Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

RIGOLO

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That would be the building that he didn't get to buy , and then after becoming President he got involved in the FBI redevelopment plans and suggested that they stay at the site instead of the proposed (and much cheaper) option of selling the site to a developer and moving out to the suburbs - Which was everyones preferred option as it would give the FBI more room etc. etc.

But - If the Hoover building was sold to a developer (not Trump) it was proposed to build a Hotel as part of the work .Which would be in direct competition with the Trump hotel at the post office..


Trump’s Focus on a Washington Building Project Draws Scrutiny



So - He didn't get to buy it and it now seems that he unduly influenced the decision not to sell it to someone else as that would impacts the profits of the company he's supposed to no longer be working for.

I think you may be onto something ..
It sounds a lot like Trump FBI collusion in the run up to 2016 election involving a potential real estate deal... sounds familiar.
You should call Mueller he may yet get it into his report.

Manic Moran

Igotadose wrote: »

Oh, please. Clinton got hauled up on impeachment due to a 'process crime' of lying to the investigator (Starr.) And unless you're a lawyer, I doubt you know what a process crime really is and how they're defined, other than 'university of google.' Let the legal system do its work imo. Process crime is in the news due to that cretin Roger Stone blathering about it. Like the jail food's different if you are in for a 'process crime' versus a felony. Crime's crime the sentence will be the measure of the severity.

In other news, it's articles like this one that really annoy me. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-corruption-2020-primary_n_5c742cf1e4b0f09f144f1241

The author is all over how 2020 is going to be a slam dunk for the Democrats. Wrong. The problems that the Trump campaign blundered into messaging about, haven't gone away - the midwest still is doing poorly, opioids are still a problem and great bodies of the electorate are disenfranchised. If you're not involved in the stock market, you might have a 'gig economy' job now, but that's not a good job. You don't have decent medical care. None of this will change in the next 2 years.

Further, Trump's spending lavishly on his 'digital machine' and has the advantage of knowing he'll be the nominee and won't be subject to infighting, at least, not right now. The democrats are going to waste lots of money and time attacking each other, egged on by Trump through the whole process, either directly by him taunting via twitter, or more heinous policies that'll get the Democrats excited. His recent blathering about abortion and new attempts to reduce abortion access at the federal level through funding changes, are actually bait for the Democrats to fight over imo.

They can't take a high road with Trump - that didn't work. They do need to fight him but there are way too many Democratic candidates now, all to Trump's advantage

I have no issues with much of that post, even the idea that the Democrats are in the catbird seat when it comes to beating Trump. I do, however, have significant concern with the implications of this line.

Power matters. Whether you want a carbon tax or a Green New Deal, you aren’t going to see your preferred policy enacted if the Supreme Court remains limited to its nine justices

Changing the court's makeup purely so that it will rubber-stamp your preferred policy is a really, really bad idea, both in terms of the principle of the equal pillars of government, as well as simply being able to do it every time your party goes into power. FDR looked at it in the 1930s as a way of getting his New Deal through, there was significant backlash, and I would argue, with good reason.


At least with the current system, there is something of a restraining factor in that folks have to die or retire first, you can't just go and change the court in your favour on a whim.

Quin_Dub

RIGOLO wrote: »

I think you may be onto something ..
It sounds a lot like Trump FBI collusion in the run up to 2016 election involving a potential real estate deal... sounds familiar.
You should call Mueller he may yet get it into his report.

No - It sounds a lot like Trump using his position to unduly influence a government decision so that he could personally profit.

A Crime if proven , hence the desire to investigate.

Quin_Dub

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have no issues with much of that post, even the idea that the Democrats are in the catbird seat when it comes to beating Trump. I do, however, have significant concern with the implications of this line.

Power matters. Whether you want a carbon tax or a Green New Deal, you aren’t going to see your preferred policy enacted if the Supreme Court remains limited to its nine justices

Changing the court's makeup purely so that it will rubber-stamp your preferred policy is a really, really bad idea, both in terms of the principle of the equal pillars of government, as well as simply being able to do it every time your party goes into power. FDR looked at it in the 1930s as a way of getting his New Deal through, there was significant backlash, and I would argue, with good reason.


At least with the current system, there is something of a restraining factor in that folks have to die or retire first, you can't just go and change the court in your favour on a whim.

I'd agree with you about the FDR attempts etc.

However I do think that the "lifetime appointment" element should be removed from the judiciary.

By all means make it a decent stretch of time , perhaps variable depending on the level of the court - Maybe 10 years for most appointments with 15/20 years for the Supreme court.

I'd also think that an upper age limit should be introduced.

Itssoeasy

I didn't think I'd get a genuine laugh out of the Trump administration but that statement from Sarah sanders was hilarious. What utter tripe and obviously the irony of calling Michael cohen a liar(which he is) yet making it sound like her boss has never told a lie in his life is stunning.

Michael cohen has been charged with lying to congress(not a small issue) but we know that he claims to have done it to protect the president. I'm not expecting much from tomorrow but I think we may get more insight in why exactly he did it and how much the president was involved in getting him to lie to congress.

PropJoe10

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I didn't think I'd get a genuine laugh out of the Trump administration but that statement from Sarah sanders was hilarious. What utter tripe and obviously the irony of calling Michael cohen a liar(which he is) yet making it sound like her boss has never told a lie in his life is stunning.

Michael cohen has been charged with lying to congress(not a small issue) but we know that he claims to have done it to protect the president. I'm not expecting much from tomorrow but I think we may get more insight in why exactly he did it and how much the president was involved in getting him to lie to congress.

Sanders is actually a worse liar than Trump - or at least comes across as worse, because she's relatively articulate. When you listen to Trump rambling on, you often get the feeling that he doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about, whereas Sanders is calculated at all times. Some of the stuff she's come out with over the last year is absolutely incredible.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd agree with you about the FDR attempts etc.

However I do think that the "lifetime appointment" element should be removed from the judiciary.

By all means make it a decent stretch of time , perhaps variable depending on the level of the court - Maybe 10 years for most appointments with 15/20 years for the Supreme court.

I'd also think that an upper age limit should be introduced.

Well the fact that the constitution didn't specify how many justices there should be it's a movable number(It wasn't always nine I know that), so while FDR was stopped he wasn't doing anything illegal.

When you say upper age limit do you mean limit in what age they can sit until or at what age they can't be seated first ?

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That would be the building that he didn't get to buy , and then after becoming President he got involved in the FBI redevelopment plans and suggested that they stay at the site instead of the proposed (and much cheaper) option of selling the site to a developer and moving out to the suburbs - Which was everyones preferred option as it would give the FBI more room etc. etc.

But - If the Hoover building was sold to a developer (not Trump) it was proposed to build a Hotel as part of the work .Which would be in direct competition with the Trump hotel at the post office..


Trump’s Focus on a Washington Building Project Draws Scrutiny



So - He didn't get to buy it and it now seems that he unduly influenced the decision not to sell it to someone else as that would impacts the profits of the company he's supposed to no longer be working for.

Edit.. That would surely mean that he was, even viewing such actions kindly, still directly involving himself in the family hotel business and using his newly gained office to interfere with whatever process the Federal Govt follows when it comes to selling fed property, despite his apparent stepping away from the business as required by federal law when he was sworn in as president (did'ja hear what the president said).

Outlaw Pete

Crazy that in America someone can't support the president and his administration by wearing a hat without getting attacked.


https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1100462367387910145

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well the fact that the constitution didn't specify how many justices there should be it's a movable number(It wasn't always nine I know that), so while FDR was stopped he wasn't doing anything illegal.

When you say upper age limit do you mean limit in what age they can sit until or at what age they can't be seated first ?

It seems there is no retirement age set for USSC justices. It seems more died in office than retired %-wise. Appointment-wise 1 democrat was appointed by a GOP president and 12 Republicans by Democrat presidents. I was looking for disqualifications on grounds of "cough's politely" obvious disability. http://www.sabraandaspden.com/what-is-the-age-to-retire-in-the-supreme-court-2/

listermint

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Crazy that in America someone can't support the president and his administration by wearing a hat without getting attacked.


https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1100462367387910145

Yep terrible....

It's like a wolf whistle for racism. Your outrage is faux. I suspect you know why these idiots wear it. I'd say that student probably has form too. Usual story.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have no issues with much of that post, even the idea that the Democrats are in the catbird seat when it comes to beating Trump. I do, however, have significant concern with the implications of this line.

Power matters. Whether you want a carbon tax or a Green New Deal, you aren’t going to see your preferred policy enacted if the Supreme Court remains limited to its nine justices

Changing the court's makeup purely so that it will rubber-stamp your preferred policy is a really, really bad idea, both in terms of the principle of the equal pillars of government, as well as simply being able to do it every time your party goes into power. FDR looked at it in the 1930s as a way of getting his New Deal through, there was significant backlash, and I would argue, with good reason.


At least with the current system, there is something of a restraining factor in that folks have to die or retire first, you can't just go and change the court in your favour on a whim.

If you truly cared about this you'd want some form of term limits.

What's to be gained from lifetime appointments. Like that's incredible. It's of no benefit to the system and provides very little balance

qwerty ui op

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Crazy that in America someone can't support the president and his administration by wearing a hat without getting attacked.

Not as crazy as wearing a hat with a political slogan to school. Imagine putting on a Varadkar hat for school.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

If you truly cared about this you'd want some form of term limits.

What's to be gained from lifetime appointments. Like that's incredible. It's of no benefit to the system and provides very little balance

What does provide balance? What is the -actual- problem with a life appointment, which is fixable with a term limit? Making it less political? Not going to happen. There are benefits, but that's not one of them.

Generally speaking, arguments in favour of term limits or mandatory retirement ages are advocated by whichever side is seen to be in the 'minority' in the court's ideological makeup. These days, with the 'conservative' judges in the majority, that means the progressives. The reason being, they don't want the court's decisions to be influenced by the opposition with no known certainty of that dominance ever ending. Am I correct?

Certainly arguments about senility or incapacity seem not to be a factor. Not only has it not proven to be an issue (with only one SCOTUS justice ever removed over the 240+ years), but such an argument would be rather hypocritical coming from the same folks cheering RBG's staying on the bench. Although arguments are made for turnover, turnover was the reason folks were complaining about Kennedy deciding all of a sudden that he wanted to retire: The 'enemy' was able to make the appointment to replace him. Basically, the timing just wasn't convenient for those complaining.

As it stands, the importance of the Supreme Court in a presidential election is based on the variable possibility that there will be an appointment. If RBG retires or dies in the next two years and is replaced, then there is much less chance of the 2021-25 President appointing anyone because the court is young enough. Other policy issues can be considered. But, if you add a term limit, 18 years is the most common proposal, then there is no "possibility" about it. Presidential elections (And arguably Senatorial) suddenly always become elections about the Supreme Court. Worse, if a President is elected for two terms under that 18-year plan, he has almost a 50-50 chance of being able to pack the court by appointing the majority of the judges. The last President able to do that was Eisenhower, it's not common under the current system and gets even less likely as judges live longer. It is possible that both of these concerns may be addressed by either changing the nomination process (which may have the desired effect even without term limits), or by increasing the length of tenure or size of the court, both of which come with their own problems.

Basically, this runs the risk of politicizing the court even more, not less.

You would also have to put a bar to further employment on the judges after leaving the court in order to eliminate the possibility of rulings based on the prospects of future reward. Granted, fixable by making sure they get a damned good retirement package when they leave.

I'm not saying that there aren't arguments in favour of term limits, there certainly are. But neither is it a simple panacea as many seem to believe.

listermint

Never claimed it's a panacea.

But there is not call for lifetime appointments in any employment.

It's a positively communist notion....

prawnsambo

listermint wrote: »

Never claimed it's a panacea.

But there is not call for lifetime appointments in any employment.

It's a positively communist notion....

Lifetime appointments is not the real problem. It's the notion of politically appointed judges. It's completely bizarre that presidents can talk of 'our' judges or 'their' judges. Some separation of powers. :rolleyes:

Midlife

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Crazy that in America someone can't support the president and his administration by wearing a hat without getting attacked.


https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1100462367387910145

From that one indcident you extrapolate that you can't wear the MAGA hat without being attacked?

20Cent

Florida senator sending what looks like a threat to Cohen.


https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1100503846386835456?s=19

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

Agreed. That argument is pointless. What's more important to remember is that Michael Cohen is testifying in front of Senate Intelligence Committee today (private hearing), the House Oversight Committee tomorrow (public hearing) and House Intelligence Committee on Thursday (private hearing). He's expected to testify under oath to illegal activities/criminal conduct involving Trump both before and after becoming President, provide evidence of such, give details regarding Trump's financial statements, the hush money payments and contacts with Russia.

Let's not get distracted by how tall some of Trump's buildings are. It's not his buildings that are on shaky ground right now.

Not really,
thats just whats important to the anti-Trumpers.

what is really important is

Trumps just come out of a 3 day mini-summit with China, the markets have reacted very positively and Trump administration iis now heading to Vietnam for another NK summit.

Thats the really important stuff

Markets react positively to Trump delaying adding tariffs...

So markets react positively to Trump not making a mess as big they expected he would make. Starting to wonder if the Dow might be worth a shout. If Trump doesn't make a complete mess of things there is a rebound in there for when he stops doing stupid stuff.

Granted a global recession is likely in the next few years which is the big risk.

Professor Moriarty

Midlife wrote: »

From that one indcident you extrapolate that you can't wear the MAGA hat without being attacked?

Alternatively, in response, one could google "Man attacked by man wearing MAGA hat". But life is short.

aloyisious

prawnsambo wrote: »

Lifetime appointments is not the real problem. It's the notion of politically appointed judges. It's completely bizarre that presidents can talk of 'our' judges or 'their' judges. Some separation of powers. :rolleyes:

Its possible that Don might make an error on his appointments. Lyndon Johnson appointed a man he thought was conservative and regretted it as the man turned out to have an independent mind making & supporting "liberal" decisions that Lyndon didn't want. When they're on the bench and immovable, justices realise that the President can go shove.

Penn

20Cent wrote: »

Florida senator sending what looks like a threat to Cohen.


https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1100503846386835456?s=19

Utterly, utterly incredible. Absolutely brazen, blatant, and downright reprehensible. Worst part is, he'll likely face no consequences for it either, and quite likely will bring it up during the hearing in an attempt to paint Cohen as someone who is dishonest as he cheated on his wife (if it's indeed true).

Edit: Sorry, just read this guy isn't on the Committee tomorrow. Still though, it's certainly an attempt to influence and possibly obstruct Cohens testimony.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

Utterly, utterly incredible. Absolutely brazen, blatant, and downright reprehensible. Worst part is, he'll likely face no consequences for it either, and quite likely will bring it up during the hearing in an attempt to paint Cohen as someone who is dishonest as he cheated on his wife (if it's indeed true).

The difference between Trump being presidential and not is him criticising this clown or not.

Have a guess which way that will go.

pixelburp

Matt Gaetz has form here, he's a bit of a ... character. He's very much fully signed up the Trump textbook, and has his share of dog whistles and George Soros scaremongering. He's the type of Red Stater that if you saw him on a TV show you'd think he was a bit of an unrealistic cliché. Not justifying his threat to Cohen but when I saw who posted it, I will admit to simply going "god, this guy"

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Alternatively, in response, one could google "Man attacked by man wearing MAGA hat". But life is short.

I just did for you. It was half-way down the second page before I got a first hit for a MAGA-wearer doing the attacking. There is very definitely a predominance of people being attacked for wearing them over those wearing them doing the attacking.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

The difference between Trump being presidential and not is him criticising this clown or not.

Have a guess which way that will go.

Pelosi posted this last night..


https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1100545912697511938?s=19


Mr Gaetz replied apologising and took down the tweet.

It's a good thing at least she can act presidential. It may come to that

Quin_Dub

Just on the MAGA hat thing

It's part of a wider cultural thing that I don't understand about the US.

I don't get why people attend rallies, have bumper stickers,, wear hats, have giant flags in their gardens etc .
And it's not just political either, they have stickers and hats for everything.

Who are they for?

It's a different topic, but it's a significant cultural difference , certainly with most of Europe that despite spending a lot of time in the US over the years I still don't quite get.

spacecoyote

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Just on the MAGA hat thing

It's part of a wider cultural thing that I don't understand about the US.

I don't get why people attend rallies, have bumper stickers,, wear hats, have giant flags in their gardens etc .
And it's not just political either, they have stickers and hats for everything.

Who are they for?

It's a different topic, but it's a significant cultural difference , certainly with most of Europe that despite spending a lot of time in the US over the years I still don't quite get.

It has to be a full cultural thing alright. You see it across the board. Even look at fashion brands. The likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, etc... generally have a fairly big obvious piece of branding across their clothing, just so there is no doubt about what you're wearing.

It all fits in with the air of wealth some in the US see in Trump. Its about big ostentatious branding & making sure that you look as rich & flashy as possible. Its why so many seem to buy in to the Trump brand of the American dream. It doesn't matter how bad you are at something, as long as you can sell the perception that you're good at it, people will lap it up.

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Just on the MAGA hat thing

It's part of a wider cultural thing that I don't understand about the US.

I don't get why people attend rallies, have bumper stickers,, wear hats, have giant flags in their gardens etc .
And it's not just political either, they have stickers and hats for everything.

Who are they for?

It's a different topic, but it's a significant cultural difference , certainly with most of Europe that despite spending a lot of time in the US over the years I still don't quite get.

It's not just politics in the states, it's tribalism.

Look at the way pavements are painted here in the North and bunting flown out across streets. Its a virtual way of 'circling the wagons' saying you belong to this group and no one else

spacecoyote

I see that the House of Reps have voted to revoke the National Emergency declaration too, with a majority of 245-182.

It'll go to the Senate now, which will obviously be a harder sell given the Rep majority, but according to the Irish Times, Collins, Murkowski & Tillis have already said they'll approve it.

If its just those 3, that would bring it to 50-50, so Pence would side with Trump. But it would only take one further move to push it through the Senate too

Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-house-of-representatives-votes-to-revoke-trump-s-emergency-1.3807547