Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

amandstu

Canis Lupus wrote: »

By his own team? I don't really care, it's an amusing story, no more no less.

Yes,or were they fooling around and forgot to put everything back in place.

I think it is important because it puts more (manipulative) distance between the electorate and their representatives.

The technique could be tailored to meet with particular demographic's expectations of how their leader should look.

Puts me in mind of Henry 8th portrait by Holbein (was it?)

http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_210699/%28after%29-Holbein-the-Younger%2C-Hans/Portrait-of-King-Henry-VIII-1491-1547-2

mcmoustache

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you make it expensive enough, yes.

It's not just "Here's the money, give us the hostage and go your own way." It should be "Here's the money. Give us the hostage, and your accomplice's arm, we'll see you again in a few days". All of a sudden, the Republicans will have a lot more reason to ensure that there won't be an again if they want to keep their other arm. Why do you keep forgetting about the other part of the equation? Diplomacy isn't just saying 'nice doggie', it's saying 'nice doggie' whilst looking for a big stick.

And, as mentioned, standing on principle doesn't help the hostages.

Further, though the US has an official policy of not negotiating with hostage-takers, many European countries do so, and 75% of Fortune 500 companies do so. It's not that far an outlier.

When it comes to dealing with blackmail or any other form of extortion, you need to be assured that there won't be more demands after the payment. If you pay to free hostages, you now have those hostages and the hostage taker has lost that leverage because the hostage taker no longer has those hostages. There are rational reasons to pay for those hostages' freedom.

In the case of Trump's shutdown, the Democrats could cave but there is nothing preventing Trump from doing this again. After paying the Dane Geld, he still has the same leverage that allowed him to do this in the first place. In fact, he would rightly be emboldened. The democrats would be fools to give in under those circumstances.

Leroy42

The Cohen story is actually pretty serious.

What we have is a witness claiming that they are scared to testify because of threats coming from both POTUS and the WH.

Trump threatened Cohen with an investigation into his father in law if he testified. He also called him a rat, which since the guy is going to prison is not exactly the name you want thrown out into the public domain.

This is the real story. POTUS has intimated a witness. That is a crime. And yet not one GOP member, no Trump supporter here is calling for him to stand down.

circadian

Yeah the Cohen story is absolutely shocking. Trump is behaving like a mobster, the similarities are striking. Calling Cohen a rat, threatening his family, etc etc.

FreudianSlippers

Penn wrote: »

Trump has backed down over plans to do the SOTU elsewhere and has agreed to postpone it until after the Government shutdown.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1088288311922307072

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1088289916826648577

This is a huge win for Pelosi. After all Trumps bluster earlier this week that he was going to show up no matter what, he blinks and backs out. Next blink will be the shutdown. His cracks are starting to grow.

salmocab

Canis Lupus wrote: »

By his own team? I don't really care, it's an amusing story, no more no less.

Have to agree it’s funny but I’m sure plenty of politicians get this sort of thing done. It’s a non story but I suppose with the ridiculous character he is and the way he courts attention it’s to be expected that everything is a story.

mcmoustache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a huge win for Pelosi. After all Trumps bluster earlier this week that he was going to show up no matter what, he blinks and backs out. Next blink will be the shutdown. His cracks are starting to grow.

I'm surprised he didn't give her a nickname or whine about how unfair she was being to him. It's a strange pair of tweets given his usual style.

FreudianSlippers

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm surprised he didn't give her a nickname or whine about how unfair she was being to him. It's a strange pair of tweets given his usual style.

He actually did, but it's awful. Let me see if I can find the tweet (EDIT: wasn't a tweet actually) ... it's hilarious.


EDIT: Twitter roasts Trump's low-effort Pelosi nickname

"Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy, as I call her, doesn't want to hear the truth,"

Quin_Dub

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm surprised he didn't give her a nickname or whine about how unfair she was being to him. It's a strange pair of tweets given his usual style.

He did..

Bizarrely the quote from him yesterday during his presser was this - "Nancy Pelosi , or as I call her......Nancy"

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Cohen story is actually pretty serious.

What we have is a witness claiming that they are scared to testify because of threats coming from both POTUS and the WH.

Trump threatened Cohen with an investigation into his father in law if he testified. He also called him a rat, which since the guy is going to prison is not exactly the name you want thrown out into the public domain.

This is the real story. POTUS has intimated a witness. That is a crime. And yet not one GOP member, no Trump supporter here is calling for him to stand down.

He has also complimented Stone for refusing to testify (albeit with a caveat in that he says he refuses to "lie" for Mueller) and praised Manafort for not co-operating.

I believe that when the SC Report comes, there will be a significant chapter on "obstruction of justice" and each and every statement and action of Trump will be listed out. When one looks at them all in their totality, it will be a pretty convincing argument.

Re Cohen - the question therefore is under what conditions will Cohen testify under. He has asked for steps to be taken to protect him, presumably from further verbal or prosecutorial intimidation. (Congress can't provide physical assistance) There was mention of impeaching Trump on those grounds but that is not going to happen.

