Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Professor Moriarty

Obvious Otter wrote: »

I think you're doing an excellent job of missing the point; if the voter registration data isn't being provided then how can we know what is actually happening?

You do realise you cannot provide evidence when no external party has access to the voter data? I'm not sure why you're finding that so difficult to comprehend.

Like I said; sheer hostility and now name calling too.

-Trump won't release his tax returns; he must have something to hide.

-California won't release their voter registration data; they don't have to as it's not required and they believe the federal government is over stepping the mark by asking to check the integrity of the US election process.

It's great being able to pick and choose how you want the story to fit your narrative.

Like I said; I'll leave you all to it.

Well, when you don't understand the significance and symbolism of a serving POTUS refusing to release twenty years' of tax returns, and you don't understand how isolated the Trump administration is in its allegations of voter fraud, it's probably best you leave it at that.

Calina

Why are you picking on California specifically?

Really Interested

Obvious Otter wrote: »

I think you're doing an excellent job of missing the point; if the voter registration data isn't being provided then how can we know what is actually happening?

You do realise you cannot provide evidence when no external party has access to the voter data? I'm not sure why you're finding that so difficult to comprehend.

Like I said; sheer hostility and now name calling too.

-Trump won't release his tax returns; he must have something to hide.

-California won't release their voter registration data; they don't have to as it's not required and they believe the federal government is over stepping the mark by asking to check the integrity of the US election process.

It's great being able to pick and choose how you want the story to fit your narrative.

Like I said; I'll leave you all to it.

I never claimed Trump was involved in fraud due to him not releasing tax returns.

Despite numerous independent studies showing little or no fraud the lie continues. The only person picking what they want is you.

Please do leave us all to it you will be missed.

demfad

Not to change topic but a very good link some folks may find useful to see how they deal with Trump stories and themes and even pre-empt them.
A comparison with the themes on Breitbart is sometimes revealing.

http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/

This dashboard displays data about Russian propaganda efforts on Twitter in near-real time. Our analysts use the dashboard and other sources to discover Russian propaganda themes.

As example: #tedcruzscandal is second highest trending hashtag among Russian trolls.
Ted Cruz was Robert And Rebekah Mercers candidate before he lost the primary and they brought their people: Bannon, Conway, Bossie onto manage Trump.
Russia defending Mercers' (other) guy.

Obvious Otter

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, when you don't understand the significance and symbolism of a serving POTUS refusing to release twenty years' of tax returns, and you don't understand how isolated the Trump administration is in its allegations of voter fraud, it's probably best you leave it at that.

I never said that Trump shouldn't release his tax returns. You've just made that up.

One rule for 'them' but another for 'us'. Like I said it's great being in a position where you can pick and choose how you want the story to fit your narrative:

- Trump doesn't release his tax returns; he has something to hide and becuase of symbolism he should release his tax returns

- California doesn't release their voter data: why should they? It's not required and voter fraud doesn't exist anyway. Do you know how wrong Trump is?

What's the point in debate when you are just going to apply different rules and logic for different people on the basis of who YOU support? It's pointless.

Professor Moriarty

Obvious Otter wrote: »

I never said that Trump shouldn't release his tax returns. You've just made that up.

One rule for 'them' but another for 'us'. Like I said it's great being in a position where you can pick and choose how you want the story to fit your narrative:

- Trump doesn't release his tax returns; he has something to hide and becuase of symbolism he should release his tax returns

- California doesn't release their voter data: why should they? It's not required and voter fraud doesn't exist anyway. Do you know how wrong Trump is?

What's the point in debate when you are just going to apply different rules and logic for different people on the basis of who YOU support? It's pointless.

What's the point in debate when you conflate two very different political decisions? Let's play it your way:

People in the USA disagree with Trump and people in France disagree with Macron. Nobody in North Korea disagrees with Kim Jong-un. Why don't Trump and Macron resign?

Billy86

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You have blatantly ignored the main point of the post which was that we cannot say voter fraud isn't happeneing when they aren't willing to hand of the voter registration data. Why won't Padilla hand over the registration data if there is nothing to hide?

No, I am asking you to back up your statement. I went and Googled it and all I could find was something quite different than you were asserting, with nothing about there being more votes than voters.

So can you provide us with a reputable link to back up your statement that "California has more votes than eligible voters in 11 counties"?

Obvious Otter

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's the point in debate when you conflate two very different political decisions? Let's play it your way:

People in the USA disagree with Trump and people in France disagree with Macron. Nobody in North Korea disagrees with Kim Jong-un. Why don't Trump and Macron resign?

Wow! I'm not sure where to begin here. You accuse me of conflating issues yet you come up with a scenario based on people's disagreements with their political leaders that bears no relevance to people picking and choosing what information they want released based on their political allegiances. That's a bit bizaree don't you think?

I'm not going to play this game with you.

Professor Moriarty

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Wow! I'm not sure where to begin here. You accuse me of conflating issues yet you come up with a scenario based on people's disagreements with their political leaders that bears no relevance to people picking and choosing what information they want released based on their political allegiances. That's a bit bizaree don't you think?

I'm not going to play this game with you.

It's about as bizarre as your argument. That's the point.

Obvious Otter

Billy86 wrote: »

No, I am asking you to back up your statement. I went and Googled it and all I could find was something quite different than you were asserting, with nothing about there being more votes than voters.

So can you provide us with a reputable link to back up your statement that "California has more votes than eligible voters in 11 counties"?

Why are you continuing to ignore the main point of this debate which was that we cannot say voter fraud doesn't exist becuase they won't release the data? I'll happily accept Judical Watch are wrong about the specific 11 counties mentioned; It doesn't take away the fact that California and other states are refusing to release their voter registration data which makes Judical Watch's claim impossible to prove at this point. You're making your point on the basis that California has nothing to hide in their voter registration data which cannot be proved until they release it.

Essentially we're operating on the basis that California says it's not an issue so it's not an issue. If there is nothing to hide and this could prove there is no wrong doing then why don't they release the data?

How could I possibly ascertain the eligibility of California voters without the registration data? I'll happily admit that the numbers show that there is no discrepancy between 'eligible' reported voters and the people that actually voted. However, if people are illegally becoming eligible then how can you trust the eligibility number and if the data isn't released then we will not be able to ascertain what the actual facts are here.

frag420

@ not so obvious otter...

Say you have a business, your clients rely on your integrity, data security and would not like others to know certain things about them.

Now there is the local crazy guy, lets call him Gus. Now Gus is going around telling everyone that you are a fraud, you are not paying taxes, you are doing some dodgy accounting behind the scenes, ripping of your clients etc etc etc. Now Gus has form for this but nobody takes him serious as he is bat sh!t crazy and is known for telling lies and untruths to suit himself and his crazy agenda!!

Now say the local newspaper comes a knocking on your door asking you to prove that you did not do anything that crazy Gus is accusing you of!?

Would you entertain the idea and show the locals your client files & data, share yours and their finances so the world can see you are innocent all based on the ramblings of crazy Gus??

Or would you tell the newspaper to do one and come back with more evidence than the ramblings of a crazy old guy?

Just something to think about....

Billy86

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why are you continuing to ignore the main point of this debate which was that we cannot say voter fraud doesn't exist becuase they won't release the data? I'll happily accept Judical Watch are wrong about the specific 11 counties mentioned; It doesn't take away the fact that California and other states are refusing to release their voter registration data which makes Judical Watch's claim impossible to prove at this point. You're making your point on the basis that California has nothing to hide in their voter registration data which cannot be proved until they release it.

Essentially we're operating on the basis that California says it's not an issue so it's not an issue. If there is nothing to hide and this could prove there is no wrong doing then why don't they release the data?

How could I possibly ascertain the eligibility of California voters without the registration data? I'll happily admit that the numbers show that there is no discrepancy between 'eligible' reported voters and the people that actually voted. However, if people are illegally becoming eligible then how can you trust the eligibility number and if the data isn't released then we will not be able to ascertain what the actual facts are here.

