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

Franz Von Peppercorn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And before that people complained that Obama wasn't at war.
So Dems go to war>Warmongers, Babykillers, Murderers, Killary, etc...
Dems don't go to war>Weak, inneffective, supporting terrorism, wet blankets, etc...
But Rs go to war (prime example BUSH!!!!)>Gallant, unafraid leaders that risk everything in their valiant struggle to free the world from evil
Rs don't go to war> Diplomatic geniuses, the next Jesus, representatives of peace on Earth and fluffy pink unicorns.

You have got to stop assuming that people who are anti the American Democratic Party over here in Ireland are pro Republican. When American democrats go to war they are warmongers and baby killers. So are the republicans. It’s the American way.

You are projecting your own colonised mind on the rest of us.

That just as a side note. It's almost as if Republicans try to paint any action of the Democrats in a bad light and any action by the GOP as a stroke of genius. But what do I know...

What you should know that you are not actually in America.

On the subject of Syria. If we look at Libya in comparison you can see what happens when you meddle and when you don't.

Both were meddled with.

Both countries are utter basket cases and are basically back in the stoneage. And to me it shows that you can't win if a country is tearing itself apart. The only way to win, would be to go in with thousands of troups, shoot everything that moves, lock down the country and put it under iron fist military rule.

Syria is recovering actually. The passive voice (tearing itself apart) there is interesting. The rebels in Syria were supported by the US, as in Libya.

Then establish a local government and support same for years with massive military power that can supress the different groups that are unhappy and want to claim power for themselves.

Or leave Libya and Syria alone. Christ sake, Libya was definitely stable.

The result will be a country that might appear calm (or not), but will be ravaged by terrorism and insurgencies for decades to come.
Or you leave well enough alone, and have a smouldering heap of rubble as a country for many years that is under a constant state of civil war, because there are too many factions and none has a decisive advantage.

Assad is winning now and the place is stabilising. Libya was stable. All the instability is brought in.

My theory is, sometimes a country explodes and it will be an utter heap of sh*te for many years, no matter what you do.
And what has Trump done so far? He dropped the MOAB, got bored and never bothered with "sh*thole" countries again.

My theory is that the US needs to stop invading countries.

Harry Palmr

Picturegate is back

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited

The communications official said she “assumed” the photographs Trump was requesting “needed to be cropped”, but that Reynolds did not ask for this specifically. She then contacted the NPS photographer who had covered the event the day before.

A second official, from the NPS public affairs department, told investigators that Spicer called her office on the morning of 21 January and asked for pictures that “accurately represented the inauguration crowd size”.

In this official’s view, Spicer’s request amounted to “a request for NPS to provide photographs in which it appeared the inauguration crowd filled the majority of the space in the photograph”. She told investigators that she, too, contacted the NPS photographer to ask for additional shots.

The NPS photographer, whose name was also redacted, told investigators he was contacted by an unidentified official who asked for “any photographs that showed the inauguration crowd sizes”. Having filed 25 photographs on inauguration day, he was asked to go back to his office and “edit a few more” for a second submission.

“He said he edited the inauguration photographs to make them look more symmetrical by cropping out the sky and cropping out the bottom where the crowd ended,” the investigators reported, adding: “He said he did so to show that there had been more of a crowd.”

TRS30

mcmoustache wrote: »

circadian wrote: »

Stop the bus. Linda McMahon of WWE fame?

Yes. And by most accounts, a very competent member of the administration who takes her job seriously.

Fun how her father is re-launching his own American Football league and Trump is constantly attaching the NFL..........

Stallingrad

TRS30 wrote: »

Fun how her father is re-launching his own American Football league and Trump is constantly attaching the NFL..........

He has long history with the NFL, he has never forgiven them for past humiliations.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2739587-why-does-president-donald-trump-hate-the-nfl

Manic Moran

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Syria is recovering actually. The passive voice (tearing itself apart) there is interesting. The rebels in Syria were supported by the US, as in Libya.

And Assad was supported by the Russians. The thing about the Russians, they don’t care about PR and being the good guy. They care about results. https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-just-created-new-rules-of-the-game-in-syria-2015-9
They are willing to kill innocents, they are willing to crack heads, as long as they win. They may be methods unconscionable to us in the West, but they work. Syria pulling itself together in the manner in which it is a result of external interference, but not American.

Or leave Libya and Syria alone. Christ sake, Libya was definitely stable.

Stable enough to be a part of the Arab Sping, which did not start because of US involvement.

With respect to the Hilary being better argument, that’s not entirely true. She would have been more competent, more professional. However, the direction she wanted to take the country obviously was not the direction the country wanted to be taken, or she would have won. This is so no matter what idiocy Trump spouts next.

