Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Blowfish

circadian wrote: »

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.

Biggest problem for her is that Warren and possibly Bernie are running too and she'd be the least recognisable of the three.

Eric Cartman

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?

In direct response to a post about new york, that user posted it as if it was some sort of shock that new york wouldnt like a republican

Rjd2

Tulsi is disliked intensely by a lot of sectors of the Dem party mainly the establishment clique. I don't see any path for her this time round, but maybe n the future.

She might have half an eye on been the VP of Bernie assuming he runs and wins the nomination, he will want a women as VP and their is not many options. She also does appeal to plenty of the Trump base who are isolationist and has the dubious honor of been endorsed by Bannon.

.Her and Bernie would probably be a nightmare for the Democrat establishment though.:pac:

hill16bhoy

Rjd2 wrote: »

Tulsi is disliked intensely by a lot of sectors of the Dem party mainly the establishment clique. I don't see any path for her this time round, but maybe n the future.

She might have half an eye on been the VP of Bernie assuming he runs and wins the nomination, he will want a women as VP and their is not many options. She also does appeal to plenty of the Trump base who are isolationist and has the dubious honor of been endorsed by Bannon.

.Her and Bernie would probably be a nightmare for the Democrat establishment though.:pac:

If she performs well in the debates, she is the sort of candidate that could pick up serious momentum, and would be very well placed to beat Trump if she made it that far.

However, she's seriously tainted by her association with Assad and it will be very difficult for her to overcome that in a Democratic primary.

The likely presence of Sanders as a candidate would also eat massively into any potential support she has.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In direct response to a post about new york, that user posted it as if it was some sort of shock that new york wouldnt like a republican

Again: why were you talking about California?

rossie1977

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In direct response to a post about new york, that user posted it as if it was some sort of shock that new york wouldnt like a republican

NYC elected a republican mayor in giuliani and Pataki was governor for 12 years so its not like they are completely anti republican.

Nody

Eric Cartman wrote: »

In direct response to a post about new york, that user posted it as if it was some sort of shock that new york wouldnt like a republican

They don't mind republicans; Trump however is not a republican which is the problem.

Igotadose

rossie1977 wrote: »

NYC elected a republican mayor in giuliani and Pataki was governor for 12 years so its not like they are completely anti republican.

The original comment about NY and republicans was ignorant. NY has a long history of republican mayors, senators, governors. In my lifetime there was John Lindsay as mayor, Nelson Rockefeller as governor (later, Vice President), numerous Republican senators including some all-time losers like Alfonse D'Amato, plenty of republican Congressmen from the NYC area, ...

Trump's not popular in NY because he's not popular. I'm sure there's a percentage that sees the (R) and would be against him, but I think Trump himself and especially his long, very visible history in NY contributes more to the antipathy to him.

jobbridge4life

Igotadose wrote: »

The original comment about NY and republicans was ignorant. NY has a long history of republican mayors, senators, governors. In my lifetime there was John Lindsay as mayor, Nelson Rockefeller as governor (later, Vice President), numerous Republican senators including some all-time losers like Alfonse D'Amato, plenty of republican Congressmen from the NYC area, ...

Trump's not popular in NY because he's not popular. I'm sure there's a percentage that sees the (R) and would be against him, but I think Trump himself and especially his long, very visible history in NY contributes more to the antipathy to him.

Agree, and the idea of a Republican being an impossibility in NY has only gained ground as the Republicans have retreated further and further into the depths of social conservatism and rabid economic libertarianism(/hypocrisy).

It is the choice of post Nixonian Republicans and in particular the breed who came up with Reagan and fought Clinton, that has left them in the position they are now.

rossie1977

Yes how far right the Republicans have moved and towards apeasing the top 1% and big corporations ie their main donors is very clear when you see it laid out like this

https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/8xt55v/the_fcc_wants_to_charge_you_225_to_review_your/e25uz0g/

pixelburp

At 22 days, it is now the longest government shutdown in US history. A shutdown Trump said to the cameras he'd willingly take responsibility for. A sorry chaos that's hurting hundreds of thousands of normal citizens all because an impatient man needed snappy soundbites for his campaign, and is too stubborn to back off from a boondoggle. At times like this in glad our politics remains ... well, broadly dull.

Sand

pixelburp wrote: »

At 22 days, it is now the longest government shutdown in US history. A shutdown Trump said to the cameras he'd willingly take responsibility for. A sorry chaos that's hurting hundreds of thousands of normal citizens all because an impatient man needed snappy soundbites for his campaign, and is too stubborn to back off from a boondoggle. At times like this in glad our politics remains ... well, broadly dull.

Why not just give him the wall? Its a mere 25 billion out of a 4.4 trillion budget, 0.625%. Trump happy, hundreds of thousands of normal citizens back in work. Its likely not even the most costly boondoggle in the budget. It also has some positive economic effects: people will be paid to build it, their wages further spending in the economy, etc, etc.

pixelburp

Sand wrote: »

Why not just give him the wall? Its a mere 25 billion out of a 4.4 trillion budget, 0.625%. Trump happy, hundreds of thousands of normal citizens back in work. Its likely not even the most costly boondoggle in the budget.

Beyond the obvious principle of it, there's literally no plan, no details, no anything on how a wall across the thousands of KM, rivers, mountains etc. would even work. Logistically it's an insane plan, not to mention the legal nightmare from building on all the private land stretching across it. Or all the protests, the guaranteed resistence from the public (see the pipeline protests there ).
Especially if Washington pulls emininant domain on all the land potentially needed.

So I'd see it starting at 25 billion before inevitably ballooning as the obvious costs, delays and setbacks mount up. Again, because it's a f*cking stupid idea only dreamed of cos the then candidate had a goldfish memory and wanted red meat for a baying crowd.

And after all that, the actual day to day agencies and departments that perform real border control, including at the airports where most dangers arrive, will need funding. Ditto international agreements that could do more for limiting migration but .. whoops, Trump seems uninterested in cooperation on any scale.

Den14

Sand wrote: »

Why not just give him the wall? Its a mere 25 billion out of a 4.4 trillion budget, 0.625%. Trump happy, hundreds of thousands of normal citizens back in work. Its likely not even the most costly boondoggle in the budget. It also has some positive economic effects: people will be paid to build it, their wages further spending in the economy, etc, etc.

Never! Never! Never!! Ala Ian Paisley 😂

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Why not just give him the wall? Its a mere 25 billion out of a 4.4 trillion budget, 0.625%. Trump happy, hundreds of thousands of normal citizens back in work. Its likely not even the most costly boondoggle in the budget. It also has some positive economic effects: people will be paid to build it, their wages further spending in the economy, etc, etc.

Regardless of the pros and cons of the wall, it seems fairly obvious.

Can you replace 'wall' in your above line with any random initiative and 'Trump' with any president?

If not, then that's why. What a rediculous precident this would set.

BabyCheeses

Sand wrote: »

Why not just give him the wall? Its a mere 25 billion out of a 4.4 trillion budget, 0.625%. Trump happy, hundreds of thousands of normal citizens back in work. Its likely not even the most costly boondoggle in the budget. It also has some positive economic effects: people will be paid to build it, their wages further spending in the economy, etc, etc.

Trump was offered the money before. He turned it down.

Sand

Well, the shutdown is absolutely devastating for hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans. For the low price of 25 billion, the shutdown is ended. The local economies along the border get a 25 billion injection of spending. An attempt to build the wall is made, fails horribly as the practical issues arise and the Democrats are vindicated right in time for 2020. Where is the loss for the Democrats?

The alternative is persisting with this shutdown which hurts so many Americans. Nobody wins.

relax carry on

Sand wrote: »

Why not just give him the wall? Its a mere 25 billion out of a 4.4 trillion budget, 0.625%. Trump happy, hundreds of thousands of normal citizens back in work. Its likely not even the most costly boondoggle in the budget. It also has some positive economic effects: people will be paid to build it, their wages further spending in the economy, etc, etc.

Do you think gives a toss about the wall? He just wants to keep the noise and distraction turned up to 11 to keep his supporters convinced everything he's telling them is true.

Also does the shut down work in Trumps favour regarding the investigations into Trump and his extended crew?

Leroy42

Why are you claiming it will only cost $25bn? Where is that number coming from?

Trump originally stated it would cost $4bn, then $5, $6, etc all the way to $25bn. But what will cost $25bn? Concrete, steel, the entire border, parts of the border? What about maintenance?

The key issue is why would anybody believe that this project is going to 'only' cost $25bn?

batgoat

Sand wrote: »

Well, the shutdown is absolutely devastating for hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans. For the low price of 25 billion, the shutdown is ended. The local economies along the border get a 25 billion injection of spending. An attempt to build the wall is made, fails horribly as the practical issues arise and the Democrats are vindicated right in time for 2020. Where is the loss for the Democrats?

The alternative is persisting with this shutdown which hurts so many Americans. Nobody wins.

The hurt is ultimately being caused by Trump, giving any credence to Trump's xenophobia at this point is not a good move. Personally, I view the dems offering Trump money for a wall a year back to be somewhat of a disgrace. So a prolonged shutdown because of the president's pet project is an educational lesson on why the country shouldn't elect a person who has no understanding of the role he is running for.

If he does declare a national emergency, aside from taking headlines away from the various investigations does it give him any protection from impeachment or prosecution?

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are you claiming it will only cost $25bn? Where is that number coming from?

Trump originally stated it would cost $4bn, then $5, $6, etc all the way to $25bn. But what will cost $25bn? Concrete, steel, the entire border, parts of the border? What about maintenance?

The key issue is why would anybody believe that this project is going to 'only' cost $25bn?

John Oliver did a good piece on the wall a couple of years back. The highest costs would be for getting the materials and construction vehicles to areas that are hard to access due to there being no suitable roads. Also, the maintenance costs would be enormous. It'd be a gigantic waste of federal funds to go ahead with it.

batgoat

PropJoe10 wrote: »

John Oliver did a good piece on the wall a couple of years back. The highest costs would be for getting the materials and construction vehicles to areas that are hard to access due to there being no suitable roads. Also, the maintenance costs would be enormous. It'd be a gigantic waste of federal funds to go ahead with it.

The other thing he pointed out(just on memory so open to be corrected on this) was that much of the wall would include taking private land, including of golf courses and homes. Then there's all the points of natural landscape where it would be impossible to build a wall.

Leroy42

Exactly. There is no credible source for the $25bn figure. How can there be, they don't even know the design yet.

It will be many multiples of that. As for the line that it creates job, spending in the economy, well that can be said of almost anything. Why not spend it on social security or Medicare in that case?

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

Well, the shutdown is absolutely devastating for hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans. For the low price of 25 billion, the shutdown is ended. The local economies along the border get a 25 billion injection of spending. An attempt to build the wall is made, fails horribly as the practical issues arise and the Democrats are vindicated right in time for 2020. Where is the loss for the Democrats?

The alternative is persisting with this shutdown which hurts so many Americans. Nobody wins.

0 $ ends the shut down. Seems like a better deal to me.

As others have said $25 billion is an incredibly low estimate for the wall. Never mind maintenance costs. It also encourages Trump to pull another tantrum next year safe in the knowledge that the Democrats will back down again.

Spannerplank

Trump is a cretin. We all know that. But the thickest people on Earth are those who think he's smart. That's a rare breed of dumb.

I asked a Trumpanzee about the wall and who would fund it and pointed out that border guards are now not getting paid and so are staying home.u

The idiot mentioned God.

Itssoeasy

Now some here probably have issues with the FBI on a number of issues, but the number of sitting US Presidents who have been investigated by his own FBI is a small number. I'm reading that Trump forbid his translator on one occasion from submitting their notes from a meeting with Putin, so there is no record of what was said. I mean if there is no collusion as Trump says, and no contact with Russia, why would Trump block an interpreters notes of a benign conversation what's to hide ?

Itssoeasy

Spannerplank wrote: »

Trump is a cretin. We all know that. But the thickest people on Earth are those who think he's smart. That's a rare breed of dumb.

I asked a Trumpanzee about the wall and who would fund it and pointed out that border guards are now not getting paid and so are staying home.u

The idiot mentioned God.

God ? Is Trump going to build his wall with thoughts and prayers then or what ?

Spannerplank

Itssoeasy wrote: »

God ? Is Trump going to build his wall with thoughts and prayers then or what ?

The guy said that "The Lord would protect America"

I'm not joking

jochenstacker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If he does declare a national emergency, aside from taking headlines away from the various investigations does it give him any protection from impeachment or prosecution?

Just as an aside, Hitler was democratically elected chancellor of Germany who used the burning down of the Reichstag* in 1933 to declare a state of national emergency in order to grab power for himself.
I would stop comparing Trump to Hitler if the man didn't use the exact same tools of lies and deception.

* officially this was down to the communist party, but it is more likely the Nazis burnt it down as a false flag operation. It tend to agree, since the Reichstag burned down one month after Hitler was sworn in as Reichskanzler. Very convenient timing.
Also, it has to be noted, that the communist party was the main rival to the NSDAP and kept them from having absolute majority.