If JW cannot give a solid reason for wanting this registration info and are essentially dishonest in order to try and force someone's hand, they do not deserve to be taken seriously on the matter. As best I know, states are not required to release registration issue and so there is nothing wrong with California deciding not to. You (as in JW) cannot just make up or essentially lie about the reasons they claim to need something and turn around to say "yeah well we need it anyway" when called on it. As an aside, please don't attempt to pass of claims as fact without something verifiable to back them up, as with votes/voters.

If JW can give a good reason or reliable evidence that it's an issue then that is another kettle of fish, but just because I say John in the next office is cheating on his taxes without any credible reason why isn't enough to say he has to go to Revenue and provide all of his previous payment and tax info. The onus is on the party making the claim (JW) to back up their allegation with evidence of such, not on the accused to immediately release all info to attempt to clear their name in the face of what appear to be baseless assertions.

If there is a law that dictates California is required to release this voter information, then that could change things.

BoatMad

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why are you continuing to ignore the main point of this debate which was that we cannot say voter fraud doesn't exist becuase they won't release the data? I'll happily accept Judical Watch are wrong about the specific 11 counties mentioned; It doesn't take away the fact that California and other states are refusing to release their voter registration data which makes Judical Watch's claim impossible to prove at this point. You're making your point on the basis that California has nothing to hide in their voter registration data which cannot be proved until they release it.

Essentially we're operating on the basis that California says it's not an issue so it's not an issue. If there is nothing to hide and this could prove there is no wrong doing then why don't they release the data?

How could I possibly ascertain the eligibility of California voters without the registration data? I'll happily admit that the numbers show that there is no discrepancy between 'eligible' reported voters and the people that actually voted. However, if people are illegally becoming eligible then how can you trust the eligibility number and if the data isn't released then we will not be able to ascertain what the actual facts are here.

Many believe that elephants can fly , Elephants have steadfastly refused to support the assertion and have refused to release any data that would demonstrate their ability to fly, saying its not relevant, and say the claims are entirely unfounded

critics persist , saying elephants are hiding something and persist in claiming they can fly

Peregrinus

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Essentially we're operating on the basis that California says it's not an issue so it's not an issue.

No, we're operating on the basis that we have absolutely no reason to think that voter fraud is an issue, and plenty of reason to think that there are other issues, and we think dealing with the issues that are demonstrably real is a bigger priority than devoting time and attention to a non-issue that seems to have been raised mainly so that Donald Trump can shore up his fragile ego.

Obvious Otter

frag420 wrote: »

@ not so obvious otter...

Say you have a business, your clients rely on your integrity, data security and would not like others to know certain things about them.

Now there is the local crazy guy, lets call him Gus. Now Gus is going around telling everyone that you are a fraud, you are not paying taxes, you are doing some dodgy accounting behind the scenes, ripping of your clients etc etc etc. Now Gus has form for this but nobody takes him serious as he is bat sh!t crazy and is known for telling lies and untruths to suit himself and his crazy agenda!!

Now say the local newspaper comes a knocking on your door asking you to prove that you did not do anything that crazy Gus is accusing you of!?

Would you entertain the idea and show the locals your client files & data, share yours and their finances so the world can see you are innocent all based on the ramblings of crazy Gus??

Or would you tell the newspaper to do one and come back with more evidence than the ramblings of a crazy old guy?

Just something to think about....

What a bizarre comparison. You do realise we're talking about the federal government here? This isn't a newspaper looking for access to voting data; It's the federal government. It's not even remotely comparable. I guess my point isn't obvious enough for some!

There isn't much to think about there at all and 'Gus', apparently, is the mad man!

How can you obtain evidence when they won't release the voter registration data? Are you saying Federal Agents should be at poll booths to ascertain the eligibility of voters before they ask for the registration data? How can they check if they have no access?

Are we just going to ignore logic here?

BoatMad

Obvious Otter wrote: »

What a bizarre comparison. You do realise we're talking about the federal government here? This isn't a newspaper looking for access to voting data; It's the federal government. It's not even remotely comparable. I guess my point isn't obvious enough for some!

There isn't much to think about there at all and 'Gus', apparently, is the mad man!

How can you obtain evidence when they won't release the voter registration data? Are you saying Federal Agents should be at poll booths to ascertain the eligibility of voters before they ask for the registration data? How can they check if they have no access?

Are we just going to ignore logic here?

anyway two wrongs dont make a right , whether their is voter fraud in california and Trumps refusal to release his tax returns ( a practice that many other presidents have done ) are two entirely different situations and each has its own debate and merits

Quin_Dub

All,

The last few pages are the very definition of flip-flopping.

Both sides have firmly established their positions and continued rounds of Chicken vs. Egg will achieve nothing.

Move on please.

Thanks

Obvious Otter

BoatMad wrote: »

Many believe that elephants can fly , Elephants have steadfastly refused to support the assertion and have refused to release any data that would demonstrate their ability to fly, saying its not relevant, and say the claims are entirely unfounded

critics persist , saying elephants are hiding something and persist in claiming they can fly

Why do we need to make bizarre comparisons? Are we really devoid of reasonable debate? Apparently now voter fraud is as crazy as believing Elephants fly.

Peregrinus

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why do we need to make bizarre comparisons? Are we really devoid of reasonable debate? Apparently now voter fraud is as crazy as believing Elephants fly.

Not as crazy, but as unfounded.

BoatMad

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why do we need to make bizarre comparisons? Are we really devoid of reasonable debate? Apparently now voter fraud is as crazy as believing Elephants fly.

no its a parody on the nonsense that you invent claims based on no data and then demand proof.

its called trying to a prove a negative

Captain_Crash

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You do realise we're talking about the federal government here?

Then you should realise that the federal government should be aware of due process, and the states right to decline their request arising from questions concerning the legality of the request.

frag420

So without any real evidence what are people/you basing there/your assertions of voting fraud on, the ramblings of the village idiot who just happens to be in charge or have you anything concrete to base it on?

Obvious Otter wrote: »

What a bizarre comparison. You do realise we're talking about the federal government here? This isn't a newspaper looking for access to voting data; It's the federal government. It's not even remotely comparable. I guess my point isn't obvious enough for some!

There isn't much to think about there at all and 'Gus', apparently, is the mad man!

How can you obtain evidence when they won't release the voter registration data? Are you saying Federal Agents should be at poll booths to ascertain the eligibility of voters before they ask for the registration data? How can they check if they have no access?

Are we just going to ignore logic here?

Obvious Otter

BoatMad wrote: »

no its a parody on the nonsense that you invent claims based on no data and then demand proof.

its called trying to a prove a negative

You mean like nonsense like silly elephants can fly arguments becuase you cannot resort to any form of decent debate?

I'm being asked to provide proof when that is impossible.

frag420

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You mean like nonsense like silly elephants can fly arguments becuase you cannot resort to any form of decent debate?

I'm being asked to provide proof when that is impossible.

Then what are you basing your assertions of voter fraud on with no proof?

:rolleyes:

Obvious Otter

frag420 wrote: »

Then what are you basing your assertions of voter fraud on with no proof?

:rolleyes:

Maybe you should read back through my posts. It's the least you can do.

This has a locals with pitchforks feel about it.

Why won't California release voter data if there is nothing to hide? Can you do so without making a completely ridiculous comparison too? It's not hard.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

All,

The last few pages are the very definition of flip-flopping.

Both sides have firmly established their positions and continued rounds of Chicken vs. Egg will achieve nothing.

Move on please.

Thanks

All - See the above , move on.

Final Warning.

aloyisious

Deleted my last on seeing above post, took too long wording/editing questions for O/O that the above overtook my deleted post.

Igotadose

Very interesting read about Trump and why he was elected: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

Really Interested

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Maybe you should read back through my posts. It's the least you can do.

This has a locals with pitchforks feel about it.

Why won't California release voter data if there is nothing to hide? Can you do so without making a completely ridiculous comparison too? It's not hard.

States protect their citizens against the illegal power of the Federal government. If the Feds decide that the state is wrong they go to court. It's not about something to hide it is to guard against the abuse of power. If the state is wrong then the courts will decide. If the court complies without court intervention then they may face a large claim from its citizens.

The USA has a funny thing the GOP used to protect they now try and ignore it, the constitution except of course gun rights.

