Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

batgoat

Penn wrote: »

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

2am gmt is the time for us... I'm good..

Igotadose

Shutdown may impact SNAP (food stamp) program in the US next month. Difficult to tell since at least one department, Agriculture, has some leeway on how/when SNAP is funded: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/food-stamps-government-shutdown-1062090

FWIW SNAP currently costs USG about $5bn/month (so...$60bn/year.) The actual individual benefit isn't that great - average recipient gets about $125. Per month. Imagine trying to live on that exclusively in the US. $31.25 per week, about $1/meal. Wow.

(and of course the tGOP think it's just awful it's so high.)

About 44million claim SNAP benefits in the US, so more than 10% of the population.

Igotadose

Shutdown may impact SNAP (food stamp) program in the US next month. Difficult to tell since at least one department, Agriculture, has some leeway on how/when SNAP is funded: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/food-stamps-government-shutdown-1062090

FWIW SNAP currently costs USG about $5bn/month (so...$60bn/year.) The actual individual benefit isn't that great - average recipient gets about $125. Per month. Imagine trying to live on that exclusively in the US. $31.25 per week, about $1/meal. Wow.

(and of course the tGOP think it's just awful it's so high.)

About 44million claim SNAP benefits in the US, so more than 10% of the population.

everlast75

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.

You are problem right in the difference between Trump and Obama on technical grounds, so let's agree on that.

It's a shame however that 7500 lies so far counts for nothing though in terms of access to the public.

I still believe a fact check in real time should definitely happen though.

Christy42

everlast75 wrote: »

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.

You are problem right in the difference between Trump and Obama on technical grounds, so let's agree on that.

It's a shame however that 7500 lies so far counts for nothing though in terms of access to the public.

I still believe a fact check in real time should definitely happen though.

I believe the lies is why he gets the air time. If Obama doesn't then Obama is not going to go on a mad rant. If Trump doesn't get air time he will get incredible offended and suddenly lies about you are flying around from him and his supporters blindly insisting they are right and how dare you not listen.

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

You are problem right in the difference between Trump and Obama on technical grounds, so let's agree on that.

It's a shame however that 7500 lies so far counts for nothing though in terms of access to the public.

I still believe a fact check in real time should definitely happen though.

I agree, the sheer scale and magnitude of the lies he's told is abhorrent, as is his challenging of the media simply for pointing out when he's lying.

But, a President declaring a national emergency is still a President declaring a national emergency. It's up to the networks to be ready to counteract and disprove what he says in as strong a manner as possible. They know what he's going to say, they know the lies he's going to spew, they know the facts he's going to misrepresent. Give him the airtime, but be prepared to challenge everything that needs challenging.

hotmail.com

The deference given to US presidents by the tv networks in America is amazing. Interrupting programming to show a boring speech that most people aren't interested in seems to have a long history in America.

Muahahaha

batgoat wrote: »

2am gmt is the time for us... I'm good..

Is it 2am later tonight or the night after? Wont stay up for it but wouldnt mind watching it on Fox the day after for the lulz. Though a CNN feed with a fact check running would be pretty attractive too.

Anyone know where Ivanka is these days? She was always present in the first six months of the administation but seems to have vanished since then. Is she still working in the WH and what is her role?

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is it 2am later tonight or the night after? Wont stay up for it but wouldnt mind watching it on Fox the day after for the lulz. Though a CNN feed with a fact check running would be pretty attractive too.

Anyone know where Ivanka is these days? She was always present in the first six months of the administation but seems to have vanished since then. Is she still working in the WH and what is her role?

2am Wednesday morning, as in approx. 12 hours from now.

Igotadose

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is it 2am later tonight or the night after? Wont stay up for it but wouldnt mind watching it on Fox for the lulz

Anyone know where Ivanka is these days? She was always present in the first six months of the administation but seems to have vanished since then. Is she still working in the WH and what is her role?

Up to mischief like all in the Trump crime family: https://apnews.com/5af24cd9f59e445f97ec6e9c4a2c2f46

"An ethics watchdog group asked the Justice Department on Friday to investigate whether President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka violated federal conflict-of-interest law by promoting an Opportunity Zone tax break program from which she could potentially benefit.

The complaint from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington follows an Associated Press investigation last month. The AP found that Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, both White House advisers, could benefit from the Opportunity Zones program they pushed that offers tax breaks to developers who invest in downtrodden communities."

---

However Trump leaves the Whitehouse, his criminal offspring will have their probosces deep into government and taxpayer dollars for years to come. They've fattened their rolodexes and probably worked on corrupting whoever they come in contact with.

StringerBell

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.

The Dems won't even have to, it will be shut down pretty quickly by the Federal Courts.

The overall premise though is spot on, he doesn't care what happens so long as he can point to someone else and blame it on them, that he tried but he was obstructed and use that as an attempt to grab more power or dilute more of the institutional integrity of the US.

This is just a consequence of the man and should be ignored largely when dealing with him, in essence you need to take the approach "**** what he will say" pardon my French.

He was going to sign the legislation and then backed off it because he is worried how it will look to his base, without his base he is nothing, screwed. He has zero chance of re-election, it will be a tough ask probably even with the base as he has not expanded the tent one little bit. If he doesn't get re-elected there is a very real possibility he will spend the remaining years of his life fighting various legal battles, criminal ones, and possibly even jail time. Not just for him, for his family too.

He will do whatever is necessary to keep his base.

everlast75

I'm starting to lean towards this shutdown now being McConnell's fault.

I mean - I know Trump said he would do it, and then did it and so he owns that, but the continuance of the shutdown is down to McConnell. I firmly believe that if he allowed the vote, it would go to Trump, and Trump wouldn't have the political balls to refuse to sign it. On that basis, if there is any justice, McConnell will have his ass handed to him come re-election time.



On a separate point about this speech this evening, one could only look at is a tacit acceptance that he is losing the political fight on the wall. He is ramping up the rhetoric because he knows now how deep he is in. There are also murmurs of other republicans moving against him in the Senate, asking for the Bills to be allowed to the floor.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

Interesting point...


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

The ultra conservative part of the party and the media and his fear about his base go hand in hand imo.

Does he really want to take the risk that if his conservative media buddies fully turn and begin to hammer him on a daily basis with all kinds of crap the same as they do for any of the "liberals" his base will hold firm?

They would chip away at his base, his fear of them is that they will erode his support.

Penn

Confirmed that Pelosi and Schumer will deliver a response to Trump's address sometime later that night.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-speech-shutdown-border/h_5314e549f69e3d6d48c422f81fa78fc5

Where or when hasn't been announced, but looks like they're preparing to counter his arguments publicly while the iron is hot.

Edit: Sorry, just saw that pretty much all the major networks will be showing the Democratic Leaders' response
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/major-networks-will-carry-democratic-response-trump-immigration-speech-n956051

Several major networks announced on Tuesday morning that they will air the Democratic response to President Donald Trump's prime-time Oval Office address on immigration.

All of the major broadcast networks — CBS and NBC, as well as Fox and ABC, according to Variety — will show the response. On cable, MSNBC, CNN and Fox News will carry the response. On Monday, all of of the major networks said they would air the president's speech, prompting Democratic leaders to call for space to rebut him.

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

Confirmed that Pelosi and Schumer will deliver a response to Trump's address sometime later that night.

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-speech-shutdown-border/h_5314e549f69e3d6d48c422f81fa78fc5

Where or when hasn't been announced, but looks like they're preparing to counter his arguments publicly while the iron is hot.

It should be

1) Equal length of time
2) Equal amount of networks
3) Pure facts and
4) Clips of videos Trump et al completely contradicting what they said before.

everlast75

We are told that Trump has "a base"? We are told that this 35% odd percent that will vote for him whatever he does.

Just a couple of questions.

Why are the rest of the US beholden to them?

Do the Dems not have a solid 35%, who will (failing blatant obstruction or abuse of power) vote for the Dem regardless? If they do, how come we never hear about the Dem "base"? Why don't they hold equal power to the Republican base? Why do they never factor into polls, or are discussed in the news?

FreudianSlippers

I'd be interested to see how much of that 35% base is actually Trump's base versus a GOP and/or anti-Democrat base.

mcmoustache

One of the Russians at the Trump Tower meeting has been indicted for Obstruction of Justice.

This charge for Natalya Veselnitskaya is not directly related to the Mueller investigation or the Trumps. The obstruction charge stems from the Prevezon case where she helped draft a memo from Uri Chaika's (Russian main prosecutor) office which was then sent to US investigators in the SDNY. The Prevezon case is one that was being prosecuted by Preet Bharara. It involved money laundering in New York real estate markets. The money being laundered was the stolen money from Bill Browder that Sergei Magnitski was investigating.

Very soon after he Bharara was fired, the justice department confusingly decided to settle for 5 million odd.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

We are told that Trump has "a base"? We are told that this 35% odd percent that will vote for him whatever he does.

Just a couple of questions.

Why are the rest of the US beholden to them?

Do the Dems not have a solid 35%, who will (failing blatant obstruction or abuse of power) vote for the Dem regardless? If they do, how come we never hear about the Dem "base"? Why don't they hold equal power to the Republican base? Why do they never factor into polls, or are discussed in the news?

I think the big difference is that a GOP Base or Core voter will ALWAYS vote (R) no matter who the candidate is whereas the Dem Core voter is far more likely to abstain if they don't like their candidate.

So broadly speaking the GOP core is a guaranteed vote no matter what , but the Dem core , whilst they will never vote GOP may not vote Dem if they aren't "feeling it"..

And that can make a big difference in those Swing/Purple States..

Penn

mcmoustache wrote: »

One of the Russians at the Trump Tower meeting has been indicted for Obstruction of Justice.

