Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Ipse dixit

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are making the mistake of applying conventional logic to Trump.

There was no 'advantage' to firing Comey, but he did it anyway.

There was no 'reason' to make such an issue over crowd size at the inauguration, but he went after it for weeks.

There is no 'reason' to make personal attacks against Mika & Joe. Yet he not only did it but doubled down on it.

Its not about a reason in political terms. Its a matter of control. He is used to just getting rid of anybody who is either doesn't agree with or doesn't need anymore. Christie and Giuliani for example. It sends to signal to everyone else that even the slightest step out of line will result in removal.

What does the firing of James Comey have to do with Sessions? Comey was fired on the recommendation of Rod Rosenstein. Sessions hasn't been fired and the only reason anyone is talking about Sessions being fired is becuase of Christopher Ruddy.

You are assuming that there are no reasons for his actions when that is a pretty silly assumption to make. How do you know that he has no reason for any the above?

It's very easy to try and portray someone as an idiot but I imagine 2020 will be another major wake up call for the media and the DNC. Maybe this time it may work.

Professor Moriarty

I just read a an interesting take in this WAPO article about Sessions and Trump. Trump, Sessions, Junior, Kushner and Kislyak get mentions but not Ruddy. Ruddy must just be a red herring now.

rossie1977

I see a story is emerging that everyone except Hope Hicks was kept in the dark over Spicer.

It essentially means that the top us adviser right now is a 28 year old model with no political experience, amazing.

Professor Moriarty

rossie1977 wrote: »

I see a story is emerging that everyone except Hope Hicks was kept in the dark over Spicer.

It essentially means that the top us adviser right now is a 28 year old model with no political experience, amazing.

Not as amazing as a failed businessman rich kid celebrity with zero political experience being elected POTUS.

ThisRegard

He's had another tweet fit, the usual nonsense of hey, what about Crooked Hillary, fake news and other nonsense.

demfad

The name if the game now is 'fire Mueller'.

The removal of Sessions will mean that a new AG could fire Mueller. Sessions is recused and cant, Rodenstein acting AG for Trump Russia, woukd not carry out that order and resign.
This avoids like the Nixon situation of resigning AGs when remiving the Special Counsel.
The leak is therefore from the WH or Kremlin.

In inter-related news NYTimes has obtained a secret legal 20 year old memo stating sitting POTUS can be prosected.

The alternate futures are laid out now:

Trump fires Mueller, GOP does nothing and the emergent Trump kleptocracy is free to rig the 2018/20 elections.

Or Somehow he is stopped. Chaos either way.

Stheno

Hes now tweeted that he has complete power wrt pardons

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40692709

ThisRegard

The New York Times is reporting that leaders in Congress have agreed on sanctions against Russia for their meddling, basically defying Trump

Trump could soon face a bleak decision: veto the bill — and fuel accusations that he is doing the bidding of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — or sign legislation imposing sanctions his administration abhors.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/congress-sanctions-russia.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=https://t.co/WlhAxMMzPT?amp=1

aloyisious

Something tells me Jeff wil stiff it out with Don if Don mentions anything about wishing him well in the future "fire me, I double-dare you".

Re the chance of Don firing the Special Counsel/Prosecutor successfully, when Dick Nixon got his Solicitor General to fire Cox in 73 [after bot his AG and D/AG resigned instead of doing what Tricky Dicky wanted] a federal judge ruled that the firing was illegal.... On November 14, 1973, federal district judge Gerhard Gesell ruled firing Cox was illegal absent a finding of extraordinary impropriety as specified in the regulation establishing the special prosecutor's office.[5] Congress was infuriated by what it saw as a gross abuse of presidential power as did many Americans, who sent an unusually large number of telegrams to the White House and Congress in protest.[8][9][10]

ECO_Mental

Stheno wrote: »

Hes now tweeted that he has complete power wrt pardons

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40692709

I don't know I can't figure this man child out.....he claims he is innocent of everything but then goes out saying he has ultimate powers over pardons!!!! If he's innocent why bring this up?

He is drunk on power at the moment, but he's like the alcoholic who you tell he is drinking vodka but its actually WATER. He thinks he has power but in actual fact he has limited powers...and in fairness to the lads who drew up the constitution these are the idiots they were thinking about

aloyisious

Stheno wrote: »

Hes now tweeted that he has complete power wrt pardons

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40692709

The only people a president can't pardon are officials already impeached from civil office.

aloyisious

demfad wrote: »

The name if the game now is 'fire Mueller'.