Water John

Flynn promoted private business interests whilst on WH staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/michael-flynn-promoted-us-russian-nuclear-project-from-white-house

I suppose he was only doing the same as the boss.

Igotadose

Water John wrote: »

Flynn promoted private business interests whilst on WH staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/michael-flynn-promoted-us-russian-nuclear-project-from-white-house

I suppose he was only doing the same as the boss.

Based on the article, it seems like Flynn's still doing the same. Of course once the Russian states has its hooks into you, it doesn't let go, and they apparently have Flynn hooked pretty good.

Wow.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Flynn promoted private business interests whilst on WH staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/michael-flynn-promoted-us-russian-nuclear-project-from-white-house

I suppose he was only doing the same as the boss.

Or maybe he was doing it for the boss? If there is any linkage to The Donald then The Donald is toast. Fingers crossed.

Billy86

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Or maybe he was doing it for the boss? If there is any linkage to The Donald then The Donald is toast. Fingers crossed.

Not really, his family and campaign already admitted openly to colluding with Russia and provided the proof in case there was any doubt remaining - now that could have a huge impact or be the thing to send them all down, but it will take a good long while.

Professor Moriarty

Billy86 wrote: »

Not really, his family and campaign already admitted openly to colluding with Russia and provided the proof in case there was any doubt remaining - now that could have a huge impact or be the thing to send them all down, but it will take a good long while.

Yeah, but proof of working towards a joint personal business venture with Russian company (which is under sanction), while serving as POTUS, would be impeachment territory. It could happen very quickly if Flynn were in such deep sh1t that he decided to cut a deal. One can but hope.

Billy86

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah, but proof of working towards a joint personal business venture with Russian company (which is under sanction), while serving as POTUS, would be impeachment territory. It could happen very quickly if Flynn were in such deep sh1t that he decided to cut a deal. One can but hope.

There's a laundry list of things Trump has done that would be impeachment worthy, but instead all we've got is his goons sending thinly veiled death threats to members of Congress if they were to vote for it, and a radio silence from the entire Republican party.

If the Dems win the 2018 mid terms impeachment proceedings will begin in a matter of weeks, if the Republicans win they will not even if he formally and publicly cedes the White House itself to Putin's family - it's pretty open and shut in that sense. The only window when Republicans might consider doing so are the nine or so months leading into those midterm elections, but that will not be based at all on what Trump is doing and will be entirely based on how much they feel it might help their re-election chances... and even in that scenario (and if the Republicans were then to win) I would almost expect those same proceedings to be dropped on Nov 9th, 2018.

On top of the fact they have no real ideology beyond doing their billionaire paymasters' bidding, too many members of the Republican party are involved with Russia for them to allow it to be looked into properly. Now that doesn't mean all of them, but it sure as well seems to be the way with the overwhelming majority.

In this sense, the arsehole falling out of the US economy over the next 14 months is likely one of the best things that could happen for that country.

Water John

The economies of the US and UK stalling would be the only message to send to the far right idiots, in both countries.

Really Interested

Water John wrote: »

The economies of the US and UK stalling would be the only message to send to the far right idiots, in both countries.

The signs are there,

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/30/slowdown-in-consumer-credit-growth-spells-trouble-for-uk-economy

http://uk.businessinsider.com/4-obvious-signs-the-us-economy-is-stalling-2017-7?r=US&IR=T/#credit-demand-is-contracting-1

If and its a big if the USA and UK start to contract and the rest of world grows then it will be a clear statement that right is wrong. The Next year will be interesting.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Flynn promoted private business interests whilst on WH staff.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/michael-flynn-promoted-us-russian-nuclear-project-from-white-house

I suppose he was only doing the same as the boss.

There's a strange mix of companies from countries reportedly behind the plan to assist two other countries [one with acknowledged atomic plants and supposed nuclear weaponry] from supposed cultural differences in their own plans of a home-grown atomic power-plant capability listed on that letter. I like the rider in the reported plan of disposal of waste material from said plants.

