Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

hotmail.com

jobbridge4life wrote:

Income, education, healthcare, employment, mental health... these are all social issues.

jobbridge4life wrote:

Equal access to marriage also happened to touch off on every one of those matters you just highlighted as what 'really matters'.

They are economic issues. They need funding and resources.

Social issues, like equal marriage, are not strictly economic.

And again, the vast majority couldn't care less about gay marriage, if a woman gets an abortion, if someone is religious or not...Blah Blah. Apart from a minority of online nut jobs, most people only care about their employment, their pension, access to health care etc etc.

FrostyJack

hotmail.com wrote: »

They are economic issues. They need funding and resources.

Social issues, like equal marriage, are not strictly economic.

And again, the vast majority couldn't care less about gay marriage, if a woman gets an abortion, if someone is religious or not...Blah Blah. Apart from a minority of online nut jobs, most people only care about their employment, their pension, access to health care etc etc.

There are so many atheist, muslim and gay politicians in America, they are a dime a dozen :rolleyes: You cannot get elected into office in the US unless you pretend you are religious. Case and point Donald Trump, the least Christian person in the World had to pretend he reads the bible all the time. I know people who would be for every liberal value except abortion so they would vote GOP because of that one issue, so to say no one cares is ridiculous. Listen to any right wing radio show, online forum or on tv and they don't just care about economic issues, if they did they would vote Democrat every time. Taking our guns, marrying people to dogs, letting criminals into the country, pc gone mad are some of the main talking points and very little to do with economics or jobs.

everlast75

Check out @jonaschartock’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/jonaschartock/status/1121701541751263232?s=09


Another Fox pundit breaking from the group.

I cannot argue with him... for once

Midlife

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Trump has an utterly stacked SC though and one that operates in the era of the shameless republican. I've no hope left for America.

Partisan though it may be, they're still judges and understand their role.

Interpreting things like reproductive health care and LGBTQ rights in a conservative manner is one thing. They're interpreting the law in a particular case and want it to hold true for ever more.

However, interpreting things like Trump using funds for something that only he really declares 'a crisis' means that this will hold true for ever more. The president can now declare a national emergency and use state funds in whatever way they deem fit. There's been plenty of commentary regarding precedent and it's use in US law and even the most hardened anti-immigrant republicians see what this precedent will allow any future democratic president to do by way of gun control or environmental issues.

Likewise when it comes to oversight. They'll essentially be declaring that the president no longer has to answer or report to house or senate oversight when he/she feels like it. This means no-one could ever investigate the president again, any president.

They may be convservative and political but they're also legal nerds and now appointed for life. I'd fully expect them to back things like 'can't prosecute a sitting president' but they won''t hand Trump a blank chequebook and free reign to do whatever.

aloyisious

I'm not on twitter so I'm wondering if Don (or anyone in his Admin) has responded to the NYT story that N/K presented a US $2 Million Medical treatment bill for the dead US student. I'm reading via google that Don approved the payment of the bill.

hotmail.com

FrostyJack wrote: »

There are so many atheist, muslim and gay politicians in America, they are a dime a dozen :rolleyes: You cannot get elected into office in the US unless you pretend you are religious. Case and point Donald Trump, the least Christian person in the World had to pretend he reads the bible all the time. I know people who would be for every liberal value except abortion so they would vote GOP because of that one issue, so to say no one cares is ridiculous. Listen to any right wing radio show, online forum or on tv and they don't just care about economic issues, if they did they would vote Democrat every time. Taking our guns, marrying people to dogs, letting criminals into the country, pc gone mad are some of the main talking points and very little to do with economics or jobs.

I still believe that these people are a minority. Most people don't go onto those forums or listen to the hard core radio programmes.

It's a handy distraction for the Dems and Reps to give an impression that they're different.

What would these parties do without these issues?

kilns

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not on twitter so I'm wondering if Don (or anyone in his Admin) has responded to the NYT story that N/K presented a US $2 Million Medical treatment bill for the dead US student. I'm reading via google that Don approved the payment of the bill.

Oh he has, as usual calling it fake news saying this is not the Obama admin that paid 1.8bn for 4 hostages and giving terrorists back. He then went on to quote some anonymous chief (his spelling of chief was wrong) hostage negotiator of the USA who is quoted as saying the Donald J. Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator in the history of the USA.

Stallingrad

kilns wrote: »

He then went on to quote some anonymous chief (his spelling of chief was wrong) hostage negotiator of the USA who is quoted as saying the Donald J. Trump is the greatest hostage negotiator in the history of the USA.