The removal of Sessions will mean that a new AG could fire Mueller. Sessions is recused and cant, Rodenstein acting AG for Trump Russia, woukd not carry out that order and resign.
This avoids like the Nixon situation of resigning AGs when remiving the Special Counsel.
The leak is therefore from the WH or Kremlin.

In inter-related news NYTimes has obtained a secret legal 20 year old memo stating sitting POTUS can be prosected.

The alternate futures are laid out now:

Trump fires Mueller, GOP does nothing and the emergent Trump kleptocracy is free to rig the 2018/20 elections.

Or Somehow he is stopped. Chaos either way.

Cue the stepping forward of Mike Pence. He won't wait forever. No leaks have come out yet as to the identities of the W/H official sources leaking stories out of class about Don Jnr, Jared etc. The leaking is ongoing.

aloyisious

FoxNews has Mike Pence on the stump in Columbus Ohio for the "The Obama bill" must go cause. He's still promo-ing the GOP health bill, plus Don's Tax cuts for you promises. Nasty Nancy Pelosi et Democrats

StringerBell

Ipse dixit wrote: »

What does the firing of James Comey have to do with Sessions? Comey was fired on the recommendation of Rod Rosenstein. Sessions hasn't been fired and the only reason anyone is talking about Sessions being fired is becuase of Christopher Ruddy.

You are assuming that there are no reasons for his actions when that is a pretty silly assumption to make. How do you know that he has no reason for any the above?

It's very easy to try and portray someone as an idiot but I imagine 2020 will be another major wake up call for the media and the DNC. Maybe this time it may work.

Donald Trump disagrees with you on that one, as I am sure you are well aware.

Trump is clearly distancing himself from Sessions at the moment, and publicly questioning his position, saying he wouldn't have hired him if Sessions had been honest with him.

What, if anything will come of that is open for debate. There are constant changes going on in terms of personnel and nothing would surprise when it comes to Trump.

It is very easy to portray someone as an idiot when they constantly give you evidence to support that theory.

Winning an election is not proof of the opposite. So many factors to take in to consideration.

Itssoeasy

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/889217183930351621

Donald trump isn't helping the GOP party with that tweet. Does he not realise that the congress works for the people not the president.

I caught some to the trump team on the tv today and I see kellyanne Conway is still living in an alternative universe. She seems to think this Russia thing is a hoaks despite the evidence to the contrary.

aloyisious

This election [for the US Senate [Jeff Sessions old seat] seat for Alanama scheduled from next year to Dec this year, is a bit down the road yet but time is passing fast. Given the results of the two recent run-off elections, the effect of a win for either party would boost morale there with a reverse effect for the losers.

A special election for the United States Senate in Alabama is scheduled to be held on December 12, 2017, to choose Senator Jeff Sessions' successor and to complete the Senate term through January 2021. Sessions was confirmed by the Senate to serve as United States Attorney General on February 8, 2017, and subsequently resigned from the Senate. Governor Robert J. Bentley chose Luther Strange, the Attorney General of Alabama, to succeed Sessions, filling the seat until the special election takes place. Although he had the power to schedule an election in 2017, Bentley initially decided to align it with the 2018 general election,[1] before Kay Ivey, his successor, later moved the date up to December 12, 2017, scheduling the primary for August 15 and primary runoff for September 26.

The reason Gov Bentley was replaced by Kay Ivey, thus allowing for the election date changes, is explained in this link...... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiG4bz22aDVAhViCMAKHRzXCukQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F04%2F10%2Fus%2Frobert-bentley-alabama-governor.html&usg=AFQjCNEbS5irLJEMelyGptVkmPNW-FI8Ow

Peregrinus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Donald trump isn't helping the GOP party with that tweet. Does he not realise that the congress works for the people not the president.

No, of course he doesn't. He thinks that everybody works for the President.

Remember, he thinks that having been chief executive of his own business is a good preparation for being Chief Executive of the United States. He genuinely thinks that the American people now stand in a similar relationship to him as the employees of the Trump Organization did in the past.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

This election [for the US Senate [Jeff Sessions old seat] seat for Alanama scheduled from next year to Dec this year, is a bit down the road yet but time is passing fast. Given the results of the two recent run-off elections, the effect of a win for either party would boost morale there with a reverse effect for the losers.

