Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1457910103

Comments

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    That's actually the fifth post I linked to, if you'll follow the one that says "posts".
    I thought I had double checked all of your links to ensure that you hadn't actually linked to it- my apologies.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I would not say that the Democrats could not get a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

    It's a mathematical impossibility at least as far as the 2018 mid-terms are concerned. Of the 35 Senate seats up for election in November (including the two special elections to replace Thad Cochran and Al Franken) only 9 are held by Republicans. Even if we assume a maximalist result of all Republicans up for re-election being replaced by Democrats and no Democratic (or independent) Senator being replaced by a Republican, that only gets as far as 56 Democratic Senators (plus 2 independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats), nine votes short of a 2/3 supermajority.

    So I would say the Democrats cannot get a 2/3rds supermajority in the Senate before the next presidential election unless you assume an incredibly unrealistic number of Republican Senators unexpectedly resigning or dropping dead.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Republicans will be reasonably loath to get rid of Pence since it is anything but proven currently that he has broken the law. I would say that whether Pence is impeachable or convictable by ethical people, let alone by Republicans is a reasonably open question until Mueller is done.
  • Regrettably, I agree
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    The Walking Dead?

    Trouble is, it doesn't just apply to zombie economics.

    More Walking Dead?



  • As someone who has predicted Trump being in office through to 2024, I can't say the impeachment maths has me surprised.

    Nonetheless, if the various scandals continue to build, Trump would surely be the lamest of lame ducks, wouldn't he? Might he be talked into resigning to save face?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    As someone who has predicted Trump being in office through to 2024, I can't say the impeachment maths has me surprised.

    Nonetheless, if the various scandals continue to build, Trump would surely be the lamest of lame ducks, wouldn't he? Might he be talked into resigning to save face?

    Sure; you go first.

    This, um, person demands that his inner circle feed him praise and gratitude on a daily basis. Anything he sees or hears that falls short of adulation or veers a hair's-breadth from what he wants to do gets labeled fake news, or treason, or results in someone getting fired. Lame Duckland won't exist for him; he'll attach blame for what doesn't happen on someone else.

    He thinks he's doing a splendid job, and barricades him from contrary views by surrounding himself with those willing to confirm his brilliant performance.

    He will never resign.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    You seem to be laboring under one or more of the common misconceptions about what constitutes entrapment. A helpful illustrated primer can be found here (p. 1 of 29).

    That helpful site also has a section on constitutional law.

    Thanks for that link, Croesos. The writer/illustrator has a fun sense of humor. Including in the fine print at the bottom of the page.
    :)
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The problem I have is that the Journalist's stooge in this case (I think) suggested offering prostitutes before prostitutes were discussed, and suggested getting incriminating stuff on an opposition pollie by offering a bribe before that strategy was discussed. I call that entrapment, and if the cops do that, the prosecution is a bust (I think).

    You seem to be laboring under one or more of the common misconceptions about what constitutes entrapment. A helpful illustrated primer can be found here (p. 1 of 29).

    No, no misconception here. My friends from Cambridge Analytica were telling the Journo's stooge what the stooge told them he wanted to hear. They were not arranging to do those things. Mind you, I'm no Crim Lawyer, but I will check with my wife, who hangs out with the Aussie equivalent of public defenders in the course of her own practice. I KNOW she will disagree with me about Cambridge Analytica, but I will probably be able to get her talking about entrapment a few hours after that conversation, unless we decide to ply each other with wine.

    I shall report back.

    Also, the video stuff is a distraction from the real story: Facebook foolishness in privacy protection.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    As someone who has predicted Trump being in office through to 2024, I can't say the impeachment maths has me surprised.

    Nonetheless, if the various scandals continue to build, Trump would surely be the lamest of lame ducks, wouldn't he? Might he be talked into resigning to save face?

    Sure; you go first.

    This, um, person demands that his inner circle feed him praise and gratitude on a daily basis. Anything he sees or hears that falls short of adulation or veers a hair's-breadth from what he wants to do gets labeled fake news, or treason, or results in someone getting fired. Lame Duckland won't exist for him; he'll attach blame for what doesn't happen on someone else.

    He thinks he's doing a splendid job, and barricades him from contrary views by surrounding himself with those willing to confirm his brilliant performance.

    He will never resign.

    None of that makes him less of a lame duck. He’ll be a lame duck surrounded by sycophants. Pretty much what he is now, by the look of things.

  • Except a lame-duck president is lame precisely because s/he'll have a harder time getting things done. If T is surrounded by Republican sycophants who still have both chambers of Congress, he most likely will be able to get things done.
  • If his credibility is totally shot with the rest of the world this might prove problematic, at least as regards foreign policy, with a possible impact on the markets.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And meanwhile, Republican voters in an Illinois primary for the third district congressional seat have nominated Arthur Jones, the self described leader of the American Nazi party.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/neo-nazi-wins-republican-nomination-for-illinois-congressional-seat-.html
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    You seem to be laboring under one or more of the common misconceptions about what constitutes entrapment. A helpful illustrated primer can be found here (p. 1 of 29).
    No, no misconception here. My friends from Cambridge Analytica were telling the Journo's stooge what the stooge told them he wanted to hear. They were not arranging to do those things.

    Doesn't matter. Agreeing to commit a crime is itself a crime (conspiracy), even if the underlying crime itself is never ultimately committed. This is true even if you were initially solicited by someone else, even if that someone else is an undercover agent with no intention of committing the underlying crime (though this is not a universal rule in all jurisdictions). The basics of conspiracy are outlined in helpful graphic format here. The whole section on conspiracy starts several pages earlier here. For those who are interested in the purely narrative aspects of the story, it's continued here in the section on Miranda rights and custodial interrogation.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    Two comments:

    First, I can imagine Trump resigning to save face. If he was about to be utterly humiliated, he might take the easy way out. He would, of course, claim it was about a health issue or something like that.

    Second, the actual grounds listed for impeachment mention treason and bribery (specifically) as well as high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump seems to ignore the emoluments clause, so a charge of bribery might make sense, and his behavior toward Russia does make one think about treason.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Even more Walking Dead.

    You will note this presidential tweet of support from about 10 days ago.
    The Failing New York Times purposely wrote a false story stating that I am unhappy with my legal team on the Russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. Wrong. I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job

    Well, after bringing in this guy it is pretty clear why Dowd felt he had to go.

    But Ty Cobb says there are no plans to fire Mueller. How reassuring - not. If I were Ty Cobb, I might but just a little concerned right now. A constitutional crisis might not be too far away.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    To pick up on HarryHC's comments on bribery and emoluments clause, last night on the Rachel Maddow Show she was speculating on why Trump has turned against Qatar. Apparently Jerud Kurshner had been trying to court Qatar into funding one of his housing projects. When Qatar turned it down several times, in fact, Trump turned against it. I think this sounds an awful like blackmail or quid pro quo. You do this and you are my friend, you don't do this and I am your worst enemy. Typical Trump modus operandi.


    RE: the Dowdy resignation. There is some talk Dowdy had gotten stiffed by DT. He has a habit of doing that.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    HarryCH wrote: »
    Two comments:

    First, I can imagine Trump resigning to save face. If he was about to be utterly humiliated, he might take the easy way out. He would, of course, claim it was about a health issue or something like that.

    Second, the actual grounds listed for impeachment mention treason and bribery (specifically) as well as high crimes and misdemeanors. Trump seems to ignore the emoluments clause, so a charge of bribery might make sense, and his behavior toward Russia does make one think about treason.

    Nope.

    How can you humiliate a guy who invents his own reality as he goes and lives in a perpetual state of "now?" Neither past nor future have any real existence for him. He's been called out on barefaced lies with video proof; he maintains his stances of denial. Cognitive dissonance does not exist for him. On day 1 he says he will NEVER do X; on day 2, he does X while maintaining he never said he wouldn't while shrugging off newsclips showing the opposite. He promises to protect Social Security or Dreamers, then backs so-called "entitlement reform" to the hilt and scotches the DREAM act. This guy has never, not once in his life, ever actually suffered a felt consequence of an error in judgment or a moral lapse.

    At this guy's core, there's no "there" there -- no conscience, no standards, no morals, no goals beyond what his "instincts" tell him to go for right now in this moment. If any real possibility of humiliating him exists, I'm betting it lies in those never-released tax returns.

    As to impeachment, the potential charges are now probably both extremely serious and legion. So what? His naked, in-your-face, utter and absolute corruption DO NOT MATTER. Impeachment requires that the Republican Congress bring charges, try him, and convict him. Why would they do that? This president is doing EXACTLY what the Republicans want: trashing government. The ONLY hope of impeachment lies in convincing even safely gerrymandered Republican congress critters that they are in real and imminent danger of losing their seats due to their president's shenanigans.

    I don't see that out there.

    It ain't gonna happen.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Before I will have even the slightest belief in the possibility of impeachment, I would need to see some sign of a substantial number of Republicans opposing Trump's policies or passing legislation Trump opposes. If they don't have the will to cross Trump on legislation, then I don't expect them to cross him on impeachment. Let's first see them approve funding for border security while expressly refusing to waste taxpayer money on a pointless wall. If that happens, then I might come to believe that impeachment is possible.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Ohher wrote: »
    This president is doing EXACTLY what the Republicans want: trashing government. The ONLY hope of impeachment lies in convincing even safely gerrymandered Republican congress critters that they are in real and imminent danger of losing their seats due to their president's shenanigans.

    I don't see that out there.

    It ain't gonna happen.

    Probably true.

    But watch those midterm elections. The 538 reading, following Western Pennsylvania, is that as many as 100 House seats could be up for grabs. And two factors could work very much in the Democrats favour.

    1. If Trump arranges the sacking of Mueller. These lawyer movers suggest he is gearing up for it.

    2. If the wheels come off the economy. Trump's tariff wars could precipitate a loss of confidence and a damaging bear market.

    He might be playing with fire - and he seems set on getting rid of White House voices which don't support his own judgments.

    Either 1 or 2 would help further the Democratic cause. Both would transform the composition of Congress.

    There is no way the Democrats can win enough Senate seats in the midterms to give them an impeachment majority. But a rout would make the GOP re-evaluate its support of the President.

  • What should make a difference, if someone has the sense to really push it, is T firing someone two days before his retirement.

    I suspect the folks who voted for T, hoping for jobs, etc., wouldn't be too happy. Unless they think the guy was just a puffed-up high mucky-muck and deserved what he got.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    And another one bites the dust. McMaster is leaving the end of April. His replacement? John R Bolton!
  • I want to know what this means.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    Nothing good, I'm sure.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    John R Bolton was the former US Ambassador to the UN under George Bush. He is a nationalist and a war hawk. He advocates for regime change in Iran. He has even advocated bombing the NK reactors and missile sites,
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    You seem to be laboring under one or more of the common misconceptions about what constitutes entrapment. A helpful illustrated primer can be found here (p. 1 of 29).
    No, no misconception here. My friends from Cambridge Analytica were telling the Journo's stooge what the stooge told them he wanted to hear. They were not arranging to do those things.

    Doesn't matter. Agreeing to commit a crime is itself a crime (conspiracy), even if the underlying crime itself is never ultimately committed. This is true even if you were initially solicited by someone else, even if that someone else is an undercover agent with no intention of committing the underlying crime (though this is not a universal rule in all jurisdictions). The basics of conspiracy are outlined in helpful graphic format here. The whole section on conspiracy starts several pages earlier here. For those who are interested in the purely narrative aspects of the story, it's continued here in the section on Miranda rights and custodial interrogation.

    Yeah, but they weren't arranging to do those things, as I pointed out. It was marketing fluff. It wasn't even an invitation to treat, it was manly boasting about how hard core they were. Ukranian prostitutes indeed. 10 years ago it would have been Czech ladies. The most important thing in the practice of law isn't the law its the facts, especially considering that as you rightly say the law differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I was idly considering Victorian law based on 'the feel of the thing'. I imagine its English law that matters here.

    While walking my dogs I had a thought, as I often do. Why don't I try to write poetry? I dismissed that one out of hand and considered that if we were talking about directors of a company in the financial sector, I would be down on them for their outrageous lack of ethics and failure to take account of the common good. Instead, with these guys I'm acting as their apologist. I think its because I'm reacting against the idea that any new evil has been disclosed. It hasn't. We know political consultants are a nihilistic breed, and we know Zuckerberg doesn't give a tinker's toss for privacy. He used to argue that privacy didn't exist before he realised that was a bad corporate strategy.

    Its also because I am very very keen on the process of getting people elected, and so I know about and remember who uses dirty tricks and how. Finally, for the moment, I am a member of a labor union that has just gone through (cross fingers on past-tense) a very bitter factional war lasting about a decade. The sort of dirt I got through my letterbox in the union election last year was just awful, perhaps the most egregious being an unsubstantiated and anonymous letter alleging that one candidate was gay, and saying not only that was a bad thing, but that it meant that the lead candidate supported homosexuals. My union represents hospital workers and the like and the thinking, I'm sure, was that as many of them come from immigrant backgrounds ( i.e. socially conservative), the slur would work. The targeted ticket lost, but probably because they were the incumbent in a Union where two former national presidents are in jail for corruption and a third is on her way I think.

    This defence of unethical conduct is wrong of me. These guys have lost their moral compass, if they ever had one.
  • I want to know what this means.

    Well perhaps you read/watch different media to me, and have different underlying grounding in the topic. Makes sense. Explains a lot. Whatever, I’m going to bed now ‘cos it’s 90 mins or so past Queensland going to bed time. In the morning, I will expect that Rosenstein, rather than the recused Sessions, will have had something interesting to say.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I want to know what this means.

    It may be related to the recent revelation that supposed "lone hacker" Guccifer 2.0 is a GRU officer, and one who apparently has been specifically identified. Then again, it may not. Things happen so quickly these days. Interesting times!
  • Simon Toad wrote: »

    While walking my dogs I had a thought, as I often do. Why don't I try to write poetry? I dismissed that one out of hand and considered that if we were talking about directors of a company in the financial sector, I would be down on them for their outrageous lack of ethics and failure to take account of the common good. Instead, with these guys I'm acting as their apologist. I think its because I'm reacting against the idea that any new evil has been disclosed. It hasn't. We know political consultants are a nihilistic breed, and we know Zuckerberg doesn't give a tinker's toss for privacy. He used to argue that privacy didn't exist before he realised that was a bad corporate strategy


    Whaaaa??? :confused:

    Is anyone else having as much trouble as I am following this train of thought? Stream-of-consciousness? poetry?

  • sorry. I think I left out that I was talking about the Directors of Cambridge Analytica, the consultants who got heaps of info out of facebook without asking each individual. The post began by engaging with Croesos about whether what the Journos did was entrap the two directors in a business meeting, if the journos were cops. I then, in the paragraph you highlight, apologise for being an apologist for them, accusing myself of applying double standards. I then muse about what the reasons might be for me to have fallen into the error of thinking that it was OK for the Cambridge Analytica people to be unethical, because most people in politics are.

    I mentioned walking the dogs because this was the stuff I was thinking about at the time. I also mentioned about writing poetry because that was another idle thought I had on the walk.

    I'm not saying the post objectively makes sense, but it does to me. :smile:
  • Hehe. Not your usual style!
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    John R Bolton was the former US Ambassador to the UN under George Bush. He is a nationalist and a war hawk. He advocates for regime change in Iran. He has even advocated bombing the NK reactors and missile sites,

    There's a relevant Trump tweet, because there's always a Trump tweet that says the opposite of what Trump now says.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I want to know what this means.

    And here's your answer [video may autoplay].
    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Friday announced the indictment of nine Iranians for "conspiring" to hack computers and defraud U.S. universities, business and agencies by taking proprietary information and research.

    Rosenstein and the indictment claim the individuals worked on behalf of the Iranian government and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through association with the Mabna Institute. The indictment alleges that the defendants targeted 100,000 professors' email accounts worldwide, successfully accessing roughly 8,000 of those and stealing about 31 terabytes of information. Rosenstein claimed the defendants hacked about 320 universities, 144 of which are American. Specifically, the charges include computer fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and identity theft. The DOJ believes this activity has gone on for four or five years.

    "The indictment alleges that the defendants worked on behalf of the Iranian government, specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps," Rosenstein said in his prepared remarks. "They hacked the computer systems of approximately 320 universities in 22 countries. 144 of the victims are American universities. The defendants stole research that cost the universities approximately $3.4 billion to procure and maintain. The stolen information was used by the Revolutionary Guard or sold for profit in Iran."

    Rosenstein called the defendants "fugitives from justice," and said they face the possibility of being extradited. The DOJ believes all nine defendants, all citizens of Iran, are currently in their home country.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    And another one bites the dust. McMaster is leaving the end of April. His replacement? John R Bolton!

    All Hail our new National Insecurity Advisor. Time to go back to practicing "duck & cover" drills. Yeah, the activity itself is useless, but it gives you something to do during panic attacks. I wonder if the folks who set the doomsday clock have nudged it ahead on this news.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Whither General Mattis now? Are there any other adults left?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    This morning Trump threatened to veto the omnibus spending bill, but four hours later, he goes ahead and signs it. I wonder what made him change his ever-changing mind. Could it have been that the Congressional Leaders told him if he vetoed this one he would have gotten a lesser spending bill? And then they would not have gotten to it until after Easter--they are on recess this next week.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I fervently hope that all those voters who claim that "government should be run more like a business" are paying attention to current events. Of course, maybe they weren't thinking about running the way that businesses which went bankrupt did, like Trump's . . .
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    I guess that those who voted for a stirrer and a disrupter are going to find out what that means.
  • I heard today that Trump's new lawyer is a regular guest on Fox, as well as Bolton. I guess he's moved from Generals to pundits now.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    And meanwhile, Republican voters in an Illinois primary for the third district congressional seat have nominated Arthur Jones, the self described leader of the American Nazi party.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/neo-nazi-wins-republican-nomination-for-illinois-congressional-seat-.html

    To be fair to the Republicans, Jones ran unopposed, in a district that has been the fief of the Lipinski family for decades. The chance of a Republican winning the 3rd is zero. It's hard to persuade someone they should invest their time and money in such an obvious non-starter.
  • To be fair to the Republicans, Jones ran unopposed, in a district that has been the fief of the Lipinski family for decades. The chance of a Republican winning the 3rd is zero. It's hard to persuade someone they should invest their time and money in such an obvious non-starter.

    That explains why nobody else ran. It doesn't explain why people would actually cast their vote for a Nazi rather than abstain or write-in.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Up until 1975, the 3rd district was considered a swing district. But that said, it says something that the Republicans have not fielded a competitive candidate since.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    mousethief wrote: »
    To be fair to the Republicans, Jones ran unopposed, in a district that has been the fief of the Lipinski family for decades. The chance of a Republican winning the 3rd is zero. It's hard to persuade someone they should invest their time and money in such an obvious non-starter.

    That explains why nobody else ran. It doesn't explain why people would actually cast their vote for a Nazi rather than abstain or write-in.

    It's widely believed that a number of the more strategically-minded Republican voters in IL-03 took advantage of Illinois' open primary system to vote for Democratic incumbent Dan Lipinski, who was facing a very stiff primary challenge from the much leftier Marie Newman. If that's the case it seems to have worked, since Lipinski eked out an incredibly narrow victory.
  • Only to be expected. But what I said remains true.
  • Boogie wrote: »

    I'd vote for her when she turns 35 (if I'm still alive!).

    On the Guns thread I just nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize.


  • Wow.

    Has the Potus listened to/seen this?

    IJ
  • We got zero news this morning on the march on the ABC brekky news 7am bulletin. Its the first time since the Trump election that American politics has not been front and centre. There has been a major cheating scandal involving the leadership of the Australian Cricket Team. Fair dinkum, I almost took to my bed and sobbed after the story on last night's news. I cried doing the dishes instead.

    Is guns the right issue to get out the Democratic vote in November, Americans?
Sign In or Register to comment.