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect to the Hilary being better argument, that’s not entirely true. She would have been more competent, more professional. However, the direction she wanted to take the country obviously was not the direction the country wanted to be taken...

It was obviously the direction a majority of those who voted wanted to be taken. There are arguments for the electoral college, but "it accurately reflects the will of the people" isn't one of them.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

AHowever, the direction she wanted to take the country obviously was not the direction the country wanted to be taken, or she would have won. This is so no matter what idiocy Trump spouts next.

But what direction is Trump taking the country? From all the books, op-eds and even his tweets, at best he is man of no direction, simply acting on impluse.

My own view, is that he is a man actively looking to tear down the very pillars of the USA. From regulations to protect the less well off, to failing to prepare for the future, to placing inordinate debt on future generations, to attacking the press and attacking minorities. He is not concerned about democracy, hence how he treats and disparages any elected officials that disagree with him.

This man has shown scant regard for the law, for ethics, for compassion, for anything really. The only one certainty is that Trump will do what he feels makes him look the best. That is the direction. The US is now the plaything of Trump, and he will change anything he feels stands in his way.

Is that really the way that the country wanted to go? To be beholden to Russia? To be attacking it allies? To be unconcerned with a direct attack on its democracy?

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what direction is Trump taking the country? From all the books, op-eds and even his tweets, at best he is man of no direction, simply acting on impluse.

My own view, is that he is a man actively looking to tear down the very pillars of the USA. From regulations to protect the less well off, to failing to prepare for the future, to placing inordinate debt on future generations, to attacking the press and attacking minorities. He is not concerned about democracy, hence how he treats and disparages any elected officials that disagree with him.

This man has shown scant regard for the law, for ethics, for compassion, for anything really. The only one certainty is that Trump will do what he feels makes him look the best. That is the direction. The US is now the plaything of Trump, and he will change anything he feels stands in his way.

Is that really the way that the country wanted to go? To be beholden to Russia? To be attacking it allies? To be unconcerned with a direct attack on its democracy?

Manic still things that the minority conservative view is what the country wants. Where a smaller portion of the population with ridiculous notions of conservative past nostalgia belong in a future America.

A time when church was centre stage, Gays were illegal, women were in the kitchen and Abortion was illegal.

All the things that Ireland has shed itself over the past few decades


This is what Manic alligns himself with, and i suppose if you allign yourself with that 'republican conservative view' then you believe it.


Any thing else is 'progressive' boooooo, you know the stuff that the majority of the American electorate voted for.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The only one certainty is that Trump will do what he feels makes him look the best.

I can't see anywhere that he has even managed that. If he were trying to make himself look to be the best then he would be doing things that were not so idiotic. How can anyone think that the press writing terrible things about you constantly makes you look good? If he wanted to make himself look good then he'd be more subtle about it so that people didn't keep telling him he was doing stuff wrong. Other than Fox and some niche right wing "news" websites there isn't anyone telling him he's doing a great job.

That he's fighting against the media constantly must show even to him that he's not looking good.

Rjd2

Leroy42 wrote: »

You seem to be deeming that as not honourable, yet Trump has shown at every turn that the main driver of his presidency is money. Money for himself, his companies, his children.

So I think you maybe using Trumps own values to place on top of others. It might be true, but I certainly wouldn't place Woodward in that category. Sure he will make money from it, but he seems a very serious journalist and interested in the truth. Had there been nothing to say he wouldn't have said it.

In terms of the NYT Op-ed, IMO it is about covering their ass. Demfad made the point the GOP are starting to turn, they see the cost/benefit of Trump as scewing towards cost and are getting ready to ditch him, if needed.

But whatever about the motives, such an Op-ed is unprecedented. For Trump for demand the persons name, on the silly notion of national security, shows how rattled he is and that this is clearly something that is both true and deeply hurtful to Trump.

A better man, if it were false, would have simply laughed it off and claimed the source was not from inside the WH. But he knows that it definitely is, because everything it says makes sense in terms of how Trump is operating.

To Trump supporters, why would Trump be demanding the person name if it was simply made up nonsense?

The Mid-terms will tell us a lot. A bad night then could see the beginning of the end. I also think that many in the GOP feel very uneasy with how Trump treated the death of McCain. He was a well known, well respected member of the GOP, a senior member. And Trump didn't even stay off twitter during the service. A complete lack of respect. It may, only may mind, have brought home to many in the GOP that Trump is not a GOP, cares nothing about the GOP and only cares about 2020 for himself. He only wants the GOP to win seats to protect himself, not out of any desire to see the GOP do well.

I have said numerous times here I think Trump is a disaster.

I have also said there is a resistance bubble which are utter idiots who are getting milked left right and centre.

Comey who supposedly cost Clinton the election, then they went and made him a millionaire by buying his book.

Trumps lawyer who defended his boss and possibly committed illegal acts has also been able to milk the resistance for a fortune.

The chap who published that article is a grifter, he wants the Omorosa/Comey money nothing more honorable than that.

I have no criticism of Woodward, he is anything but a grifter a highly respected writer who has been held in high esteem by all sides for a long time.

Leroy42

robinph wrote: »

I can't see anywhere that he has even managed that. If he were trying to make himself look to be the best then he would be doing things that were not so idiotic. How can anyone think that the press writing terrible things about you constantly makes you look good? If he wanted to make himself look good then he'd be more subtle about it so that people didn't keep telling him he was doing stuff wrong. Other than Fox and some niche right wing "news" websites there isn't anyone telling him he's doing a great job.

That he's fighting against the media constantly must show even to him that he's not looking good.

Just listen to the Woodward phone call tape, that made it really clear to me how he manages it.

Despite Woodward clearly having done the research, despite the fact that it was demonstrated by KAC that the interviews had taken place and that he had been withheld information, and despite that his own lie about not being told about Woodward looking for an interview was disproved by himself, he still treats the book as simply bad solely on the basis that Woodward didn't interview him. Not because it is wrong, but because he wasn't involved. If only Woodward had talked to him directly he would have set him straight.

Thus, in Trumps head, unless he has said it, it is false. Even if he knows it to be true. And even if he did say it, it is now false since he wants to say something different.

So he doesn't think that his actions make him look bad, he thinks they make him look great simply because he did it, and since the did it it must be great. By all accounts he only looks at the good news, and anytime he looks at CNN etc he already views it with a bias that covers anything negative as simply a lie, when he himself knows it to be true.

Igotadose

robinph wrote: »

I can't see anywhere that he has even managed that. If he were trying to make himself look to be the best then he would be doing things that were not so idiotic. How can anyone think that the press writing terrible things about you constantly makes you look good? If he wanted to make himself look good then he'd be more subtle about it so that people didn't keep telling him he was doing stuff wrong. Other than Fox and some niche right wing "news" websites there isn't anyone telling him he's doing a great job.

That he's fighting against the media constantly must show even to him that he's not looking good.

I think the salient point, is that it's what Trump thinks not what's reality. He says and does outlandish things, then in his bubble heads off for a Nuremberg campaign rally, they lick his boots and sing hosanna, and he thinks he's doing just great! Plus he's surrounded by sycophants, who (at least to his face) obey him implicitly.

Inquitus

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Something to consider is whether Republicans would remove Trump in this manner as a sort of pre-emptive strike if they knew the outcome of Mueller's investigation was now inevitable?

The Republicans cut Trump loose, in exchange for a general pardon similar to how Nixon left office, install Pence in the WH and work to bring the investigation to a quiet end. An exercise in damage limitation.

It feels like what's been coming out the past few days is heading in that direction.

It's easier to impeach him that it is to Article 25 him if he decides to contest it. Article 25 requires 2/3 of both houses, impeachment only requires a majority in congress and 2/3 of the Senate. Both are very high bars to sucess.

Penn

TRS30 wrote: »

Fun how her father is re-launching his own American Football league and Trump is constantly attaching the NFL..........

Vince is her husband, not her father. She ran for the Senate twice but lost both times.

Rjd2

Penn wrote: »

Vince is her husband, not her father. She ran for the Senate twice but lost both times.

The Mc Mahon family have been close to Trump for a long time. Linda has got her job due to this and Vince's donations to Trump, once Trump is gone, she won't be far behind. Totally unqualified for the role, just lucky there is not that much spotlight on her.

everlast75

Kavanaugh's hearing is getting very heated.

https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1037704251831513089


Booker prepared to lose his seat. Other senators are jumping onboard

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037711002526273537


Seems the gloves are off!

TRS30

Penn wrote: »

TRS30 wrote: »

Fun how her father is re-launching his own American Football league and Trump is constantly attaching the NFL..........

Vince is her husband, not her father. She ran for the Senate twice but lost both times.

Correct, getting my Linda's and Stephaine's mixed up!

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

Kavanaugh's hearing is getting very heated.

https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1037704251831513089


Booker prepared to lose his seat. Other senators are jumping onboard

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037711002526273537


Seems the gloves are off!

Delighted to see it

For Forks Sake

everlast75 wrote: »

Booker prepared to lose his seat. Other senators are jumping onboard

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1037711002526273537


Seems the gloves are off!

Booker wasn't messing around, documents are released

https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1037716672985980928


https://www.scribd.com/document/387988906/Booker-Confidential-Kavanaugh-Hearing

dr.fuzzenstein

It's like global Eastenders!

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

I don't think its so clear that the tax cut's having a positive effect on the economy at least not a direct one. Mostly used for share buybacks and corporate profit-taking. Wages still lag;

There are many who have seen *small* rises in take home pay and thank Trump for it. Its impact on the economy, as you said, is marginal at best.

What wont be 'marginal' will be the pain of having to pay it all back again - with interest , and continuing to do so for years to come. The rising deficit will see cuts to education, health, housing - all the things that most effect the lower paid workers 'enjoying' the current pay raise.

The corporation tax windfalls have long been hived off to either tax efficient schemes in the US or spirited away to tax havens, never to be seen again.

StringerBell

This payback won't affect Trump though and those who voted for him will likely blame the next Democrat for tax hikes needed to pay it back. Then the cycle begins again

20Cent

Bookers documents show Kavanaugh lied under oath. Ironic Booker will get punished and Kavanaugh will probably get his reward.

Rhineshark

20Cent wrote: »

Bookers documents show Kavanaugh lied under oath. Ironic Booker will get punished and Kavanaugh will probably get his reward.

What was the lie? I've not been able to follow the hearings that closely.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1037731687449456640

Is that ****ing it?

Surely there has to be something more explosive to come, because that is dismal. 2020 isn't happening if he has nothing more explosive to come.

Larbre34

Booker Harris 2020, you heard it here first.

On the OP ED Deep Throat, Ive been playing the 'All the Presidents Men' edition of Guess Who and my conclusion is, Derek S. Lyons, Staff Secretary to the President.

Why? He's high up but not high profile. He's literally the only guy in the WH that gets to see EVERYTHING, other than Gen. Kelly and I don’t believe a military traditionalist like Kelly would ever do this.

Also, who would time this to distract the news cycle from the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, except the former mentee of and Kavanaugh super-fan..... Derek S. Lyons.

Like Kavanaugh, Lyons is a known 'law and country' first kind of guy and I would paint him as someone who likely despises just about everything Donald Trump is and does.

Anyone give me odds?

spacecoyote

StringerBell wrote: »

This payback won't affect Trump though and those who voted for him will likely blame the next Democrat for tax hikes needed to pay it back. Then the cycle begins again

That's precisely it, all Trump has to rely on is there not being an economic downturn during his tenure & short-sighted voters will continue to buy into the spiel

Igotadose

StringerBell wrote: »

This payback won't affect Trump though and those who voted for him will likely blame the next Democrat for tax hikes needed to pay it back. Then the cycle begins again

I think the pain will be coming sooner, rather than later. I'm still kind of staggered by the thought of $1.5tn new debt issuing in October. And wondering who'll buy it - imagine if China didn't, hmmm hrmm.......

Personally I think October we'll see a downward market blip due to the debt issuance. Might impact the midterms, might not. But the overall slide'll start and continue for the next couple years, making 2020 even more likely to go Democratic.

Stockman on Fox "Business" (Bartiromo, bleh). "We have an economy freighted down with $69tn in debt." GDP of 2.6% under Trump, 2.5% under the last year or two of Obama, so no GDP YoY growth, kind of treading water.

Per Stockman, "Enjoy the growth. You have a few months"

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

aloyisious

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They can’t just install pence. Needs an impeachment.

I'm assuming that the constitution has a section by which a doctor/s can examine and declare Don [or any sitting president] - however temporarily - unfit to perform the duties of POTUS and for his deputy to step into POTUS shoes to perform said duties. Should the doctors decide that Don's condition is irreconcilable with performance of POTUS duties on a permanent basis and state that to whomever it is needed to, to arrange the legal transfer of the office of POTUS to Mike.

Larbre34

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm assuming that the constitution has a section by which a doctor/s can examine and declare Don [or any sitting president] - however temporarily - unfit to perform the duties of POTUS and for his deputy to step into POTUS shoes to perform said duties. Should the doctors decide that Don's condition is irreconcilable with performance of POTUS duties on a permanent basis and state that to whomever it is needed to, to arrange the legal transfer of the office of POTUS to Mike.

It doesn't. At least not in that way.

Under the 25th Amendment, Doctors would have to convince Pence and enough members of the exec branch to invoke the action and be the ones to remove him. No Doctor or Doctors can remove him directly.

PS I dont know the chicken and egg legality of getting Doctors into the equation in the first place.