry them on the vote in some instances (in others, they know people will vote for the letter R even if it literally means committing suicide). Several senators have already been voicing concerns including some very influential ones like Cruz, McCain and Paul. And then of course there's the filibuster... do the Reps want to go nuclear twice in 2-3 months?

But aren't the same arguments true in the house as well? As we well know in Ireland, party beats country everytime and as this is such a platform on which gop have based themselves for 7 years the risk is by not voting it through they alienate their core vote.

captbarnacles

McCain will voice lots of concerns and then vote yes anyways.

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

But aren't the same arguments true in the house as well? As we well know in Ireland, party beats country everytime and as this is such a platform on which gop have based themselves for 7 years the risk is by not voting it through they alienate their core vote.

Nah, because they only have a 4 seat lead in a 100 seat Senate as opposed to a 45 seat lead in a 431 seat House, and the filibuster does not exist in the House but does in the Senate.

The other thing about the GOP is they cannot alienate their core vote, they've essentially tied themselves in as a religious institution in that sense - House members on the other hand are far more liable to be primaried as best I am aware, which is how they wound how they have over the last 7-8 years.

captbarnacles

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Even republicans are saying it won't be as easy as that. I mean all this does is give the house republicans something to hang their hat on as an achievement when they go home next week.

Most of them will be going home to a furious electorate

Itssoeasy

captbarnacles wrote: »

Most of them will be going home to a furious electorate

Well this is where political spin will come into play. The GOP will spin it to their advantage even if they are being shouted down by the electorate. I mean it barely got passed tonight.