Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

Incredibly doubtful on many levels. To begin with I can't imagine a false flag attack with any hope of improving his ratings that would not lead to immediate impeachment if found out. Even then it is unlikely to make him actually popular. The risk/reward is way off kilter.

Then you have to remember the regime is leaky so everyone knows there is little odds of it staying secret if more than a few people in Washington know about it.

Finally it would be tough to keep it secret even from the majority of his administration. Pence and the rest seem to have pretty bendable morals but this seems like a few steps too far.

Typically I would agree, but not so much here. I'm not saying it will definitely happen, but I wouldn't bat an eyelid of surprise if it did.

A false flag attack would definitely improve his ratings, while I'm not sure outwardly going to war would as much. An ability to evaluate risk/reward, be aware of any potential consequences (or even what consequences are, in general), or to display any nuance whatsoever are what the current administration have proven utterly incapable of. You could have said exactly that about meeting to collude with the Russians in his own residence and place of business - a few months ago that would have been written off for the exact same reasons.

It would likely be attempted to be kept secret and in an inner circle, and yes it would likely leak sooner rather than later due to Trump's absolutely pathetic inability to keep people on message or to keep an inner circle as an inner circle. If nothing else, Trump himself would eventually spill to beans to someone as a brag. I'd have good as no doubts over that either. As for it being too far, quite possibly for most yeah - but not for all. The Bannon faction getting the boot for the most part does however help against this.

But I do not -for one moment- believe if it did come out, that Trump would lose even a quarter of his base. As is, that base is not enough to win elections, made worse by how effectively Trump & co seem to have been at mobilising citizens against themselves. Of those still standing by him, even if there was a secret video of taken Trump planning and ordering it, nearly all would stick with him still and claim with is all 'fake nooz' - yes, despite literal video evidence to the opposite. We've been dealing with these people for too long to pretend this would not be the case. Even if Trump himself came out and admitted it was him, he would put a spin on it that in order to truly 'make American great again' you have to 'cleanse' it of 'non-greatness' and liberals... and only then would he lose any significant amount of his base. And only a quarter at most, at that.

The reward would be a bump in opinion polls, maybe not enough to put him back in the positive, but a bump to make Donald feel all better about himself and that he's a good boy and one of the popular kids. That's it. And we know enough about him know to know that's enough for Trump to consider it. Human lives don't mean much of anything to sociopaths, after all.

Leroy42

But he doesn't have to plan anything. Simply let stuff happen. No doubt there will be an attack, an attempted attack, a possible attack. SOme evidence of a planned attack. Something which can be sold as the smoking gun to prove that NK, Iran, Mexico (pick any country) is about to attack and Trump can launch something. He already did it with the missiles in Syria.

And simply look at how he is utilising the hurricane to show how great things are organised and also to get rid of bad news (transgender ban policy and Gorka firing). The question becomes whether he still has the support of those required to get anything done.

US loves a good military conflict but I sense that, I wasn't around so can only base this on reading, the country would be even more divided than it was during Vietnam. Instead of pulling the country together, and thus increasing his support, I think at this stage any action taken by Trump will be judged in a bad light no matter what because of how he has behaved to date. The Iraq war was unpopular but still people got behind W Bush to get him a second term.

I sense it may be different now

Zubeneschamali

Christy42 wrote: »

Finally it would be tough to keep it secret even from the majority of his administration.

See the example of Iraq and WMD.

Dubya & Co. simply announced that Iraq was pursuing WMD in the face of the evidence, and then cooked up some intelligence to that effect and launched a war.

Blix said straight out from the beginning that it was nonsense, and he was proven correct, and they totally got clean away with it.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

See the example of Iraq and WMD.

Dubya & Co. simply announced that Iraq was pursuing WMD in the face of the evidence, and then cooked up some intelligence to that effect and launched a war.

Blix said straight out from the beginning that it was nonsense, and he was proven correct, and they totally got clean away with it.

I guess it depends on the false flag attack. I would imagine it would be something in the US to truly mobilise support.

The wmd was in doubt at the time and was simply dodging reporting from a far off land. You just need the document writers in that case most of the evidence is far away and the lie is not directly killing Americans (indirectly sure).

Similarly with Russia you just need a contact with the real movers and shakers who are in a different country so I can see how it can more limited in scope on Trump's side.

Anyway I guess it might be me going overly disastrous over whst type of false flag it might be. We shall see, at this point I think we can all just hope it does not happen.

