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

Leroy42

Trump, tbf, did highlight the very serious state of disrepair that the country's infrastructure was in.

Of course, he has done almost nothing to actually fix it or even set out fixing it.

Another failure to go alongside his tax plan, healthcare and the wall

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

Largely pro-business? He has been 100% pro-business.

I was thinking of certain populist rhetoric points such as talking about putting tariffs on Chinese-made goods and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. .
Not something you think U.S. firms would love since native workers tend to want more money.

Itssoeasy

pixelburp wrote: »

I've heard it said a few times from a number of US mouthpieces in passing that the country's infrastructure was crumbling and in desperate need of rebuilding or modernisation to manage to larger numbers. Watching this video, I hadn't realised just how bad the problem was, thinking it was merely grumbling from commuters; obviously caveats apply as being one source, but the numbers and scale thrown around is eye watering. It's sometimes remarkable the country is regarded as top of the heap, as much of its internal economy often appears barely above Third World.

Of course it was one of Trump's big promises, and while the Transition Team put together a hit-list of 50 big infrastructure projects, they were all shelved in 2017; Trump saying they wouldn't happen 'til after 2020. The author of the list itself, Daniel Slane - who modelled it on China's approach to economic downturns & infrastructure - arguing that it was a tactic to push it all onto the States, and consequently, the private sector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvJSGc14xA

I'm the same as you. The word infrastructure is thrown around so much the word is starting to lose meaning. The examples shown are the equivalent of arteries and if they fall then it's not good.

Penn

Rumours on Twitter that Julian Assange might admit (with some witness to back it up) that he was promised a pardon by the US Government if he said that Russia wasn't involved in the DNC hacking during the 2016 election, supposedly Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman passed the message to him directly from Trump.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1230164682700443648

If true and depending on what evidence/witness he has to back it up, you'd imagine it'd be major.

I mean, nothing will come of it because we live in F*ckyWorld, but still, might be entertaining for a few weeks.

More here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears

Midlife

Penn wrote: »

Rumours on Twitter that Julian Assange might admit (with some witness to back it up) that he was promised a pardon by the US Government if he said that Russia wasn't involved in the DNC hacking during the 2016 election, supposedly Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman passed the message to him directly from Trump.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1230164682700443648

If true and depending on what evidence/witness he has to back it up, you'd imagine it'd be major.

I mean, nothing will come of it because we live in F*ckyWorld, but still, might be entertaining for a few weeks.

More here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears

Erm... Attempted quid pro quo is not a crime??

duploelabs

Another axing as a result of testimony

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/john-rood-pentagon-official-depart/index.html

Penn

Midlife wrote: »

Erm... Attempted quid pro quo is not a crime??

Oh it is. It definitely is.

But the only ones capable of holding him to account for it are the Senate, and they've already shown they won't, any anything the House Dems try to do with it will be dismissed as partisan politics considering their last impeachment attempt failed, so nothing's going to come of it.

listermint

And people think trump is going to walk it in 2020....


https://twitter.com/IrishTimesWorld/status/1230213473440657409?s=20


Nope.

SeamusFX

Penn wrote: »

Rumours on Twitter that Julian Assange might admit (with some witness to back it up) that he was promised a pardon by the US Government if he said that Russia wasn't involved in the DNC hacking during the 2016 election, supposedly Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman passed the message to him directly from Trump.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1230164682700443648

If true and depending on what evidence/witness he has to back it up, you'd imagine it'd be major.

I mean, nothing will come of it because we live in F*ckyWorld, but still, might be entertaining for a few weeks.

More here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears

Even with fool-proof evidence, it won’t matter to Fox and the Deplorables. They’d either say it was fake news, or his right as President and just call the rest of us whiners.

everlast75

SeamusFX wrote: »

Even with fool-proof evidence, it won’t matter to Fox and the Deplorables. They’d either say it was fake news, or his right as President and just call the rest of us whiners.

Wait for the "Rohrabacher was just a coffee boy" defence...

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

Wait for the "Rohrabacher was just a coffee boy" defence...

Think he was a coffee boy for Putin too

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/17/putin-pays-donald-trump-kevin-mccarthy-recording

In a 2016 conversation with fellow members of House leadership, the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, suggested that Donald Trump was on Vladimir Putin’s payroll.

In an exchange first reported by the Washington Post, McCarthy said: “There’s …there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump … [laughter] … swear to God.”

According to the transcript, speaker Paul Ryan immediately responded: “This is an off-the-record … [laughter] … NO LEAKS … [laughter] … alright?!”

aloyisious

briany wrote: »

It's not cynical to say that there is a class of very rich people in the states who donate to political campaigns and have a vested interest in their hegemony being maintained.

Anyway, Bloomberg v. Trump wouldn't be that different to 2016. It would be round 2 of Trump v. Blandness Personified, essentially.

Largely, the backers want a stable system with themselves at the top of it. Trump has been erratic, but his political ignorance and shallowness has neutralised him quite a bit, too, and he's still been largely pro-business. Bloomberg, also, would be pro-business. Therefore it would be win-win for the CEOs.

So its Mike buying his way on to the Dem ticket to scupper Bernie, giving the public a choice of a two-headed coin, Don on the obverse side & Mike on the reverse.

aloyisious

Penn wrote: »

Rumours on Twitter that Julian Assange might admit (with some witness to back it up) that he was promised a pardon by the US Government if he said that Russia wasn't involved in the DNC hacking during the 2016 election, supposedly Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman passed the message to him directly from Trump.

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1230164682700443648

If true and depending on what evidence/witness he has to back it up, you'd imagine it'd be major.

I mean, nothing will come of it because we live in F*ckyWorld, but still, might be entertaining for a few weeks.

More here:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears

AKA a hint to Don: get Mike Barr to drop the extradition request or I'll sing on you. A version of Don's game of throwing enough mud some will stick.

20Cent

Assange can't be extradited to the US now it's a lawless country, prisoners aren't safe in prison there.

aloyisious

listermint wrote: »

And people think trump is going to walk it in 2020....


https://twitter.com/IrishTimesWorld/status/1230213473440657409?s=20


Nope.

Fire them [disloyal prosecutors etc] the same way I did to McCabe so they lose entitlements they might get to keep if they resign/retire.

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Wait for the "Rohrabacher was just a coffee boy" defence...

Already happening

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/02/19/trump-says-he-barely-knows-dana-rohrabacher-after-julian-assange-makes-pardon-claim/#2bd15e2669fc

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Below standard posts deleted.

everlast75

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1230513146701471745?s=19

Penn

Reading on Twitter that the new prosecutors in Stone's case (after the previous ones all quit due to Barr's interference) are now arguing for the original sentencing of 7-9 years that the original prosecutors were looking for.

Guessing they might be going for a different tactic of rather than a light sentence, go hard as possible and let Trump use that as justification for pardoning him directly.

Quin_Dub

Penn wrote: »

Reading on Twitter that the new prosecutors in Stone's case (after the previous ones all quit due to Barr's interference) are now arguing for the original sentencing of 7-9 years that the original prosecutors were looking for.

Guessing they might be going for a different tactic of rather than a light sentence, go hard as possible and let Trump use that as justification for pardoning him directly.

Whether Stone gets 7 years or 7 days ,Trump will complain about it and pardon him anyway..

everlast75

Penn wrote: »

Reading on Twitter that the new prosecutors in Stone's case (after the previous ones all quit due to Barr's interference) are now arguing for the original sentencing of 7-9 years that the original prosecutors were looking for.

Guessing they might be going for a different tactic of rather than a light sentence, go hard as possible and let Trump use that as justification for pardoning him directly.

And also get to claim that the DOJ is independent after all..

Gbear

everlast75 wrote: »

And also get to claim that the DOJ is independent after all..

Perhaps it is.

Perhaps they couldn't find anyone willing to take the case on if they kept up with the bull****.

A longshot, but hope springs eternal.

eire4

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Whether Stone gets 7 years or 7 days ,Trump will complain about it and pardon him anyway..

I would be shocked at any other outcome. The president has made an absolute mockery of the principle of an independent judicial system.

TomOnBoard

Last night's Dem debate was a fiery affair. Bloomberg finally came out from behind his advertisement campaign and faced real public opposition for the 1st time. From the opening, the other Dem candidates rounded on him in what was the most vicious debate yet. Warren was very effective from the get-go, while Sanders (who is ahead by double-digits in polls) was Sanders... I'm sure he was glad Bloomberg was there, as the incoming fire he would otherwise have suffered was directed to the ex-Mayor instead.

On the night, Bloomberg was the biggest loser, while Warren was a clear winner. Biden did well enough, but Pete and Amy didn't shine and capitalise on their performances in early primaries.

Given the ability to get down and dirty with each other that they showed, I 'd say that Trump must have felt a bit less secure, as any of these candidates (except possibly Bloomberg who was really very shaky) would destroy him in a TV debate further down the road.

everlast75

40 months for Stone

Hande hoche!

Will be curious as to whether Trump pardons him. Also if so, whether he waits till next year.

TomOnBoard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Last night's Dem debate was a fiery affair. Bloomberg finally came out from behind his advertisement campaign and faced real public opposition for the 1st time. From the opening, the other Dem candidates rounded on him in what was the most vicious debate yet. Warren was very effective from the get-go, while Sanders (who is ahead by double-digits in polls) was Sanders... I'm sure he was glad Bloomberg was there, as the incoming fire he would otherwise have suffered was directed to the ex-Mayor instead.

On the night, Bloomberg was the biggest loser, while Warren was a clear winner. Biden did well enough, but Pete and Amy didn't shine and capitalise on their performances in early primaries.

Given the ability to get down and dirty with each other that they showed, I 'd say that Trump must have felt a bit less secure, as any of these candidates (except possibly Bloomberg who was really very shaky) would destroy him in a TV debate further down the road.

There's no way Trump will do a debate with anyone. He might even want to but I'd bet his campaign people won't let him. He's best at sending snarky tweets while watching TV. I imagine he would be very different face to face. Warren would cut him into little orange ribbons.

sid waddell

Last night was an excellent debate for the Democrats to have. You're far better off having these sort of debates now, it battle hardens the eventual nominee and weeds out those not up to it and those whose ideology means they shouldn't be near the nomination.

And Bloomberg shouldn't be next or near the nomination, Buttigieg not much nearer than that.

Sanders and Warren are head and shoulders above the rest and anybody who didn't see that last night hasn't a clue.

EltonJohn69

Can’t decide if 40 months is in the soft side ?

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no way Trump will do a debate with anyone. He might even want to but I'd bet his campaign people won't let him. He's best at sending snarky tweets while watching TV. I imagine he would be very different face to face. Warren would cut him into little orange ribbons.

A refusal to debate will leave him open to accusation of not being able to stand up and be counted, cowardice by another name, after he debated with HRC in 2016 while not having a record to protect.