Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

jobbridge4life

Itssoeasy wrote: »

CNN have put it on their screen that Trump is enquiring for a prime time TV address tomorrow.

Declaration of a national emergency?

Itssoeasy

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Declaration of a national emergency?

Well what proven national emergency would he declare ? The border wall isn't a national emergency so you'd think the big three plus CNN and fox(well he could announce anything and fox would broadcast it) would have to know the basis of him wanting time.

jobbridge4life

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well what proven national emergency would he declare ? The border wall isn't a national emergency so you'd think the big three plus CNN and fox(well he could announce anything and fox would broadcast it) would have to know the basis of him wanting time.

I think it is the established Trump position that he can fund his border wall construction by means of declaring a national emergency on the basis of a national security threat at the southern border. Facts have never been strong with him.

James Brown

I believe he can call a state of national emergency to build the wall. But the senate still needs to sign off on the amount he gets.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-what-s-national-emergency-can-trump-declare-one-n954966

He can't back down without heavily blaming the Dems. I can't see him backing down. Maybe it's possible to create some emergency legislation to pay the workers in the interim?

Itssoeasy

Shock horror that one of Trumps administration contradicts him. John Bolton has said while in Israel the opposite of what Trump declared before Christmas.

ancapailldorcha

Off topic post deleted. Less of the general US and Europe stuff please.

Itssoeasy

MSNBC are reporting according to CBP that there was only 6 people who crossed the southern border of the United States in the first half of 2018 that showed up on the terrorism database . Six ? So Trump wants to take up prime time TV time over six people who's names appeared on a database ? I mean so shock horror that 4,000 number was wrong and Chris Wallace of Fox News pullled up the press secretary on yesterday.

looksee

Was there ever anything as ridiculous as SHS trying to rescue herself from the lie she dropped herself into! The southern border is the weak spot even though all those people were caught at airports and ports...

Itssoeasy

looksee wrote: »

Was there ever anything as ridiculous as SHS trying to rescue herself from the lie she dropped herself into! The southern border is the weak spot even though all those people were caught at airports and ports...

I watched the relevant clip of her lying and it's funny to hear how her tone seemed to change when Chris Wallace used the fact of the airport. I had a feel of she wasn't expecteping this fact based stuff.

Itssoeasy

What's the over under on how many misleading(I'll be generous) statements will Trump make during his address tomorrow night ? I'd say ten at a minimum.

robinph

everlast75 wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

The Dems are going to break up the Bills now and propose individual Bills proposing the re-opening of the Government, which will increase the pressure. Those Bills will be unrelated to the Wall funding and place the Reps' stance as being that they want to hold 800,000 employees' wages hostage on a "now urgent" wall that nothing has been done about by them for 2 years.

Here we go.

Very clever stuff by the Dems...

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1082310972126093312

I saw a headline that the White House has since decided that they can get the IRS staff back in themselves without needing a bill passed, so Trump can claim the credit for people getting their refunds.

Igotadose

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What's the over under on how many misleading(I'll be generous) statements will Trump make during his address tomorrow night ? I'd say ten at a minimum.

I hope CNN runs the 'factcheck sidebar' they've done with SHS. Imagine.... a network fact-checking a President's speech in real time...

Leroy42

Isn't it amazing that close to 50% (this is my own view, not any definitive amount) of US will openly regard whatever the POTUS said as not only spin but outright lies?

It is a staggering place that Trump has brought politics to at this point.

Penn

Igotadose wrote: »

I hope CNN runs the 'factcheck sidebar' they've done with SHS. Imagine.... a network fact-checking a President's speech in real time...

Yeah I saw a post on Twitter about how the likes of CNN are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position with Trump's address. He decries them as fake news, enemies of the people, general all-round b*stards etc. Yet they almost have to air his address because it's a Presidential address to the nation and not airing it would stoke bias claims further.

However, running a factchecker during it would definitely be the way to go, I think.

Quin_Dub

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I think it is the established Trump position that he can fund his border wall construction by means of declaring a national emergency on the basis of a national security threat at the southern border. Facts have never been strong with him.

I saw an interesting theory put forward by someone yesterday.

Basically , Trump declares a national emergency to fund the wall , which then allows him to sign the bill to re-open government. but the Democrats will challenge his "emergency" in the courts and if the courts block him he then has another scapegoat and gets to blame the Judiciary.

Leroy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I saw an interesting theory put forward by someone yesterday.

Basically , Trump declares a national emergency to fund the wall , which then allows him to sign the bill to re-open government. but the Democrats will challenge his "emergency" in the courts and if the courts block him he then has another scapegoat and gets to blame the Judiciary.

Yeah, he desperately needs an out for the hole he has dug himself. The Shutdown was down to him not going with the original deal, then further dug when he proudly exclaimed that he would take ownership of any shutdown.

Since then he has been trying desperately to wiggle out of the hole and the national emergency is the latest ruse.

Bear in mind that he didn't use NE for the opioid problem, despite much hand-wringing. Or indeed to deal with Russian election interference. But all of a sudden it is top of the agenda.

The Dems will have a field day over the next two years in congress. Not because they are particularly smart but Trump, and those around him, are quite obviously so out of their depth

26000 Elephants

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I watched the relevant clip of her lying and it's funny to hear how her tone seemed to change when Chris Wallace used the fact of the airport. I had a feel of she wasn't expecteping this fact based stuff.