A special election for the United States Senate in Alabama is scheduled to be held on December 12, 2017, to choose Senator Jeff Sessions' successor and to complete the Senate term through January 2021 . . .

Well, of course, by then Sessions may be free to run himself, judging from Trump's recent comments about him.

Leroy42

Going back to the possible Pardons, according to the Independent.co.uk a pardon is a very different animal than immunity.

Pardon, is by extension, and admission that something had been done. They cite a 1915 case whereby a George Burdick, had allegedly leaked information to the press. Woodrow Wilson offered a pardon, but Burdick declined as it carried an implication of admission of guilt.

So whilst it may or may not be possible to grant himself a pardon, and there is no problem with him pardoning everyone else, it would carry with it the weight of admission.

People have cited the example of Nixon being pardoned, and that of course is true that he never faced charges, but on the other hand he was forever damaged by it and never recovered and is held in pretty poor esteem in the US.

Trump may well be able to pardon himself, and thus avoid conviction, but it would be a short-term fix. Both he and his family would be seen in a very negative light, not only by those that don't like him now, but also many of those that continue to support him.

And it would be very difficult to fight an election based on pardoning himself, or for republicans to run when they continue to support him.

However, even when I am typing this I am asking myself would it actually make any difference? So far nothing seems to have an impact so would his supporters simply brush this off as another witch-hunt and that HC would have done worse!

StringerBell

It would be a massive shock to see the Republicans lose that seat, as it would be a big shock anytime an incumbent party loses a seat in a special election tbf.

Water John

One has to largely discount diehard supporters of any political party. The fight is always for the middle third and that's gone from Trump.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

One has to largely discount diehard supporters of any political party. The fight is always for the middle third and that's gone from Trump.

.....and the selfish GOP cowards, hopefully.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

Goin back to the possible Pardons, according to the Independent.co.uk a pardon is a very different animal than immunity.

Pardon, is by extension, and admission that something had been done. They cite a 1915 case whereby a George Burdick, had leaked information to the press. Woodrow Wilson offered a pardon, but Burdick declined as it carried an implication of admission of guilt.

So whilst it may or may not be possible to grant himself a pardon, and there is no problem with him pardoning everyone else, it would carry with it the weight of admission.

People have cited the example of Nixon being pardoned, and that of course is true that he never faced charges, but on the other hand he was forever damaged by it and never recovered and is held in pretty poor esteem in the US.

Trump may well be able to pardon himself, and thus avoid conviction, but it would be a short-term fix. Both he and his family would be seen in a very negative light, not only by those that don't like him now, but also many of those that continue to support him.

And it would be very difficult to fight an election based on pardoning himself, or for republicans to run when they continue to support him.

However, even when I am typing this I am asking myself would it actually make any difference? So far nothing seems to have an impact so would his supporters simply brush this off as another witch-hunt and that HC would have done worse!

The Nixon Pardon

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4696

"As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States"

"It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed."

"Now, Therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."

The advantage Ford had was that all sides wanted to put it behind them and everyone accepted the deal that Nixon goes and gets a pardon, and then no more talk. If the situation ever arises again im not sure it will play out that way. Also if Trump or any President Pardons himself expect that issue to go to the SC.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

So whilst it may or may not be possible to grant himself a pardon, and there is no problem with him pardoning everyone else, it would carry with it the weight of admission.

People have cited the example of Nixon being pardoned, and that of course is true that he never faced charges, but on the other hand he was forever damaged by it and never recovered and is held in pretty poor esteem in the US.

Trump may well be able to pardon himself, and thus avoid conviction, but it would be a short-term fix. Both he and his family would be seen in a very negative light, not only by those that don't like him now, but also many of those that continue to support him.

If Trump did pardon himself, any federal court could challenge the pardon as being unconstitutional. This would be decided by the Supreme Court. I doubt that they would uphold the pardon, which would leave Trump in a bind - admitting wrong doing, and open up the almost certain impeachment charges that would follow.

The Supreme Court in that case may also decide that he could not pardon co-conspirators.

Professor Moriarty

If Trump resigned, Pence could pardon him. Assuming he wanted to, of course.

