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

peddlelies

Should just hire a firm like fusion gps to do it, garbage fiction still results in the wanted outcome, i.e. smearing.

aloyisious

peddlelies wrote: »

Should just hire a firm like fusion gps to do it, garbage fiction still results in the wanted outcome, i.e. smearing.

Don'cha know, the Dems don't smear their own.

Manic Moran

aloyisious wrote: »

Yeah, I got that after. Seems Bernie is upset about getting a greater number of popular votes than the others and the difference apparently not mattering when the vote figures were totted up showing the percentage per candidate on the vote display models. There does, on the model face shown, seem to be an anomaly but it might be explained by another totting-up.

I hadn't previously looked up the Iowa Democratic Caucus system before, but it's absolutely insane.
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/30/21083701/iowa-caucuses-results-delegates-math

It starts out simply enough, with a variation on the single transferable vote. If your guy is knocked out in the first round, if there were few enough of you voting for that guy, you can transfer your vote to someone else.

Then there seem to be three levels of delegate, and when you start talking county delegates to the State, counties of the same population with the same number of people who showed up to vote get different numbers of delegates based on how many people in that county voted for the losers in the governor's and presidential races in the previous elections.

And that's far from the end of it. No wonder the thing's causing confusion. You need a pen and paper to keep track of the example on the article.

The Republican primary in Iowa is "Put a checkmark next to your candidate. Biggest number wins"

sid waddell

Manic Moran wrote: »

I hadn't previously looked up the Iowa Democratic Caucus system before, but it's absolutely insane.
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/30/21083701/iowa-caucuses-results-delegates-math

It starts out simply enough, with a variation on the single transferable vote. If your guy is knocked out in the first round, if there were few enough of you voting for that guy, you can transfer your vote to someone else.

Then there seem to be three levels of delegate, and when you start talking county delegates to the State, counties of the same population with the same number of people who showed up to vote get different numbers of delegates based on how many people in that county voted for the losers in the governor's and presidential races in the previous elections.

And that's far from the end of it. No wonder the thing's causing confusion. You need a pen and paper to keep track of the example on the article.

The Republican primary in Iowa is "Put a checkmark next to your candidate. Biggest number wins"

In 2012 the Republicans wrongly announced Mitt Romney as the winner in Iowa, when Rick Santorum actually won.

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

I hadn't previously looked up the Iowa Democratic Caucus system before, but it's absolutely insane.
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/30/21083701/iowa-caucuses-results-delegates-math

It starts out simply enough, with a variation on the single transferable vote. If your guy is knocked out in the first round, if there were few enough of you voting for that guy, you can transfer your vote to someone else.

Then there seem to be three levels of delegate, and when you start talking county delegates to the State, counties of the same population with the same number of people who showed up to vote get different numbers of delegates based on how many people in that county voted for the losers in the governor's and presidential races in the previous elections.

And that's far from the end of it. No wonder the thing's causing confusion. You need a pen and paper to keep track of the example on the article.

The Republican primary in Iowa is "Put a checkmark next to your candidate. Biggest number wins"

OK, I get the transfer vote, similar to that in Ireland. There was mention on the night of the caucus of an electoral college and I can suppose that might explain the very strange delegate levels you wrote of in Para 2 with its way of allotting of delegates numbership AND having it based on how many people voted for those who lost out in the two races from previous elections. That is weird. Hopefully what will come out of this hiccup will be a review of the that part of Iowa's Dem Party caucus system. Edit... deleted ref to HRC as she lost the main election race and not Dem caucus race.

@Sid: I saw that in some newspaper covering the Dem Iowa screwup.

Red for Danger

StringerBell wrote: »

I'm pointing out how it works for you. Legislation on many, many things has passed in the House and been sent to the Senate. There it sits. That is on Moscow Mitch, not Nancy Pelosi. You know him? The grim reaper? Have you heard him wear that one with pride? Can you think of anyone else who would talk about themselves in that way?
.

What kinda opposition did she give when it came to rounding up Democrats to oppose, trumps tax cuts for the rich, or his increase in military spending or rebranding NAFTA.

Remember that strongly worded letter she wrote to trump, after she just freely gave him 5 billion for the border with absolutely no conditions for the children. That sums her and the establishment moderates up.
No fight on the issues that matter just this distraction which takes the focus of the policy issues. The only thing that matters.

The moderates positions when it comes to Republicans is usually not to fight.
For years they've been talking about "reaching across the isle" " bridging the divide" " finding common ground" their forever trying to appease the right by moving a little to the right. Total failures

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

Yeah, I got that after. Seems Bernie is upset about getting a greater number of popular votes than the others and the difference apparently not mattering when the vote figures were totted up showing the percentage per candidate on the vote display models. There does, on the model face shown, seem to be an anomaly but it might be explained by another totting-up.

Well, the Democrats have surely fcuked up big time in IOWA. It's handing massive political capital to the Trump campaign, and all based on a series of totally unforced errors. Neither of the putative winners (Pete or Bernie) will make inroads into the swing states who put Trump in the WH through the Electoral College system rather than the popular vote in 2016. Rust Belt America is not ready for either a Socialist (by US standards) or Gay President.. It's that simple! This is all heading towards another self-inflicted loss by the Dems to Trump.

As of now, Biden is losing position, Warren is losing campaign money and the rest are losing credibility. I find this both very sad and terribly frustrating..

Maybe Mike Bloomberg is the real winner out of IOWA. He's spending his millions on saturation advertising and could actually do well in Super Tuesday contests which will be his first official appearance outside of adverts. I'm even looking at Bloomberg as being a possible candidate at this stage, and that would truly freak Trump out!

In fact, I'll predict a sweet Dem ticket that would cause Trump's head to absolutely EXPLODE, and that would cause undecided persuadable to have a good hard think about what they want:

Mike Bloomberg for President AAAND Adam Schiff as his V.P. running mate......

everlast75

What a contrast.

Anyone who thinks that Trump has learned his lesson is simply and utterly delusional.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1225509603242323974?s=20

Timberrrrrrrr

everlast75 wrote: »

What a contrast.

Anyone who thinks that Trump has learned his lesson is simply and utterly delusional.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1225509603242323974?s=20

Clintons speech - Less than 2 minutes.

Trumps speech - over an hour.

everlast75

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Clintons speech - Less than 2 minutes.

Trumps speech - over an hour.

A prime example of quality over content

aloyisious

I saw a few minutes of it and noticed his habit of occasionally repeating a just-spoken phrase as if to convince himself of its truth, with him giving his lips a quick wipe with his tongue either side of speaking the phrase, almost like a nervous tic when he's come to a part of his speech he knows is a lie.

aloyisious

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Well, the Democrats have surely fcuked up big time in IOWA. It's handing massive political capital to the Trump campaign, and all based on a series of totally unforced errors. Neither of the putative winners (Pete or Bernie) will make inroads into the swing states who put Trump in the WH through the Electoral College system rather than the popular vote in 2016. Rust Belt America is not ready for either a Socialist (by US standards) or Gay President.. It's that simple! This is all heading towards another self-inflicted loss by the Dems to Trump.

As of now, Biden is losing position, Warren is losing campaign money and the rest are losing credibility. I find this both very sad and terribly frustrating..

Maybe Mike Bloomberg is the real winner out of IOWA. He's spending his millions on saturation advertising and could actually do well in Super Tuesday contests which will be his first official appearance outside of adverts. I'm even looking at Bloomberg as being a possible candidate at this stage, and that would truly freak Trump out!

In fact, I'll predict a sweet Dem ticket that would cause Trump's head to absolutely EXPLODE, and that would cause undecided persuadable to have a good hard think about what they want:

Can Mike run Don dry fund-wise to the point that the GOP will have to subsidise him to the point it'll hurt them big time? I can't see Don throwing in the towel willingly as it'd no longer be about the GOP or the ticket, it'd be about being the big cheese. Like it or not, he's a New Yorker, despite his "I might move to Florida".

Dems F*cking up, it seems likely they didn't give the new system a dry run to test it out for glitches. I'm a bit surprised at the mention also that people were queuing outside the caucus centres in the rain to get in and cast their votes. That's a recipe for disaster. I hope any other state intending to try out the Iowa model gives it several dry runs at max power on the glitch points made visible by Iowa's experience. I'd imagine the alternative of dumping any experiment with it will be in both parties minds.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Can Mike run Don dry fund-wise to the point that the GOP will have to subsidise him to the point it'll hurt them big time? I can't see Don throwing in the towel willingly as it'd no longer be about the GOP or the ticket, it'd be about being the big cheese. Like it or not, he's a New Yorker, despite his "I might move to Florida".

Dems F8cking up, it seems likely they didn't give the new system a dry run to test it out for glitches. I'm a bit surprised at the mention that people were queuing outside the caucus cenrtres to get in and cast their votes. TRe the


T

Sure isn't Don a billionaire? Has the biggest bank account, most successful bussinessman, Bloomberg wishes he had Don's walking around money

StringerBell

Red for Danger wrote: »

What kinda opposition did she give when it came to rounding up Democrats to oppose, trumps tax cuts for the rich, or his increase in military spending or rebranding NAFTA.

Remember that strongly worded letter she wrote to trump, after she just freely gave him 5 billion for the border with absolutely no conditions for the children. That sums her and the establishment moderates up.
No fight on the issues that matter just this distraction which takes the focus of the policy issues. The only thing that matters.

The moderates positions when it comes to Republicans is usually not to fight.
For years they've been talking about "reaching across the isle" " bridging the divide" " finding common ground" their forever trying to appease the right by moving a little to the right. Total failures

Is this supposed to be a response to something I posted? Or why did you quote me?

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

A prime example of quality over content

Trump's rambling "victory" speech was an embarrassment. It's gotten to the stage where I can't even listen to his voice anymore.

everlast75

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Trump's rambling "victory" speech was an embarrassment. It's gotten to the stage where I can't even listen to his voice anymore.

I reached that point a loooooonngg time ago.

A contributor to a pod i was listening to earlier made an excellent point. He compared trump to Berlusconi. Whenever he attacks people, he uses adjectives - never facts. He calls people nasty, or corrupt but rarely cites actual reasons why. The media in Italy had to acknowledge that before understanding how to cover him and his utterances

StringerBell

Bloombergs play is more and more interesting the more you look into it, not campaigning in Iowa, not in New Hampshire etc but campaigning nationally, pumping huge money in where nobody else is going, getting infrastructure in place etc

Is it just about getting Trump out for him or what is his route to the nomination? I think he was running in case the impeachment took out Biden totally but he is still pushing ahead with the campaign.

PropJoe10

StringerBell wrote: »

Bloombergs play is more and more interesting the more you look into it, not campaigning in Iowa, not in New Hampshire etc but campaigning nationally, pumping huge money in where nobody else is going, getting infrastructure in place etc

Is it just about getting Trump out for him or what is his route to the nomination? I think he was running in case the impeachment took out Biden totally but he is still pushing ahead with the campaign.

He seems to be all about getting Trump out. He's already pledged to spend a fortune on supporting whoever wins the Dem nomination, even if its not him. I think he's an interesting person to have running against the Toddler - even the fact that Bloomberg is a genuine billionaire should get right under Trump's skin.

peddlelies

More bad news for the Democrats

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump/index.html

A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

The ruling is a major triumph for the President, who's intensely sought to keep his business affairs in private, just days after the Republican-held Senate voted to acquit him on impeachment charges for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The case's dismissal effectively kneecaps one of several attempts Democrats have made to dig up more information about Trump's business holdings.

FrostyJack

peddlelies wrote: »

More bad news for the Democrats

And America and the rule of law.

TomOnBoard

StringerBell wrote: »

Bloombergs play is more and more interesting the more you look into it, not campaigning in Iowa, not in New Hampshire etc but campaigning nationally, pumping huge money in where nobody else is going, getting infrastructure in place etc

Is it just about getting Trump out for him or what is his route to the nomination? I think he was running in case the impeachment took out Biden totally but he is still pushing ahead with the campaign.

I think it's basically that he does see any of the current crop being able to defeat Trump.

The rationale behind the big emphasis on trying to get strong support on Super Tuesday is that it is using a short sharp shock to gain as many delegates as possible on a single day. With all his billions available and him being able to out-spend everyone else on advertising, it's the ultimate 'armchair ' play.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

More bad news for the Democrats

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump/index.html

A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.

The ruling is a major triumph for the President, who's intensely sought to keep his business affairs in private, just days after the Republican-held Senate voted to acquit him on impeachment charges for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The case's dismissal effectively kneecaps one of several attempts Democrats have made to dig up more information about Trump's business holdings.

While it's a gut-punch, it's not a knock-out blow.

The Court, citing a previous decision, decided that the Democratic House and Senate members were acting in an individual capacity when they brought the case (pre 2019), as distinct from representing either of the branches of Congress, and therefore did not have standing.

This can be quickly dealt with by the House itself presenting a new case on a similar basis, thereby acting as the institution of the House of Representatives which would give them the necessary standing. That said, I'm surprised that the House didn't see this coming and bolster its case before this.

aloyisious

Pistol Pete: I've had a look at the Ukrainian Prosecutor who you say was engaged in lawful anti-corruption activities against the Bidens and Burisma, and whom you believe the Bidens and the liberal left had fired for those activities, and at the other Ukrainians you named.

What convinces you that the last Ukraine Govt [which was not re-elected by Ukraine's voters on the basis that it was corrupt] was wrong to fire the prosecutor [one of their own team] when pressured by the Bidens because he was corrupt?

Do you believe the fired prosecutor was NOT corrupt?

Do you believe the Ukraine Govt was wrong to fire the prosecutor because the basis for his firing was the pot [Biden] calling the kettle black or is your belief merely partisan?

Manic Moran

FrostyJack wrote: »

And America and the rule of law.

The case was rejected on well established procedural grounds. Standing is one of the first things asked in a court when a suit is filed. The rule of law is fine and working, the suit merely needs to be refiled by the appropriate party/parties.

duploelabs

aloyisious wrote: »

Pistol Pete: I've had a look at the Ukrainian Prosecutor who you say was engaged in lawful anti-corruption activities against the Bidens and Burisma, and whom you believe the Bidens and the liberal left had fired for those activities, and at the other Ukrainians you named.

What convinces you that the last Ukraine Govt [which was not re-elected by Ukraine's voters on the basis that it was corrupt] was wrong to fire the prosecutor [one of their own team] when pressured by the Bidens because he was corrupt?

Do you believe the fired prosecutor was NOT corrupt?

Do you believe the Ukraine Govt was wrong to fire the prosecutor because the basis for his firing was the pot [Biden] calling the kettle black or is your belief merely partisan?

Do you honestly think you'll get a direct and concise answer?

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

The case was rejected on well established procedural grounds. Standing is one of the first things asked in a court when a suit is filed. The rule of law is fine and working, the suit merely needs to be refiled by the appropriate party/parties.

If the courts are so wonderful in the US why are the GOP racing ahead with placing as many of their judges in as possible?

Your faith is admirable but Trump and the GOP don't share your belief that the law is fine and working.

serfboard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Neither of the putative winners (Pete or Bernie) will make inroads into the swing states who put Trump in the WH through the Electoral College system rather than the popular vote in 2016.

Don't know where you're getting that from. Bernie Sanders won the primary in Michigan in 2016 and his win in the primary:

Wikipedia wrote:

is widely considered to be one of the biggest upsets in modern American political history, with polling before the primary showing him trailing Hillary Clinton by an average of 21 points.

Hillary Clinton went on to lose Michigan to Trump.

Michigan also has one of the most left-wing members of the House Of Representatives, Rashida Tlaib.

aloyisious

Bill Barr seems to believe that the left have been waging a scorched earth war on the US constitution and Govt Law branches for a decade or more according to a speech he gave to the Federalist Society in Nov last. It seems he's like-minded to Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo when it comes to his religious beliefs guiding him on what to do as a member of Don Trump's administration. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/william-barr-impeachment-federalist-society-speech_n_5dd0775fe4b0294748185c6c

It's a weird thought to think that the Trump administration is upset at the theocratic style of government in Iran when it is trending to become similar in the US, a Christian Govt not only in ethos but in law. A look at how its demonising the other party in the present US democratic style of Govt as evil and anti-constitutional is a guide to what may come from the Trump Admin. Its even stranger when one looks at the head of the administration, see how he differs from the heads of Dept in his administration and yet how the AG and Sec State were appointed to office by him and how they are steering the US from within the Admin. I hope they don't convert Don to their platform in US society cos he might be its saviour by firing them if they cross him.

sid waddell

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the courts are so wonderful in the US why are the GOP racing ahead with placing as many of their judges in as possible?

Your faith is admirable but Trump and the GOP don't share your belief that the law is fine and working.

Trump and the Republicans don't want the law to work. They want a simulacrum of law which they can bend any way they want, in the same way they want a Putinesque simulacrum of democracy they can bend any way they want.

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

Do you honestly think you'll get a direct and concise answer?

I'll give him a chance to set out a reasonable case in reply first. The slightest sign of doctrinal ****e I'll walk away. I want a real deal, not Trumpist propaganda.