She was coached to stick to 2 core facts:

1. Land borders, by their nature, are vulnerable.
2. Terrorists tried to enter the US.

In a classic, but obvious fallacy she tried to conflate the 2 statements into "Terrorists are getting into the US because our borders are vulnerable". When pushed, her fallback was "Air, Land & Sea - All Borders".

It wasn't genius by Wallace that made her uncomfortable, just the rudimentary teasing out of her statement. The fact that you need to speak to a Whitehouse spox in a manner you would use with a bold 6 year old is unsettling.

circadian

Penn wrote: »

Yeah I saw a post on Twitter about how the likes of CNN are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position with Trump's address. He decries them as fake news, enemies of the people, general all-round b*stards etc. Yet they almost have to air his address because it's a Presidential address to the nation and not airing it would stoke bias claims further.

However, running a factchecker during it would definitely be the way to go, I think.

I'd definitely be concerned about the trend on social media for decrying the networks for allocating time for this. To me it looks like another campaign to destabilise and discredit the Fourth Estate and people are falling for it. For me, if he wants airtime to spout his BS then let him have it, feed him the rope to hang himself. If CNN run their fact checker during it then that'd be a major win for them.

26000 Elephants

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't it amazing that close to 50% (this is my own view, not any definitive amount) of US will openly regard whatever the POTUS said as not only spin but outright lies?

It is a staggering place that Trump has brought politics to at this point.

More worrying is the 30% who will unquestioningly accept whatever he says as unassailable fact.

everlast75

Interesting point...


https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/1082360764105719808?s=19

Penn

circadian wrote: »

I'd definitely be concerned about the trend on social media for decrying the networks for allocating time for this. To me it looks like another campaign to destabilise and discredit the Fourth Estate and people are falling for it. For me, if he wants airtime to spout his BS then let him have it, feed him the rope to hang himself. If CNN run their fact checker during it then that'd be a major win for them.

Agreed. Have the factchecker running alongside it, or at the very least considering we know what he's likely to say, have a panel ready to go after it to discuss and properly drill down into whatever claims he makes. But not airing his address would only be a huge rod for Trump/GOP to beat them with.

Leroy42

Yeah, I agree. He is POTUS after all. A public address should be televised. The issue is that many think that Trump is not doing this because of some threat to the US, such as 9/11 or Pearl Harbour, but rather to spout his own level of lies and mistruths.

But I cannot see what other option they have, except to air it and then follow it up. To refuse would be refusing to hear what POTUS has to say, and that is a very bad path to go down.

Let him say his piece, and then the media, in all its forms, should dispasionately disect it, whether that be a positive or negative view.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

But I cannot see what other option they have, except to air it and then follow it up. To refuse would be refusing to hear what POTUS has to say, and that is a very bad path to go down.

The President already tried to make a national address on immigration and the networks refused to air it live as they said it was a political speech.


But that was 2014 and the president was black, so it is totally different now.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/7/18172419/trump-immigration-speech-networks-obama

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The President already tried to make a national address on immigration and the networks refused to air it live as they said it was a political speech.


But that was 2014 and the president was black, so it is totally different now.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/7/18172419/trump-immigration-speech-networks-obama

Really? I did not know that. Thanks

everlast75

I agree a POTUS should be allowed deliver a speech, but what do you do when he has lied 7500 and continues to do so every single day.

At some point out becomes propaganda.

Obama was denied airtime by the major networks for a speech on immigration in 2014, but Trump seems to be able to bully them into doing what he wants.

Air the speech, but pause/delay it in real time to fact check him each and every time he lies.

It might take twice as long but that's the only way to deal with it.

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

I agree a POTUS should be allowed deliver a speech, but what do you do when he has lied 7500 and continues to do so every single day.

At some point out becomes propaganda.

Obama was denied airtime by the major networks for a speech on immigration in 2014, but Trump seems to be able to bully them into doing what he wants.

Air the speech, but pause/delay it in real time to fact check him each and every time he lies.

It might take twice as long but that's the only way to deal with it.

Would the difference between Obama/Trump be that Obama was announcing executive actions whereas Trump (by most accounts) is announcing a national emergency, hence why it warrants being allowed on the air where Obama's wasn't?

Obviously we all know it's not a national emergency, it is political in nature and he's going to lie for most of it, but if a President says they want airtime to declare a national emergency, I think it's entirely fair that networks allow it as opposed to a President who wants to announce a series of executive actions.

spacecoyote

Penn wrote: »

Would the difference between Obama/Trump be that Obama was announcing executive actions whereas Trump (by most accounts) is announcing a national emergency, hence why it warrants being allowed on the air where Obama's wasn't?

Obviously we all know it's not a national emergency, it is political in nature and he's going to lie for most of it, but if a President says they want airtime to declare a national emergency, I think it's entirely fair that networks allow it as opposed to a President who wants to announce a series of executive actions.

Has that been explicitly stated? I know that the assumption is that this is what he is going to do, but has there been a definitive statement saying that is the purpose of the announcement?

Timberrrrrrrr

What time is his speech on guys? Will see if i can have a sneaky watch if its during work time

Penn

spacecoyote wrote: »

Has that been explicitly stated? I know that the assumption is that this is what he is going to do, but has there been a definitive statement saying that is the purpose of the announcement?

No, but I'd imagine they'd have to give more info to the networks in order to get the airtime than has been released publicly.

Penn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What time is his speech on guys? Will see if i can have a sneaky watch if its during work time

Thinks it's 8pm tomorrow evening (US time, not sure exactly what time zone). So could be late into the night over here.