Really Interested

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Trump did pardon himself, any federal court could challenge the pardon as being unconstitutional. This would be decided by the Supreme Court. I doubt that they would uphold the pardon, which would leave Trump in a bind - admitting wrong doing, and open up the almost certain impeachment charges that would follow.

The Supreme Court in that case may also decide that he could not pardon co-conspirators.

I would think that no matter how partisan the SC is they are all layers at the end of the day. The following would play in any layers mind "Nemo judex in causa sua" by pardoning himself he admits wrongdoing and by extension he is involved with the whole thing, then as the cause is his to pardon anyone would mean for the SC to allow it would mean throwing out hundreds of years of a central pillar of the common law system.

Really Interested

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Trump resigned, Pence could pardon him. Assuming he wanted to, of course.

Yes just like Ford, but remember ford was not elected Vice that was Agnew.

demfad

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Trump did pardon himself, any federal court could challenge the pardon as being unconstitutional. This would be decided by the Supreme Court. I doubt that they would uphold the pardon, which would leave Trump in a bind - admitting wrong doing, and open up the almost certain impeachment charges that would follow.

The Supreme Court in that case may also decide that he could not pardon co-conspirators.

Worth remembering a pardon is just for the sentence of the crimes, the actual crimes cannot be pardoned. The NYTimes produced a document yesterday showing taht legal counsel considered it legal to indict a sitting POTUS for serious crimes (doc from Clinton imepachment).

What is clearcut is that Trump fears NY AG Eric Shneidermann above all others.
Trump cant pardon at State level: any money laundering or other serious crimes committed where there is an NY bank brance is in his lair. Trumo's empire is NY based. Part of his crimes may involve human trafficking in the TRump modelling agency, which is NY also. (ill follow with links)
Trump has not set foot in NY State since inauguration interestingly.

Leroy42

As Sam Russell pointed out, if Trump did pardon himself it would immediately be challenged in the courts, leading all the way to the SC. Even if he was to win, that in itself would be very damaging and carried with it a large amount of risk that it could be ruled against. Trump has already seen, in terms of his EO on travel ban, that he cannot count on the courts to simply back him up.

And during all the time required to run the case and get a judgment, the "Russian fever" would be intensified and completely overwhelm everything else. If the WH thinks the media is obsessed at the moment, wait till they see what a pardon would unleash.

Pence could indeed pardon Trump, but then Pence would open himself up to greater scruntiny of his involvement. Up till now, Pence seems to have played the dumb patsy, knew nothing, only interested in working for America, didn't really get involved in the campaign etc. But upon a pardon he would be asked on what basis can he great that if he didn't know any of the facts. Why did he continue a VPOTUS after the Flynn incident etc.

And to what end? What would be the benefit to Pence of pardoning Trump. At that point the GOP would have accepted that Trump was no longer an asset.

Really Interested

demfad wrote: »

Worth remembering a pardon is just for the sentence of the crimes, the actual crimes cannot be pardoned. The NYTimes produced a document yesterday showing taht legal counsel considered it legal to indict a sitting POTUS for serious crimes (doc from Clinton imepachment).

What is clearcut is that Trump fears NY AG Eric Shneidermann above all others.
Trump cant pardon at State level: any money laundering or other serious crimes committed where there is an NY bank brance is in his lair. Trumo's empire is NY based. Part of his crimes may involve human trafficking in the TRump modelling agency, which is NY also. (ill follow with links)
Trump has not set foot in NY State since inauguration interestingly.

Was Trump not at the Intrepid in New York in May?

seamus

Really Interested wrote: »

Yes just like Ford, but remember ford was not elected Vice that was Agnew.

Just reading the wiki article on that, it's really interesting. Ford served as President despite not having been elected to office.

He was appointed to VP after Agnew stepped down and became President after Nixon resigned.

That's a pretty big oversight right there. With the right combination of individuals, you could find yourself with a despotic unelected president. Such as Pence "resigning" under pressure, Trump appointing Bannon as VP and then Trump resigning himself, leaving Bannon to step in as president.*

*That's obviously a hypothetical, not a prediction. Likely that Trump will go down, Pence will step in and create a Pence/Ryan administration

Water John

GOP may accept Trump would not be an asset but his backside is still in the seat.
Remember Trump doesn't give a fig about GOP and its future. A pardon would be the price of getting him to vacate.