This charge for Natalya Veselnitskaya is not directly related to the Mueller investigation or the Trumps. The obstruction charge stems from the Prevezon case where she helped draft a memo from Uri Chaika's (Russian main prosecutor) office which was then sent to US investigators in the SDNY. The Prevezon case is one that was being prosecuted by Preet Bharara. It involved money laundering in New York real estate markets. The money being laundered was the stolen money from Bill Browder that Sergei Magnitski was investigating.

Very soon after he Bharara was fired, the justice department confusingly decided to settle for 5 million odd.

I thought it could be a bit of an in for Mueller, that being charged with this crime could enable them to entice her to co-operate regarding the Trump Tower meeting as part of a plea deal. However, I read that she's suspected to be in Russia at present and clearly has powerful Russian friends, so even though she's been charged with obstruction I'd say it's unlikely anything will come of it.

volchitsa

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think the big difference is that a GOP Base or Core voter will ALWAYS vote (R) no matter who the candidate is whereas the Dem Core voter is far more likely to abstain if they don't like their candidate.

So broadly speaking the GOP core is a guaranteed vote no matter what , but the Dem core , whilst they will never vote GOP may not vote Dem if they aren't "feeling it"..

And that can make a big difference in those Swing/Purple States..

Thanks for that Quin Dub, though I have another question following on from it: is there a historical or other explanation for the difference in "loyalty" to both parties?

mcmoustache

Penn wrote: »

I thought it could be a bit of an in for Mueller, that being charged with this crime could enable them to entice her to co-operate regarding the Trump Tower meeting as part of a plea deal. However, I read that she's suspected to be in Russia at present and clearly has powerful Russian friends, so even though she's been charged with obstruction I'd say it's unlikely anything will come of it.

WSJ reports that she's on holiday, not in the US so she's unlikely to be arrested. This does limit her travel opportunities though. I also find it odd to indict somebody for obstructing an investigation that had already been settled.

Here's the indictment if anyone's interested.

Quin_Dub

volchitsa wrote: »

Thanks for that Quin Dub, though I have another question following on from it: is there a historical or other explanation for the difference in "loyalty" to both parties?

Good question - I have seen multiple theories around this..

One version says that core GOP voters have more "blind loyalty" than the Dem core . The Dem core voters or so the thinking goes, have a more nuanced approach to their vote and will withhold their vote is they don't like the candidate or their policies..

Another theory is that a large % of Dem voters are younger and more educated and as such place a higher value on a candidate "earning" their vote and that generally speaking "liberal" voters are much more fluid in their support and engagement then a "conservative" one.

I think that a lot of Democrat voters in the US are a bit like our "left wing" voters here in so far as they will only vote for the candidate that aligns fairly closely with their version of things and as such at Senate and Presidential level in the US finding a candidate that can be sufficiently "jack of all trades" for the Democrats can be really really difficult.

jobbridge4life

hotmail.com wrote: »

The deference given to US presidents by the tv networks in America is amazing. Interrupting programming to show a boring speech that most people aren't interested in seems to have a long history in America.

They didn't do it for Obama when he wanted to do an address on immigration.

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think the big difference is that a GOP Base or Core voter will ALWAYS vote (R) no matter who the candidate is whereas the Dem Core voter is far more likely to abstain if they don't like their candidate.

So broadly speaking the GOP core is a guaranteed vote no matter what , but the Dem core , whilst they will never vote GOP may not vote Dem if they aren't "feeling it"..

And that can make a big difference in those Swing/Purple States..

So, basically the Dems need to blindly loyal and then they too will control the country?

Sweet.

FreudianSlippers

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Good question - I have seen multiple theories around this..

One version says that core GOP voters have more "blind loyalty" than the Dem core . The Dem core voters or so the thinking goes, have a more nuanced approach to their vote and will withhold their vote is they don't like the candidate or their policies..

Another theory is that a large % of Dem voters are younger and more educated and as such place a higher value on a candidate "earning" their vote and that generally speaking "liberal" voters are much more fluid in their support and engagement then a "conservative" one.

I think that a lot of Democrat voters in the US are a bit like our "left wing" voters here in so far as they will only vote for the candidate that aligns fairly closely with their version of things and as such at Senate and Presidential level in the US finding a candidate that can be sufficiently "jack of all trades" for the Democrats can be really really difficult.

Agreed - I'd only add that there is a much broader economic and social spectrum of Democratic voters than the Republicans.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

So, basically the Dems need to blindly loyal and then they too will control the country?

Sweet.

Kinda - That was one of the reasons behind the "Vote Blue, No Matter Who" messaging that was quite prevalent during the mid-terms to try and drive that mind-set.

hotmail.com

jobbridge4life wrote:

They didn't do it for Obama when he wanted to do an address on immigration.

And that was the right decision. Any network that doesn't show these largely pointless speeches would see a ratings increase.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1082707274232221696?s=19




Can Manafort or his lawyers do anything right???


Sounds very "collusion-y" though doesn't it?

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/1082707274232221696?s=19




Can Manafort or his lawyers do anything right???


Sounds very "collusion-y" though doesn't it?

Ah here. Would it not be the special counsel who redacts the stuff ?