The notion that Russian and Ukrainian firms might work together on such a plan sounds strange to me given the rift between their national Govt's. On the face of it, it would probably take a great deal of explaining to Don for him to approve of it, even though he is a businessman at heart.

It remains to be seen what, if they haven't long since been aware of it, what the R and D party people and the US Military might think of a form of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

aloyisious

Bloomberg [tv news] reported that US congressional committees are investigating reports that members of the Trump election team sought help from Russian sources to affect the outcome of voting in several US states and that the Mueller investigation was in contact with social media sources [facebook and one other] to see if they had records of their use by the Trump team in a way contrary to US law.

eagle eye

So just to get this right...

You would be delighted to see Trump go and Pence become President?

The shortsightedness of people continues to amaze me. Pence would be 100x worse as POTUS than Trump.

Billy86

eagle eye wrote: »

So just to get this right...

You would be delighted to see Trump go and Pence become President?

The shortsightedness of people continues to amaze me. Pence would be 100x worse as POTUS than Trump.

What you're proposing is a system whereby every candidate picks the worst VP imaginable and then gets to break the law all they want, free of consequence, by holding the country to ransom under the threat of "you want this guy instead!?" If memory serves, this being Trump's strategy is one that was quite widely mused on when he picked Pence.

Sure in the next election the Republican may as well run with Sheriff Joe Arpaio while the Democrat runs with Goerge Soros or worse again... Kaitlyn Jenner. Then they get to do whatever the f*** they like and break any rules while in office, using their VP alternative as a gun to hold to America's head.

It's an "interesting" use of the word 'delighted' to put it mildly, but relieved to see justice served? Well yeah, obviously.

demfad

eagle eye wrote: »

So just to get this right...

You would be delighted to see Trump go and Pence become President?

The shortsightedness of people continues to amaze me. Pence would be 100x worse as POTUS than Trump.

Pence is corrupt and a liar and a right wing religious hypocrite.

But he is unlikley to start a nuclear war and hopefully he wont go all out to destroy EU and NATO. He may not be part of the far-right axis backed by US billionaires and Russia which is threatening world democracy.

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

Pence is corrupt and a liar and a right wing religious hypocrite.

But he is unlikley to start a nuclear war and hopefully he wont go all out to destroy EU and NATO. He may not be part of the far-right axis backed by US billionaires and Russia which is threatening world democracy.

Would be lovely to see the GOP's POTUS impeached to be replaced by Pence who is an incompetent right wing loon. Two stakes through their heart in succession.

Leroy42

Some rumours coming out of the Hill that Trump has done a deal with the Dems with regards to DACA protections, increased border security but no funding for the wall.

Was stated by the Dems but WH later came back and said no deal on the wall was agreed (meaning that the rest of it is done!)

Regardless of the specifics, the last week has shown a notable shift in the workings of the WH. Up till now, Trump has been very vocal in is calling for Dems to support, without ever actually giving them any reason to. It seems now that he is using the Dems to force the GOP into positions in may not want.

Couple of ways to look at this, wondering want you guys think;
1) This is all just a ruse on the Dems and he will simply use them to get what he wants then move on
2) This is a way to deflect from the continuing news coming out about Trump Jr basically admitting that Trump signed off on a false version of the Russia meeting and also agreeing that he went to the meeting specifically to obtain documents on HC from the Russian government.
3) Trump, although very aligned to GOP in terms of outlook, has simply no ideology and will deal with anyone to get what he wants.

But whichever it is it puts the GOP in a difficult position. They have backed Trump 100% to date, yet it appears that loyalty only goes one way. Will they continue to take the risk of potential issues in the future due to Trump being blamed on them when it appears that they may get very little from the deal?
Do they move away from Trump in more than just some soundbites, but in effect make him an independent. Could that have repercussions for future POTUS campaigns.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he is certainly making waves.

rossie1977

Water John wrote: »

The economies of the US and UK stalling would be the only message to send to the far right idiots, in both countries.

They will just blame obamas policies, the Mexicans, blacks, illegal immigrants or the lazy liberals or Chinese currency manipulation.

