Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III
Comments
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/08/trump-administration-opposes-breastfeeding-resolution-report?CMP=twt_gu
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html?action=click&module=Lonely%20Trending&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer&contentCollection=Trending
At a certain point Trump just becomes a generic Disney villain. I mean opposing basic health care initiatives because it would hurt business interests? And bullying smaller nations because it was not complying with the US line? That really seems like it is out of a kids movie.
For those who have not read the article there was a motion in the WHO that countries should promote breast feeding as women in poorer countries have been targeted by companies making formula. Evidence has long shown that breast feeding is far better for the children and thus where possible should be done. However these countries tend to be in the US or Europe. Thus the US opposed it because, while it might save hundreds and thousands of lives worldwide and thousands in the states, it would hurt profit margins.
Many countries did not agree with the US position and planned to oppose it. They were threatened with trade sanctions if they did not comply. Eventually the Russians stepped in and proposed their own version and got most of the wording through which finished the US opposition.
I am kind of expecting someone to correct me on here because even for Trump this seems too petty and morally horrible to be true. Obviously at least one of these players in the baby food market contributed heavily to Trump (Abbott). According to the NYT this is not the first point where the Trump administration (and some previous administrations to be fair) opposed simple health motions to benefit large companies.0 -
The perception of credibility is a moot point. The FT are reporting that Pyongyang want to sign a peace treaty with the US so think it's a bit naive at this point to call someone being played. If Trump concedes anything to Kim without something in return then he will get hammered by the Democrats again for being 'weak' and legitimising a despot.
Link as I found no such article. I certainly see nothing since relations went downhill again.
https://www.ft.com/north-korea0 -
I've mentioned this before but how often do we see this pattern:
Trump does something.
Claims it's the best ever.
His supporters extol his virtues, repeating that Don was such a genius for doing so.
Reality kicks in and it turns out that Don was full of shít.
His supporters look like fools.
Rinse, repeat.
It keeps happening. You would think that after a certain point that one could conclude that maybe, just maybe, that Trump has no idea about what he is doing outside of tickling people's racist bones.0 -
The perception of credibility is a moot point. The FT are reporting that Pyongyang want to sign a peace treaty with the US so think it's a bit naive at this point to call someone being played. If Trump concedes anything to Kim without something in return then he will get hammered by the Democrats again for being 'weak' and legitimising a despot.
But he already has conceded things to Kim while getting nothing in return?"People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
StringerBell wrote: »But he already has conceded things to Kim while getting nothing in return?
And remember, that this was sold as Trump finally getting things done that no other POTUS could, or wanted to, get done.
It was down to Trump being a maverick, this was a result of MAGA stance, that he had delivered.
He said himself that he didn't need to prepare, that he would work out Kim within a few minutes. Well, he left the meeting gushing about Kim. The wonderful relationship, praising the man, the leader.
And it seems that he was wrong on everything. Kiim played him exactly as everyone, I mean everyone, could have predicted. The failure to demand any pre-conditions was a major mis-step by Trump. Kim got everything he wanted without having to give anything in return.
So, Trumps approach appears at present, to not have made any difference. Hence we can conclude that there isn't much that WBush and Obama could have done either.
It appears that Trumps lack have preparedness meant he walked into the meeting with no agenda, go defined goals (he said himself that the return of the remains was the last thing they talked about, after the meeting was over, almost like an after thought!).
He has been shown to have no ability to "read the room". He doesn't have some sort of Jedi mind skills. People can read a room because they what what his going on, where people are likely to be in terms of their thinking etc. Trump, again by his own admission, had no idea of any if this. Hadn't studied previous meetings etc.
So it is not that the meeting was a disaster, but it falls well short of what Trump himself claimed it was. He is being hung by his own bravado. For example he claimed that the nuclear threat was now gone and people could sleep soundly. It is clear that either he was lying about what was agreed or he wa played and got nothing of any substance out of the meeting.
And it needs to be looked at in context. Trump has shunned normal diplomacy in many ways. But he sunk a huge amount of effort (by others) and credibility on this summit. He took a risk, against all the advice of the foreign experts, to give Kim exactly what he wanted.
Now it looks like he has little power, no plan, is easily manipulated by the promise of good press, that the US deals better with threats than to diplomacy.