Celticfire

20Cent wrote: »

Trump cut FEMA by 11% and still hasn't appointed an administrator.

You're not the first person to state this, so can you please explain who this guy is? William B. “Brock” Long

William B. “Brock” Long
Administrator FEMA
Brock Long was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and began his service as the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in June 2017. Mr. Long has more than 16 years of experience assisting and supporting local, state, and Federal Governments with building robust emergency management and public health preparedness programs.

This hurricane was seen coming yet preparations seem very inadequate.

Inadequate in what way? What do you think should have been done that wasn't done by the agencies responsible?

Itssoeasy

This Arizona state rep steve montenegro has really drank the Kool aid on trump. He basically said the same thing on state of the union as he said this morning on CNN. it's nearly the same talking points.

Manic Moran

Mattis' comments were simply him addressing troops impromtu. The video is going around a lot on social media. I don't read anything into them about his opinion on Trump.

There's a likely problem with politicians and political observers talking about folks like Mattis, especially when he's talking to troops. Mattis isn't a politician. He is not known for mincing words, or making 'veiled' anythings, which is part of the reason why he is beloved by the troops. His talk should be interpreted through the lens of watching as a senior Marine talks to servicemen. Addressing the divide in the country, especially given the current civil war talk, with folks who proudly call bases named after Hood, Lee, Rucker, Benning or Bragg (amongst other Confederates) home, is not an unexpected thing to do.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Mattis' comments were simply him addressing troops impromtu. The video is going around a lot on social media. I don't read anything into them about his opinion on Trump.

There's a likely problem with politicians and political observers talking about folks like Mattis, especially when he's talking to troops. Mattis isn't a politician. He is not known for mincing words, or making 'veiled' anythings, which is part of the reason why he is beloved by the troops. His talk should be interpreted through the lens of watching as a senior Marine talks to servicemen. Addressing the divide in the country, especially given the current civil war talk, with folks who proudly call bases named after Hood, Lee, Rucker, Benning or Bragg (amongst other Confederates) home, is not an unexpected thing to do.

Yeah, you can certainly spin it like that. Mattis was only saying what they wanted to hear, not a politician etc. People say the exact same about Trump.

Problem is, these type of people don't get to where they are by being stupid. They know exactly what they are saying. Why would he even go there? There is no need to talk about civil war, possible divisions in the country. If you are a Marine what do you care. You have your orders.

What he was saying, IMO, was that the US that they signed up to protect and defend is still there, despite what they may be hearing/watching. That any fight they are sent on is a noble one. That the US are the good guys, protecting themselves and their allies from the bad people.

That regardless of the values being talked about by Trump, the core values of the US are still the same. So fight for your country, not the president.

aloyisious

Re Mattis's reply to the Fox News reporter, it can read that he made it clear that Don, as President and head of state, speaks for himself. Mattia can be said to be drawing a visible line for the Fox News reporter that he would not cross or try to upstage or act as a spokesperson for Don, esp as Fox News has [at present] a bias towards Don. I reckon, given the quarter, the question was very leading.

Itssoeasy

I see North Korea have launched a missle over Japan. Ball in your court Donald.

aloyisious

Over to China to effect a regime change.

Hande hoche!

Seems like the North Koreans want to get back in the news cycle. While on an unrelated note, seems like those rumours of human trafficking by the Trump model agency and prosecution were largely a hoax. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/28/trump-tweets-hoax-louise-mensch-claude-taylor

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Over to China to effect a regime change.

How likely is that though ? In a way isn't having a "buffer" between South Korea which is a US ally where us troops are in Chinas interests ?

I'm not saying that's a good reason to not effect a regime change but it's probably one of them.

mayo.mick

https://twitter.com/Patrick_J_Egan/status/901972383174721536

Igotadose

IMO all the Trump tweets this week are about deflection from the Russia investigation. Methinks there's a Trump mole in the WaPO or NYT so the deflections happen right before the news outlets publish more truths about Trump and Russia.

Felix Sater - Demfad's excellent Trump/Russia links information includes him - had this juicy quote in a recent WaPO article:
"“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Sater wrote in a November 2015 email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”"

Sater was talking about a Trump Tower in Moscow (I expect this project to resume in about 2024 or so, once the brouhaha around Trump dies down, as it's unlikely he'll be in prison). Sater was corresponding with Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-trump-organization-executive-reached-out-to-putin-aide-for-help-on-business-deal/2017/08/28/095aebac-8c16-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.e13b7b7f8498

Billy86

That's not the full quote - the full quote is truly something special, even Trump would be amazed by the wording.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-tower-putin-felix-sater.html?smid=tw-share

Leroy42

Just going back to the pardon of Joe, what is the reasoning behind the pardon in the first place, I mean in terms of the ability of the POTUS to pardon anybody at all.

