Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

pixelburp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There is no number that he would consider to high a price to pay for his re-election. It is the ONLY thing that matters to him.

If he shows concern about anything else it is only in the context of how it impacts the election in November.

And he'll get away with it too, as long as groupings and demographics adjacent to the GOP persist with dissembling over the virus' seriousness. Last week we had "Dr. Phil" on TV spinning Covid as no less serious than the flu or (and this is true) "Swimming pool deaths", Phil quoting a vastly inflated figure of 300k deaths from pools per year. There is a pernicious narrative that is doing its best to downplay, undermine and politicise an existential threat to US citizens and yeah. 100k deaths doesn't seem so far fetched now. Maybe if or when the virus appears in the Bible Belt opinions will change.

My wife posited the idea and I'm coming around to it: while the EU starts its shaky recovery in (hopefully) the coming months, a ban on travel to and from the US wouldn't be utterly outrageous IMO. At least while the States remains a hotbed of infection which it looks likely to remain. Even were travel allowed, arrivals to the EU might find themselves requiring tests.

And TBH, right now, I'd 100% support that initiative point because I just don't trust the States' government or people to get over their biases.

aloyisious

I watched a few minutes [about 5] of CNN last night where the mayor of Las Vegas "offered" [her word] to allow Las Vegas to be used as a test for re-opening of business before I switched the TV off. The segment was a dual interview session with a mayor from Georgia as well, who panned her offer idea. I assume the LV mayor said more in the interview which was not shown [or I hope so anyway] because if she didn't she clearly was being "courageous" as Humphrey Appleby would have put it. In any case, it seems her offer didn't meet with the approval of the locals. Edit: I've noticed that the Anderson cooper link is from Tuesday and is not the one I saw last night, Wednesday. unless it had it's content re-opened for las nights CNN news page. It's scary that she, an elected public official, was prepared to go against the official Trump Admin medical advice line on how to deal with the outbreak, risking her city's population and it's visitor-trade in a medical science experiment. What's even more courageous about her comments is that she has no authority over the Las Vegas strip which is outside the city limits in Clark County.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-22/las-vegas-mayor-calls-for-reopening-casinos-and-hotels

https://heavy.com/news/2020/04/anderson-cooper-las-vegas-mayor-carolyn-goodman/

Quin_Dub

The press conference last night was just mad.

In another bizarre twist, Trump produced Robert Redfield, director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to walk back his remarks that the coronavirus challenge could be more difficult in the fall.
Trump claimed that Redfield had been "totally misquoted" by the media. But under questioning from reporters, Redfield confirmed that he had in fact made the remarks that angered Trump. "I'm accurately quoted in The Washington Post," he conceded, as Trump countered that the headline was wrong. It accurately described Redfield warning that if a coronavirus resurgence came at the same time as the flu season, hospitals could be overwhelmed.The President also openly clashed with his top public health officials on the likelihood of the virus returning for another assault in the fall -- saying only "embers" of disease were likely that could be easily put out.

I mean , how utterly incompetent is he?

Trump - "Robert , tell them you were misquoted!!"
Robert Redfield - "I was not misquoted at all"

kowloon

hetuzozaho wrote: »

True they have to be fair. And I look forward to the Q and A later

But once it gets tricky for him and he is quoted something ridiculous he has said he just replies with basically:

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing

If you can't impeach, tear up the speech.

elli21

My wife posited the idea and I'm coming around to it: while the EU starts its shaky recovery in (hopefully) the coming months, a ban on travel to and from the US wouldn't be utterly outrageous IMO. At least while the States remains a hotbed of infection which it looks likely to remain. Even were travel allowed, arrivals to the EU might find themselves requiring tests.
@ Pixleburp

I agree with your wife..infact I strongly believe this is one of his reasons for his immigration ban.

He knows there is a strong chance of a ban on immigration from US so wanted to get in first so he could tell his base that there is no problem in US..anyone who puts a ban on them.. is just an act of retaliation .

Christy42

elli21 wrote: »

My wife posited the idea and I'm coming around to it: while the EU starts its shaky recovery in (hopefully) the coming months, a ban on travel to and from the US wouldn't be utterly outrageous IMO. At least while the States remains a hotbed of infection which it looks likely to remain. Even were travel allowed, arrivals to the EU might find themselves requiring tests.
@ Pixleburp

I agree with your wife..infact I strongly believe this is one of his reasons for his immigration ban.

He knows there is a strong chance of a ban on immigration from US so wanted to get in first so he could tell his base that there is no problem in US..anyone who puts a ban on them.. is just an act of retaliation .

The immigration ban was just a stop on green cards. It was a pure dogwhistle and nothing more since it won't actually stop much. Or a just a pointless plan.

A ban on the US might be a good idea if we get this further under control. The EU has had 6 straight days of less than 20000 cases by my count which is good. However I feel like we need a far more virus free environment before any sort of travel ban would do anything. Let's see where we are in a week before that. Hopefully having brought it down to 10k/day cases but we will see

Drumpot

pixelburp wrote: »

And he'll get away with it too, as long as groupings and demographics adjacent to the GOP persist with dissembling over the virus' seriousness. Last week we had "Dr. Phil" on TV spinning Covid as no less serious than the flu or (and this is true) "Swimming pool deaths", Phil quoting a vastly inflated figure of 300k deaths from pools per year. There is a pernicious narrative that is doing its best to downplay, undermine and politicise an existential threat to US citizens and yeah. 100k deaths doesn't seem so far fetched now. Maybe if or when the virus appears in the Bible Belt opinions will change.

My wife posited the idea and I'm coming around to it: while the EU starts its shaky recovery in (hopefully) the coming months, a ban on travel to and from the US wouldn't be utterly outrageous IMO. At least while the States remains a hotbed of infection which it looks likely to remain. Even were travel allowed, arrivals to the EU might find themselves requiring tests.

And TBH, right now, I'd 100% support that initiative point because I just don't trust the States' government or people to get over their biases.

Is it possible that this could be the straw that breaks the US back as the “leader of the free world”?

Cynically , I wonder if China has an opportunity to position themselves better while USA isolates itself and actually pisses off everybody. 4 more years of Trump and that chance increases, he is just a terrible statesman.

pixelburp

Drumpot wrote: »

Is it possible that this could be the straw that breaks the US back as the “leader of the free world”?

Cynically , I wonder if China has an opportunity to position themselves better while USA isolates itself and actually pisses off everybody. 4 more years of Trump and that chance increases, he is just a terrible statesman.

You'd imagine that if Biden wins in November, one of the first acts will be a round of conferences, calls, and state visits to important allies to rebuild the damage done by Trump. Not to mention get key figures back working in the State Department and other geopolitical related operations. Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave over the erosion of that famous Soft Power of America's.

I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge of China's geopolitical footprints is sketchy, but I understand their interventionism is already visible in the developing world; such as large infrastructural projects in many African countries (for instance). They're functionally the de facto power in that part of the world anyway.

Quin_Dub

pixelburp wrote: »

You'd imagine that if Biden wins in November, one of the first acts will be a round of conferences, calls, and state visits to important allies to rebuild the damage done by Trump. Not to mention get key figures back working in the State Department and other geopolitical related operations. Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave over the erosion of that famous Soft Power of America's.

I'd be the first to admit that my knowledge of China's geopolitical footprints is sketchy, but I understand their interventionism is already visible in the developing world; such as large infrastructural projects in many African countries (for instance). They're functionally the de facto power in that part of the world anyway.

That will help , no doubt . But a lot of the reputational damage done by Trump will never be recovered.

The response to Biden might well be "Thanks Joe , we get that you're a decent guy and we'll get on well for the next few years, but what about the next guy ? "

Now that they've elected someone as utterly incompetent as Trump , how can they say "Promise, it'll never happen again" ?

The biggest damage Trump has done has been to expose the utter fallacy of American leadership and control.

Everyone now knows that any future "rogue" POTUS can do whatever the hell they want as long as they have a few compliant people in key positions.

Realistically , the Supreme court is tipped Conservative for the next 15-20 years as the likely next few seats to come up will be liberal ones - Ginsberg etc.

So , the next right wing Idealogue that gets in will know that if they also control the senate , they can do whatever the hell they want.

As a result , no country on earth will ever truly trust the US again , absent them making some significant structural changes to their process of Governance.

MadYaker

Also worth noting that Trump is no criminal mastermind. Someone with political expertise and intelligence could do far more damage than he has done.

everlast75

MadYaker wrote: »

Also worth noting that Trump is no criminal mastermind. Someone with political expertise and intelligence could do far more damage than he has done.

A constant thought of mine for the last 3.5+ years.....

Quin_Dub

MadYaker wrote: »

Also worth noting that Trump is no criminal mastermind. Someone with political expertise and intelligence could do far more damage than he has done.

Absolutely - Trump is only concerned about himself. He doesn't really have any real beliefs or opinions beyond making himself look good and obtaining money.

The damage that a genuine Ideologue could do now that Trump has shown the template is truly terrifying.

I don't envy Biden if he wins. He will have to clean up Trumps mess with the GOP fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. No doubt while Trump will be hurling from the ditch on every right wing talk show he can get on.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't envy Biden if he wins. He will have to clean up Trumps mess with the GOP fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. No doubt while Trump will be hurling from the ditch on every right wing talk show he can get on.

Agreed about the GOP if Biden wins.

Trump however might be a bit more consumed with all of his court cases.

It's part of why he's prepared to anything to get re-elected - He's probably going to jail if he loses in November.

pixelburp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed about the GOP if Biden wins.

Trump however might be a bit more consumed with all of his court cases.

It's part of why he's prepared to anything to get re-elected - He's probably going to jail if he loses in November.

Don't forget Don Jr. and Ivanka; we won't have seen the last of them either and given American politics' fondness for dynasties, another Trump candidacy doesn't seem too outrageous. Samatha Bee's snark that the first woman president will be Ivanka Trump remains a distinct possibility.

Drumpot

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed about the GOP if Biden wins.

Trump however might be a bit more consumed with all of his court cases.

It's part of why he's prepared to anything to get re-elected - He's probably going to jail if he loses in November.

If theres one thing the USA does well, it protects its own interests and its reputation as it suits them. A former president going to jail is not good for business or its already tarnished reputation. Regardless of what he has done or what they can prove, I would imagine they have more to lose by going after him then they do just trying to forget about him and burying his legacy.

That country really is a basketcase of corruption wrapped in a beautiful lie.

ECO_Mental

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agreed about the GOP if Biden wins.

Trump however might be a bit more consumed with all of his court cases.

It's part of why he's prepared to anything to get re-elected - He's probably going to jail if he loses in November.

What I' worried about is the untold damage Trump and O'Connell will do between the 4th of November 2020 and the 20th Jan 2021 :(


How many Judges will they appoint if they have nothing to loose
How many people with Trump grant pardons to to keep their silence.
How many regulations will he scrap


WHEN he looses in early November he has nearly 3 months do go absolutely wild. I see the Dems will have massive majority in both houses so Biden wont have much of a problem with OConnel its just the damage he is going to cause in those few weeks before he is F**ked out of the white house.


There are a lot of people waiting int he long grass to get payback and as you say he will be up to his eye balls with court cases. I really really hope he goes to jail but apparently justice works differently for the rich people in the auld USA

Quin_Dub

ECO_Mental wrote: »

What I' worried about is the untold damage Trump and O'Connell will do between the 4th of November 2020 and the 20th Jan 2021 :(


How many Judges will they appoint if they have nothing to loose
How many people with Trump grant pardons to to keep their silence.
How many regulations will he scrap


WHEN he looses in early November he has nearly 3 months do go absolutely wild. I see the Dems will have massive majority in both houses so Biden wont have much of a problem with OConnel its just the damage he is going to cause in those few weeks before he is F**ked out of the white house.


There are a lot of people waiting int he long grass to get payback and as you say he will be up to his eye balls with court cases. I really really hope he goes to jail but apparently justice works differently for the rich people in the auld USA

The regulations thing is actually covered - Trump himself used the legislation to throw out everything that Obama had done before he left office.

There's a rule that allows any legislation introduced in the preceding 90 days to be summarily dismissed - Can't remember exactly what it's called.

As regards Judges and Pardons - Yes , he'll be handing them out like confetti.

I also would not rule out Mike "1 hour President" Pence either. I can absolutely see Trump standing down an hour or two early to allow Pence to give him a blanket pardon if he thinks that the Federal Government are going to come after him.

Of course , nothing is going to stop New York coming after him and given how things are going in NY at present and how little Trump has done for them they are NOT going to go easy on him.

Tell me how

pixelburp wrote: »

Don't forget Don Jr. and Ivanka; we won't have seen the last of them either and given American politics' fondness for dynasties, another Trump candidacy doesn't seem too outrageous. Samatha Bee's snark that the first woman president will be Ivanka Trump remains a distinct possibility.

Post I made on this thread a few days ago in relation to Donald.

Tell me how wrote:

He will further position Ivanka/Jared to aid their resumes which will be used to support one of them in running for President within the next 20 years.

I think this is pretty much nailed on (that one of them, probably Ivanka will run) unless anything hinting towards criminal activity comes out about them in the intervening period.
Every picture of her in situations with world leaders will be published showing her experience in dealing with high level politics even if the reality of a lot of those was her trying to shoehorn herself in to a conversation with them such as she did at the G20.

I think Niki Halley also has her eye on a run so, that could influence the timing of Ivanka getting the GOP nomination. Maybe Halley might try in 4 years but if that is coming on the back of another Trump administration, I suspect it could be a weak GOP field at that point. Unless, perish the thought, Ivanka tries to slide straight in on the back of her fathers administration campaigning for her for 4 years.

Leroy42

Could Trump run with Ivanka as running mate?

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Could Trump run with Ivanka as running mate?

Nothing to stop him ditching Pence and replacing him with whomever he wants for November , Ivanka included.

Itssoeasy

Let's say that trump does lose the election in November, what do we think are the odds he won't attend the next inauguration(in whatever form that will take because constitutional the oath is all that's required) which is customary but it's happened where presidents haven't attending their successors swearing in for various reasons. I'd say if he loses his attendance at that event would be the least of the worries.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't envy Biden if he wins. He will have to clean up Trumps mess with the GOP fighting tooth and nail every step of the way. No doubt while Trump will be hurling from the ditch on every right wing talk show he can get on.

If Joe wins, I'd imagine that there'll be a lot of shredding and deleting done in Admin circles between 05 Nov and 20 Jan, despite the best efforts of public servants trying to keep the record intact.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Nothing to stop him ditching Pence and replacing him with whomever he wants for November , Ivanka included.

Well wouldn't that need to be decided at the convention ?

Quin_Dub

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well wouldn't that need to be decided at the convention ?

I don't think the running mate is voted on discreetly.

No doubt there are lots of back room deals and the right people need to approve , but I don't think that Convention delegates have any say on the running mate.

Igotadose

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think the running mate is voted on discreetly.

No doubt there are lots of back room deals and the right people need to approve , but I don't think that Convention delegates have any say on the running mate.

None at all. When Reagan was nominated in 1980, it wasn't until he was voted on he announced his running mate - GHWB, as I recall. Lots of discussion at the time around who it would've been, GHWB was the one to dub trickle down as "Voodoo Economics" when he ran against Reagan for the nomination, so it was slightly surprising when he became the VP nominee, but he was overall #2 to Reagan in the GOP primaries that year.

Itssoeasy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't think the running mate is voted on discreetly.

No doubt there are lots of back room deals and the right people need to approve , but I don't think that Convention delegates have any say on the running mate.

No the Vice President isn't elected or selected it's the presidents pick. I was asking does a sitting president not normally decide their running mate earlier than the other party ?

pixelburp

How popular is Ivanka anyway? From an international point of view, I didn't get the sense any world leaders she sidled up to were remotely impressed. I still remember Christine Lagarde polite-but-contemptuous expression. Not that those concerns might register with prospective voters; at home she seems to catch a bit of flack for a similar nepotistic presence, or her China produced wares - but those are often nowhere near GOP adjacent outlets. I suppose without actually being officially part of any political race it's hard to gauge actual popularly. And given some might twist her story as a triumph of the American Dream, anything's up for grabs these days.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

How popular is Ivanka anyway?

The Lincoln Project are doing a good job of educating people about her...

Headshot

Governor Cuomo going to town on McConnell

Great watch