Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

16364666869102

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Considering that the Democrats' plan is something that passed the Republican Senate in December - a vote that doesn't apply anymore in the new legislative session - who would filibuster the bill so that it can't have a simple up-down majority vote? Mitch McConnell? But he was saying before he wouldn't even allow a vote on the Democrats' plan - although he must have allowed a vote on the same plan in December - if Trump wouldn't sign it?

    It's not quite the Democrats's plan that's being voted on. The bill that passed the Senate last month and the House this month funded most of the shutdown parts of the government through the end of the year and the Department of Homeland Security through sometime in February. What's being voted on tomorrow (theoretically) is a continuing resolution that funds the shut down parts of the federal government only through February 8.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Precisely. I don't understand why he hasn't been (a) recalled; (b) not re-elected; (c) deposed as speaker.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    One WaPo headline now:
    White House seeks list of programs that would be hurt if shutdown lasts into March

    The current occupant of the White House is trying to destroy the US gov't system from within. I wonder now if the system is strong enough to deal with this, or if the whole country will just collapse - which apparently is what he wants.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Considering that the Democrats' plan is something that passed the Republican Senate in December - a vote that doesn't apply anymore in the new legislative session - who would filibuster the bill so that it can't have a simple up-down majority vote? Mitch McConnell? But he was saying before he wouldn't even allow a vote on the Democrats' plan - although he must have allowed a vote on the same plan in December - if Trump wouldn't sign it?

    It's not quite the Democrats's plan that's being voted on. The bill that passed the Senate last month and the House this month funded most of the shutdown parts of the government through the end of the year and the Department of Homeland Security through sometime in February. What's being voted on tomorrow (theoretically) is a continuing resolution that funds the shut down parts of the federal government only through February 8.

    But aren't there still two competing plans that will both be voted on? Will both only reopen the government until February 8?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    But aren't there still two competing plans that will both be voted on? Will both only reopen the government until February 8?

    Yes and I'm not sure. It wouldn't surprise me if the bill with the money for Trump's wall funded the government for longer, but I can't find verification of this.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Air traffic control unions are warning that safety can not be guaranteed.

    I don’t understand. Why don’t they all go on strike? The outcry would soon cause the two sides to find a way through this mess.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Boogie wrote: »
    Why don’t they all go on strike?

    They tried that in 1981. President Reagan fired them all and banned them from civil service jobs for life. Their union was decertified.

    I'm sure the present day workers fear the same. A compassionate Congress, however, would pass legislation assuring that they would not be punished.

    However, we have a do-nothing Congress more interested in how many spent farts they can inhale from you-know-who's fat asshole than in serving the nation.

    The term "contempt of Congress" has always fascinated me. There is no governmental entity more deserving of contempt than Congress. Contempt of Congress should not be an offense -- it should be a trophy.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited January 24
    Boogie wrote: »
    Air traffic control unions are warning that safety can not be guaranteed.

    I don’t understand. Why don’t they all go on strike? The outcry would soon cause the two sides to find a way through this mess.

    Federal workers in the US have no legal right to strike and they have no legal protection from being fired if they do so.
  • Is it just me or has anyone else spotted the eye-popping madness of Trump's latest rantings on the subject of Maduro and Venezuela?

    Time to play Spot the Difference

    Were not elected by majority vote DT / NM

    Russian involvement in the election that brought them to power DT / NM

    Election followed by mass street protests DT / NM

    Government workers on the breadline, using soup kitchens DT / NM

    Friend of Vladimir Putin DT / NM
  • One of the most odious individuals in American politics, Roger Stone, has been arrested on several charges relating to the wikileaks malarkey and threats made to friends to stop them from testifying. Trump knows all the best people.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    One of the most odious individuals in American politics, Roger Stone, has been arrested on several charges relating to the wikileaks malarkey and threats made to friends to stop them from testifying. Trump knows all the best people.

    It all reminds me of my mum's old favourite: "It's not what you know, and it's not who you know. It's what you know about who you know". Political party whips have worked on this basis since the beginning.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    One of the most odious individuals in American politics, Roger Stone, has been arrested on several charges relating to the wikileaks malarkey and threats made to friends to stop them from testifying. Trump knows all the best people.

    Roger Stone managed to skate on Watergate. We'll see what happens this time around.