It beggars belief that any democracy would give such a power to overrule, bases on nothing, the standing of the entire legal and law enforcement apparatus of a country. It begs to be used for cronyism.

It basically allows the president to get people to undertake illegal acts, knowing they are illegal, on the basis that if they are ever caught POTUS can clear them.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

It basically allows the president to get people to undertake illegal acts, knowing they are illegal, on the basis that if they are ever caught POTUS can clear them.

If the legislature think the president is involved and pardoning cronies, they can impeach him.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the legislature think the president is involved and pardoning cronies, they can impeach him.

This. The President has the power of pardon because it's in the Constitution, and the Constitution is extremely difficult to amend. And it's in the Constitution because, back in 1783, the UK monarch (and the colonial governors representing him) and such a power, and the role of the presidency was modeled on that.

Of course, the UK has since developed conventions that the power of pardon is only exercised on the advice of ministers, and ministers are accountable to Parliament. In the US, the President is accountable directly to the people (when he stands for re-election) and to a limited extent to Congress, through the nuclear option of impeachment. In practice these aren't as effective a control as the controls which the British have developed, and the disadvantages of that become apparent when your president is basically King Kong wearing an extra-long tie.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the legislature think the president is involved and pardoning cronies, [and the president is from the other party] they can impeach him.

This is the fatal flaw in the whole "oversight of the legislature" failsafe. Party politics turns everyone into a crony.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

This is the fatal flaw in the whole "oversight of the legislature" failsafe. Party politics turns everyone into a crony.

This. It just seems so very crony by nature that a single person, for their own reasons, can overrule the laws that relate to every other citizen in the country.

Surely the legislative process is robust enough to ensure that POTUS does not have to get involved to right a wrong? That being the case then the only reason to pardon a person is for purely political reasons (whether that be purely party reasons or a wider political statement).

There is much consternation about Trump pardoning Sheriff Joe, but is he really any worse than others that have been pardoned. Nixon for example?

It would seem that rather than complain about who Trump decided to use his powers to save, people should be asking the question as to why the power exists at all. If you are a soldier convicted of crimes in Iraq etc surely you should be asking why Sheriff Joe gets off an not you. That is the very reason for the courts. They are based on equality for all in front of the laws of the land.

This pardon power completely goes against that.

Do we have anything similar in Ireland? (OT I know but curious)

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do we have anything similar in Ireland? (OT I know but curious)

Functionally, yes. Our own constitution having been modelled on the US's because DeValera considered the latter to be a shining beacon.

But in practice, not so much. The president may only pardon on the advice/request of the government. Who in turn can only proceed to pardon where the situation meets criteria which warrant. For the most part, someone has to have been convicted and exhausted their appeals process, but new material facts have come to light.
In other cases, a committee can be set up to examine a case and make recommendations based on whether the law itself was unjust/outdated, the judge erred, etc.

In any case, while there are theoretical scenarios in which a minister for justice may protect a crony through recommending they get a presidential pardon, the level of public attention and scrutiny such an act would get would be political suicide for the minister, the president and anyone within a ten mile radius of them.

The power of a president (or a minister for justice) to pardon or commute a sentence "just because", as Trump has done for Arpaio, isn't there in Ireland.

The Arpaio mess is a good demonstration of why US presidents tend to wait until their last days/hours in office before signing off on the bulk of their pardons.

And why it's a ridiculous power for someone to have.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do we have anything similar in Ireland? (OT I know but curious)

Under the Constitution, Article 13.6, the power to pardon and the power to commute sentences, remit fines, etc are given to the President. However by Article 13.9 he can only exercise those powers on the advice of the Government.

oscarBravo

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is much consternation about Trump pardoning Sheriff Joe, but is he really any worse than others that have been pardoned. Nixon for example?

Nixon was an angel compared to Arpaio. For all Nixon's faults, I don't think he ever personally ran any concentration camps.

Christy42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nixon was an angel compared to Arpaio. For all Nixon's faults, I don't think he ever personally ran any concentration camps.

