Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

everlast75

I just want one of those commemorative coins from the 1st time (for real)

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

Just to re-post what was mentioned in passing, the administration has lost track of another 1,500 migrant children. Now, the spokesperson from the Department defended this situation, claiming they had no legal responsibility after the children were 'settled', and that ... "these children are not 'lost'. Their sponsors - who are usually parents or family members and in all cases have been vetted for criminality and ability to provide for them - simply did not respond or could not be reached when this voluntary call was made."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html

So basically the Govt took up the role of being "in loco parentis" when it took the kids away from the parents, "fostered" out the kids and says it is "not our problem" to carry out welfare spot checks on them.

When was the encounter between Daniels and Trump meant to be? I'm reading that she says Hillary called him when Daniels was there and he told Daniels that he didn't really want to be president. I thought it was back in 2011?

Pelvis

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When was the encounter between Daniels and Trump meant to be? I'm reading that she says Hillary called him when Daniels was there and he told Daniels that he didn't really want to be president. I thought it was back in 2011?

Probably around that time. Trump has been asked about running for president for decades.

aloyisious

everlast75 wrote: »

I just want one of those commemorative coins from the 1st time (for real)

Wasn't Don - W/House souvenir shop doing a sale on them earlier this year?

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

Wasn't Don - W/House souvenir shop doing a sale on them earlier this year?

Yep. Sold out very quickly. Even checked ebay

amandstu

Pelvis wrote: »

Probably around that time. Trump has been asked about running for president for decades.

Who were the jerks that were encouraging him to run for President -or suggesting he might be suitable material?

Manic Moran

It’s been a long-running theme, going back to the days of Seinfeld and the early Simpsons. Doing a quick search, apparently it’s been a thought since an interviewer on CNN in 1987 asked him if he was considering a run, and he teased the idea of his candidacy during an appearance on Oprah in 1988, in which he claimed that if he ran, he would win. (Interestingly, now I listen to the interview, his talking points about foreign trade have remained consistent)

everlast75

Manic Moran wrote: »

It’s been a long-running theme, going back to the days of Seinfeld and the early Simpsons. Doing a quick search, apparently it’s been a thought since an interviewer on CNN in 1987 asked him if he was considering a run, and he teased the idea of his candidacy during an appearance on Oprah in 1988, in which he claimed that if he ran, he would win. (Interestingly, now I listen to the interview, his talking points about foreign trade have remained consistent)

Which would lend credence to Woodward's book. When challenged on tariffs, trump refused to accept professional advice. When asked where he got these ideas, he said he'd had them for 30 years...

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

It’s been a long-running theme, going back to the days of Seinfeld and the early Simpsons. Doing a quick search, apparently it’s been a thought since an interviewer on CNN in 1987 asked him if he was considering a run, and he teased the idea of his candidacy during an appearance on Oprah in 1988, in which he claimed that if he ran, he would win. (Interestingly, now I listen to the interview, his talking points about foreign trade have remained consistent)

That would mean he had the ideas while he was a democrat party member. Maybe it's worth thinking about Don in the W/House as a Democratic Party President and not a GOP President carrying on as he is now and what the GOP stance would be on that.

RIGOLO

amandstu wrote: »

Who were the jerks that were encouraging him to run for President -or suggesting he might be suitable material?

Well alot of commentators on both sides of the aisle credit the jokes Obama made about Trump to his face during a White House correspondants dinner in 2011 as being the spark that finally made up Trumps mind to run for office.

badtoro

aloyisious wrote: »

That would mean he had the ideas while he was a democrat party member. Maybe it's worth thinking about Don in the W/House as a Democratic Party President and not a GOP President carrying on as he is now and what the GOP stance would be on that.

I'm just waiting for the Trump version

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

Water John

This is very funny, in a scary way. Trump tells Spain to build a wall across the Sahara to stop migrants. He tells them the Sahara couldn't be bigger than his border with Mexico.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/19/donald-trump-urged-spain-to-build-the-wall-across-the-sahara

Gbear

Water John wrote: »

This is very funny, in a scary way. Trump tells Spain to build a wall across the Sahara to stop migrants. He tells them the Sahara couldn't be bigger than his border with Mexico.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/19/donald-trump-urged-spain-to-build-the-wall-across-the-sahara

It's within an order of magnitude. That's pretty good by Trump standards.

qwerty ui op

RIGOLO wrote: »

Well alot of commentators on both sides of the aisle credit the jokes Obama made about Trump to his face during a White House correspondants dinner in 2011 as being the spark that finally made up Trumps mind to run for office.

I find it hard to go along with how this dinner is often viewed.

If you think the birther thing came from a deeply held belief by Trump, that Obama may not be a US citizen and he felt he should use his voice to do right by the american people, then it's only fair to view dinner as a public humiliation of Trump.

but

If you view it as a dog whistle that trump and those around him made a political decision to run with, how he was actually humiliated?. Trump sitting there seeming all pissed off was just the final and most important part of the act.
Trump knew more so than anyone, that Obama would crack a few jokes about him yet he went to the dinner anyway. His reaction to the jokes he knew were coming was incredibly important and i'd imagine well rehearsed with those around him. Supposing he laughed if off naturally which I've no doubt he could've the whole birther plan would have been for nothing. People would see the truth that everyone in that room have a lot more in common with each other than regular folk.
He's a a showman and the role he played here is something that much smarter and more knowledgeable men or women can't do.
His job was to come across not like a complete psycho but let them know that he's just like them he too hates Obama.

