Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

aloyisious

Will the anger felt by the Govt employees denied wages for the hours they worked just fade away or will the GOP suffer from voters later? X amount of the workers have to be registered [or not] GOP voters. The GOP Senators & C/persons [incl those getting election funding] must be getting calls from the unions by now.

spacecoyote

aloyisious wrote: »

Will the anger felt by the Govt employees denied wages for the hours they worked just fade away or will the GOP suffer from voters later? X amount of the workers have to be registered [or not] GOP voters. The GOP Senators & C/persons [incl those getting election funding] must be getting calls from the unions by now.

General consensus tends to be that it won't hurt them. They might see a very short term drop in opinion polls, but unless it really does drag on to a few months I'd imagine it'll be forgotten by the time we get to the 2020 election vycle

Leroy42

spacecoyote wrote: »

General consensus tends to be that it won't hurt them. They might see a very short term drop in opinion polls, but unless it really does drag on to a few months I'd imagine it'll be forgotten by the time we get to the 2020 election vycle

And failing to get the wall, or at least failing to be able to blame it on the 'elites' and the democrats, would be even worse.

3 main promises.

Lock her up
Build the wall
Repeal and replace.

None of them even nearly met. Trump needs something to pretend he would have done it all only for someone else.

Although I fail to see how the man that sold himself as the only once that could do it can possibly get reelected on the basis that all the others got the better of him!

Quin_Dub

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The Dems are missing prime opportunity to gather an angry large crowd of federal employees in front of white house while waving the budget and chanting "sign the budget and pay your employees"

That would underline where the fault for shutdown is, one thing that drives Trump mad is thinking he is not popular (he is not, but his fox news echo chamber could be burst)

I think that's going to start now.. Not the protest outside the WH but certainly I expect to see a significant ramp up in TV coverage of people struggling without pay.

Today is the 1st time that most of the employees will miss a paycheck so expect to see LOTS of interviews with people not able to pay Rent/Mortgages etc.

Also expect to see an increase in the focus on the "TSA Flu" that's going on, where huge numbers of TSA staff are calling in sick rather than work for free.

pixelburp

Well it'll only take a couple more days and it'll be the longest US government shutdown in history; the previous 'winner' being 21 days during the Clinton Presidency. Funny cos they've always felt much longer when they happened, but I guess when the government literally closes down, it's hard to focus on much else.

So potentially another record-breaking stat from a broken record of a President - and the second shutdown in a calendar year too. For a wall. Not health insurance, not over taxation, not over anything tangible or practical. A wall.

Penn

Has there been any solid projections made regarding how much the USMCA deal would actually bring to America? How much will the USA profit from the new deal with Mexico and how long it would take for any profits from it to cover the costs of the wall? I feel like that would shut down Trump's biggest argument.

VonZan

Penn wrote: »

Has there been any solid projections made regarding how much the USMCA deal would actually bring to America? How much will the USA profit from the new deal with Mexico and how long it would take for any profits from it to cover the costs of the wall? I feel like that would shut down Trump's biggest argument.

No because a lot of the agreement changes the scope of trade between the countries. While in theory the deal should be mean that the US will have more competitive prices by forcing Mexico to increase Labour costs in order to avoid tariffs, it doesn't necessarily mean that the US will benefit.

Also, the US will probably be in recession by the time the next election rolls so it's unlikely Trump will ever get to see any benefits from this deal IMO.

Penn

VonZan wrote: »

No because a lot of the agreement changes the scope of trade between the countries. While in theory the deal should be mean that the US will have more competitive prices by forcing Mexico to increase Labour costs in order to avoid tariffs, it doesn't necessarily mean that the US will benefit.

Also, the US will probably be in recession by the time the next election rolls so it's unlikely Trump will ever get to see any benefits from this deal IMO.

Yeah I was just reading up on it there. It might create manufacturing jobs and increase tax revenue, but even then it's unlikely to profit America so much that it could conceivably be considered to have funded the wall, and ultimately it would also still be the taxpayers who are actually funding the wall.

