Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

aloyisious

rocksolidfat wrote: »

Don't get ahead of yourself too quickly there - in the last two years, 17mn voters have been purged from the US system: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/01/voter-purges-us-elections-brennan-center-report

The sad truth is, at this rate the 2020 election might have already been decided months ago, with the misinformation this time around being little more than window dressing. What will be interesting is to see how much the same people who were so upset about the Democrat primaries in 2016 care this time... my guess is exactly zero.

It surely must be a necessary item on the Dem "must-do" to have a registration drive ongoing for any person not registered/being denied registration to go to for help in overcoming illegal obstacles.

I see that, according to this months old link, that in 20 states it is not local Dem party policy for anyone running as a Dem candidate to be registered with the Dem party. That seems strange that the party would not at least try to protect its vote from dissolution by a fake candidate trying to wreck the party's chances in any election. https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-you-have-to-be-a-registered-Democrat-to-run-as-a-Democrat-for-President

I can see how people could argue that it might be seen as a plank of any democratic party to allow any and all come forward for candidature but at least their good-standing should be checked on to ensure they are not trolls or political switch-hitters. The party in California seems to have got its act together in that regard.

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

It surely must be a necessary item on the Dem "must-do" to have a registration drive ongoing for any person not registered/being denied registration to go to for help in overcoming illegal obstacles.

I see that, according to this months old link, that in 20 states it is not local Dem party policy for anyone running as a Dem candidate to be registered with the Dem party. That seems strange that the party would not at least try to protect its vote from dissolution by a fake candidate trying to wreck the party's chances in any election. https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-you-have-to-be-a-registered-Democrat-to-run-as-a-Democrat-for-President

I can see how people could argue that it might be seen as a plank of any democratic party to allow any and all come forward for candidature but at least their good-standing should be checked on to ensure they are not trolls or political switch-hitters. The party in California seems to have got its act together in that regard.

I remember in the run up to the mid terms it appeared that the Dems left things very late indeed to try correct issues surrounding voting suppression. They better get their finger out next year in plenty of time.

peddlelies

Bit of a risk attempting to impeach a President so close to a Presidential election, it could badly backfire. As of now, I don't think they'll be bipartisan support for it. Trump mentally has deteriorated rapidly over the past few months, so I obviously agree he's not fit to be President. The likelihood is he's going to lose in 2020 so rather than deal with the fallout of a possible failed impeachment attempt, perhaps Pelosi's thinking is to just ride it out. The 25th amendment is what they'd push for it they did go forward I'd guess.

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

Bit of a risk attempting to impeach a President so close to a Presidential election, it could badly backfire. As of now, I don't think they'll be bipartisan support for it. Trump mentally has deteriorated rapidly over the past few months, so I obviously agree he's not fit to be President. The likelihood is he's going to lose in 2020 so rather than deal with the fallout of a possible failed impeachment attempt, perhaps Pelosi's thinking is to just ride it out. The 25th amendment is what they'd push for it they did go forward I'd guess.

Well I think it's timing it to coincide with Trump's reelection campaign and thus tie up his time, and ability to control the narrative. Consider it like one massive party political broadcast on why you shouldn't vote for trump, except broadcast from the senate and doesn't have to go through the usual rigmarole associated with them

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

Bit of a risk attempting to impeach a President so close to a Presidential election, it could badly backfire. As of now, I don't think they'll be bipartisan support for it. Trump mentally has deteriorated rapidly over the past few months, so I obviously agree he's not fit to be President. The likelihood is he's going to lose in 2020 so rather than deal with the fallout of a possible failed impeachment attempt, perhaps Pelosi's thinking is to just ride it out. The 25th amendment is what they'd push for it they did go forward I'd guess.

A large part of the mission in an Impeachment investigation will be to lay out evidence of wrongdoing and thereby highlight Republican complicity in Trump's offences. This will force the Reps in the House to continue their blind support for 'high crimes and misdemeanours' or to finally be seen to have some moral compass. I don't see the process ever getting as far as a Senate being led by Moscow Mitch. The evidence will be laid out and will become the basis for every debate and attack point in 2020. I still think that Trump himself will walk away before election day.

As for the 25th, I don't see his cohort of sycophants ever rising to that!

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

I’m looking forward to all the talking heads who called for Obama to impeached over every little thing losing their minds because the democrats impeaching Trump is undemocratic.

Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury when it comes to Republicans and Trump.

Exhibit 4,018, in which Trump insults someone else for getting caught having an affair

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171014995452321792?s=20

J Mysterio

Fairly wonderful post here it has to be said.

https://twitter.com/TravisAllen02/status/1170810576769101831

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

Well I think it's timing it to coincide with Trump's reelection campaign and thus tie up his time, and ability to control the narrative. Consider it like one massive party political broadcast on why you shouldn't vote for trump, except broadcast from the senate and doesn't have to go through the usual rigmarole associated with them

Incentivise REPUBLICANS who can put themselves forward in opposition to Trump's re-nomination and seize the party back from him and his hacks, reduce his yes vote level from genuine REPUBLICANS. No matter what he says. There has to be a large number of REPUBLICANS pissed off with him and his cronies gerrymandering the party vote who want to throw him under the bus.

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

Incentivise REPUBLICANS who can put themselves forward in opposition to Trump's re-nomination and seize the party back from him and his hacks, reduce his yes vote level from genuine REPUBLICANS. No matter what he says. There has to be a large number of REPUBLICANS pissed off with him and his cronies gerrymandering the party vote who want to throw him under the bus.

And how are they going to stand against him, when (I think its 4 now) State Republican organisations are cancelling Primaries?

Stalin would be proud!

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Incentivise REPUBLICANS who can put themselves forward in opposition to Trump's re-nomination and seize the party back from him and his hacks, reduce his yes vote level from genuine REPUBLICANS. No matter what he says. There has to be a large number of REPUBLICANS pissed off with him and his cronies gerrymandering the party vote who want to throw him under the bus.

They've already been cancelling primaries since Trump's running. Isn't that cute...

His buddies are fine with the gerrymandering. That's to ensure some Republican gets more votes. There are 3 GOP candidates out there, one of them, Joe Walsh, is a lunatic. The other is Sanford and I think the gov. of Delaware. Still, it'd be amusing to donate to their campaigns just to keep them afloat enough to needle Trump.

duploelabs

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-extracted-russia-spy-trump-classified-info-oval-office-2019-9?r=US&IR=T
The US had to remove an operative from Russia as it was feared Trump had revealed secret information that compromised them

Igotadose

duploelabs wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-extracted-russia-spy-trump-classified-info-oval-office-2019-9?r=US&IR=T
The US had to remove an operative from Russia as it was feared Trump had revealed secret information that compromised them

It's a GOP thing. Exposing operatives. Amusing that today, Valerie Plame, an operative exposed by Dick Cheney Scooter Libby (pardoned by Trump), launched her congressional campaign.

She'd get my vote.


https://youtu.be/ICW-dGD1M18

mcmoustache

Igotadose wrote: »

It's a GOP thing. Exposing operatives. Amusing that today, Valerie Plame, an operative exposed by Dick Cheney Scooter Libby (pardoned by Trump), launched her congressional campaign.

She'd get my vote.


https://youtu.be/ICW-dGD1M18

Exposed by Armitage, according to smarter people than myself and wikipedia but Libby lied to investigators about it.

Manic Moran

interlocked wrote: »

How can the USA,, the biggest economy on the planet, the country that invented Pax Americana, look on on and watch its neighbour destroyed by natural forces and not say, hang on friend, we're coming to help and we're going to throw what ever is necessary to help you, because we're America and we can do it. What happened to that America, is it now confined to a sociopaths tweets?

Eh?

If you're talking about the Bahamas, USAID has been on the ground for days.
https://share.america.gov/usaid-sends-aid-bahamas-after-hurricane-dorian/

The military also is ready to assist, but the problem with sending military forces to other countries is that if that other country doesn't ask for it, it's called an invasion and tends to be frowned upon without good cause.

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/05/navy-poised-to-aid-bahamas-waiting-for-formal-request

It took a couple of days before any request came in. The Bahamas government is getting a fair bit of flak for its overall non-responsiveness.

Water John

Manic, any opinion on Trump bringing the Taliban to Camp David? How do those in the military feel about it?

Manic Moran

I haven't spoken to anyone about it, honestly, neither have I seen much cross my feed.

I don't know if I have an opinion either. There's the old saw that you don't make peace with your friends, but with your enemies. Honestly, the purpose of Afghanistan to my mind was to deny a base of operations for those who would strike at the US. Though I would prefer to see a more democratic/less totalitarian Afghanistan than the Taliban rule had, I think at this point the 'point has been made' about hosting folks who attack us, and if the Afghans can't sort themselves out, we've given them fifteen years of trying to help. The general concepts put out by the negotiator didn't seem too far off the mark.

That said, I can't say I'm actively sorry to see the talks failed either, as the Taliban have not stopped their attacks pending discussion outcomes, neither have they apparently engaged with the Afghan government. So for now, I'm also happy enough to see operations against them continue.

duploelabs

Maniac, how do you feel about Trump diverting military budgets to line his own pockets? I know it's nothing really new, most recently with Cheney and Halliburton, but I don't recall it being so blatent from the top down

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/trump-hotel-turnberry.html

Timberrrrrrrr

Manic Moran wrote: »

I haven't spoken to anyone about it, honestly, neither have I seen much cross my feed.

I don't know if I have an opinion either. There's the old saw that you don't make peace with your friends, but with your enemies. Honestly, the purpose of Afghanistan to my mind was to deny a base of operations for those who would strike at the US. Though I would prefer to see a more democratic/less totalitarian Afghanistan than the Taliban rule had, I think at this point the 'point has been made' about hosting folks who attack us, and if the Afghans can't sort themselves out, we've given them fifteen years of trying to help. The general concepts put out by the negotiator didn't seem too far off the mark.

That said, I can't say I'm actively sorry to see the talks failed either, as the Taliban have not stopped their attacks pending discussion outcomes, neither have they apparently engaged with the Afghan government. So for now, I'm also happy enough to see operations against them continue.

America should start marching on Saudi Arabia if that's the case.

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

America should start marching on Saudi Arabia if that's the case.

I think the point overall is that neither Russia or America can conquer and hold Afghanistan

Christy42

So with the Ross threatening to fire people who don't agree with Trump can we believe anything coming out of departmental agencies going forward? This is bigger than a sharpie, this is attempting to turn a scientific department into a propoganda unit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/09/wilbur-ross-sharpiegate-alabama-resignation

everlast75

Christy42 wrote: »

So with the Ross threatening to fire people who don't agree with Trump can we believe anything coming out of departmental agencies going forward? This is bigger than a sharpie, this is attempting to turn a scientific department into a propoganda unit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/09/wilbur-ross-sharpiegate-alabama-resignation

Didn't Pete tell us this was a nothingburger!?

antix80

Christy42 wrote: »

So with the Ross threatening to fire people who don't agree with Trump can we believe anything coming out of departmental agencies going forward? This is bigger than a sharpie, this is attempting to turn a scientific department into a propoganda unit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/09/wilbur-ross-sharpiegate-alabama-resignation

Interesting.
Oh, wait.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51568/nyt-commerce-sec-threatened-fire-noaa-employees-if-james-barrett

mcmoustache

The daily wire is a fairly shíte source on just about anything. The New York Times, on the other hand has a great record, despite what the most dishonest US president in history may trick you into believing.

everlast75

antix80 wrote: »

Interesting.
Oh, wait.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/51568/nyt-commerce-sec-threatened-fire-noaa-employees-if-james-barrett

Have you read the article?

It basically sets out everything that happened, including admissions that Trump was wrong.

It then states;

"The Times reports, however, that while three of its sources said Ross's threat is what prompted the statement, a senior administration official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, "said that the Birmingham office had been wrong and that NOAA had simply done the responsible thing and corrected the record."

So three officials said it did happen, one said it didn't, and the headline from the dailywire is that the Times was wrong?

Zubeneschamali

everlast75 wrote: »

So three officials said it did happen, one said it didn't, and the headline from the dailywire is that the Times was wrong?

The one official did not say it didn't happen, he/she said "the Birmingham office was wrong", i.e. Trump was right and Alabama was in danger.

We know this is a lie.

Igotadose

Christy42 wrote: »

So with the Ross threatening to fire people who don't agree with Trump can we believe anything coming out of departmental agencies going forward? This is bigger than a sharpie, this is attempting to turn a scientific department into a propoganda unit.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/09/wilbur-ross-sharpiegate-alabama-resignation

Ross failed on the citizenship/census question and now bringing more embarrassment to Trump. Next cabinet secretary to go.

serfboard

Christy42 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/09/wilbur-ross-sharpiegate-alabama-resignation

From that article:

The Guardian wrote:

The agency’s Birmingham, Alabama, office incurred [the President]’s wrath by publicly repudiating the president’s false claim that Alabama was at risk from a devastating hurricane.
...
The news that a cabinet member in the ... administration had threatened to fire politically-appointed staff at the agency in order to force the [agency] to contradict the advice of its own scientists prompted immediate condemnation.
....
Top scientists at the [agency] ... are dismayed that scientific findings made at the height of a severe public emergency should have been overridden in order to spare [the President]’s blushes

All of this would be enough to sink many another head of government.

The Guardian wrote:

the director of the National Weather Service ... praised the agency’s forecasters in Birmingham for having rebuffed [the President]’s false tweet in an effort to avoid public panic.

“They did that with one thing in mind: public safety,”

So public safety should be put at risk because the president is unwilling to admit he made a mistake? Matt Taibbi is right - America is being ruled by a mad king.

I have another take on this though - I don't think that this is the usual distraction. I think that Trump may be so conscious of the public commentary that he has the early stages of dementia, that any mistake likely to confirm that must be strenuously if bizarrely denied. People in the early stages of dementia can sometimes be very strident in their denials of memory lapses - to me, Trump's behaviour is reminiscent of that.

The only difference between Trump and regular citizens with the same problem is that regular citizens can't cause mass panic because of their lapses - mass panic which was only averted by those who knew better, and who were determined to let the public know the truth.

Igotadose

Interesting read. Taibbi's been following Trump since the 2016 election primaries. He's spot on about the state of the USA and why Trump does well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-trump-2020-be-very-afraid-872299/

antix80

Igotadose wrote: »

Interesting read. Taibbi's been following Trump since the 2016 election primaries. He's spot on about the state of the USA and why Trump does well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/taibbi-trump-2020-be-very-afraid-872299/

I usually scan anti-trump hit pieces for the presence of the "very fine people" hoax and then can disregard the entire article.

Igotadose

antix80 wrote: »

I usually scan anti-trump hit pieces for the presence of the "very fine people" hoax and then can disregard the entire article.

Taibbi's being pretty even handed and has been for the last few years. Definitely worth reading, he pretty much understands how Trump does his thing. He predicted Trump would win in 2016, among other things.

And yeah, he doesn't like Trump.