So if you are a nation like Iran, do you go the route of diplomacy, spending years building up a relationship like the French, Canadian, Mexicans, UK, EU etc only to have that thrown back in your face. Or do you follow NK path and simply do whatever you like until such time as you can directly threaten the US, at which point you will be welcomed with open arms?0 -
Advertisement
-
The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.StringerBell wrote: »The perception of credibility is a moot point. The FT are reporting that Pyongyang want to sign a peace treaty with the US so think it's a bit naive at this point to call someone being played. If Trump concedes anything to Kim without something in return then he will get hammered by the Democrats again for being 'weak' and legitimising a despot.
But he already has conceded things to Kim while getting nothing in return?
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had
8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011
20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.
50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.
12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.
12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.
So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .
To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.
Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…0 -
We are measuring Trump and against his and his supporters standards.
The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.StringerBell wrote: »The perception of credibility is a moot point. The FT are reporting that Pyongyang want to sign a peace treaty with the US so think it's a bit naive at this point to call someone being played. If Trump concedes anything to Kim without something in return then he will get hammered by the Democrats again for being 'weak' and legitimising a despot.
But he already has conceded things to Kim while getting nothing in return?
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had
8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011
20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.
50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.
12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.
12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.
So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .
To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.
Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…
If they want to say this is the long game then fine. He does not get credit for it until serious ground has been made on it. If he wants credit now, and he really desperately does, then he needs results now.
He can't have it both ways.
There have been several months of negotiations thus far by the way. The Singapore thing was just a photo op and maybe getting a bit of direction. That is however a short time for a negotiation.0 -
100% Christy42.
Trump himself labelled it a great success, that the nuclear threat was gone. Anybody with any half decent knowledge of international diplomacy could have told him that was a nonsense, but he made that statement, that was the official line of POTUS after the meeting.
So, was Trump lying or simply mislead? Rigolo, you need to pick one. And neither is a good look for Trump.
If he was lying, than not only is that in itself an issue as it calls into question every statement he makes, but the fact that he was putting massive pressure on the US to concede to everything as he had already told everybody what he had (or as we now know hadn't) achieved meant that NK could put massive pressure on the US to give more.
If he was mislead, then it calls into question how easily manipulated he was, how poor a negotiator he was and how poorly he read their actual intentions or misunderstood the process. Again, none of that is good for POTUS to have shown up in such a public way.0 -
The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had
8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011
20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.
50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.
12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.
12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.
So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .
To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.
Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…
Good to see you back.
I asked for your opinion a while ago, and since we are on the topic of Trump and international affairs, can I ask you once more;
1) Do you think Russia interfered in the US Election
2) Do you think Trump aided them
3) Do you think Trump is compromised by Russia.
Thanks0 -
To say Trump Administration has accomplished anything based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both mindless pro- Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has accomplished anything , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.
Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…
Fixed that for you!0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,225 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37051
-
To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.
Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…
Sorry but it seems POTUS himself that told us that the threat of Nuclear war was gone after that half day meetingBefore taking office people were assuming that we were going to War with North Korea. President Obama said that North Korea was our biggest and most dangerous problem. No longer - sleep well tonight!
Its not anti Trump at all ..Its just listening to the man and then realizing his statement can be added to the other 3000 proven lies.0 -
blah blah whataboutery blah blah misrepresentation blah blah deflection
I won't bother trying to engage in honest discourse with you because of the mountain of evidence to suggest that is foolish, leaving aside that your post has minimal relevance to the what you quoted. I'll simply say that if your positions are genuine (which I would not say they are) then in the words of Marlo "you want it to be one way, but it's the other way."
No amount of being made a fool of again and again by Trump has any affect on his apologists, and that's fine. It actually serves a purpose of it's own."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
The first UN resolution against Iran relating to its Uranium enrichment program was passed in 2006.
Obamas Iran deal was signed in July 2015.
In between that time you had
8 more UN Security Council resolutions relating to Irans nuclear programme. 2006, 2007,2008, 2010, 2011
20+ Reports by the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency , with multiple reports issued 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 20122, 2013, 2015.
50+ US Congressional , National Intellegience , US Administration and think tank reports and statements regarding Irans nuclear enrichment , sanctions and money laundering, etc Spread across 2006 – 2015 , involving the Bush 2 term II and Obama I + II terms.
12 Official (that we know off) meetings with US , UN and Iranian negotiators spread across multiple meetings in Geneva, Istanbul, Baghdad, Almaty , over multiple months in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There were probably hundreds of un-official low level meetings.