    One of the more interesting details from the indictment, at least as far as shock value goes, was point 37.e (p. 19):
    On multiple occasions, including on or about December 1, 2017, STONE told Person 2 that Person 2 should do a “Frank Pentangeli” before HPSCI in order to avoid contradicting STONE’s testimony. Frank Pentangeli is a character in the film The Godfather: Part II, which both STONE and Person 2 had discussed, who testifies before a congressional committee and in that testimony claims not to know critical information that he does in fact know.

    Person 2 is alleged to be Randy Credico. Everything about the Trump campaign, transition, and administration* seems to shot through with almost terminal stupidity. Either that or the arrogance that comes from an assumption of impunity. Why would anyone think it was a good idea, when tampering with a witness, to cite the most infamous cinematic example of Congressional witness tampering ever invented by Hollywood? You know, just so anyone who happens to be listening in on that conversation knows unambiguously what's being communicated.

    For those unfamiliar with The Godfather: Part II, Frank Pentangeli (a.k.a. "Frankie Five Angels") is deterred from testifying because Michael Corleone brought Pentangeli's brother from Sicily to the hearing, with the not so subtle implication that very unpleasant things would happen to said brother if Michael didn't like Frank's testimony. In the Twitter age it looks something like this:
    Donald J. Trump
    Kevin Corke, @FoxNews “Don’t forget, Michael Cohen has already been convicted of perjury and fraud, and as recently as this week, the Wall Street Journal has suggested that he may have stolen tens of thousands of dollars....” Lying to reduce his jail time! Watch father-in-law!

    Because Donald Trump doesn't do "subtle".

    The biggest teaser of the indictment comes on p. 4:
    After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.

    There's been some speculation about exactly which "senior Trump Campaign official" is being discussed here (Rick Gates? Steve Bannon?), but a lot more fervent speculation is around the question "directed by whom?"
  • Things are starting to fall apart at La Guardia and Newark. If rich people can't fly around in their jets, they will begin to pressure Trump & McConnell. Never mind food stamps and rent subsidies - the only class that matters is business class.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Today's Trump shut-down feature: airport closings and/or delays.

    Coming attraction: Federal courts, starting February 2.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    One of the most odious individuals in American politics, Roger Stone, has been arrested.

    I hear the FBI showed up at his house in the middle of the night and hauled him away in his pajamas -- and handcuffs, of course. Talk about poetic justice.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I hear the FBI showed up at his house in the middle of the night and hauled him away in his pajamas -- and handcuffs, of course. Talk about poetic justice.

    Well, shortly after 6:00 am. I think that counts more as "pre-dawn" than "middle of the night". CNN was there to film it.

    As an aside, the FBI is one of the parts of the federal government affected by the Trump shut-down, so they were willing to show up in the early hours to arrest Rogers Stone for free.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Air traffic control unions are warning that safety can not be guaranteed.

    I don’t understand. Why don’t they all go on strike? The outcry would soon cause the two sides to find a way through this mess.

    Federal workers in the US have no legal right to strike and they have no legal protection from being fired if they do so.

    What about their bosses, surely they could order a work to rule for the sake of safety?

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Boogie wrote: »
    Federal workers in the US have no legal right to strike and they have no legal protection from being fired if they do so.

    What about their bosses, surely they could order a work to rule for the sake of safety?

    Most of the federal workers affected by the Trump shut-down aren't working at all, they're on furlough. Those that are still working hold jobs designated as critical, like air traffic controllers or FBI agents. So to a certain extent they're already working to rule.

    On that other matter, CNBC says that the "senior Trump Campaign official" who "was directed to contact [ Roger ] STONE" was Steve Bannon, according to "a person with direct knowledge of the matter". Talking Points Memo makes the same claim, also on the basis of "A person familiar with the matter". A. Person certainly seems to have been busy today, or possibly multiple A. Persons.

    Since Bannon was the CEO of the Trump campaign at the time of this alleged incident the number of people who could have "directed" him to do something is quite small, and a lot of them have the same last name.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Crœsos wrote: »
    As an aside, the FBI is one of the parts of the federal government affected by the Trump shut-down, so they were willing to show up in the early hours to arrest Rogers Stone for free.

    Assuming I had the proper authority, I'd pay the government for the opportunity to arrest Roger Stone at any hour of the day or night.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    As an aside, the FBI is one of the parts of the federal government affected by the Trump shut-down, so they were willing to show up in the early hours to arrest Rogers Stone for free.

    Assuming I had the proper authority, I'd pay the government for the opportunity to arrest Roger Stone at any hour of the day or night.