The media need to do a better job of pointing this out rather than repeating Trump's assertion that the deal will cover the cost of the wall and that Mexico will therefore be funding the wall indirectly.

jooksavage

Penn wrote: »

The media need to do a better job of pointing this out rather than repeating Trump's assertion that the deal will cover the cost of the wall and that Mexico will therefore be funding the wall indirectly.

The media has been frustratingly pulling their punches with Trump, using terms like "misleading statements" instead of calling out his nonsense for what it is: lies. Imagine a NYT article that started with the words "The President lied yesterday...".

Penn

jooksavage wrote: »

The media has been frustratingly pulling their punches with Trump, using terms like "misleading statements" instead of calling out his nonsense for what it is: lies. Imagine a NYT article that started with the words "The President lied yesterday...".

Agreed, and particularly when so many get their news from social media and mostly just see the headlines that are usually just reduced down to "President Trump claims XYZ" without pointing out that XYZ is demonstrably false, which is contained in the article that many never read.

everlast75

Just lining these up, side by side.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1083718229908967424

https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/1083403650054135808

Trump is annoying when he does this, but it is, who he is.

What I cannot abide is the "surrogates", who come out on news segments and try and excuse away his BS

spacecoyote

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The Dems are missing prime opportunity to gather an angry large crowd of federal employees in front of white house while waving the budget and chanting "sign the budget and pay your employees"

That would underline where the fault for shutdown is, one thing that drives Trump mad is thinking he is not popular (he is not, but his fox news echo chamber could be burst)

Not sure whether it went ahead or not, but according to this article there was due to be a protest yesterday:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/air-traffic-controllers-miss-first-paycheck-1093977

Further to that, it appears that a number of people have had to turn to GoFundMe pages to try get cash to pay their bills. Its crazy to think that there are that many people, in government jobs who are living paycheck to paycheck in the US

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/10/government-shutdown-gofundme-employee-assistance-trump

Terence Rattigan

Is it just a case of they will eventually get paid for the shutdown period, or not get paid at all for the period that it lasts?

Nody

Terence Rattigan wrote: »

Is it just a case of they will eventually get paid for the shutdown period, or not get paid at all for the period that it lasts?

Depends on what congress & senate end up agreeing; they could end up not being paid for the period.

DrumSteve

Nody wrote: »

Depends on what congress & senate end up agreeing; they could end up not being paid for the period.

Ah I wouldn't be having that.

Quin_Dub

Terence Rattigan wrote: »

Is it just a case of they will eventually get paid for the shutdown period, or not get paid at all for the period that it lasts?

Nody wrote: »

Depends on what congress & senate end up agreeing; they could end up not being paid for the period.

DrumSteve wrote: »

Ah I wouldn't be having that.

I think that full time employees will all eventually get paid , but how and when depends on lots of things - Might be a lump sum , might be paid out over time etc.

But contractors won't ever see a penny..

So 800,000 employees plus partners & families - you are certainly looking at well north of a million people directly impacted by this absolute farce..

Professor Moriarty

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think that full time employees will all eventually get paid , but how and when depends on lots of things - Might be a lump sum , might be paid out over time etc.

But contractors won't ever see a penny..

So 800,000 employees plus partners & families - you are certainly looking at well north of a million people directly impacted by this absolute farce..

North of 2 million more likely.

rossie1977

Trump's approval by state. Looking at map he is seriously underwater in places like Wisconsin, Michigan states he won in 2016 and even Iowa which he won well. Incredible to see a sitting president with such a high disproval level in his home state.

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

everlast75

Well this NYT story just stole the show.

Makes me wonder if the wall narrative was just a distraction from the big story about to break...


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1083896967397203968?s=19

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

Well this NYT story just stole the show.

Makes me wonder if the wall narrative was just a distraction from the big story about to break...


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1083896967397203968?s=19

The article was full of conjecture, tbf. It does reinforce how absolutely out of their depth this administration is, but there's nothing about the counterintelligence investigation in it other than it might have happened. Mueller's team may somehow be involved and maybe the investigation is ongoing.

Somehow I'm wondering why the Trump/Russia 'stuff' waited till 2016 to get started. He's been in thick with Russia before that. Why nothing during the nomination campaign? Why nothing before he's nominated? It's not like he's innocent, he's guilty as hell, but how did he get this far? A question for Comey for sure.