That is joke right? :eek:

kilns

Stallingrad wrote: »

That is joke right? :eek:

Is it something he would say? :pac:

jochenstacker

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not on twitter so I'm wondering if Don (or anyone in his Admin) has responded to the NYT story that N/K presented a US $2 Million Medical treatment bill for the dead US student. I'm reading via google that Don approved the payment of the bill.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/25/north-korea-sends-us-2-million-medical-bill-for-otto-warmbiers-care-report/

Trump has said he believes Kim did not know about the student’s treatment.

“I don’t believe he would have allowed that to happen,” Trump said in Vietnam in February after his second summit with Kim.

The president said he spoke to Kim about Warmbier’s death and that Kim “feels badly about it.”

“He tells me he didn’t know about it, and I take him at his word,” Trump said at the time.

This is utterly indefensible

jochenstacker

jochenstacker wrote: »

https://nypost.com/2019/04/25/north-korea-sends-us-2-million-medical-bill-for-otto-warmbiers-care-report/



This is utterly indefensible

True, but Trump fans don't care, or they would have said something by now. I'm sure some of them will be along soon with more press release posts about the economy etc.
It's actually depressing what people will defend or turn a blind eye to these days.

Billy Mays

jochenstacker wrote: »

https://nypost.com/2019/04/25/north-korea-sends-us-2-million-medical-bill-for-otto-warmbiers-care-report/

Trump has said he believes Kim did not know about the student’s treatment.

“I don’t believe he would have allowed that to happen,” Trump said in Vietnam in February after his second summit with Kim.

The president said he spoke to Kim about Warmbier’s death and that Kim “feels badly about it.”

“He tells me he didn’t know about it, and I take him at his word,” Trump said at the time.


This is utterly indefensible

File it with the rest of the "if Obama had said this" stuff

duploelabs

Billy Mays wrote: »

File it with the rest of the "if Obama had said this" stuff

False equivalency. Just base the act on the current set of values and morals alone, not what his predecessor has done. Otherwise any future president will be given free reign given what trump has done

FrostyJack

duploelabs wrote: »

False equivalency. Just base the act on the current set of values and morals alone, not what his predecessor has done. Otherwise any future president will be given free reign given what trump has done

Wait till President Lex Luthor takes over in 2 or 6 years, he will literally be able to run and gun up Time Square, disband the EPA and set up fire pits around the country, all he has to do is follow Trump's model but stay off Twitter, not deliberately stoke the opposition, surround himself with smarter people and be better at covering his tracks. I still can't imaging Trump's now supporters saying "imagine if Trump did that" because he probably would do anything a comic book villain would do if he could get away with it/expand his wealth.

duploelabs

FrostyJack wrote: »

Wait till President Lex Luthor takes over in 2 or 6 years, he will literally be able to run and gun up Time Square, disband the EPA and set up fire pits around the country, all he has to do is follow Trump's model but stay off Twitter, not deliberately stoke the opposition, surround himself with smarter people and be better at covering his tracks. I still can't imaging Trump's now supporters saying "imagine if Trump did that" because he probably would do anything a comic book villain would do if he could get away with it/expand his wealth.

That's what alarms me. If the republicans are complicent in Trumps shenanigans, imagine what would happen if they installed someone with a bit of smarts? Trump has been at the vanguard of this duplicity and has paved the way for something far far worse

marno21

duploelabs wrote: »

That's what alarms me. If the republicans are complicent in Trumps shenanigans, imagine what would happen if they installed someone with a bit of smarts? Trump has been at the vanguard of this duplicity and has paved the way for something far far worse

I think it's unfair to place all the blame at Trump's shoes.

Trump's tweets and gaffes are a useful distraction for some of the Republican agenda being implented by McConnell and co in the Senate, which doesn't get near enough reporting because "oh look at what he tweeted".

But yes, it is worrying to think what precedents this administration has set and demonstrated exactly what they can get away with.

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

That's what alarms me. If the republicans are complicent in Trumps shenanigans, imagine what would happen if they installed someone with a bit of smarts? Trump has been at the vanguard of this duplicity and has paved the way for something far far worse

Agreed.

If any good can come from 45's dumpster fire of an admin, its that it has exposed the fact that someone can ignore "the norms" and do what the hell they like.

Now is the time to implement rules to replace the norms and lock down fundamental standards for all future presidents.

MadYaker

Maybe they will impeach him? Trump, as a candidate for President, knew that Russia was helping him. Since then, he has called Russian interference a hoax and has sided with Russia on this issue on the world stage. Based on his public denial of the problem and lack of leadership on solving it, Trump has proven that he is incapable of safeguarding American elections from outside interference. He also has attempted to obstruct justice by asking WH counsel multiple times (including calling him at home apparently) asking to fire mueller or end of the special counsel. The report presents a President that is unfit for the office in many ways when you think about it. It'd be a war though.

PropJoe10

I think the Dems would be making an error by impeaching him, it'd only mobilise his idiot base. Better to focus on defeating him at the ballot box.