Why on earth would Donald Trump actually hate Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Professor Moriarty

qwerty ui op wrote: »

I find it hard to go along with how this dinner is often viewed.

If you think the birther thing came from a deeply held belief by Trump, that Obama may not be a US citizen and he felt he should use his voice to do right by the american people, then it's only fair to view dinner as a public humiliation of Trump.

but

If you view it as a dog whistle that trump and those around him made a political decision to run with, how he was actually humiliated?. Trump sitting there seeming all pissed off was just the final and most important part of the act.
Trump knew more so than anyone, that Obama would crack a few jokes about him yet he went to the dinner anyway. His reaction to the jokes he knew were coming was incredibly important and i'd imagine well rehearsed with those around him. Supposing he laughed if off naturally which I've no doubt he could've the whole birther plan would have been for nothing. People would see the truth that everyone in that room have a lot more in common with each other than regular folk.
He's a a showman and the role he played here is something that much smarter and more knowledgeable men or women can't do.
His job was to come across not like a complete psycho but let them know that he's just like them he too hates Obama.

Why on earth would Donald Trump actually hate Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Hate is probably too strong a word. He doesn't have much respect for them as one is black and the other is a woman. Also, one's principles are an anathema to him while the other was threatening his Ego. Apart from that, he's fine with them.

everlast75

amandstu wrote: »

Who were the jerks that were encouraging him to run for President -or suggesting he might be suitable material?

Well, if rumours are to be believed, that would be Putin!

everlast75

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Why on earth would Donald Trump actually hate Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hate is probably too strong a word.

You will find plenty of people in the US who hate both. And I mean hate, with a passion

Zubeneschamali

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Why on earth would Donald Trump actually hate Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Obama is a) black b) popular with the cool kids

Clinton is a) female b) respected by people in NY who think Trump is a vulgar jackass

Trump is a racist and a misogynist, so that's two reasons, but he is also a narcissist and desperate for respect and adulation, so seeing Obama and Clinton get those from people who despise him drives him nuts.

everlast75

I want to ask a genuine question here and get as objective a reply as follows.

What legitimate reason do the Reps have for not acceding to Ms. Ford's request for a proper investigation?

As I said before, I currently don't believe her, nor do I him but any normal person would reserve their decision until it was not a he said - she said situation and/or more info comes to light, but it must be said her claim is not without merit.

1) She mentioned it years ago - to her husband and therapist
2) She has requested an FBI investigation
3) She has absolutely nothing to gain by making the accusation
4) Kavanaugh is against the FBI investigation

Now I get that the Reps see it as politicising her situation, but in reality, the Reps have zero standing as they have no regard at all for her claim, so that being so...

What genuine reason do they have?

Leroy42

everlast75 wrote: »

What genuine reason do they have?

They want to get their man onto SCOTUS. And before any possible blue wave (whether they buy it or not there is always the possibility that it could happen).

There really is no advantage to them holding off pushing this through. It is clear that Trump supporters and GOP supporters are not interested in the details or what actually goes on, they simply want to get want they aim for.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

They want to get their man onto SCOTUS. And before any possible blue wave (whether they buy it or not there is always the possibility that it could happen).

There really is no advantage to them holding off pushing this through. It is clear that Trump supporters and GOP supporters are not interested in the details or what actually goes on, they simply want to get want they aim for.

That's what I figure too. But I have heard all sorts of nonsense in interviews accusing the Dems of delay tactics, of Ford making this up etc etc and I am struggling to see any real reason other than what you, I and probably most of the right thinking people see it to be - i.e. get him on the SCOTUS as quickly as possible and ride roughshod over Ford if need be.

Perhaps a Trump supporter may lend some balance. Rigolo, care to field this one?

Leroy42

The delaying tactics is the worst of all of the nonsense currently being spouted.

McConnell and the GOP were more than happy to delay Obama's pick for a year and leave the seat vacant when it suited them, on nothing more than they didn't want to. So trying to claim that the DNC are delaying is a bit much.

This is the highest leagl position in the land, a seat for life. Every American should want the people in those positions to be beyond reproach.

spacecoyote

I just find it hilarious that some of the Reps cam keep a straight face when they use the argument that someone shouldn't be punished for something they did 35 years ago when they continue to put laws in place that block people who have ever had a conviction from having the right to vote, years after they have served their time.

So you get a pass if you have a potentially dodgy past...if you're up for a job for life in the highest court in the country, but no pass if you want the right to vote in a state election

Zubeneschamali

everlast75 wrote: »

What legitimate reason do the Reps have for not acceding to Ms. Ford's request for a proper investigation?