Obvious Otter

The best thing Trump can do for America is to implode the GOP party and oust Ryan and McConnell. These guys are the definition of the 'swamp' that Trump promised to drain. It will be interesting to see if he wins and I think he will as Ryan and co are probably the most unpopular politicans in the US and they don't have the support or base that Trump has.

The GOP know they have no chance without Trump and that's why all their funding has Trump's name all over it. If the power struggle continues it's likely to damage both sides in the long run. Trump's base are as anti-GOP as it gets which is the funny thing about all this. They hate the RNC as much as they dislike the DNC.

Interesting times ahead! The GOP are getting their just deserts for years of poor representation.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Some rumours coming out of the Hill that Trump has done a deal with the Dems with regards to DACA protections, increased border security but no funding for the wall.

Was stated by the Dems but WH later came back and said no deal on the wall was agreed (meaning that the rest of it is done!)

Regardless of the specifics, the last week has shown a notable shift in the workings of the WH. Up till now, Trump has been very vocal in is calling for Dems to support, without ever actually giving them any reason to. It seems now that he is using the Dems to force the GOP into positions in may not want.

Couple of ways to look at this, wondering want you guys think;
1) This is all just a ruse on the Dems and he will simply use them to get what he wants then move on
2) This is a way to deflect from the continuing news coming out about Trump Jr basically admitting that Trump signed off on a false version of the Russia meeting and also agreeing that he went to the meeting specifically to obtain documents on HC from the Russian government.
3) Trump, although very aligned to GOP in terms of outlook, has simply no ideology and will deal with anyone to get what he wants.

But whichever it is it puts the GOP in a difficult position. They have backed Trump 100% to date, yet it appears that loyalty only goes one way. Will they continue to take the risk of potential issues in the future due to Trump being blamed on them when it appears that they may get very little from the deal?
Do they move away from Trump in more than just some soundbites, but in effect make him an independent. Could that have repercussions for future POTUS campaigns.

Whatever else can be said about Trump, he is certainly making waves.

quite likely.

He did a deal with them regarding the debt ceiling, so its not unprecedented.

Also, when the conversations with various leaders were leaked, he admitted to Mexico that they would never be forced to pay for the wall, and asked that they downplay their objection to it. Doing a deal with the democrats will get "increased security", not mention any physical wall and then he can blame the lack of a better deal on the republicans

Water John

DT is not at heart a Republican or very conservative. He's biggest headache now, is to get something/anything done. So whatever is achieved and how it is done actually won't bother him.
The GOP has failed to deliver, as he sees it.

Leroy42

Seems the latest rumoured deal (I say rumoured in terms of the total specifics, both WH and Dems agree that a deal has been agreed) is putting Trumps base into a bit of a tailspin.

Ann Coulter, a well known Trump supporter, (she wrote a book "In Trump we Trust") although she has been wavering in the last few months (who hasn't?) tweeted today

"At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached?"

Breibart has headlines such as

Report: Trump Caves on DACA, Wants ‘Quick’ Amnesty for 800K Illegal Aliens

Steve King: If Reports Correct ‘Trump Base Is Blown Up, Destroyed, Irreparable’

Hannity on Trump’s Reported Amnesty Cave: Must ‘Keep His Promise or It’s Over!’

There are loads more, particularly the GOP members are sending out Tweets all around denounching Trump and the deal.

Rjd2

Water John wrote: »

DT is not at heart a Republican or very conservative. He's biggest headache now, is to get something/anything done. So whatever is achieved and how it is done actually won't bother him.
The GOP has failed to deliver, as he sees it.

Yeah had a look at Coulters and Laura Ingrams twitter timelines aka two of his most prominent supporters and they are fuming. Trump has no genuine beliefs whatsoever, he'd have been content to run as a Democrat if he could.

Trump has realised the media lean towards the democrats more, Trump loves positive/less toxic coverage so working with them is absolutely fine for him.

I don't think he cares what he leaves of the republican party whatsoever, if you offered him two full terms and the party dead in the water when he completes his second term, he'd be delighted with such a scenario. He also likes Chuck much more than Ryan and Mc Connell.

The treatment of Jeff Flake is a perfect example, hates him, but Flake has voted with him over 90% of the time ffs.:pac: