Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

pixelburp

Ultros wrote: »

Really? That's not the vibe I've gotten from the Democratic party especially over the past year or two, bit of a leap to be fair.

This feels like you're trying to conflate 'securing borders' from obvious criminal or terrorist interlopers with the morally grey issue of 'borders' as it pertains to (il)legal migration - maybe even implying a conclusion that because some Democrats advocate for softening the latter, by proxy they must support of the former. Which is clearly ludicrous and echoes more than a little of the likes of Hannity or Carlson.

Reality is, migration is a relevant and a very immediate, emotional issue in a country whose population is vastly composed of migrants - legal or otherwise - so yes, a Democratic policy is towards more leniency for migrants crossing borders as it resonates with many.

But! That is not what The Wall is about: we got the blatantly false narrative peddled of criminals, terrorists about to flood across the borders, despite Trumps own administration showing this to be ... well, fake news. It's an especially asinine, reductionist argument when those criminals who are crossing the border illegally, like the infamous El Chapo, would not have been prevented by the presence of a wall.

I'll say again, it's a boondoggle. A desperate act off the basis of Soundbite Politics writ large. Trump can't "Lock her up", so instead wants to "Build the wall".

20Cent

After declaring a national emergency Trump went to the airport to fly to Mar A Lago for a weekend of golf. How anyone still supports this guy is beyond me.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1096542036352790529?s=19


How long before we have Trump calling Stone merely a coffee boy?

MadYaker

Ultros wrote: »

Really? That's not the vibe I've gotten from the Democratic party especially over the past year or two, bit of a leap to be fair.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/abolish-ice-democrats-list/index.html

"More Democrats have joined the growing list of names who want to abolish US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more commonly known as ICE.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley of New York in the primary last week, ran on a platform of abolishing the agency, and so far, more lawmakers have echoed her call."

Here's Keith Ellison with a T-shirt saying "I don't believe in borders".

I'm so sick of read this horsesh!t from tump supporters (not saying you are one) No democrat politician wants open borders. The vast VAST majority of Americans do not want open borders. Everyone agrees there needs to be more contol on immigration but all the facts point to a wall being a useless waste of money.

But, this leads me on to something else I've noticed which is a hallmark of the Trump movement. And that is this concerted effort by these people to muddy the waters of any debate by misrepresenting the policy positions of those on the other side. A perfect example of this is Trump supporters claiming that democrats want open borders or are sympathetic to islamic terrorists. Obviously those ideas are crazy, but by finding an example on twitter of one loony leftie talking about this stuff, they can extrapolate that and use it as an example of what all "leftists" believe thus making an apparent mockery of left wing positions, at least in the eyes of right wingers. Has anyone else noticed this? Trump does it himself. It's proven to be an effective tool for hooking people who are predisposed to confirmation bias.

aloyisious

CNN ran a story yesterday evening that there was one republican going to run against Don Trump in 2020. The name of the gent escapes me now but it was not one of the wannabees from 2016.

@MadYaker: Don's running a version of the divide and conquer idea, your enemy is my enemy and I'm your best buddy.

Rjd2

aloyisious wrote: »

CNN ran a story yesterday evening that there was one republican going to run against Don Trump in 2020. The name of the gent escapes me now but it was not one of the wannabees from 2016.

.

Bill Weld and he was one of the 2016 wannabes, he was the VP on the libertarian ticket with Gary Johnson.

He hasn't a hope tbh, but he will at least be a nuisance to Trump on the campaign. ****wits like Jeff Flake and even more absurdly Bill " I love war" Krystol due to their awfulness if they ran would actually give Trump's campaign some momentum.

Its Hailey or bust when it comes to a primary challenge of Trump.

EDIT ....to add from Reason the main libertarian site did a breakdown of his chances and its slim.

https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/14/bill-weld-preparing-to-become-the-firsta

TomOnBoard

This whole State of Emergency invocation is simply Trump's 'Get out of Jail' card with respect to Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and his base. After having been totally out-manouevered by Pelosi and shown to be an abject failure in terms of negotiation abilities on the shutdown, he couldn't be seen to just sign the deal to keep government open given that he got nothing for the wall. So now, the declaration gives him cover, and when/if he is destroyed in the Courts, he can do a Pontius Pilate on the Wall, by claiming that he tried his damndest but the Democrats and the Courts wouldnt let him build it because "they're not really in favour of strong Border Security..."

From Trump's perspective, this is his only option right now...

And anyway, there are 32 other National Emergencies that have previously been called that are still in force. And some of those are pretty vague. So the test in the Courts will not be so much about whether he is entitled to call the emergency, but has he actually created the circumstances he is using to justify it, in order to do an end- run around Congress. I really can't see him winning that one from a Constitutional Separation of Powers perspective. But, we'll see!

Aaaand of course, it is all playing into Trump's media manipulation agenda.. Here's yet another deflection from Mueller, Manafort/Stone/etc fall-out, Trump finances, unjust enrichment (emoluments clause), blatant nepotism, massive executive inefficiency, poor choices of advisors and Cabinet office- holders, etc., etc.

everlast75

Manafort looking at 19-24 years on jail.

Makes you wonder;

1) why Manafort would rather lie than cooperate
2) what sentence Mueller has in mind for the person he was trying to get Manafort to flip on

Manic Moran

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Turn NY red...


Not even trying anymore.

Not a chance of turning NY red. However, when you have a panel on MSNBC saying that if folks like AOC continue on like this they'll be handing Trump a second term and that the national emergency thing was the -second- most inane thing of the day after AOC's celebration of the loss of 25,000 jobs, billions of revenue, and not understanding how subsidies work, or CBS's panel saying that it's baffling, that any other business considering NY is going to be paying attention and that the swingable locations are wondering just how much in favour the Democrats are of businesses and jobs if that's the opinion of one of the 'up and coming stars' of the Party, then there is definite evidence of two possible political repercussions. 1) It's a gift to Trump, and 2) AOC's going to have to get her feet back on the ground if she doesn't want to happen to her what she did to her predecessor.

FrostyJack

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not a chance of turning NY red. However, when you have a panel on MSNBC saying that if folks like AOC continue on like this they'll be handing Trump a second term and that the national emergency thing was the -second- most inane thing of the day after AOC's celebration of the loss of 25,000 jobs, billions of revenue, and not understanding how subsidies work, or CBS's panel saying that it's baffling, that any other business considering NY is going to be paying attention and that the swingable locations are wondering just how much in favour the Democrats are of businesses and jobs if that's the opinion of one of the 'up and coming stars' of the Party, then there is definite evidence of two possible political repercussions. 1) It's a gift to Trump, and 2) AOC's going to have to get her feet back on the ground if she doesn't want to happen to her what she did to her predecessor.

They did not lose out on billions in revenue as they were probably going to spend more money to get them in, the income tax from the employees would be the only gain from moving the site there. AOC's issue was this would raise the cost of living there, meaning locals would be moved out from their neighbourhoods due to gentrification. John Oliver did a great piece on this last year some time. Corporations move states all the time to get better deals and end up costing the area more money than they gain, the local politician looks good because they bring in jobs but the net result is a negative. Just another example of how AOC is misrepresented on the right. I see the meme campaign going strong against her with photos of her along with ridiculous quotes she never said. In few years time it will etched into peoples brains that she is ditsy like the decades of smears against HC that were not based anywhere in reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bl19RoR7lc

circadian

The Roger Stone case has been officially related to the GRU indictment case. That's pretty damning and along with the Manafort case seems the net is closing. Manafort still stands to be charged in DC as well and Cohen is still in play. I wonder if the hammer will fall on Jr, Kushner and Ivanka at the same time.

StringerBell

How exactly does one declare something an emergency, while also stating, publicly, that it isn't something he needed to do, that he could have done it over a longer period of time?