Really Interested

Water John wrote: »

GOP may accept Trump would not be an asset but his backside is still in the seat.
Remember Trump doesn't give a fig about GOP and its future.

He will give a toss if he is told that 52 GOP members and 48 Dems are happy to vote yes for impeachment!

eagle eye

All this impeachment talk is far too early.

And as I keep saying, if Trump gets impeached then Pence becomes President which is a very scary thought.

Really Interested

seamus wrote: »

Just reading the wiki article on that, it's really interesting. Ford served as President despite not having been elected to office.

He was appointed to VP after Agnew stepped down and became President after Nixon resigned.

That's a pretty big oversight right there. With the right combination of individuals, you could find yourself with a despotic unelected president. Such as Pence "resigning" under pressure, Trump appointing Bannon as VP and then Trump resigning himself, leaving Bannon to step in as president.*

*That's obviously a hypothetical, not a prediction. Likely that Trump will go down, Pence will step in and create a Pence/Ryan administration

Ford sought election in 1974 and lost to Carter.

Really Interested

eagle eye wrote: »

All this impeachment talk is far too early.

And as I keep saying, if Trump gets impeached then Pence becomes President which is a very scary thought.

If history has thought us anything its that Pence may go before.

Bluefoam

eagle eye wrote: »

All this impeachment talk is far too early.

And as I keep saying, if Trump gets impeached then Pence becomes President which is a very scary thought.

I have to assume that if Trumps team are impeached due to collusion (I hate that word...) with the Russians, that Pence would go with them having been an integral part of the team and all...

Water John

Orrin, might yet, get the gig. Looking much too far ahead. But sometimes when things come crashing down, it happens very fast.

Really Interested

Bluefoam wrote: »

I have to assume that if Trumps team are impeached due to collusion (I hate that word...) with the Russians, that Pence would go with them having been an integral part of the team and all...

If that happens then next in line is Paul Ryan.

Leroy42

eagle eye wrote: »

All this impeachment talk is far too early.

And as I keep saying, if Trump gets impeached then Pence becomes President which is a very scary thought.

I don't think he will be impeached, certainly not on the currently available information. But that is missing the point somewhat.

HC was never found to be guilty of anything, in fact she was questioned multiple times about Bengazi etc but never ruled against.

However, the mere fact of the investigation, people make up their own minds. She might not have been guilty, but that doesn't mean she was innocent (I am not starting a discussion about HC etc simply using it as an example of the effects of continued questioning on a persons credibility)

So GOP might well have the numbers, even after 2018, so make impeachment a nin runner. Even if the Dems get control of the House, to get impeachment voted for they would need 2/3rd of the senate. Very unlikely.

But what it does is it completely ties Trumps admins hands in so many places. He can't follow his agenda of closer ties to Russia. By extension his hands are tied on foreign policy. GOP members see him increasingly as detrimental to their future and are less likely to pull with him.

Investors will likely take a holding pattern in terms of the Trump business as it may turn out toxic. There may be knock on effects in terms of Ivanka brands etc.

Whatever happens, you can count on the GOP of doing whatever is required in order to protect itself. It that means ditching Trump so be it, and vice versa.

One noticeable thing, quite apart from all the Russia thing, is that Trump has done nothing to assuage the divisions within US. He is clearly a POTUS for those that voted for him and for the GOP, and no-one else. Whilst that is of course true of all politicians (to the victor goes the spoils) but the canny ones at least pretend to care about the rest of the nation.

In his current position of power he feels happy to attack the press, the DNC, individual senators and house members etc. He has even called out the GOP senators on more than one occasion. But if things continue on the current trend, and get ever more tricky, he will have very few friends to help him out.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think he will be impeached, certainly not on the currently available information. But that is missing the point somewhat.

HC was never found to be guilty of anything, in fact she was questioned multiple times about Bengazi etc but never ruled against.

However, the mere fact of the investigation, people make up their own minds. She might not have been guilty, but that doesn't mean she was innocent (I am not starting a discussion about HC etc simply using it as an example of the effects of continued questioning on a persons credibility)

So GOP might well have the numbers, even after 2018, so make impeachment a nin runner. Even if the Dems get control of the House, to get impeachment voted for they would need 2/3rd of the senate. Very unlikely.

But what it does is it completely ties Trumps admins hands in so many places. He can't follow his agenda of closer ties to Russia. By extension his hands are tied on foreign policy. GOP members see him increasingly as detrimental to their future and are less likely to pull with him.

Investors will likely take a holding pattern in terms of the Trump business as it may turn out toxic. There may be knock on effects in terms of Ivanka brands etc.

Whatever happens, you can count on the GOP of doing whatever is required in order to protect itself. It that means ditching Trump so be it, and vice versa.

One noticeable thing, quite apart from all the Russia thing, is that Trump has done nothing to assuage the divisions within US. He is clearly a POTUS for those that voted for him and for the GOP, and no-one else. Whilst that is of course true of all politicians (to the victor goes the spoils) but the canny ones at least pretend to care about the rest of the nation.

In his current position of power he feels happy to attack the press, the DNC, individual senators and house members etc. He has even called out the GOP senators on more than one occasion. But if things continue on the current trend, and get ever more tricky, he will have very few friends to help him out.

The recent legislation in both houses regarding sanctions against Russia are a real slap in the face for Trump. They even ensured that he can't ease the sanctions. It really is becoming a lame duck administration. Don't mention the wall...

Really Interested

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The recent legislation in both houses regarding sanctions against Russia are a real slap in the face for Trump. They even ensured that he can't ease the sanctions. It really is becoming a lame duck administration. Don't mention the wall...

That why if the Dems are clever they should keep kicking but never kill. No matter what Trump supporters are saying, Trump is doing more for the minor party than his own.

aloyisious

Even if Don did pardon himself, it probably wouldn't make a bit of difference in the long run on the [a leopard can't change its spots] basis. He'd be bound to continue as usual when he took back control of the Trump business empire and sail close to the wind, only this time there'd be former friends sharks near him waiting for an opportunity to settle scores.

Professor Moriarty

Really Interested wrote: »

That why if the Dems are clever they should keep kicking but never kill. No matter what Trump supporters are saying, Trump is doing more for the minor party than his own.

That's very true. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

Itssoeasy

Jared Kushner has released a statement denying he colluded with russia. That's hardly a shock.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's very true. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

True, but it doesn't negate the need for the DNC to actually come up with some coherent plans of their own. Trump seems more than capable of doing himself in, just let him at it. Keep up the pressure, but no need to go overboard.

They have already accepted that ACA is far from perfect, but need to have some real world solutions.

They need to deal with the continued impact on Globalisation on the US. What are they going to do with all these out of work miners? And lost manufacturing jobs. Its all well and good saying these jobs are gone forever, but people need to work.

I would worry that DNC will make Anti-Trump the key plank of any election. No doubt it needs to be a key part of it, but they need more than that. Again though, whilst I'm typing that, it seems that many voters for Trump the key message was simply MAGA and hate HC. Trump never actually detailed anything.

Quin_Dub

demfad wrote: »

Trump has not set foot in NY State since inauguration interestingly.

Really Interested wrote: »

Was Trump not at the Intrepid in New York in May?

Yes , he was - Met with Malcolm Turnbull on the Intrepid on May 4th .

That is the only time he's been there however..

Leroy42

I don't think Trump is avoiding NY because of any threat of any prosecutor.

david75

Yeah. Can't see this happening somehow.
https://twitter.com/newstalkfm/status/889440937583267840

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

True, but it doesn't negate the need for the DNC to actually come up with some coherent plans of their own. Trump seems more than capable of doing himself in, just let him at it. Keep up the pressure, but no need to go overboard.

They have already accepted that ACA is far from perfect, but need to have some real world solutions.

They need to deal with the continued impact on Globalisation on the US. What are they going to do with all these out of work miners? And lost manufacturing jobs. Its all well and good saying these jobs are gone forever, but people need to work.

I would worry that DNC will make Anti-Trump the key plank of any election. No doubt it needs to be a key part of it, but they need more than that. Again though, whilst I'm typing that, it seems that many voters for Trump the key message was simply MAGA and hate HC. Trump never actually detailed anything.

Apart from a big beautiful wall, he was very vague. I don't think that was necessarily a strategy on his part, I think he was incapable of creating or understanding any definitive polices. As you say, big on MAGA short on policy.