Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

aloyisious

Don "I can do nothing about the matter as the Dem's are blocking all moves" - Don sign's executive order overturning the policy of seizure of children and separation of them from their parents by federal agents in his employ, after his Attorney General said the policy of seizure is perfectly legal and given Godly sanction, keeping the law-abiding God-fearing base onside.

The best thing now for the media is to keep the point of responsibility on Jeff, as Don's pointsman, now, keep asking him how Don was able to scrap the child-seizure policy without assist from Capitol Hill, isn't the act of Don scrapping the legal action improper as it endanger's the US. Don't ask Don or his press agent about the policy or it's scrapping, keep after Jeff.

Umm. It seem's the change is only in reference to future action and not the 2000 + children already separated and within the scrapped policy system. The Federal agencies in "charge" of those children are left asking what do we do now with them? Don's order directs the Dept of Defense to provide accommodation for the housing of parents and children as family units together in respect of his latest Admin policy. Don is going back to the border wall and immigration law changes if he can get them past Congress, all revealed to a cheering crowd. The Nuremberg rallies sprang to mind.

jooksavage

aloyisious wrote: »

Don "I can do nothing about the matter as the Dem's are blocking all moves" - Don sign's executive order overturning the policy of seizure of children and separation of them from their parents by federal agents in his employ, after his Attorney General said the policy of seizure is perfectly legal and given Godly sanction, keeping the law-abiding God-fearing base onside.

The best thing now for the media is to keep the point of responsibility on Jeff, as Don's pointsman, now, keep asking him how Don was able to scrap the child-seizure policy without assist from Capitol Hill, isn't the act of Don scrapping the legal action improper as it endanger's the US. Don't ask Don or his press agent about the policy or it's scrapping, keep after Jeff.

In the bizarro-world of Trump, i wouldnt be entirely surprised of this blunder could be used by POTUS as pretext to push Sessions out (In spite of giving the policy his full-throated support). The Senate Rs had apparently told Trump previously that they wouldnt endorse a replacement for Sessions if he was fired. The last week might have changed things a bit - someone is going to have to carry the can for this and Sessions scalp mightn't be as safe in light of the public backlash.

everlast75

Two points.

One - Rod hasn't fully complied with Rep request for certain docs. Technically he can be impeached for this or DJT could simply fire him. Tomorrow is rumoured to be D day.

Secondly, Cohen's new attorney is a former SDNY attorney. That means Cohen is either lining up for a fight but more likely, given his criticism of the separation policy and strong rumours that he wanted DJT to pay his legal bills but DJT didn't, he may use his new attorney to strike a deal.

aloyisious

jooksavage wrote: »

In the bizarro-world of Trump, i wouldnt be entirely surprised of this blunder could be used by POTUS as pretext to push Sessions out (In spite of giving the policy his full-throated support). The Senate Rs had apparently told Trump previously that they wouldnt endorse a replacement for Sessions if he was fired. The last week might have changed things a bit - someone is going to have to carry the can for this and Sessions scalp mightn't be as safe in light of the public backlash.

Lol if Rod is the chosen one but not really seriously expecting it. The risk is Don getting rid of Jeff might "enable" him - in his "alternate" understanding of presidential hiring and firing prerogative - to think he can clear the DOJ upper deck of the persons he see's as having the Special Counsel's back. Again the flashback to the Nixon years re the Pres getting a new AG and lesser DOJ officers willing to do his bidding.

Christy42

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Trump has a majority in both Houses and can't get much done.

Imagine what 2019 will be like for him if there's any kind of Blue Wave!!! Phew!!!

Mind you, Trump support being on the Up,and now standing at 45% might Redden that wave a bit. Unless the 45 is a blip??

Where are you getting 45% from? YouGov have it at 40%/41%. 42% according to 538's aggregator.

45% is not up and standing. It is just good for Trump. 8 years ago was a relatively low point for Obama's popularity and he was about 46% with a better disapproval rating as well. If Trump keeps going up it might stop the blue wave but at current levels he is still in trouble there.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Interesting to note that Trump's policy was incomplete and does not deal with those already separated. Guess he wanted to have it off his desk to say he did something (about the damage he caused). He also went back to lock her up etc. at a campaign rally (calling a spade a spade). Back to the deflection tactics. He has been told he messed up big I reckon.