The courts should be fun, not to mention the amusement from Republicans who get stuck in the position of having to justify why it's ok money is taken from their constituency

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not a chance of turning NY red. However, when you have a panel on MSNBC saying that if folks like AOC continue on like this they'll be handing Trump a second term and that the national emergency thing was the -second- most inane thing of the day after AOC's celebration of the loss of 25,000 jobs, billions of revenue, and not understanding how subsidies work, or CBS's panel saying that it's baffling, that any other business considering NY is going to be paying attention and that the swingable locations are wondering just how much in favour the Democrats are of businesses and jobs if that's the opinion of one of the 'up and coming stars' of the Party, then there is definite evidence of two possible political repercussions. 1) It's a gift to Trump, and 2) AOC's going to have to get her feet back on the ground if she doesn't want to happen to her what she did to her predecessor.

The polls are incredibly against you on this manic. I'd suggest broadening your news views. Also being selective about which particular show you quote.

The GOP are going to get hammered for backing trump and the wave has started. What's more important is most republicans are too stupid to see it.

They're in for an over correction. You might think it's just noise but people working multiple jobs and seeing tax breaks being gifted to big business doesn't fly anymore

It's perplexing that you haven't been able to read the crowd

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The White House press secretary Sarah sanders has been interviewed by the special counsel Robert mueller according to Pamela brown of CNN. Was it under oath I wonder and can her lying to them get her in trouble ? If true she can't keep saying "this has nothing to do with the White House" anymore.

Then you haven't been paying much attention to SHS.
Of course she will continue to claim it has nothing to do with either the WH or Trump. But she'll claim something like 'that as true American, one that believes in American values such as the rule of law and the important role that our great investigators play in protecting America from threats, she was not only happy to be interviewed but welcomed the chance to tell Mueller the truth so that he could end his investigation and focus on the real issue, that of HC and the missing e-mails'.
'As for whether I gave the interview under oath, as a God fearing Christian, something sorely lacking from the godless liberal left that have taken over the Democrats and work tirelessly to remove God from our country in direct opposition to the ideals of our founding fathers, I am answerable to God for everything I say and do and as such no oath is required.'

Or something

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Manafort looking at 19-24 years on jail.

Makes you wonder;

1) why Manafort would rather lie than cooperate
2) what sentence Mueller has in mind for the person he was trying to get Manafort to flip on

That's just for his convictions in Virginia, he's still to receive more from his 2 felony convictions which where his plea agreement initially was struck

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

That's just for his convictions in Virginia, he's still to receive more from his 2 felony convictions which where his plea agreement initially was struck

Good point.

I wonder if they will be served concurrency or consecutively

StringerBell

Still can't quite ey my head around

This is an emergency!!!

And

I didn't need to do this.

How exactly is he going to defend that in court?

SoundsRight

StringerBell wrote: »

Still can't quite ey my head around

This is an emergency!!!

And

I didn't need to do this.

How exactly is he going to defend that in court?

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

This is going to be blocked... It's also not even clear if the senate will pass it.

uptherebels

SoundsRight wrote: »

His point was that he ought to have bipartisan support to secure the nation's borders. He shouldn't have to resort to drastic measures to do something that protects American citizens.

And he's not going to have to defend it in court; it's going ahead.

Remind me how a wall secures a border!

SoundsRight

uptherebels wrote: »

Remind me how a wall secures a border!

Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, Walls of Derry, Belfast's Peace Walls....You think these were just built for the craic?

If you lived close to drug smugglers and human traffickers, I'd imagine you'd want some barrier between you.

uptherebels

SoundsRight wrote: »

Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, Walls of Derry, Belfast's Peace Walls....You think these were just built for the craic?

If you lived close to drug smugglers and human traffickers, I'd imagine you'd want some barrier between you.

Remind me which of those succeeded?
Drug smugglers? The ones that move most of their product through official entry points?
I would like a barrier of law enforcement, something that isn't beatable by a 100dollar ladder and a piece of rope.
A wall is effectively useless, you can go over,under, around and through it.

Brian?

theguzman wrote: »

Trump is courting a landslide in 2020 the Democrats got rid of the Amazon HQ in NYC and that alone will turn NY Red, Occasio-Cortez had her brain fart of a New Deal and other climate change fakenews. He is a master of divide and conquer and he will make mince meat of the upcoming Dem candidates. History will judge him as probably the most divisive president ever but the best for security, patriotism and economic growth. He managed to turn the Democratic party in a hard-left rabid Marxist mouthpeice which will drive even the moderates over to Trump as they fear for the wealth and way of life from nutjobs like Occasio-Cortez and others.

You need to detach from infowars for a bit. AOC would probably align with Fine Gael, she’s hardly a Marxist.

pixelburp

SoundsRight wrote: »

Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, Walls of Derry, Belfast's Peace Walls....You think these were just built for the craic?

If you lived close to drug smugglers and human traffickers, I'd imagine you'd want some barrier between you.

If you live close to drug smugglers you'll be intimately aware that walls do not prevent smuggling.
Again.
ElChapo.
Tunnels.

Hell police confiscated repurposed t-shirt cannons back in the day, and in the era of airports, both private and public, walls are hilariously porous concept for preventing illegal entry of criminals.

Sure, it's easy if you're a police state like East Germany and you want to lock down a single stretch across a city - and even then it didn't completely work all the time - quite another to wall off one of the longest land borders in the world, when your adversaries will simply tunnel under the "big beautiful wall" or just fly into Miami.

Boondoggle. Pure and simple. Catchphrase politics.

Igotadose

SoundsRight wrote: »

Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, Walls of Derry, Belfast's Peace Walls....You think these were just built for the craic?

If you lived close to drug smugglers and human traffickers, I'd imagine you'd want some barrier between you.

Hadrian's wall now is thought to have been built to keep the soldier's busy and as a 'vanity project'. Each centurion group autographed (with a stone tablet) who they were, how much wall they built and when. Prosperity and stability is what the Roman's brought to Britain to keep things calm.

As I remember from history class, the great wall of china was pretty much a failure, didn't keep the mongols out when it mattered.

And the Berlin wall, built by Russia not West Germany of course, certainly wasn't there to keep people out - it was there to keep East Germans from defecting. I don't think the West Berliners were in any great hurry to move to East Berlin. Plus it was obviously a political statement.

Improved security without walls will help with smuggling. Helping stabilize the countries contributing migrants (like, say, Venezuela? Guatemala? Honduras? Mexico) will reduce the flow. Mexico's migrant flow has dropped off as Mexico has become more stable and prosperous. Heck, now they're even negotiating with Russia

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Good point.

I wonder if they will be served concurrency or consecutively

Considering he violated the plea agreement repeatedly, I would say that they would be served consecutively. Also worth noting as they're federal crimes there is no parole, so no cigar clubs for Manaf*cked.

But hey, let's all turn our attention to this manufactured 'emergency' as that's the true terror /s

duploelabs

batgoat wrote: »

This is going to be blocked... It's also not even clear if the senate will pass it.

Not to mention the numerous contractors who will take cases, or the local authorities, or even the private land owners.

If it all somehow gets past those , it'll be two years at least before construction will commence, due to the local infrastructures needing to be upgraded to facilitate those works. Will trump still be in power by then, or even a free man?

batgoat

duploelabs wrote: »

Not to mention the numerous contractors who will take cases, or the local authorities, or even the private land owners.

If it all somehow gets past those , it'll be two years at least before construction will commence, due to the local infrastructures needing to be upgraded to facilitate those works. Will trump still be in power by then, or even a free man?

I do think it dragging on for two years probably benefits Trump. Can just use it as supposed proof of commitment.

everlast75

batgoat wrote: »

I do think it dragging on for two years probably benefits Trump. Can just use it as supposed proof of commitment.

Or conversely proof of incompetence

rossie1977

Florida was a drug smuggling hub in 70s and 80s and its nowhere near the Mexican border.

Majority of illegal immigrants into the US arrive by plane and overstay.