However, what strikes me is - why on earth can't Rudy Gulliani be charged with obstruction of justice? He does not have the protection of the office of presidency.

The question is if Congress does nothing this time, what is to stop Trump from stopping Corsi, Stone, or anyone else giving evidence. Charging Rudy would send a message and may ensure that Trump keeps his nose out of it when it comes to other witnesses appearing.

Penn

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a huge win for Pelosi. After all Trumps bluster earlier this week that he was going to show up no matter what, he blinks and backs out. Next blink will be the shutdown. His cracks are starting to grow.

Not even this week, just yesterday he was claiming he'd do the SOTU elsewhere. He completely backed down from that within 24 hours. Which likely means it was someone else who forced the decision, most likely because doing it elsewhere was Trump's last shot at winning, but as far as I'm aware that wouldn't count as a SOTU as it must be delivered directly to Congress (usually in person but previously in writing). So it wouldn't have been the SOTU address, it just would have been Trump making a speech.

Trump had no choice to back down. He had no moves left to make. But my concern regarding the shutdown now would be that because Trump had to back down on this occasion, he'll actually further resist any moves to back down over the shutdown. Otherwise that's two big losses against the Dems.

Edit: Actually, I may be wrong that his speech had to be delivered in front of Congress

mcmoustache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

He actually did, but it's awful. Let me see if I can find the tweet (EDIT: wasn't a tweet actually) ... it's hilarious.


EDIT: Twitter roasts Trump's low-effort Pelosi nickname

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He did..

Bizarrely the quote from him yesterday during his presser was this - "Nancy Pelosi , or as I call her......Nancy"

Wow. It's like he wanted to call her something but either couldn't come up with anything clever or he realised that it might not be the best idea, given the power of house speaker.

looksee

She stood up to him successfully, she is a confident, mature woman, and he's afraid of her. It doesn't matter what her politics are, its how she makes him feel that matters, and he is out of his depth.

robinph

Penn wrote: »

Edit: Actually, I may be wrong that his speech had to be delivered in front of Congress

Don't think there is any requirement to turn up in person, just to give them a statement that is read out by someone.

But now that they are preventing him from turning up to do it in person, and he's now saying he's not going to provide a SOTU because he can't do it in person, can they force him to provide the statement anyway or charge him with something for not providing it?

Could there be some obscure rule that you cease to wield any power if you've not provided a SOTU by X date?

circadian

mcmoustache wrote: »

Wow. It's like he wanted to call her something but either couldn't come up with anything clever or he realised that it might not be the best idea, given the power of house speaker.

Yeah I think he backed out of calling her something offensive just as quick as he pulled out of the SOTU fiasco. The man is nothing short of a coward, a true bully.

Penn

robinph wrote: »

Don't think there is any requirement to turn up in person, just to give them a statement that is read out by someone.

But now that they are preventing him from turning up to do it in person, and he's now saying he's not going to provide a SOTU because he can't do it in person, can they force him to provide the statement anyway or charge him with something for not providing it?

Could there be some obscure rule that you cease to wield any power if you've not provided a SOTU by X date?

I think considering it was mutually agreed he could do it at a later date, there'd be no ramifications for him having to do it later than what was previously scheduled. I don't think there's any required time limit on when it must be done by, the requirement seems to just say "...shall from time to time..."

Itssoeasy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

He actually did, but it's awful. Let me see if I can find the tweet (EDIT: wasn't a tweet actually) ... it's hilarious.


EDIT: Twitter roasts Trump's low-effort Pelosi nickname

He sounds like he's a family member of hers. It's seems like he went for his usual insult and the chamber was empty. Was it a tweet or letter where he wrote about it being the speakers prerogative ? Either way he wrote neither of them.

serfboard

looksee wrote: »

she is a confident, mature woman

Well given that she's 79 in a couple of months, I'd hope that she'd be mature!

Mind you, Donald Trump will be 73 this year, and he has the maturity of a three year old, so you may have a point ...

serfboard

I don't know if this article has been posted here already - it's Fintan O'Toole's review of a new book by Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Big Short) called "The Fifth Risk".

According to the review, Lewis' basic point (which was also made a while ago by Noam Chomsky) is that by distracting us with his daily outrages, Trump is, sometimes deliberately (by appointing people who hate particular governement agencies to head up those agencies) and sometimes by neglect (by not appointing any head at all), slowly destroying the public sector/ governmental capabilities, and thus very effectively following the Republican strategy.

To that I would add that Trump is also appointing Republican judges at all levels (and not just the Supreme Court).

Both of these help explain why Republicans are keeping Trump in the job after the Super Rich Giveaway AKA The Tax Cut. I had thought that they would get rid of him after the Tax Cut, but why would they? He's doing exactly what they want. And not paying government workers (AKA The Shutdown) is a libertarians dream.