They think an investigation would show that the allegations are credible.

everlast75

spacecoyote wrote: »

I just find it hilarious that some of the Reps cam keep a straight face when they use the argument that someone shouldn't be punished for something they did 35 years ago when they continue to put laws in place that block people who have ever had a conviction from having the right to vote, years after they have served their time.

So you get a pass if you have a potentially dodgy past...if you're up for a job for life in the highest court in the country, but no pass if you want the right to vote in a state election

What is also hypocritical is Trump saying that these accusations against Kavanaugh are awful for him, yet he wheeled out 12 women who accused Bill Clinton ahead of a debate with HRC....

pixelburp

I have wondered if the Republicans knew about this issue from the get-go: Christine Ford's admission came out in couples therapy in 2012, so it's on record for the last 6 years. I'm not 100% on the timelines, but the GOP were fast to release a letter signed by those 65 convenient women attesting to his character - which in of itself was suspicious given Kavaunagh apparently went to an all-boys school (seriously, how many girls did most of us know in our teens?).

Beyond that, the narrative was quite aggressive in speaking to the judge's mundane, gentlemanly demeanour. Now, that's not dodgy in of itself - the GOP love pretending to be simple, god-fearing men of the people - but it was a curiously focused tactic that in retrospect feels like preparing the ground for this news about Ford. Any competent political party will have its candidates, politicians and judges vetted for every unseemly incident, and if Kavaunagh didn't admit to it during the vetting, I'm confident an investigator would have come cross it somehow.

Even now the talking points about how much a gentleman Kavaunagh is, a good man who couldn't have done such a terrible thing, while trotting out the usual attacks against Ford (even the occasional downplay of whether it was even rape or just 'rough horseplay'). I suspect to a lot of women who have been assaulted by those in power, the narrative has sounded uncomfortably familiar.

jooksavage

everlast75 wrote: »

I want to ask a genuine question here and get as objective a reply as follows.

What legitimate reason do the Reps have for not acceding to Ms. Ford's request for a proper investigation?

As I said before, I currently don't believe her, nor do I him but any normal person would reserve their decision until it was not a he said - she said situation and/or more info comes to light, but it must be said her claim is not without merit.

1) She mentioned it years ago - to her husband and therapist
2) She has requested an FBI investigation
3) She has absolutely nothing to gain by making the accusation
4) Kavanaugh is against the FBI investigation

Now I get that the Reps see it as politicising her situation, but in reality, the Reps have zero standing as they have no regard at all for her claim, so that being so...

What genuine reason do they have?

There's no genuine reason. Grassley and Hatch acted abominably with Anita Hill 27 years ago and it looks like the intervening quarter century hasn't modified their attitudes towards women. In fact, back then they insisted that the FBI investigate the claims - something that they are not allowing for Ford. I don't know if she'll appear on Monday. I hope she does. It will be awful for her but the spectacle of ignorant octogenarians assail Ford as they did Hill in 1991 will expose the blackness at the heart of the Republican party. It was damaging in '91, I can just imagine how devastating it would be in 2018 .

Water John

TMK these women never thought this doc would be published. Only 2 have publicly verified and now GOP are chasing the others to go public.
The original letter was sponsored by a PAC that has not and does not need to publish its source donors. They have spent €4.5M on getting Kavanaugh through.

Penn

pixelburp wrote: »

I have wondered if the Republicans knew about this issue from the get-go: Christine Ford's admission came out in couples therapy in 2012, so it's on record for the last 6 years. I'm not 100% on the timelines, but the GOP were fast to release a letter signed by those 65 convenient women attesting to his character - which in of itself was suspicious given Kavaunagh apparently went to an all-boys school (seriously, how many girls did most of us know in our teens?).

Beyond that, the narrative was quite aggressive in speaking to the judge's mundane, gentlemanly demeanour. Now, that's not dodgy in of itself - the GOP love pretending to be simple, god-fearing men of the people - but it was a curiously focused tactic that in retrospect feels like preparing the ground for this news about Ford. Any competent political party will have its candidates, politicians and judges vetted for every unseemly incident, and if Kavaunagh didn't admit to it during the vetting, I'm confident an investigator would have come cross it somehow.

Even now the talking points about how much a gentleman Kavaunagh is, a good man who couldn't have done such a terrible thing, while trotting out the usual attacks against Ford (even the occasional downplay of whether it was even rape or just 'rough horseplay'). I suspect to a lot of women who have been assaulted by those in power, the narrative has sounded uncomfortably familiar.

I don't think Ford named Kavanaugh in her therapy sessions, so it might not have been a known thing for the past 6 years, but they definitely had advance knowledge of it for a number of months. From reading on Wikipedia, it seems after he was nominated for Supreme Court, she went to her local Representative, who brought it to Feinstein, who notified the FBI (who did a polygraph test on her which confirmed she was telling the truth). It then went to the White House (though with Ford's identity redacted as she didn't want to go public with it) who notified the Senate Judiciary Committee. So I imagine once it hit the White House at the latest, the GOP knew.

Feinstein only held off making it public for so long because of the negative impact Ford worried it could have on her life (which has mostly been proven right considering she's had to move and hire private security due to death threats), but allowed Feinstein to make it public when it looked likely that Kavanaugh could be confirmed.