Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1646567697098

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Just when I thought to start another thread on the shut-down, it is now over. Pelosi has now proven she is the most powerful person in Washington. Nothing is going to pass without her approval. Even if the dictator tries to do an end-run around her she will cut him off.

    If there is one thing the dictator hates, it is to question his masculinity. Ann Coultler is now calling him a wimp. Lindsy Graham just two weeks ago said if the dictator caved, it will be the end of his effectiveness as a president--ya think?

    Now, to divert attention away from him, let's invade Venezuela.

  • Given his treatment of women, I hope Ms. Nancy has good bodyguards who will keep T at least 4 ft. away from her. And I hope that he doesn't act out with anyone else, either.
    (votive)
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    He'd be better advised to turn his attention to Ann Cold Turd.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    Why that, Miss Amanda? Might she turn against him?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    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.

    A way to avoid the filibuster for important legislation (like funding the federal government) already exists. Eliminating the filibuster won't eliminate the roadblocks a recalcitrant Senate Majority Leader or President* are capable of throwing in the way of important legislation.
  • Wesley J wrote: »
    Why that, Miss Amanda? Might she turn against him?

    She has.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    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.

    A way to avoid the filibuster for important legislation (like funding the federal government) already exists. Eliminating the filibuster won't eliminate the roadblocks a recalcitrant Senate Majority Leader or President* are capable of throwing in the way of important legislation.

    Even if the filibuster were eliminated, it would still take 2/3 votes of both houses to overturn a presidential veto. I think one of the reasons why Drump caved was because he saw the numbers in the Senate which showed his Republican caucus was beginning to cave.

    This is only a three-week reprieve. I am hearing if the Federal government shut down again, the civil servants will call for a general strike.

    This is certainly not a way to run a government.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I think it might be time to organize a taxpayer strike. No taxation without representation. I don't know who this government thinks it's representing, but it sure ain't me.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    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.

    A way to avoid the filibuster for important legislation (like funding the federal government) already exists. Eliminating the filibuster won't eliminate the roadblocks a recalcitrant Senate Majority Leader or President* are capable of throwing in the way of important legislation.

    I think, for some reason, reconciliation wasn't an option for this particular funding bill? Also, there are limits to how many reconciliation bills can be passed in a year and at what time, aren't there?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    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.

    A way to avoid the filibuster for important legislation (like funding the federal government) already exists. Eliminating the filibuster won't eliminate the roadblocks a recalcitrant Senate Majority Leader or President* are capable of throwing in the way of important legislation.

    Even if the filibuster were eliminated, it would still take 2/3 votes of both houses to overturn a presidential veto. I think one of the reasons why Drump caved was because he saw the numbers in the Senate which showed his Republican caucus was beginning to cave.

    This is only a three-week reprieve. I am hearing if the Federal government shut down again, the civil servants will call for a general strike.

    This is certainly not a way to run a government.

    Re: the veto, isn't this the first time a president has taken the initiative in causing a shutdown, rather than one of the parties in Congress? Usually a president says, pass a clean spending bill without any poison pill, and I'll sign it. It is the refusal of one party in Congress that caused shutdowns in the past. However, I'm not sure about how shutdowns happened before those caused by Speaker Newt Gingrich in the Clinton years.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Meanwhile, even during the recent shutdown, the Trump administration ordered lawyers to continue work on Texas land-grabs for a wall there is currently no budget for:
    https://www.vox.com/2019/1/18/18187515/shutdown-border-wall-lawsuit-build-fence

    For an idea of how this sort of federal landtaking has worked in the past, check this out:
    https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/20/united-states-america-v-15919-acres-land-more-or-less/
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    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.

    A way to avoid the filibuster for important legislation (like funding the federal government) already exists. Eliminating the filibuster won't eliminate the roadblocks a recalcitrant Senate Majority Leader or President* are capable of throwing in the way of important legislation.

    Even if the filibuster were eliminated, it would still take 2/3 votes of both houses to overturn a presidential veto. I think one of the reasons why Drump caved was because he saw the numbers in the Senate which showed his Republican caucus was beginning to cave.