12-15 Countries were directly involved from the P5+1 Permanent members of UN Security Council China,US,France,UK,Russia plus Germany, regional actors including Turkey and even Brazil which was considered as an option for fuel swap.
So as you can see in the real world of geo-political resolutions to complex , long term and serious threats the process is a long and winding road , with many setbacks along the way. You can plug Glasnost, peristroka and even the Irish Peace agreement into the same modus operandi of long term (decades), multiple meetings , press releases etc etc .
To say Trump Administration has failed based on the outcome of a half-day meeting in Singapore is frankly, demonstrating both an anti-Trump bias and also demonstrating a lack of understanding of how these things resolve themselves over time. Any assertion that Trump adminstration has failed , before the process has even begun can be dismissed, its far too early in the process. Such comments should just be ignored.
If by 2020 we havent seen some movement or progress then, and only then, can one really judge as to how successful US-NK negotiations under Trump administration has been.
Rome was not built in a day, nor was the US-NK agreement, nor the Irish peace deal, etc etc…
Nor were any of them built by a single man telling everyone he's the greatest ever at this.
Something to bear in mind.0 -
Nor were any of them built by a single man telling everyone he's the greatest ever at this.
Something to bear in mind.
In Montana, here's what the POTUS said about NK (so, this is less than a week ago, but before NK shot back about gangster US behavior):
"But we signed a wonderful paper saying they're going to denuclearize their whole thing. It's going to all happen."
---
So, if you believe his lies, NK is no longer a problem. Kind of an amazing thing to say for a normal person, but this is POTUS Donald J. Trump.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/06/politics/donald-trump-montana-speech/index.html
Read that if you want even more eye-openers, the racist dogwhistles abound. Let alone confusing DNA and rape kits, that was special too.0 -
Rigolo, how do you reconcile these, seemingly, different positions.
Right after the summit Trump announced that the nuclear issue was resolved, that people could sleep soundly.
Now we see that that isn't the case and you are claiming that this is a long term strategy and needs to be looked at in that context (which ignoring Trump for a second I agree with).
But which is it? Was Trump lying when he stated that or did he simply not understand what had been agreed.
There is a third option. What Trump stated was correct in that they had agreed and NK had gone back on that. But if that is true then Trump has been played as many claimed and what is Trump going to do about it. Recall that he was full of praise for Kim after the event, so surely we would have expected the type of remarks he is currently making about the EU and Canada?
I fail to see how you can reconcile these two positions and still retain any belief in Trump. At best, from his POV, he has merely proved that all his talk about other POTUS not doing things right has been shown to be false and that he is achieving nothing more than Obama did whilst giving plenty to NK.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 34601
According to the ACLU, the administration are going to miss the Tuesday deadline to reunite the separated migrant children, with less than half of those 100 under-5s likely to be reconnected with their families.
Apparently (though only saw sketchy reports, so could be incorrect), one of the foster care organisations that took in a number of the migrant children is a Christian non-profit, with financial links back to Betsy DeVos. Supposedly they're charging $700 per night, per child. Drain the swamp!0 -
Apparently (though only saw sketchy reports, so could be incorrect), one of the foster care organisations that took in a number of the migrant children is a Christian non-profit, with financial links back to Betsy DeVos. Supposedly they're charging $700 per night, per child. Drain the swamp![/quote]
Just on this I read this article on the Palmer report about DeVos connections to a property in Michigan (not sure why these poor kids were moved so far ) and it's quite a damning piece.
www.palmerreport.com/analysis/money-cages-trump-reason/11240/
I don't know why I find it so believable the Trump would use these poor kids to line his cronies pockets but after everything else he's pulled it really is damning of the position he is in.0 -
Same was going in on Rotherham and the rest, people with connections bought cheap properties in the North of England then had them set up as foster and group homes and coined it in. Kids were moved from the south and any kind of support network they may have ever had. It's a sadly common story.0
-
Palmer report, is that the guy who says F Trump 20 times in tweet replies every time the President tweets?
Stellar and neutral reporting I'd say. He's making money off useful idiots purely through hate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Report
The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record.0 -
Advertisement
-
Link as I found no such article. I certainly see nothing since relations went downhill again.
https://www.ft.com/north-korea
The Pompeo article yesterday that was sitting at the top for most of the day. You couldn't have missed it.0 -
Palmer report, is that the guy who says F Trump 20 times in tweet replies every time the President tweets?