Leroy42

They are not mutually exclusive

Gbear

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I think the Dems would be making an error by impeaching him, it'd only mobilise his idiot base. Better to focus on defeating him at the ballot box.

His base isn't big enough to have the final say.

Energising their own base, which is bigger, and the floating vote, is where it's at. On the whole they've shown they have the edge on policy, with polling supporting them, and the mid term results underpinning the validity of those polls.

That's not mutually exclusive with impeachment. Most people won't even skim the Mueller report. Most won't even have a vaguely accurate view of it, or particularly care about it's contents. Impeachment brings those people face to face with those facts.

If Trump can be made to appear in front of Congress, and flounder as he would as his crimes are exposed (and this could well extend beyond the Mueller report to his finances) it could make him look incredibly weak.

A line that the Dems were bullying him wouldn't really pass muster, because if he has any capacity to sway people beyond naked authoritarian racism, it would be in his clout, his ability to dance around rules of those stiff establishment types and to drive the narrative.

If he's cross examined (or whatever the equivalent is for impeachment) it won't be on his terms.

Cheerful Spring

The Muller report is very confusing in places and I have only read the first few pages and sections of this report so far.

Mueller team claimed there no evidence the Trump campaign team conspired with Russia to undermine the election. I know supporter of Hilary, and honestly she deserved it, but i think this is interesting.

Mueller team reveals Papadopoulos was trying to arrange a meeting between the Trump campaign and persons who have a relationship with the Russian government.

Confusing part.
Mueller team alleges Papadopoulos, told someone well placed in a Foreign government the Trump campaign had received indications directly from the Russian government and the Russian said they had info about hilary and will damage her presidential campaign. For me this is evidence the Trump campaign was aware of Russia efforts to collude early 2016 and the Russian government told them in person they had this info. When and where was this indicated to the Trump campaign though and does Mueller clarify when it happened i have not yet read the full report to find out?

Muller team from what i read so far says Trump campaign never got this info. Still the Trump campaign team were they definately colluding with Russia at the start of the campaign.

A serious allegation the Russians had damaging info pre June 2016, before the DNC hack, and were willing to share it with Trump campaign team. If Papadolus is a truthworthy person and if his allegation can be clarified and shown to be true, this is evidence of collusion.


Mueller team two main allegations is the Russia state conspired against Hilary to help Trump. The first allegation is very serious and amazed the Official media have not talked more about it.

The first main allegation is a internet research agency based in St Peterburg Russia was undermining the American Presidental election beteween Hilary and Trump. The IRA ( internet research agency) disguised their identities online, pretending to be US citizens and entities they'd purchased political advertisements on social media. Muleler alleges the IRA send operatives to the United States in 2014.
Mueller also alleges this same group contacted Trump supporters and Trump campaign officials in the United States to help organise political rallies for Trump.

Organising Political rallies from St Peterburg would be extremely difficult especially if there not talking on the phone and only making contact on Twitter and Facebook?

IRA operatives inside the United States, Mueller allegation? The IRA operatives names are not listed by Muller, so it likely redacted info. If you’re cynical this can be just smoke and mirrors. End of the day it’s a serious allegation proposed by the Mueller Team, Russian spies were carrying out operations of this type inside the United States and this needs to be explored further by Congress.

Second main allegation. Is the GRU hacked the DNC server. . Muller alleges the GRU hacked the DNC servers in April 2016. If the DNC was aware of a cyber attack in April 2016- They are incompetent, they failed to boost their security and update their protocals to protect info? The second intrusion came in June and third in July 2016. Muller also alleges the Russians were sloppy and used a online personality named Guccider 2.0 and he leaked the emails to Wikileaks in July 2016. What happened to the files supposedly taken in April 2016? Why did the Russians wait till the next hack in June to leak the info to Wikileaks? I not convincerd the official narrative is right., personel opinion of course. .

I continue to read this report, but the allegations are serious and need further invrestigation.

Igotadose

Mother Jones reporting on Trump's other wing-nut nominee for the Fed, Stephen Moore. Seems he has some, well to me, rich-guy's lackey ideas about taxes - tax the poor and concentrate more money in the wealthiest. Hates welfare, food stamps, the fact that the poorest pay no income tax, after all, a couple earning $15,000 per year or less are getting a free ride by not paying taxes. $15,000 per year. 2 people. Not enough to live on by far.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/stephen-moore-federal-reserve-poor-taxes/

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

For example, Trump has made massive traction out of the VA and getting them the help they need. How is that any different that medicare? Of course one can argue that they fought for their country, but surely that can be extended to 1st responders, and teachers and, and and.

Barring exceptions like the FBI, 1st responders, teachers, etc aren't the Fed's problem. The Federal Employee's Health Benefits program effectively puts non-military federal employees like the FBI into the private system.