    And I'd happily volunteer as backup.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Is it just me or has anyone else spotted the eye-popping madness of Trump's latest rantings on the subject of Maduro and Venezuela?
    It looks like most Latin American countries - but not Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, or Mexico - have followed suit in recognizing the opposition leader as interim president. The move by the US appears to me to have been planned in coordination with the other countries. So it appears at least part of the Trump administration is capable of coordinated diplomacy.

    The opposition leader is claiming that the constitution makes him, in his role as leader of the National Assembly, interim president because the results of the last election are invalid. I don't know how legally valid that argument is. So maybe the US and other countries have some justification in recognizing him? I don't know, but the situation in Venezuela has been scary for a while and looks like it could get a lot scarier soon.
  • Trump is asking how CNN knew to be there outside Stone's house when the FBI showed up. I don't want to take Trump's side, but how did they know? If the FBI tipped them off, is that normal?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It looks like most Latin American countries - but not Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, or Mexico - have followed suit in recognizing the opposition leader as interim president. The move by the US appears to me to have been planned in coordination with the other countries. So it appears at least part of the Trump administration is capable of coordinated diplomacy.

    Some, but perhaps not in the right quarters. From the UN Dispatch podcast (via):
    Was it a mistake for the Trump administration to so quickly recognize Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela? I keep thinking about how @itbriscoe's answered my question.‏

    If the US had some guarantees that the military establishment was about to abandon Maduro, then the move makes sense.

    On the other hand, if the US thought it could create facts-on-the-ground by backing Guaido then the Trump administration may have severely miscalculated

    So far, it looks like the latter. The military has not abandoned Maduro.

    The caveat "so far" is justified in a situation as uncertain and fluid as this, but the Trump administration* tends to screw up the execution of even the very few good ideas they have, and I'm not at all certain that this was a good idea in the first place.
    Trump is asking how CNN knew to be there outside Stone's house when the FBI showed up. I don't want to take Trump's side, but how did they know? If the FBI tipped them off, is that normal?

    CNN is claiming that they staked out Stone's house preemptively after an exceptional amount of activity by the Mueller grand jury. (Lots of filings made, even if the exact content of those filings hadn't been made public yet.) Non-CNN journalist Yamiche Alcindor puts it in even simpler terms:
    Yamiche Alcindor
    The president is asking, who alerted CNN to be there?

    Journalists don't have to be alerted. It was expected for weeks that Roger Stone would indicted.

    It's called a stakeout and a reporter doing their job.

    Read the CNN link for the details, but it's mostly a case of reporters doing their jobs and not being morons. Given his staff, it's that last bit Trump may be unfamiliar with.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    As an aside, the FBI is one of the parts of the federal government affected by the Trump shut-down, so they were willing to show up in the early hours to arrest Rogers Stone for free.

    Assuming I had the proper authority, I'd pay the government for the opportunity to arrest Roger Stone at any hour of the day or night.

    If Bannon is next on the list I want to be first in line!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Assuming I had the proper authority, I'd pay the government for the opportunity to arrest Roger Stone at any hour of the day or night.

    If Bannon is next on the list I want to be first in line!

    Are you sure about that? It's one thing to roust out Jack the Ripper cosplayer Roger Stone in the early hours. Are you sure you want to cast your eyes on Steve Bannon, last heir of House Harkonen, right after he rolls out of bed? If so, I salute your devotion.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Some, but perhaps not in the right quarters. From the UN Dispatch podcast (via):
    Was it a mistake for the Trump administration to so quickly recognize Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela? I keep thinking about how @itbriscoe's answered my question.‏

    If the US had some guarantees that the military establishment was about to abandon Maduro, then the move makes sense.

    On the other hand, if the US thought it could create facts-on-the-ground by backing Guaido then the Trump administration may have severely miscalculated

    So far, it looks like the latter. The military has not abandoned Maduro.

    It seems that most of the rest of Latin America has also deemed it prudent to recognize the opposition leader as interim president, though. Are they all as misguided as Trump? (Brazil definitely yes, but all of them?) I know Latin America is experiencing a rightward tilt but not all right-leaning leaders there are like Bolsonaro.
  • Blink.
    “The walls we are building are not medieval walls. They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of front-line border agents and are operationally effective,” he [Trump]said, describing a proposal that has essentially been Democrats’ demand — no concrete wall but rather a strategic investment in security.

    “We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea, we never did, we never proposed that, we never wanted that, because we have barriers at the border where our natural structures are as good as anything we can build,” he continued, somewhat mystifyingly — contradicting his own years-long position on the border wall. “They’re already there. They’ve been there for millions of years.”
    ...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It seems that most of the rest of Latin America has also deemed it prudent to recognize the opposition leader as interim president, though. Are they all as misguided as Trump? (Brazil definitely yes, but all of them?) I know Latin America is experiencing a rightward tilt but not all right-leaning leaders there are like Bolsonaro.

    Possibly, but they may be operating under a somewhat different calculus than the Trump administration*. Instead of the choice of recognizing or not recognizing the self-declared Guaido interim government, their choice was more along the lines of pissing off Maduro or pissing off Trump. Venezuela is closer, but the United States is more powerful. They may have also been under the (possibly mistaken) impression that United States wouldn't take this step without having inside information about the instability Maduro's control over the Venezuelan security apparatus, instability which has yet to manifest itself. Historically speaking the U.S. has been better at removing Latin American leaders it doesn't like than those leaders have been at holding on to power. It's not a perfect record (Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, etc.) but siding with the U.S. is, on average, the safer bet.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If Bannon is next on the list I want to be first in line!

    Are you sure about that? . . . . Are you sure you want to cast your eyes on Steve Bannon, last heir of House Harkonen, right after he rolls out of bed?

    Depends on what I had for dinner the night before and how quickly I might want to purge it from my delicate insides.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Quotes from The Godfather: Part II seem thick on the ground (or at least the internet) today.
  • AthrawesAthrawes Shipmate
    My Facebook feed says the shutdown has ended. Is this true? And what were the final terms? How soon will those without pay get their back pay?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Athrawes wrote: »
    My Facebook feed says the shutdown has ended. Is this true? And what were the final terms? How soon will those without pay get their back pay?

    An agreement was reached to end the Trump shut-down. It has yet to be officially implemented. The basic outline of the agreement (as I understand it) is:
    • A continuing resolution to fund the government through February 15
    • No money for a wall
    • Senate votes first
    • Back pay for all affected federal workers
    • Conference bill negotiations for DHS and border security

    So there's a framework, but it still needs to be implemented. On the other hand Ann Coulter is saying mean things about Trump on Twitter again so maybe he'll back out and veto the whole thing at the last minute.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Possibly true. My understanding that the deal is just a temporary extension to keep things going for 3 weeks (until February 15), and possibly another shut down then if no deal can be worked out.

    My problem is that the reports say that Trump announced it. So, naturally, I assume it is a lie until proven otherwise.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    According to Pelosi the State of the Union Address is not back on (yet).
    The State of the Union is not planned now. Get that. What I said to the President is when government is opened, we’ll discuss a mutually agreeable date, and I’ll look forward to doing that and welcoming the President to the House of Representatives for the State of the Union when we agree on that mutual date.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Ann Coulter is a moron. The short term solution releases pay for over 800,00 people and puts an onus on the Senate to come up with a bipartisan compromise meantime. The standoff had to end somehow. And POTUS/GOP were taking the knock in the polls.

    It doesn't matter who blinked first. It's not a bad face saver.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Is it common to break a shutdown by extending it for a few weeks? I understand reopening the government, and paying people!, is important, but doesn't this just mean uncertainty again in mid-February? Thanks.
  • AthrawesAthrawes Shipmate
    Yes, I was thinking the same thing. At least people would get paid, but are they really wanting a second round in less than a month?
  • One of the things that has really become clear in the past year is how Trump is a Mob Boss.

    His clear policy of denying everything loudly, his obsession with loyalty above truth or moral choices and the buying off people or threatening them into not testifying. He's probabyl too much of a physical coward to use actual physical violence, even indirectly but otherwise it's a striking pattern.

    America will only really rediscover her soul by putting Trump himself and so many of his associates behind bars.

    AFZ

    P.S. I wrote this a few hours ago but managed not to post it. Subsequent posts have made my point really well...
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Climacus wrote: »
    Is it common to break a shutdown by extending it for a few weeks? I understand reopening the government, and paying people!, is important, but doesn't this just mean uncertainty again in mid-February? Thanks.

    Up to the Senate. They will produce a compromise over border security. Neither Trump nor the House will want the blame for shutting it down again. And no doubt some place in the middle can be represented as a victory for both sides. News management will cope with the high horses.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited January 25
    Climacus wrote: »
    Is it common to break a shutdown by extending it for a few weeks? I understand reopening the government, and paying people!, is important, but doesn't this just mean uncertainty again in mid-February? Thanks.

    It's not how governments should work, but it is a shorter-term version of how our government has been working the past several years, with funding bills for different parts of the government often only being for a few months at a time because of one disagreement or other - often over something tucked into the bill that one party (or the President, who is a party unto himself now) is insisting upon that forces the other side to give up on a policy goal (Obamacare, the wall, protections for Dreamers) in order to get the government funded. I think the only long term way out of this mess is to eliminate the filibuster for all legislation so things can pass, but both sides are way too terrified of what the other side might do if it had that power for that to happen at the moment, although the way things are going that might happen eventually. Also, that wouldn't help in the current case where the House and Senate are in different hands, or when the President himself and not either party in Congress is the source of the shutdown, which is the case now.

    A question for everyone - is there any difference in the bill that just passed the Senate with the Democrats' bill that just failed yesterday, other than the date it expires being different by a week or so?
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thank you.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    edited January 26
    ... I think the only long term way out of this mess is to eliminate the filibuster for all legislation so things can pass, but both sides are way too terrified of what the other side might do if it had that power for that to happen at the moment, although the way things are going that might happen eventually. ....

    Personally, I think the filibuster should stay (with some changes, like actually having to filibuster), but in the case of funding lapses, I've never understood why the USA government doesn't just keep going in the same direction at the same speed, as it were. I've been in a union all my working life, and there were times when we worked without a contract for literally years. We would just keep on going under the terms of the old contract until the new one was negotiated and there would be some sort of retroactive adjustment. In my condo, we've occasionally had to do urgent repairs that were not in the budget, and have the owners approve the expense retroactively. This is what sane, responsible people do.

    ETA: And Bernie can bite me. He has no right to criticize Trump since he did everything he could to elect him.


  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 26
    One of the things that has really become clear in the past year is how Trump is a Mob Boss.

    His clear policy of denying everything loudly, his obsession with loyalty above truth or moral choices and the buying off people or threatening them into not testifying. He's probabyl too much of a physical coward to use actual physical violence, even indirectly but otherwise it's a striking pattern.

    America will only really rediscover her soul by putting Trump himself and so many of his associates behind bars.

    AFZ

    P.S. I wrote this a few hours ago but managed not to post it. Subsequent posts have made my point really well...

    I repeat: A Trump consortium was chucked out of a tender process to build the Sydney Casino because Trump personally was judged by the NSW cops not to be a fit and proper person to run such a business. That judgement was made because Trump was involved with organised crime figures in the USA. Two other bidders were removed from the tender process at the same time. The memo recording this judgement was contained in cabinet documents considered by the NSW Government at the time. Those documents became public in 2017 (or 2016) in accordance with the 30-year rule concerning the release of cabinet material. The Australian, a right-wing newspaper owned by Rupert bloody Murdoch broke the story. It has more legs than a centepede.

    The Australian is a subscription paper. If you can't see it, here is a story from the Guardian that reports on the Australian's story.

    I can't say that Trump is a made man, but he is absolutely and definitely an associate of organised crime figures. He runs his White House like a mob boss because he likes the way mob bosses do business.

    It is a disgrace of the highest order to the United States and his allies that this man is President.
  • Trump is asking how CNN knew to be there outside Stone's house when the FBI showed up. I don't want to take Trump's side, but how did they know? If the FBI tipped them off, is that normal?

    This part bothers me.
  • I think your instincts are good Mousethief. Something similar happened here, and the tipoff came from the Minister's office.
  • While I'm sure tipoffs are not unknown, reporters hang out at courthouses, registries, etc. and can observe the comings and goings of lawyers and judges; they also know how to use public records.
  • I would expect they had people watching at various places, with cellphones. This has been in the air for weeks. It wouldn't be too hard to instruct a team to be nearby on call just in case, particularly when Mueller et al show a distinct preference for things to go down on Fridays. Park them in a diner around the corner just in case!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Trump is asking how CNN knew to be there outside Stone's house when the FBI showed up. I don't want to take Trump's side, but how did they know? If the FBI tipped them off, is that normal?

    This part bothers me.

    What part of CNN's explanation (previously referenced on this thread here) do you find unconvincing or suspicious?
  • Trump is asking how CNN knew to be there outside Stone's house when the FBI showed up. I don't want to take Trump's side, but how did they know? If the FBI tipped them off, is that normal?[/quote]

    This part bothers me.[/quote]

    I think CNN's explanation that @Croesus shared makes sense.
Sign In or Register to comment.