Stellar and neutral reporting I'd say. He's making money off useful idiots purely through hate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Report
The Atlantic's McKay Coppins called the Palmer Report "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don’t care about the credibility of the record.
It's not a good source by any stretch. I'm not sure what kind of editorial standards they have, if any, but they get too many things wrong to be taken seriously.0 -
-
mcmoustache wrote:It's not a good source by any stretch. I'm not sure what kind of editorial standards they have, if any, but they get too many things wrong to be taken seriously.
Cheers to 2 Scoops and you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned don't believe everything you read on the internet (should know better at my age).0 -
Cheers to 2 Scoops and you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned don't believe everything you read on the internet (should know better at my age).
It happens to a lot of us. I got suckered by other dodgy sources before and I've been using the internet since 98. There's a lot of information online and some sources are better than others while others are outright disinformation.
It's a minefield but the more mainstream sources have an incentive to be correct - it's not uncommon for them to sack staff who mess up.0 -
Cheers to 2 Scoops and you for pointing that out to me. Lesson learned don't believe everything you read on the internet (should know better at my age).
Ah sure I love a good conspiracy. That Palmer guy is a rotten individual though imo, at least when Keith Oldermann was all out Russia conspiracies he was kind of entertaining but Palmer's spin is pure hate. It annoys me people get duped by him and that he's allowed to spread disinformation. I hope his platform get's labelled as a fake news site like Infowars did.0 -
Kavanaugh gets Supreme Court. Trump protects his ass. Kavanaugh believes a President shouldn't be subject to legal question.0
-
Seems like a sensible choice,although spare a thought for the resistance grifters and Trumpy trolls who were secretly gagging for a culture war over abortion. :eek:0
-
Water John wrote: »Kavanaugh gets Supreme Court. Trump protects his ass. Kavanaugh believes a President shouldn't be subject to legal question.
Yes, but of interest, he wrote that after his own experiences of investigating Bill Clinton, who was in office at the time. He is fine with the impeachment process for keeping Presidents in line, and the writing was not particularly far from the mainstream, despite he current focus on it in the current news cycle.
Definitely conservative, as if we expected otherwise, but his reasonings in his opinions at the circuit level have been using more moderate argument. Strong believer in precedent, which is riling up conservatives who want him to overrule Roe, and tends to be a believer of Wheaton’s Law. He’s assessed as the fifth-most conservative in his Circuit, out of 17.
Considering there would be little to oppose a appointment of someone like Pryor, he’s about as moderate as anyone would expect the Republicans to put forward. Influenced by Kennedy, and competent enough that current SCOTUS judge Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard school of law. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html or http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »Yes, but of interest, he wrote that after his own experiences of investigating Bill Clinton, who was in office at the time. He is fine with the impeachment process for keeping Presidents in line, and the writing was not particularly far from the mainstream, despite he current focus on it in the current news cycle.
Definitely conservative, as if we expected otherwise, but his reasonings in his opinions at the circuit level have been using more moderate argument. Strong believer in precedent, which is riling up conservatives who want him to overrule Roe, and tends to be a believer of Wheaton’s Law. He’s assessed as the fifth-most conservative in his Circuit, out of 17.
Considering there would be little to oppose a appointment of someone like Pryor, he’s about as moderate as anyone would expect the Republicans to put forward. Influenced by Kennedy, and competent enough that current SCOTUS judge Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard school of law. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html or http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html
Yep. But IMHO i don't care.
McConnell rule applies. There should be no vote in an election year.
But you see, what you will say now is that McConnell was wrong to do what he did, and the Dems will now just be as bad, aka a pox on both their houses.
So if the Dems object, they lose. If they don't, they lose.
It's nonsense.
And the idea that he will be impartial is complete and utter tosh. His first words were
"Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."
As soon as he is nominated he is starting with this "Dear Leader" nonsense.
Anyway, there should be no pick for two reasons
1) the Mitch rule
2) No pres who is the subject of an ongoing investigation should get a pick.
And one last thing. I hear Mitch isn't too happy as he wanted a more conservative judge nomination. I don't believe any Rep who publicly criticises the Pres unless they back it up by voting against him. I'm sick of the likes of Graham and McConnell issuing "scathing comments" and then doing nothing when it comes to the crunch. The idea that they have independent thought of Trump is all an illusion
If the Pres wanted an experienced guy, maybe he should have nominated the head judge of the circuit on which Kavanaugh sits? A relatively unknown guy called.... "Garland?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement