Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1686971737491

Comments

  • So - just an aside? Is Trump not going to get the Mexicans to pay for the wall, then, after all? I thought that was one of the fabulous promises he made, that made him so popular? It was supposed to be that not only was a wall to be built, but that Americans weren't going to be the ones who paid for it. Is he not only NOT going to deliver what he promised, but additionally send the bill to the taxpayers to pay for his failure? And is that okay with his supporters?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 19
    Anselmina wrote: »
    So - just an aside? Is Trump not going to get the Mexicans to pay for the wall, then, after all?

    The broad outline of how Trump was going to declare "victory" for The Wall back in December, before the government shutdown, was to point to some border security appropriations and call it "The Wall" and also point to the slight revisions made to NAFTA and claim that was "Mexico paying for The Wall". This strategy fell apart when Trump's most rabid supporters decided that they wanted an actual physical barrier from sea to shining sea and Trump decided that he couldn't tolerate the scorn of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
    Anselmina wrote: »
    I thought that was one of the fabulous promises he made, that made him so popular? It was supposed to be that not only was a wall to be built, but that Americans weren't going to be the ones who paid for it. Is he not only NOT going to deliver what he promised, but additionally send the bill to the taxpayers to pay for his failure? And is that okay with his supporters?

    The point of The Wall wasn't to build The Wall, or even to secure America's southern border. The point of The Wall was to "own the libs" and use as an excuse for spouting racist rhetoric. As such The Wall is working as intended without ever being built. As for whether it's "okay" with Trump's supporters, that depends on what you mean by "okay". Since The Wall as a rhetorical device is meant to amplify and harness rage and his supporters are enraged by the current situation I guess it counts as "okay" in the sense that it's working as intended, but Trump's supporters are not "okay" with it in the sense of being happy because they're never happy.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Anselmina wrote: »
    So - just an aside? Is Trump not going to get the Mexicans to pay for the wall, then, after all? ... And is that okay with his supporters?
    I've long been puzzled about that claim - surely his supporters couldn't be so completely brainless as to believe he could get Mexico to pay for it.

    The trouble is, his supporters do seem to be okay with it, however ridiculous it seems to normal people, just as they're okay with all his other lies, and his cheating, racism, misogyny ... you name it.

    To quote the policemen in The Pirates of Penzance, "We repeat, we do not understand it at all".
  • Piglet wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    So - just an aside? Is Trump not going to get the Mexicans to pay for the wall, then, after all? ... And is that okay with his supporters?
    I've long been puzzled about that claim - surely his supporters couldn't be so completely brainless as to believe he could get Mexico to pay for it.

    The trouble is, his supporters do seem to be okay with it, however ridiculous it seems to normal people, just as they're okay with all his other lies, and his cheating, racism, misogyny ... you name it.

    To quote the policemen in The Pirates of Penzance, "We repeat, we do not understand it at all".

    Croesos has the right of it, although I think many Americans do want to see illegal immigration slowed to a trickle if not stopped. In my opinion, that is a legitimate political opinion to hold. It is entirely legitimate to say that there should be better enforcement and that immigration ought to be lawful and orderly. As I understand it, Democrats say this, and certainly vote that way in Congress.

    I think Build the Wall was an election slogan that has morphed into Administration policy without the Administration doing any actual policy work. Trump missed the opportunity to resolve the issue when he decided to reject the bi-partisan deal on immigration put to him by Congress (a sign, by the way, that the last Congress was capable of working through difficult policy issues) in favor of using immigration as a stick to drive his supporters to the midterms.

    Again, I think many Americans have accepted in good faith that a wall is necessary to solve the immigration issue. They have done that because it is a simple 'solution' to a difficult 'problem'. In fact the real problem, for me, is regularising the people who are already living in the USA and giving them citizenship so they can fully participate in civil life.

    As for Mexico paying for the wall, I think Trump supporters never believed him anyway.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited February 20
    Good grief!

    Various thoughts:

    --He owns the paper. Did he start it and name it, too? 'Cause why "Democrat-Reporter"? Democrat in the Dixie-crat sense?

    --From that article, he previously was a respected journalist. What happened??? Severe mental illness? Brain injury? Reminds me of the late Fred Phelps, of Westboro Church "God Hates F*gs" fame. He was a civil rights lawyer, once upon a time. Did he have a particularly deep hatred for LGBT folks that didn't surface for a long time? Or did he develop some mind/brain problem?

    ETA: Phelps' attitude began to change before he died. Seems he got to know some folks from the LGBT organization that set up across the road.


    --The article mentions negative reactions from two politicians and a writer, all from Alabama. I don't know anything about attitudes there. If law enforcement and the courts get involved, would the editorial and possible ripple effects be taken seriously?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Croesos has the right of it, although I think many Americans do want to see illegal immigration slowed to a trickle if not stopped. In my opinion, that is a legitimate political opinion to hold. It is entirely legitimate to say that there should be better enforcement and that immigration ought to be lawful and orderly.

    I'd go further and say that Trump's supporters want to see all immigration, legal or otherwise, "slowed to a trickle if not stopped". Trump seems to be governing in that way. Then there's the question of what "lawful and orderly" immigration by refugees fleeing violence would look like. Saying the only acceptable forms of immigration must be "orderly" would seem to exclude situations where being orderly is often contrary to personal safety. It should be noted that the U.S. is a signatory to various refugee treaties which recognize that such people often arrive in legally irregular ways.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    --He owns the paper. Did he start it and name it, too? 'Cause why "Democrat-Reporter"? Democrat in the Dixie-crat sense?

    According to Wikipedia The Democrat-Reporter was founded in 1911 from the merger of two existing newspapers, the Linden Reporter and the Marengo Democrat. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century American newspapers were often party organs, so having a paper called "The Democrat" was a fairly common way of declaring party allegiance. So yes, the 1911 Democratic party was very much the Dixiecrats back in 1911.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    --From that article, he previously was a respected journalist. What happened???

    I don't know what happened specifically, but according to Wikipedia (again) Mr. Sutton received acclaim for a series of articles exposing corruption in the local Sheriff's Office. Needless to say, one can oppose corruption in local government and still be an unhinged crank, so nothing necessarily "happened" to him.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Good grief!

    Various thoughts:

    --He owns the paper. Did he start it and name it, too? 'Cause why "Democrat-Reporter"? Democrat in the Dixie-crat sense?

    --From that article, he previously was a respected journalist. What happened??? Severe mental illness? Brain injury? Reminds me of the late Fred Phelps, of Westboro Church "God Hates F*gs" fame. He was a civil rights lawyer, once upon a time. Did he have a particularly deep hatred for LGBT folks that didn't surface for a long time? Or did he develop some mind/brain problem?

    ETA: Phelps' attitude began to change before he died. Seems he got to know some folks from the LGBT organization that set up across the road.


    --The article mentions negative reactions from two politicians and a writer, all from Alabama. I don't know anything about attitudes there. If law enforcement and the courts get involved, would the editorial and possible ripple effects be taken seriously?

    I read that after Phelps won those civil-rights cases, he launched another case to get his kids to qualify for affirmative-action for university admissions, because, the logic went, he had helped blacks, so his kids should be treated as blacks. He lost, and then went on some sort of crusade against affirmate action.

    And I'll admit I'm a little bit skeptical about Phelps' having a change of heart on gays. Not because I don't think bigots, even extreme ones, can change, but because Phelps' schtick seemed to be less about bigotry, and more about deliberately being a Grade A Asshole for self-enrichment purposes. So I don't think it would be as simple as him saying "Hmm, I guess gay's aren't so bad after all", but rather "Hmm, I guess pissing off as many people as humanly possible isn't the best way to live". But, given the life he had led up to that point, the latter epiphany would be somewhat difficult to explain.

    Way back in the day, a now-vanished Shipmate(Spiffy, I believe) once linked to a lengthy list of lawsuits that Phelps had been launching, stretching back to the early 1960s at least, including things like suing Sears for late delivery on his TV.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    The latest news is that the Mueller report is on the verge of being released. Oh happy day (I think).
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 21
    I'd go further and say that Trump's supporters want to see all immigration, legal or otherwise, "slowed to a trickle if not stopped". Trump seems to be governing in that way. Then there's the question of what "lawful and orderly" immigration by refugees fleeing violence would look like. Saying the only acceptable forms of immigration must be "orderly" would seem to exclude situations where being orderly is often contrary to personal safety. It should be noted that the U.S. is a signatory to various refugee treaties which recognize that such people often arrive in legally irregular ways.

    Oh yeah, lawful and orderly is often code for 'don't let the bastards in'. I can't remember if treatys operate on Australian law. I think they do, but I think the best answer is probably 'it's complicated'. Does the ratification process make it more clear-cut in the US? Over here, people tend to put contested positions as if they represent the L-A-W. I'm sure its the same your end of the big ocean.

    I saw a report about the Mueller Report's impending release. I'd be more comfortable if people were indicted already concerning that Trump-tower meeting. (Can we refer to that building by its street address please - you know, 30Rock or something?) As things stand, it gives me a twinge of anxiety.

  • If you have access to Amazon Prime movies, Fehrenheit 11/9 by Michael Moore. He paints a pretty bleak picture of what is happening during the Trump Crisis.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    For some reason (I am a child of the 1960s), every time hear about "Trump tower," I envision the eventual Tarot card set that some enterprising young metaphysician is going to design when this is all over.
  • Ohher--

    LOL. :) And we can start casting the various characters now... ;)
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    We may only ever see a redacted version of Mueller. The highest level of national security has been known to be invoked to protect the powerful from damaging revelations.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'd be more comfortable if people were indicted already concerning that Trump-tower meeting. (Can we refer to that building by its street address please - you know, 30Rock or something?)

    It's 725 5th Avenue. I wouldn't object to 7255. Mathematicians among us will doubtless point out some diabolical number that those digits can be manipulated into equaling.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I can't remember if treatys operate on Australian law. I think they do, but I think the best answer is probably 'it's complicated'. Does the ratification process make it more clear-cut in the US? Over here, people tend to put contested positions as if they represent the L-A-W. I'm sure its the same your end of the big ocean.

    Treaties, once ratified by the Senate, are considered "the supreme Law of the Land" according to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

    This can be more complicated than it sounds. Most modern multi-party treaties lay out generalized rules and prohibitions but leave the details of enforcement to individual jurisdictions. For example, the U.S. is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture which prohibits torture, but the details of how the U.S. enforces this treaty and what legal penalties apply are spelled out in the U.S. Code. Similarly the U.S. has treaty obligations to shelter refugees, but the method of determining who is a "refugee" and what kind of sheltering is to be provided is left to American law.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ohher--

    LOL. :) And we can start casting the various characters now... ;)

    There are 62,984,828 candidates auditioning for this one role alone.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    On the theory that there may be appetite for this tangent, allow me to invite further suggestions to The Circus (so as not to derail things here, as if a discussion of a permanently derailed presidency could in fact be further derailed).
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    On the theory that there may be appetite for this tangent, allow me to invite further suggestions to The Circus (so as not to derail things here, as if a discussion of a permanently derailed presidency could in fact be further derailed).

    Well, I honestly couldn't think of anything more clever than what I posted, so if a Trump Tarot thread is in the cards, I'll leave it to someone else to do the honours.

  • Michael Cohen's testimony is just a joy for all us Trump haters to read. I cannot contain my glee. My favorite part is this:
    "Donald Trump," Cohen's prepared statement continued, "is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation -- only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say, this campaign was going to be the 'greatest infomercial in political history.'"
    That's what I've said from the very first. I never believed he cared one way or another about the Wall, abortion, gun rights, or any of the other issues he uses to keep his voters happy. Donald Trump loves himself and his money and just wanted to be president so he could promote his name and make better deals.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Michael Cohen's testimony is just a joy for all us Trump haters to read. I cannot contain my glee.

    The prepared version of Michael Cohen's opening remarks can be found here. A sample:
    I am here under oath to correct the record, to answer the Committee’s questions truthfully, and to offer the American people what I know about President Trump.

    I recognize that some of you may doubt and attack me on my credibility. It
    is for this reason that I have incorporated into this opening statement documents that are irrefutable, and demonstrate that the information you will hear is accurate and truthful.

    Never in a million years did I imagine, when I accepted a job in 2007 to work for Donald Trump, that he would one day run for President, launch a campaign on a platform of hate and intolerance, and actually win. I regret the day I said “yes” to Mr. Trump. I regret all the help and support I gave him along the way.

    I am ashamed of my own failings, and I publicly accepted responsibility for them by pleading guilty in the Southern District of New York.

    I am ashamed of my weakness and misplaced loyalty – of the things I did for Mr. Trump in an effort to protect and promote him.

    I am ashamed that I chose to take part in concealing Mr. Trump’s illicit acts rather than listening to my own conscience.

    I am ashamed because I know what Mr. Trump is.

    He is a racist.

    He is a conman.

    He is a cheat.

    It will be interesting to see how closely he sticks to this script in his opening statement
    Twilight wrote: »
    I never believed he cared one way or another about the Wall, abortion, gun rights, or any of the other issues he uses to keep his voters happy.

    The irony about The Wall is that it wasn't an issue before Trump. Yes, immigration was an issue, but there wasn't really a constituency clamoring for a physical barrier from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific. The irony is that The Wall is something Trump convinced voters they wanted, and then got in trouble when he couldn't deliver it.
  • Are you listing to this? He's on NPR and C-span right now. Trumps derogatory remarks about African Americans, his threats against his schools if they released his grades, his lie about staying out of Vietnam due to medical reasons, it goes on and on.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Are you listing to this? He's on NPR and C-span right now. Trumps derogatory remarks about African Americans, his threats against his schools if they released his grades, his lie about staying out of Vietnam due to medical reasons, it goes on and on.

    It does - but here’s betting tRump will wriggle out of all of it.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Are you listing to this? He's on NPR and C-span right now.

    For those who can stream C-SPAN Cohen's testimony can be viewed here.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    Are you listing to this? He's on NPR and C-span right now. Trumps derogatory remarks about African Americans, his threats against his schools if they released his grades, his lie about staying out of Vietnam due to medical reasons, it goes on and on.

    It does - but here’s betting tRump will wriggle out of all of it.

    The Republicans are doing their very best to help Trump wriggle out of it. Their main point they keep coming back to is that Cohen lied previously. It's as if saying that over and over will change what has happened.

    I think the Republicans are terrified of losing Fearless Leader™ and what it will mean for them as Trump's horrid character becomes apparent to everyone. Could they perhaps be painted as enablers? Ya think?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Trump's "horrid character" has been on full, neon-lit with blinking lights, 360-degree, motion-activated, fully-animated, automatic display since he announced his run. It has "been apparent to everyone" not in an actual vegetative state for two full years without making the slightest difference. The lowest of low-information voters, the most rigidly hide-bound, concrete-set, rust-between-the-ears Republican ideologue, cannot possibly have escaped the relentless, 24/7, jack-hammering declaration of Trump's brazen, callous, amoral, sadistic, treasonous perfidy short of shooting themselves dead before said perfidy occurred.

    And I'll point out once again: IT HAS NOT MATTERED. Yes, the House moved left in the midterms. The Senate, and Republican loyalists, remain under the evil spell. Take that fact on board. Ruminate. Understand what that means.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host
    Ohher wrote: »
    The Senate, and Republican loyalists, remain under the evil spell. Take that fact on board. Ruminate. Understand what that means.

    It means (to me, at least) that the Senate and Republican loyalists and apologists have been either deliberately ignoring Trump's horrid behaviors and speech, or they totally subscribe to those same ideals. And the people who voted for all of them hold some responsibility for the conditions we find ourselves in right now, and I know many, many of them are as racist, misogynistic and hate-filled as he is. Not only here in the US, but in many places all over the world.

    I do know some people who voted for T who now regret that decision. That doesn't help us now.

    I find it a bit of justice that Mr. Cohen now is in the position of being dragged through the mud, the same as he caused other people to be dragged.

    None of this gives us relief, however. My dream is for the Republicans who have been defending Trump through all this to finally admit their failure to the American people and to our allies. May they be punished and castigated throughout the rest of their lives.
  • NPR devoted its day to the hearing. (Something like 7.5 hours, plus a break, for the hearing itself!)

    I heard much of it. Within the narrow parameters of how people presented themselves during the hearing; bearing in mind that, listening on radio, I didn't have the benefit of facial expressions and body language; I'm under the weather, and sometimes fell asleep; and the Republican "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" melded into a monotonous Greek chorus:

    --I think Mr. Cohen handled it well. Sometimes, I even thought he's someone I wouldn't mind knowing--again, within the narrow parameters of today's testimony. He seemed sincere, especially in his concern and regret for damaging his family. He also spoke *very* respectfully of Melania.

    I don't know what his facial expressions were; but he kept his voice pretty level and calm. All things considered, he was also patient and respectful.

    --Really, Republicans: "You're a lying liar who lies", "Yes", "You're going to jail", "Yes", over and over, doesn't do anything except give you a chance to show your constituents how fierce you are on their behalf. They'll draw their own conclusions about whether or not that means you'll be kept on.

    --The Democrats did a good job of seeming intelligent, wise, and sane. (Not saying that they aren't actually any of those things--just that they came across well, especially compared to the Republicans.)

    --The last hour or so seemed pretty strange: Congress critters talking over and arguing with each other about whether a particular action by one of them was racist; practically a "kumbayah" folksong expression of friendship between the African-American, Democratic chairman of the hearing and the nastiest of the Republicans (and white); the chairman's confusing send-off to Mr. Cohen, not only hoping that Mr. Cohen will get on with a good life, but that the situation is Mr. Cohen's destiny; and Mr. Cohen's own summation.

    --Oh, and I found it both refreshing and amusing that Mr. Cohen refused to promise not to sell his story.


  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Well, what's he going to do? He's done being a lawyer. Most of the Watergate conspirators stories hit the book stores. I don't know how old his kids are, but they might be in college. so a book deal could help them on that front.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    FOX News legal analyst.
  • On the last point, about Cohen selling a book, wouldn't the profits be caught under proceeds of crime laws? Generally, criminals in Australia don't publish books for that reason.

    I watched the opening statements including the early procedural malarkey on a PBS stream, but went to bed as the Chairman began his questioning. I thought the Chairman handled the pressure from Jordan (?), the senior Republican member, quite well. I admired how he seemed to just soak up the insults, and then when the Republican stuffed up, he just shut him down with a terse "You ceded the floor."

    Cohen I do not like and I am reluctant to believe anything he says which is not corroborated. I am prepared provisionally to accept that he now regrets his actions, but I believe that is a result of his Mueller-induced comeuppance. But I reckon that if he personally was not in the frame, he would still be a loyal Trump footsoldier enjoying his Trump steak with all the trimmings.

    So I am very interested in seeing documentary evidence that Cohen produces about the reimbursement of the payment to Ms Clifford. I'm interested in seeing the financials. Anything that can be corroborated, I want to hear about.

    I don't want to hear about Cohen's version of conversations that can't be corroborated, and I have no use for his post-conviction opinions about the President.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    FOX News legal analyst.

    ???
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    edited February 28
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    FOX News legal analyst.

    ???

    I think Ohher means that Cohen could always find work as a news analyst for Faux News.
  • Ah, thx. But, certainly, not after his testimony today?
  • I read some reports in the papers (do we still call online editions this?) today. I not only took great delight in many of Cohen's statements, but the pictures in my mind of Trump's reactions on hearing them were a delight to ponder.
  • Point of information: Remember those examples of what a Trump Wall would look like that were erected on the American side of the border near Tijuana? The cost of those prototypes was around $4 mil. Well, the Army Corpe of Engineers is tearing them down. Story here

    As some said,
    A million here, a million there. Pretty soon you are talking about real money.
  • I caught some of it on CNN.

    The reliability of Cohen as a witness is a debate that I think will run for a while yet.

    However, what really struck me was how the Republicans on the committee all decided to set themselves up as Trump apologists. I can see how that makes tactical sense politically but I suspect in the long-term this will turn out to be a big mistake.

    AFZ
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    One republican struggled so long with the phrase, ‘pathological liar’ that he gave Cohen to opportunity to ask, “Are you referring to me or to the president?"

    Will the US continue down this weird, unbelievable, blinkered, entitled, republican rabbit hole or will history see this time as a crazy blip?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I agree with the idea Trump will ride this out. I caught some of it on the BBC website. If it was going to make a real difference the talks in Vietnam would be called off.
    Trump is awful, but some of our kings could have shown him how a rascist, misogynist liar really goes about it.
  • I think the scariest thing Mr. Cohen said was that, if T loses the 2020 election, there might not be a peaceful transition of power...
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    NPR devoted its day to the hearing. (Something like 7.5 hours, plus a break, for the hearing itself!)

    I heard much of it. Within the narrow parameters of how people presented themselves during the hearing; bearing in mind that, listening on radio, I didn't have the benefit of facial expressions and body language; I'm under the weather, and sometimes fell asleep; and the Republican "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" melded into a monotonous Greek chorus:

    --I think Mr. Cohen handled it well. Sometimes, I even thought he's someone I wouldn't mind knowing--again, within the narrow parameters of today's testimony. He seemed sincere, especially in his concern and regret for damaging his family. He also spoke *very* respectfully of Melania.

    I don't know what his facial expressions were; but he kept his voice pretty level and calm. All things considered, he was also patient and respectful.



    I switched back and forth between NPR and C-SPAN. I would say Cohen's facial expressions were also level and calm. Unlike the, "Pants om fire," "Nyah, nyah, you didn't get asked to the dance!" Republican whose body language consisted of eye-rolling and pretend head banging, and over all just as high-schoolish as his references.

    I'm ashamed to say, that was Jim Jordan, from my state Ohio, who was once an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State and has been accused by former athletes of turning a blind eye to the alleged sexual abuse by the team's doctor. It's just like my state to elect men who had something to do with Ohio State sports, the way others might elect someone who was one of Christ's disciples.

  • Hugal wrote: »
    I agree with the idea Trump will ride this out.

    Me too. I watched the whole statement (not the questioning afterwards) and thought, this is dynamite. Then I thought again and realised there was nothing here that we didn't already know - the Stormy Daniels payoff, the Russia connection, the racism. Will this stuff make any difference to those who like Trump?

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    I agree with the idea Trump will ride this out. I caught some of it on the BBC website. If it was going to make a real difference the talks in Vietnam would be called off.

    Trump did leave Vietnam earlier than expected.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    That was my first thought on seeing that the talks ended -- that Tyrannosaurus Wrecks was really flying home to get -- manufacture? -- further legal advice.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I read a Politico article arguing that Congressional hearings should go back to using lawyers to elicit information. The argument was that these hearings are more about grandstanding by the pollies than garnering useful information. I'm attracted to the idea, but note that we don't do that in our Parliamentary Committee Hearings in Australia. I'm also legally trained, so probably have an internal bias. What do others think?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I read a Politico article arguing that Congressional hearings should go back to using lawyers to elicit information. The argument was that these hearings are more about grandstanding by the pollies than garnering useful information. I'm attracted to the idea, but note that we don't do that in our Parliamentary Committee Hearings in Australia. I'm also legally trained, so probably have an internal bias. What do others think?

    I wish they would get subject experts to do the questioning for technical subjects. It was just embarrassing watching the Senate trying to understand how Facebook works well enough to question Zuckerberg.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    I think the scariest thing Mr. Cohen said was that, if T loses the 2020 election, there might not be a peaceful transition of power...

    I don't expect a revolution, but I DO expect T will NOT shut up. Whether he is out in 2020 ("false election") or in 2024 he will not quietly take senior statesman role but will from the start boast how much better he is than the "skunks" elected, and possibly try to sow discord because that's what he does.

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Assuming he'll have media access from his jail cell.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    I agree with the idea Trump will ride this out.

    Me too. I watched the whole statement (not the questioning afterwards) and thought, this is dynamite. Then I thought again and realised there was nothing here that we didn't already know - the Stormy Daniels payoff, the Russia connection, the racism. Will this stuff make any difference to those who like Trump?

    Another vote here for "He'll ride it out".

    And if you're looking for a possibly more consequential political scandal, may I suggest this ongoing debacle in Canada, which has so far managed to rope in corporate bribery, political interference in the judicial process, Quebec vs. The Rest Of Canada, and has possibly forever tarnished the feminist and pro-First Nations credentials of global liberal icon Justin Trudeau?

    The link is a few days old. Wilson-Raybauld testified a couple of days ago, and her recollections painted the government in a rather unflattering light. Though I'm still on the side of saying that Trudeau can probably scrape through to the next election.)

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Oh Stetson, I was reading about that today. It looks like Trudeau must go... Corruption is a big no-no, no matter how pretty you are, or how good your policies.
Sign In or Register to comment.