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The Dems are missing prime opportunity ...

Missing prime opportunities is, unfortunately, a hallmark of the Democrats. Even as an unconcerned outside observer, their response to the Presidential Address last week was pitiful. Trump's spiel was so predictable that I expected the Democrats to have had a really firey counter-attack prepared and rehearsed. But no ... nothing ... just boring blah-blah-blah-ness.

It would have been great to hear them use their ten minutes to argue that Trump's 10 minutes was further justification for invoking the 25th Amendment. That would have given the news networks something to talk about, other than the wall! :cool:

blackwave

Igotadose wrote: »

The article was full of conjecture, tbf. It does reinforce how absolutely out of their depth this administration is, but there's nothing about the counterintelligence investigation in it other than it might have happened. Mueller's team may somehow be involved and maybe the investigation is ongoing.

Somehow I'm wondering why the Trump/Russia 'stuff' waited till 2016 to get started. He's been in thick with Russia before that. Why nothing during the nomination campaign? Why nothing before he's nominated? It's not like he's innocent, he's guilty as hell, but how did he get this far? A question for Comey for sure.

It's a good question and one I would love to see answered. My only guess on it is that A) The FBI were a little afraid to go after him given that he was spouting the birther nonsense about Obama.So to start an investigation into him would look politically motivated and somewhat legitimize him. He wasn't taken overly serious and was just viewed as a nut.

He should have been investigated though as he was neck deep in Russian money and laundering money for them for years.

Igotadose

blackwave wrote: »

He should have been investigated though as he was neck deep in Russian money and laundering money for them for years.

This. If they'd been investigating him since, say, 2003 and brought charges by 2010 or so, we'd never have heard of the guy.

FBI blew it.

Eric Cartman

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trump's approval by state. Looking at map he is seriously underwater in places like Wisconsin, Michigan states he won in 2016 and even Iowa which he won well. Incredible to see a sitting president with such a high disproval level in his home state.

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

To be fair, new york and california have hated every republican since raegan.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

To be fair, new york and california have hated every republican since raegan.

Are you ignoring the overall trend to make this point? Even in the deep red states his approval has plummeted. Why are you even bringing up California?

jochenstacker

Brian? wrote: »

Are you ignoring the overall trend to make this point? Even in the deep red states his approval has plummeted. Why are you even bringing up California?

Because "Hey! Look over there!".

aloyisious

What Govt Dept/s fund the work on the existing border wall, ie, renovation & repair? It has to need repairs etc if tunnelling etc are undermining it. I imagine that some of the work photos being shown might actually be of places where repair and renovation is necessary, and not of new first-time building of wall extensions, despite the presence of Don in the photos.

Going back a few days now looking at Don's "other presidents told me" quote, [which several have responded to with "NOT ME"] I'm left thinking that he's laid a way of walking away from the mess by tweeting "I'm not the first president defeated by the border wall" which his followers will believe. I'm surprised that he hasn't appealed to the reported border lands owners national loyalty to drop cases against the Govt in respect of their property rights - though he may have thought that would end in tears.

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

The article was full of conjecture, tbf. It does reinforce how absolutely out of their depth this administration is, but there's nothing about the counterintelligence investigation in it other than it might have happened. Mueller's team may somehow be involved and maybe the investigation is ongoing.

Somehow I'm wondering why the Trump/Russia 'stuff' waited till 2016 to get started. He's been in thick with Russia before that. Why nothing during the nomination campaign? Why nothing before he's nominated? It's not like he's innocent, he's guilty as hell, but how did he get this far? A question for Comey for sure.

As an unregistered agent for a foreign entity [same as some others] ?

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

To be fair, new york and california have hated every republican since raegan.

Yup and Texas has hated every democrat since well before then.

But now thanks to Trump actually being the worst politician most of America can remember, it's in play.

Unless something causes the course to change drastically, the next elections will see a relative republician wipeout.

circadian

Tulsi Gabbard might be running. She'd have strong support from those that backed Sanders last time around. She doesn't mince her words, is young, a woman, a Hindu and Iraq war veteran. Trump would have a hard time against someone like that.