It also assumes that people were in favour of the Nixon pardon or that it was right. I disagreed with it and so did a large proportion of the public given he has credited it with stopping him getting elected and his poll numbers collapsed when he did it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

Ford doing something wrong years ago does not justify Trump doing something else wrong now.

Water John

America needing healing at the time of Nixon's pardon. On balance, probably a better course of action. by Ford, to his own cost.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

America needing healing at the time of Nixon's pardon. On balance, probably a better course of action. by Ford, to his own cost.

Thats a line I have heard before but how does giving the guy a free pass help?

Should all convictions be pardon at certain points to aid the healing process or just limited to certain people.

Wouldn't it be better to show that law breakers are treated fairly no matter who you are, and in fact POTUS should be the very first to be held to the very laws he swore to protect.

Water John

Well, its like after a war, one often has pardons to get political closure and move one eg GFA, Truth and Reconciliation Committee in SA.
Not saying which is best and well understand it, sticking in the craw.

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nixon was an angel compared to Arpaio. For all Nixon's faults, I don't think he ever personally ran any concentration camps.

I don't remember Arpaio illegally and secretly dropping 2.7 million tonnes of explosives on Cambodia resulting in the rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pots 'cultural revolution'

Americans are prepared to tolerate horrendous crimes by their leaders as long as they happen far away.

Ludo

Damn it...Fox news gone from Sky. No more viewing the stupidity.

Chips Lovell

Off-topic posts deleted. Please don't try to restart closed threads on this one.

Pelvis

Just catching the end of some press conference in Texas with POTUS and maybe the Gov. Sounds like they're all just patting each other on the back, for some reason. Are all the homeless and stranded people okay now??

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't remember Arpaio illegally and secretly dropping 2.7 million tonnes of explosives on Cambodia resulting in the rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pots 'cultural revolution'

OK, but that's not what Nixon was pardoned for, which is what we're talking about.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Under the Constitution, Article 13.6, the power to pardon and the power to commute sentences, remit fines, etc are given to the President. However by Article 13.9 he can only exercise those powers on the advice of the Government.

That'll probably mean the AG, who's Dept of Justice [according to a committee supporting Joe] got 40,000 emails asking for a pardon.

aloyisious

Is it my imagination or has Don, [since the recent W/H departures] gotten more sensible in his tweet contents?

Manic Moran

The question of "Why are Presidential Pardons a thing" showed up over on the AskHistorians subreddit the other day. The "advice of the government" thing was specifically declined. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6wj907/why_are_presidential_pardons_a_thing/?st=j6y1qk89&sh=58a3c312

The purpose of the pardon is to serve as a check on an overly punitive federal justice system. It originates as an extension of the right of European monarchs (in this case specifically British ones) to grant clemency or mercy to individuals guilty of crimes within their constituencies.

In the nascent United States the Chief Executive's power to pardon was strongly supported by Alexander Hamilton. As pointed out in the above thread Hamilton writes in Federalist 74 that ability to pardon will help reduce cruelty and keep the justice system merciful. He also argues that "a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth" The argument for good timing was a rebuttal to the proposal by Roger Sherman that the power be limited by requiring senate approval.

Its worth noting that at the time the Constitution was written the Federal Government had far fewer laws than it does today and the President only has the power to reduce sentences for federal crimes, which at the time would have consisted mostly of treason and or piracy.

Pelvis wrote: »

Just catching the end of some press conference in Texas with POTUS and maybe the Gov. Sounds like they're all just patting each other on the back, for some reason. Are all the homeless and stranded people okay now??

As a political commentator over here observed, such a thing (and it's done by pretty much all leaders worldwide as appropriate) does two major points. One is that the leadership's presence focuses the minds of his subordinates as to the question of what should be their priority. The other is that it is something of a morale-booster to the locals to show that the highest offices are aware of the problem. Obviously the visit itself has little practical use, it's purely intangible.

blackcard

Pelvis wrote: »

Just catching the end of some press conference in Texas with POTUS and maybe the Gov. Sounds like they're all just patting each other on the back, for some reason. Are all the homeless and stranded people okay now??

It felt like the homeless and stranded people are just bit players and extras in a Drama about Donald. He stated that in 10 years time people would look back and say this was the way to manage a weather event and congratulate him for his role

Awesomeness

https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/902613100175773696

The man can NOt even think about anyone other than himself during a situation like in texas

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

That'll probably mean the AG, who's Dept of Justice [according to a committee supporting Joe] got 40,000 emails asking for a pardon.

No, no, no. Under the quoted provisions of the Irish Constitution, the President of Ireland has to exercise the power of pardon on the advice of the Government. Under the relevant provisions of the US Constitution, the President of the United States is under no such constraint.

Hande hoche!

aloyisious wrote: »

Is it my imagination or has Don, [since the recent W/H departures] gotten more sensible in his tweet contents?

Indeed, would be impressed if he makes it a week without twitter induced gaffes.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no, no. Under the quoted provisions of the Irish Constitution, the President of Ireland has to exercise the power of pardon on the advice of the Government. Under the relevant provisions of the US Constitution, the President of the United States is under no such constraint.

Sorry, I must have been on auto-cue, walked into that one with my eyes open wide. I was thinking about the US situation, thinking of Jeff Sessions being the Govt advisor to Don.......

Leroy42

So the latest is that WP is saying that during the election campaign Trump signed a letter of intent with the Russian government to build a Trump tower in Moscow.

This is after of course Trump has claimed that he had no dealings with Russia. No phone calls, no loans, no business dealings.

So now we have this clear attempt to do business in Russia (it ultimately did not happen) and we have the whole Trump Jr episode of attempted collusion with a foreign power.

At best, this could be little more that Trump attempting to use his potential candidacy to help his business. But what it clearly shows is that all of Trumps, the WH etc, claims that he had nothing to do with Russia is a lie

Igotadose

No conflicts of interest. President can't have them. Nuh-uh... Oh wait

"Donald Trump Keeps Plugging His Own Merchandise During Hurricane Harvey":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-flotus-hat_us_59a59e1ce4b084581a1395a1

everlast75

Igotadose wrote: »

No conflicts of interest. President can't have them. Nuh-uh... Oh wait

"Donald Trump Keeps Plugging His Own Merchandise During Hurricane Harvey":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-flotus-hat_us_59a59e1ce4b084581a1395a1

To be fair to oul Donald, showing up in a city with high winds and that hair is not a good thing... hence the cap

Really Interested

everlast75 wrote: »

To be fair to oul Donald, showing up in a city with high winds and that hair is not a good thing... hence the cap

I would assume they would have a few of these on Airforce One.

https://www.whitehousegiftshop.com/Air-Force-One-Hat-p/af1h-blkredtrim.htm

rossie1977

Trumps been caught lying about crowd size again

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/900225712522657792

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DwVHB9jQhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPL11keVyx8

Turns out he fired the rally organiser https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-28/trump-is-said-to-punish-longtime-aide-after-angry-phoenix-speech

Hande hoche!

Still no sign of a FLOTUS cap being sold yet. Still makes a change from discussing her shoes.

Leroy42

Whilst the lying about the crowd size is funny, it is not unexpected. The other issue is that Trump surely has better things to do than hold rallies.

He has hundreds of positions still to fill in the government, healthcare needs a complete do-over, he needs to finalise the tax plan, budget 2018 is due shortly, he should be working on getting a UN resolution on dealing with NK, NAFTA trade talks don't seem to be going well, he has to organise a trade deal with the UK, and then he will need to renegotiate a trade deal with the EU to insure he doesn't lose out on the bigger market. He has to bring back coal jobs. Make inner cities safe. Fix Flint drinking water.

He needs to finalise plans for the wall, infrastructure plan is still a mystery. And that is all apart from the normal everyday duties of POTUS in terms of middle East, Israel, Nato etc etc.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whilst the lying about the crowd size is funny, it is not unexpected. The other issue is that Trump surely has better things to do than hold rallies.

He has hundreds of positions still to fill in the government, healthcare needs a complete do-over, he needs to finalise the tax plan, budget 2018 is due shortly, he should be working on getting a UN resolution on dealing with NK, NAFTA trade talks don't seem to be going well, he has to organise a trade deal with the UK, and then he will need to renegotiate a trade deal with the EU to insure he doesn't lose out on the bigger market. He has to bring back coal jobs. Make inner cities safe. Fix Flint drinking water.

He needs to finalise plans for the wall, infrastructure plan is still a mystery. And that is all apart from the normal everyday duties of POTUS in terms of middle East, Israel, Nato etc etc.

But he's incapable of doing any of those things, so he might as well pass his time at rallies, and leave the grown-ups to do what they can without interference.

one armed dwarf

It's strange to me that the attendance at the rally is so low. If I could I'd think I'd go to one just to see the crazy first hand.