Is this the first time he has been forced to retreat because of the views of the US public? I mean the courts blocked some things but he tended to keep fighting and he has backed off of plenty of international opponents but not the people as far as I remember.

ELM327

Christy42 wrote: »

Where are you getting 45% from? YouGov have it at 40%/41%. 42% according to 538's aggregator.

45% is not up and standing. It is just good for Trump. 8 years ago was a relatively low point for Obama's popularity and he was about 46% with a better disapproval rating as well. If Trump keeps going up it might stop the blue wave but at current levels he is still in trouble there.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Interesting to note that Trump's policy was incomplete and does not deal with those already separated. Guess he wanted to have it off his desk to say he did something (about the damage he caused). He also went back to lock her up etc. at a campaign rally (calling a spade a spade). Back to the deflection tactics. He has been told he messed up big I reckon.

Is this the first time he has been forced to retreat because of the views of the US public? I mean the courts blocked some things but he tended to keep fighting and he has backed off of plenty of international opponents but not the people as far as I remember.

Obama needed more than 50% as a blue/dem candidate. Their support is in the large cities and north eastern and california seaboards. The republican votes count more due to the electoral college system.


Realistically in a close race the democratic party candidate needs north of 52-53% to be clear. A republican can win from 46-47

I think the reason he "retreated" was twofold.
Firstly Melania/Ivanka told him to. Secondly this was a planned publicity stunt to throw dirt at the previous administration but it went wrong.

Pelvis

Cohens letter of resignation from the RNC makes for interesting reading...

As the son of a Polish holocaust survivor, the images and sounds of this family separation policy is heart wrenching," Cohen wrote. "While I strongly support measures that will secure our porous borders, children should never be used as bargaining chips.

A little incongruous for a resignation letter. I'd say this was rather significant, no? Openly criticizing Trump?

Leroy42

This is a major climb down by Trump. It calls into question his judgment, which tbf up to now whilst many of his decisions have been derided they managed to meet the approval of the base. This was different. This was openly and across the board direded. When even Geraldo is calling you out, on Fox NEws Hannity show, then you know you have crossed a line big time.

So its not just the decision itself, it is a key defeat for Trump. Unlike in the area of Repeal and Replace where he could, with some justification, blame the GOP for not getting their act together (at least enough to shift the blame away from himself), this is all down to him. And it relates directly to a key area of strength to him, immigration.

No doubt those supporters that were out claiming that Trump was right to do this, I recall at one point someone said you needed to take the 'heart' out of the debate and look at the reality, will now try to say that Trump achieved something or got something or possible toe his line that he finally did what the Swamp wasn't prepared to do.

But from now on whenever Trump tries to push anything, people can simply relate back to this sorry episode and ask why we should consider him right this time when he got it so spectacularly wrong before.

The final thing is that the usual deflection techniques didn't work. Trump went to town on Twitter to lay the blame at the Dems. His spokespeople tried to lay the blame at congress. This tactic has worked brilliantly up till now. This is the first time that Trump has not been able to manage the news agenda.

Some may pass it off as a once off, and indeed there were pretty extraordinary circumstances, but it is telling what should have been Trump signature achievement, meeting with Kim, was swept off the agenda so quickly and he received only a few days good PR before being sent into this tailspin. Up until now, it almost seemed that nothing could penetrate Trump. No matter what he did or said he would get away with it and it was those that stood against him that paid a price. This episode will give Dems the belief that the aura is not immune to attack.

There is only so many 'Kim Meetings' type events that he can undertake and the negative stories will no doubt keep coming. The WH must be a pretty glum place today, they have well and truly been beaten on this one.

jooksavage

Danzy wrote: »

It denigrates what the Nazis did to pretend that though.

For some that is the goal, for others it is just a way to be dramatic, hyperbole.

Hardly hyperbole when Trump's longtime attorney compares the situation on the southern border to nazi persecution.

Christy42

Cohen could well flip on this which would be a disaster for Trump.

Even without that you can bet those tapes will come up in two years time as Democrats ask are you willing to risk him doing this again?

Even for others. It is easy to dismiss sexual/finance stuff that happens behind closed doors and can be denied or tax changes. It is much harder (though not impossible) to shut off the fact that you are voting for a man who tortured children purely to try and gain a political advantage. That is a lot more to sit on your conscience and it has to be there because however you try and justify it that is what is happening.