It can certainly be argued that the Feds should be rolled into the VHA (and the VHA expanded to suit), or the VHA be abolished and vets rolled into the general healthcare system at large with the FEHB, but on the other hand, it can also be generally considered that there is a certain amount of common injury (i.e combat caused injuries or PTSD) which merits the creation of a network which routinely copes with that sort of thing, and then the other stuff just on top of that since the network already exists. There is also a certain psychological benefit to dealing with your injuries alongside other veterans.

Leroy42

The point being that you either think VA healthcare is a good thing ideologically or not. How it is administered or which particular facit of government pays for it is irrelevant. The vet themselves doesn't and thus someone else does.

Since Trump is 100% behind this, and made significant play on it, one can see that under the right circumstances Trump believes in socialist healthcare provision.

My question was why, if one believes that healthcare is a right for certain members of the public, where can one draw the line.

One could argue that all service personnel know exactly what they signed up for, where provided with state funded training and paid for their service. Thus why should the state provide further healthcare (to be clear, this an illustration I believe vets don't deserve the very best care).

looksee

There is something basically wrong in a country where a gun club association can achieve so much power, and be addressed by the President of the country - and he is sufficiently in need of their approval that he makes statements like this

"Now we're sending many of them to sanctuary cities, thank you very much," he told a crowd in Green Bay, Wisconsin. "They ain't too happy about it. I'm proud to tell you that was actually my sick idea."

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/27/politics/trump-migrants-sanctuary-cities/index.html

And it is far from clear whether it is true or not.

is_that_so

looksee wrote: »

There is something basically wrong in a country where a gun club association can achieve so much power, and be addressed by the President of the country - and he is sufficiently in need of their approval that he makes statements like this


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/27/politics/trump-migrants-sanctuary-cities/index.html

And it is far from clear whether it is true or not.

Truth doesn't matter any more. He's just shoring up his base and will say anything they want to hear.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

The point being that you either think VA healthcare is a good thing ideologically or not. One could argue that all service personnel know exactly what they signed up for, where provided with state funded training and paid for their service. Thus why should the state provide further healthcare (to be clear, this an illustration I believe vets don't deserve the very best care).

As a vet, I see this differently. I know what I signed up for but (and there's always one) while always having it in mind that I might be the one carried home, I also assumed that the carried would always be some-one else and not me. I definitely would feel a tad better in mind knowing there was a medic there to care for me after if I was wounded to any degree.

The reason the state (through the public) provides healthcare for the wounded is that its part of the deal to those who go to foreign places on behalf of AND under the orders of the state, a repayment for one's personal bodily sacrifice because the state knew in advance of the bloody risk involved. Ideology really doesn't apply to VA provided healthcare unless one objects to fellow country-persons being made a military tool of state abroad, that objection presumably also having a bearing on the degree of medical after-care provided (rather than just the cost) over that provided to any taxpayer through medicare/Medicaid.

Peculiarly enough, I sometimes hear Donovan's song "Universal Soldier" ringing in my ears when I come to funerals.

looksee

To those of us who take it pretty much for granted that if you are sick you will get care, the whole business of Vets getting health care seems a little overstated. I would expect that if you were injured in the course of your work for the country - whether army, firefighter, police or any other public service - you would be treated, so that having specific healthcare for vets would not arise.

Igotadose

looksee wrote: »

To those of us who take it pretty much for granted that if you are sick you will get care, the whole business of Vets getting health care seems a little overstated. I would expect that if you were injured in the course of your work for the country - whether army, firefighter, police or any other public service - you would be treated, so that having specific healthcare for vets would not arise.

It's specific but parallel services for Vets versus the general public - in theory, Vets get health care for free, that's as good or better than what's available to the general public.

Firefighters, police, etc. are in the public system with (again, in theory), excellent public-employee insurance leading to their healthcare being affordable for them. However, there aren't public-employee specific providers (versus VA hospitals).

The tragedy around the VA is that since it is more or less outside the public system, it suffers from being inadequately resourced and providing care that's not perceived to be as good as what's available to the general public - that part of the general public with good insurance, of course. Most veterans I know choose between the VA and their own insurance, my experience is that the VA is used for 'routine' checkups and so forth, while private insurance used for surgery and more advanced needs.

This is all due to the fact that everything in the US health care is insurance based. Medicare (senior citizen health insurance) is still insurance, run by the government. Medicaid is very low cost insurance available to those with low earnings, provided free by the government.

Remember that the US government does not directly *provide* health care except in the case of the VA, as compared with the NHS or HSE. VA is more like the HSE, you get something, probably not very good, run by the government whose first priority is protecting itself (o.k. that's a bit of a rant, this isn't an HSE bashing thread, but they exist.)