ECO_Mental

serfboard wrote: »

I don't know if this article has been posted here already - it's Fintan O'Toole's review of a new book by Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Big Short) called "The Fifth Risk".

According to the review, Lewis' basic point (which was also made a while ago by Noam Chomsky) is that by distracting us with his daily outrages, Trump is, sometimes deliberately (by appointing people who hate particular governement agencies to head up those agencies) and sometimes by neglect (by not appointing any head at all), slowly destroying the public sector/ governmental capabilities, and thus very effectively following the Republican strategy.

To that I would add that Trump is also appointing Republican judges at all levels (and not just the Supreme Court).

Both of these help explain why Republicans are keeping Trump in the job after the Super Rich Giveaway AKA The Tax Cut. I had thought that they would get rid of him after the Tax Cut, but why would they? He's doing exactly what they want. And not paying government workers (AKA The Shutdown) is a libertarians dream.

I dont think he does anything deliberately.....he says what comes into his mind and falls out of his mouth at that particular time. Someone said he says stuff for a situation on how he would like reality to be AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. He could walk into the room next door and his reality could change because someone else is standing in front of him ...


He is not playing 3d chess.....the worms around him are using him. Think of him as a Ron Burgandy, he will say anything that certain right wing influential people tell him he should be saying. EG the TV... how many times have we seen Fox news say hes weak on this and all of a sudden he does a 180. Pathetic man child

everlast75

https://twitter.com/JadedCreative/status/1088413974297751552

I guess this rules out Deutsche bank being the Company fighting Mueller's subpoena...

In other good news for Jared, the House have begun investigating security clearances granted during the transition period.. Jared is obviously a person of interest, considering he changed his application form over 30 times...

everlast75

Indications were that he might be subpoenaed.

Looks like that has now happened.

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1088472029949542400

serfboard

ECO_Mental wrote: »

I dont think he does anything deliberately.....

the worms around him are using him ...

he will say anything that certain right wing influential people tell him he should be saying.

Indeed. It's possible to give Trump himself too much credit.

The point is that the Trump regime is getting things done (Tax Cut, Judges, and destroying government) that's been on the Republican agenda for years.

Anyone remember the "Bush Doctrine"? This was, to quote Wikipedia, "various related foreign policy principles" of George W Bush. I thought that this was a hilarious concept myself, because W was too dumb to have any doctrine of his own, and was simply doing what he was told.

Now along comes a guy who's even more stupid than Bush, ("The dumbest goddam student I ever had" according to one of his former teachers at Wharton, and a "fúcking moron" according to his former Secretary of State) who will do whatever his handlers or Fox News tell him to do.

So Trump is indeed a useful idiot for them, which is why he's being kept in the job, despite all the scandals that would have impeached any other President.

Itssoeasy

The two votes in the senate today were defeated.Itll be interesting to see what the votes where.

Edit: GOP bill defeated 50-47 and democratic house bill defeated 52-44.

Leroy42

Hold on, how was the GOP bill defeated? I knew it wouldn;t get the 60 as the Dems would vote against (although f course it was the plan that Trump could turn some) but surely 50 means that not all GOP voted for it.

The Dems one was always going to lose as the GOP as never going to vote for that.

Didn't Trum claim the GOP were never so united? That is a pretty major defeat for the POTUS

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, how was the GOP bill defeated? I knew it wouldn;t get the 60 as the Dems would vote against (although f course it was the plan that Trump could turn some) but surely 50 means that not all GOP voted for it.

The Dems one was always going to lose as the GOP as never going to vote for that.

Didn't Trum claim the GOP were never so united? That is a pretty major defeat for the POTUS

Yeah it doesn't look like all the senators voted unless my leaving cert maths is failing me.

Christy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, how was the GOP bill defeated? I knew it wouldn;t get the 60 as the Dems would vote against (although f course it was the plan that Trump could turn some) but surely 50 means that not all GOP voted for it.

The Dems one was always going to lose as the GOP as never going to vote for that.

Didn't Trum claim the GOP were never so united? That is a pretty major defeat for the POTUS

Yeah it doesn't look like all the senators voted unless my leaving cert maths is failing me.

Looks like 3 didn't vote but 50 against. The Dems don't have 50 in their caucus. Some Republicans had to actively vote against their own bill.

Leroy42

Exactly. Whether voting against or simply not voting, this was clearly a vote for Trump as much as anything. Trump has been proclaiming that the GOP has never been so united, and it was clear that the WH policy was to try to divide and conquer some of the Dems.

Complete and utter failure. Trump has no mandate to continue this shutdown now, his own party doesn't even support his position.

everlast75

After the vote, McConnell went to find Schumer to talk.

This is a tweet that followed...

https://twitter.com/steveholland1/status/1088559457699852289?s=19

everlast75

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1088562502315708417?s=19

We are back to this again.

He'll declare an emergency, it will be challenged in the Courts and he'll sign a bill and blame Democrat Judges....