You are saying your justification is more important of emails or whatever it is in 2 years time is a bigger deal than this barbarity. That is a tougher sell.

joe40

If it wasn't for the audio & pictures and the widespread sharing on social media, Trump would have gotten away with this. It is morally easy for a population to accept atrocities all in the name of the "greater good" and "national security" when they are not forced to face up to the consequences.
For all the bad press that social media get (and a lot is justified) it is can also act as a collective conscience, and force people to face up to the realities of what is happening.
A news report saying 2000 children were removed from their parents would not have anywhere near the same impact as the audio of one child crying in distress for their parent.
Donald Trump has been an unmitigated disaster for America, even apart from the inhumane, hardline stance taken by his administration, the sheer bumbling stupidity is mind boggling.
Could you imagine any Irish commentator/politician saying "woop woop" when asked about a down syndrome child been forcibly removed from a parent. They might think it but they would know the Irish public would never accept such a crass response.

pixelburp

The problem is, while yes Social Media is shining a light onto Trump's many, many, MANNNNNY lies and falsehoods, that won't necessarily translate into footfall at the voting booth in November.

Assuming we infer that social media is the domain of younger demographics - let's say the 18 to 35-40 on average - the lower age brackets of that scale are notoriously bad at voting. So no matter how appalled and moved 'de yoof' in America is, there's little evidence any sort of political activism translates into where it counts - the ballot box. And from the POV of this hurler on the ditch, I don't see much in the way of grassroots organisations trying to motivate these people (barring perhaps, the kids currently rallying for gun control).

Here in Ireland we did see some bucking of that trend with the Marriage & 8th Amendment referenda, where a punchy & demonstrable single-issue vote did get younger people out en masse. On the flipside though, you have something like Brexit, where although the overwhelming majority of 18-25 voters chose to remain - it was also the demographic with a pitifully small turnout IIRC.

Feels like the problem is just exacerbated over in the US, where more complex & punishing voting laws, obscene levels of gerrymandering, and just the general malaise towards the laughably stacked decks of the 2-party system means it's entirely feasible young people won't bother voting - or worse, said gerrymandering ensures it has no effect.

one armed dwarf

Even with the 2017 election last year the actual youth turnout wasn't anywhere near as high as people originally thought or expected. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42747342

Which I really don't get cause the Brexit malaise felt like it was at a peak around that time. How could the younger generations still be so passive I don't understand.

Water John

It's more about a higher Dems turnout rather than people not voting for GOP.
If Dems can get the turnout, they win.

eagle eye

This thing about people flipping is fairytale stuff. Fact is that if you do flip then your life as you know it is over because nobody in Washington will want to know you.

Zubeneschamali

eagle eye wrote: »

This thing about people flipping is fairytale stuff. Fact is that if you do flip then your life as you know it is over because nobody in Washington will want to know you.

But if Manafort and Cohen do not flip, they may die in jail.

Decisions, decisions.

Christy42

eagle eye wrote: »

This thing about people flipping is fairytale stuff. Fact is that if you do flip then your life as you know it is over because nobody in Washington will want to know you.

It is not like the life of Manafort or Cohen looks like it will be that great. Not sure too many in Washington will be willing to make time during visiting hours either.

Cohen is certainly in the bad books now. Criticising Trump is a big no no in that regime. So a pardon might not be too likely there. Certainly no guarantee of a flip but it is in the air.

Cohen, while not the most moral, does have a personal connection to stuff like this. He is the son of a Holocaust survivor so this taking children from parents stuff might be a line he can't cross. I certainly would not be feeling safe in Trump's position.

Trent Houseboat

The thing about flipping is that you do it so that you (or your son) don't go to prison for as long or at all.

If the choice is between decades in a federal prison or not having someone to brunch with in DC, then it's a no brainer.
The greater concerns people would have are to do with loyalty and honour to those you're betraying.

Water John

What people in Washington feel about them, will be the least of their worries, I'd say. Better get a liking for porridge. This is further down Maslow's order, it's about survival.

Leroy42

eagle eye wrote: »

This thing about people flipping is fairytale stuff. Fact is that if you do flip then your life as you know it is over because nobody in Washington will want to know you.

We already have two examples of people flipping, Flynn and Papodopolous.

Strange that you would call reality fairytale stuff.

aloyisious

The images of the tented place of incarceration remind me of those instituted by former Sheriff Joe Arpiao who is running for a US Senate seat this year. Joe has the honour of being the first person given a pardon by Don.

Wikipedia: Arpaio stated in a September 2017 interview with American Free Press that he would consider running for office again, including the United States Congress, if President Trump asked him to.[18] Arpaio has announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2018.

derb12

aloyisious wrote: »

The images of the tented place of incarceration remind me of those instituted by former Sheriff Joe Arpiao who is running for a US Senate seat this year. Joe has the honour of being the first person given a pardon by Don.

Wikipedia: Arpaio stated in a September 2017 interview with American Free Press that he would consider running for office again, including the United States Congress, if President Trump asked him to.[18] Arpaio has announced his intention to seek the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2018.

Wikipedia is a mine of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018#On_The_Ballot
Arpaio is not leading the Rebublican race in any of the polls listed, but personally I would love to see lots of candidates like him (Roy Moore) win their primaries. He polls worst against the likely Democrat candidate.

Danzy

Water John wrote: »

It's more about a higher Dems turnout rather than people not voting for GOP.
If Dems can get the turnout, they win.

To have even odds of a Dem majority, they will have to have the biggest lead of any party in the post WW2 era.

The polls are narrowing for the last few months.

It seems too big an ask and as the economy continues to surge ahead, it will shore up the GOP vote.

As much of a circus Trump has turned that party in to, the Democrats are all over the place.

All he has to do is be less worse or even seem less incapable than the opposition.

Water John

So you accept that the electoral system in the US is, Gerrymandered?

everlast75

I wonder will a copy of this be hung in his office

https://twitter.com/arappeport/status/1009756392297820160?s=19

Water John

He can stick that Real one to his hotel walls.

Danzy

Water John wrote: »

So you accept that the electoral system in the US is, Gerrymandered?

It is too a degree, to what level I do not know but it certainly has problems.

It is also an issue on the concentration of voters for the Democrats and their failure to engage with vast sections of society in America.

That may change after Clinton lost, the cost of taking blue states for granted bit hard in the end.

Bill Clinton told the Democrats not to forget or ignore Bubba with his calloused hands, there is a snobbery element in it and there are more beneath them on the income ladder than they are and that matters at election time.

Zubeneschamali

Danzy wrote: »

Bill Clinton told the Democrats not to forget or ignore Bubba with his calloused hands, there is a snobbery element in it and there are more beneath them on the income ladder than they are and that matters at election time.

Poorer voters chose Clinton over Trump.

Leroy42

Danzy wrote: »

It is too a degree, to what level I do not know but it certainly has problems.

It is also an issue on the concentration of voters for the Democrats and their failure to engage with vast sections of society in America.

That may change after Clinton lost, the cost of taking blue states for granted bit hard in the end.

Bill Clinton told the Democrats not to forget or ignore Bubba with his calloused hands, there is a snobbery element in it and there are more beneath them on the income ladder than they are and that matters at election time.

Vast sections? HC won more votes. It was a combination of bad planning, bad vote management, lack of attention to specific areas and the fact that HC herself was a poor campaigner.

Gerrymandering has a massive impact, when you look at how some of the districts have been carved up it is staggering that such an advanced democracy has allowed it to happen.

But the Dems can't change that in the short-term (and probably won't want to if they are winning). What they can do is get the vote out. The need to get a registration drive, really push people to vote.

Issues such as gun control, abortion rights etc. That is where they can lead the new wave. They have a massive advantage with Obamacare. They brought it in, and despite doing everything to stop it, and constantly moaning it about it ever since, when push came to shove the GOP left it as is. Go you can sell that as the GOP not having anything better and thuis the Dems are the party with ideas. Whether they can or not is another question.

One thing we do know for sure from Trump is that he is only interested in his base, anyone not on his side is not part of his plans.

ELM327

Water John wrote: »

So you accept that the electoral system in the US is, Gerrymandered?

Gerrymandered means changed to suit political bias
It has not been changed
The american political system has always revolved around the electoral college system. This is to stop one state controlling the entire union.
You forget it's not one country, it's a union of states.



The system was designed this way, and it has worked. If hillary won, it would have been a victory for two large cities over the rest of the country. By area it was a landslide for trump.


Look at all the red areas vs all the blue areas
https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/