    This is only a three-week reprieve. I am hearing if the Federal government shut down again, the civil servants will call for a general strike.

    This is certainly not a way to run a government.

    Re: the veto, isn't this the first time a president has taken the initiative in causing a shutdown, rather than one of the parties in Congress? Usually a president says, pass a clean spending bill without any poison pill, and I'll sign it. It is the refusal of one party in Congress that caused shutdowns in the past. However, I'm not sure about how shutdowns happened before those caused by Speaker Newt Gingrich in the Clinton years.

    To my knowledge, this is the first time a president has caused a shutdown. I think there was only one time when the Democrats tried to force a DACA bill through during the George Bush II administration by forcing a shutdown, but they quickly realized their mistake and settled within a week as I recall. The rest of the shutdowns have been on the Republicans when they had the majority of Congress.
  • Aaaand now it looks like the US may be supporting an attempt at an overthrow of President Maduro (really not a good guy) in Venezuela, if my Washington Post alerts are to be trusted. US Latin American foreign policy is back in the good old days! Ugh.

    We have recognized the opposition leader as interim President, even though he didn't run in the recent (fraudulent) elections, in which many opposition figures were disqualified. I don't think the current opposition leader even tried to run in the last election, though. He wasn't opposition leader back at election time, either.

    That's quite interesting isn't it. Consider: if other countries hadn't recognized trumpy's election and supported the other candidate. Sounds fair.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Re: the veto, isn't this the first time a president has taken the initiative in causing a shutdown, rather than one of the parties in Congress? Usually a president says, pass a clean spending bill without any poison pill, and I'll sign it. It is the refusal of one party in Congress that caused shutdowns in the past. However, I'm not sure about how shutdowns happened before those caused by Speaker Newt Gingrich in the Clinton years.

    To my knowledge, this is the first time a president has caused a shutdown. I think there was only one time when the Democrats tried to force a DACA bill through during the George Bush II administration by forcing a shutdown, but they quickly realized their mistake and settled within a week as I recall. The rest of the shutdowns have been on the Republicans when they had the majority of Congress.

    Because they have lists of everything, here's a Wikipedia list of all federal government shutdowns to date. Reagan caused some shutdowns with vetos, but the Gingrich shutdown of 1995-1996 seems like a point where the rules changed. Prior to that, if the Federal Trade Commission (for example) was shut down it was because of a dispute over the proper level of funding for the FTC (or over a rider that had been inserted into the FTC appropriations bill). Gingrich's innovation was to shut down the parts of the federal government that were not in dispute as a form of hostage taking to get concessions on other, unrelated demands.
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    Ah yes, Newt Gingrich, the man who broke politics
    Newt Gingrich turned partisan battles into bloodsport, wrecked Congress, and paved the way for Trump’s rise.
  • Aaaand now it looks like the US may be supporting an attempt at an overthrow of President Maduro (really not a good guy) in Venezuela, if my Washington Post alerts are to be trusted. US Latin American foreign policy is back in the good old days! Ugh.

    We have recognized the opposition leader as interim President, even though he didn't run in the recent (fraudulent) elections, in which many opposition figures were disqualified. I don't think the current opposition leader even tried to run in the last election, though. He wasn't opposition leader back at election time, either.

    That's quite interesting isn't it. Consider: if other countries hadn't recognized trumpy's election and supported the other candidate. Sounds fair.

    Yes, they would say that you are interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. Now let me think about that.
  • I am currently playing a space exploration and colonisation game called Stellaris, developed by the Swedish gaming studio Paradox. One of the scientists in my empire is a specialist in statecraft called Alejandro Garcia.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Why would you call statecraft Alejandro Garcia?
  • computer generated
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Overheard an old geezer talking to another old geezer today out at the mailboxes: "I've never before seen the United States run like this. It's a disgrace!" Wanna bet who he voted for?
  • Nice! Keep the good stories rolling in. I was starting to think people were never going to peel off him.
  • 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.

    It should, because it's obvious.
  • It ain't that obvious mate. It could well be that they were tipped off, but it could also be that they were staking out Stone's house.

    In order for it to be 'obvious' you have to be a card-carrying member of Stone's Conspiracy of the Month Club.
  • I tend to go with what was quoted upthread, about journalists going on stakeouts and simply doing their jobs.

    Also possible they got a tip, anonymously or from a usual informant/tipster.

    ISTM Mueller has been so cautious that I doubt he would do/sanction a tip in this case.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    romanlion wrote: »
    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.

    It should, because it's obvious.

    Like a lot of right wing conspiracy theories, this one doesn't really hold up to close examination. Where these things fall down is typically the question of "what's the benefit?". Yeah I can see the benefit to CNN of getting some exciting footage to boost ratings, but what's the benefit to the supposed conspirators to having Roger Stone arrested on camera as opposed to having him arrested with no video record of the incident? Stone is not an elected official and hasn't run for anything since being elected president of his high school student government nearly half a century ago. The footage isn't going to be used by his political opponents in his next election campaign because he's not going to run for anything ever. Is there really that much difference between being able to say "Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone was arrested for allegedly ratfucking* the 2016 presidential election" and being able to say "Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone was arrested for allegedly ratfucking the 2016 presidential election and here's some video of him being taken into custody"?

    Cui bono?


    *A political term-of-art in the American electoral system. It doesn't involve any literal rodents or sexual intercourse.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    As long as we are theorizing without facts, there is a hybrid possibility: Let's assume that the primary reason for Stone's arrest is not so much to get Stone, but to execute a thoroughly search of his house and computers for evidence while he is unable to "accidentally" run said evidence (or said computers) through shredders. CNN, snooping around Mueller's investigators get wind that Stone is "soon to be" arrested. Rather than have CNN tip Stone off by running a report of a "forthcoming" arrest (and thus give him an opportunity to dispose of possible incriminatory evidence), Mueller's group convinces CNN to sit on the story for a bit, in exchange for which they can be present and get video of the arrest. It seems to me that that would be a perfectly reasonable (and not at all sinister) reason why there may have been some cooperation between the investigators and the press.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hey, remember when I mentioned the Trump administration*'s penchant for screwing up? Specifically in the context of Venezuela? Well, NBC ran a piece of Venezuela-related sabre-rattling by John Bolton with a picture of Bolton at the top. Some enterprising tweeter noticed something about that picture:
    So this notepad that National Security Advisor John Bolton was holding today at the White House briefing on Venezuela says:

    "Afghanistan -> Welcome the Talks.
    5,000 troops to Colombia."

    If confirmed this would be a pretty terrible OPSEC breach.

    First Kris Kobach, now Bolton. On the other hand that's just leaking the (possible) movements of U.S. troops. It's not like Bolton had a private e-mail server or anything. [/sarcasm]
  • Thx for mentioning Kobach, Croesos. I knew there'd been a previous incident, but didn't remember who it was.
  • Roger Stone claims he's been treated worse than Osama bin Laden — who was shot dead, dumped in the ocean -- which will be a really great number in the inevitable musical, or do we want an opera?
  • Musical. Needs tap dancing.

    I've only seen smidgins of coverage of RS; but my immediate impression was that he's some combo of narcissist, performance artist, and crazy/deluded.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I tend to go with what was quoted upthread, about journalists going on stakeouts and simply doing their jobs.

    Also possible they got a tip, anonymously or from a usual informant/tipster.

    ISTM Mueller has been so cautious that I doubt he would do/sanction a tip in this case.

    At this point I wouldn't be surprised if CNN had an open-ended stakeout going on outside the residences of multiple current and former Trump associates and Trump administration officials.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 29
    At this point I wouldn't be surprised if CNN had an open-ended stakeout going on outside the residences of multiple current and former Trump associates and Trump administration officials.

    Or it could be that CNN just made a lucky pick and we don't hear about the (hypothetical) NBC crew staking out Bannon because nothing newsworthy happened to him (yet).
  • The footage I saw was actually just the camera bouncing around in an unfocused way but picking up audio of the agents banging on Stone's door and calling on him to let them in. No usable pictures until after the key moment passed. That doesn't speak to me of co-operation, but it also isn't conclusive.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 30
    Hey, remember those discussions we had about Trump's unwitnessed meetings with Vladimir Putin? Well guess what?
    Donald Trump sat down with Vladimir Putin for several minutes of conversation at the end of an evening event at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires in November, with no translator or note-taker from the US side to record the dialogue between the leaders, according to people who had direct knowledge of the encounter or were briefed on it.

    The discussions between the US and Russian presidents occurred at the 19th-century Colón theatre in the Argentine capital, as world leaders and their spouses or guests were streaming out of the building.

    Mr Trump was accompanied by Melania Trump, his wife, but no staff, while Mr Putin was flanked by his translator. The four of them sat at a table and were among the last to leave.

    It seems like it's impossible for Trump to not act like he's guilty. How many times has he been in the same vicinity as Putin and snuck off for a secret meeting? Just going from memory there's this one, Hamburg, and Helsinki.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Cannot access your "guess what" link without subscribing to Financial Times. We'll take your word for it that you're quoting verbatim.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Cannot access your "guess what" link without subscribing to Financial Times. We'll take your word for it that you're quoting verbatim.

    Sorry about that. It worked for me and I'm not a subscriber, but now it won't let me view the same article I was reading earlier. Anyway, Vox summarizes the same story here.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I've written to my senators and representative -- impeach now or declare incompetent now -- for all the good it will do.
  • edited January 31
    trumpy's ridculous spokeswoman says God wanted her trumpy boss to be president. Someone's an idiot here. Such ridiculousness.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    trumpy's ridculous spokeswoman says God wanted her trumpy boss to be president. Someone's an idiot here. Such ridiculousness.
    It makes sense if "God" is their nickname for Putin.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Makes even more sense if "God" is their nickname for tRumpy.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hedgehog wrote: »
    trumpy's ridculous spokeswoman says God wanted her trumpy boss to be president. Someone's an idiot here. Such ridiculousness.
    It makes sense if "God" is their nickname for Putin.

    The Unholy Trinity of Vladimir Putin, James Comey, and the electoral college.
  • Also: Vlad very specifically didn't want Hillary to be president. I don't remember the details, but he supposedly mad at her about something particular.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I suppose it's in Vlad's interest to have an incompetent, treacherous nincompoop in the White House - anything that will make a strong country weaker. Same reason why he's rubbing his hands in glee over the Brexit farce.
  • I'm currently listening to a CBC Ideas episode on Radio One. The therapeutic use of psychedelics. What a great idea.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Don't you think Trump's barmy enough already? :mrgreen:
  • trumpy's ridculous spokeswoman says God wanted her trumpy boss to be president. Someone's an idiot here. Such ridiculousness.

    No. She's not an idiot. She's simply an example of depths to which the "Christian" right has descended. And sadly she - and those like her - are dragging the Christian faith into a state of complete ignominy.
  • Not defending Sarah, but I notice she was being interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network when she said that. I wonder if she would've said the same thing elsewhere...like the WH briefing room. It wouldn't be an appropriate question to ask or answer there, but it might get a different answer.

    The Daily Beast got the quote from a tweet from someone at the New York Times. This is the tweet. There are some great responses to it! ;)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Not defending Sarah, but I notice she was being interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network when she said that. I wonder if she would've said the same thing elsewhere...like the WH briefing room. It wouldn't be an appropriate question to ask or answer there, but it might get a different answer.

    The divine right of kings was a threadbare philosophy by 1649. Advocating the divine right of presidents in 2019 seems like quite the throwback.

    I'm also not sure that giving different answers to different (hypothetical) audiences is a laudable characteristic in a government official.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Not defending Sarah, but I notice she was being interviewed by the Christian Broadcasting Network when she said that. I wonder if she would've said the same thing elsewhere.

    I think she's shown ample evidence that she'll say anything to collect a paycheck.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm also not sure that giving different answers to different (hypothetical) audiences is a laudable characteristic in a government official.

    Laudable or not, it's what they've been doing since before politics was a thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.