Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

17475777980103

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Looks like William Barr, our presumptive president's "attorney general"--read mouth piece--has stirred up a hornets' nest with the Democrats in Congress. First he said he did not know what Mueller thought of Barr's conclusions, then the Democrats produce a letter from Mueller saying he thought Barr's conclusions were misleading. When asked about the letter, Barr hemmed and hawed. Today, Barr. refused to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Look for a vote by the House to hold him in contempt. If they do they will ask a federal judge to issue a warrant for his arrest.

    Meanwhile, the presumptive president is refusing to submit to any subpoenas from the House and banning any more staffers from testifying before Congress--claiming executive privilege. However, since he allowed his staffers to talk to Mueller, executive privilege no longer applies.

    Did I mention the lawsuits against the bank and anyone else to keep his federal tax returns out of the public eye.

    Nevertheless, the New York States Attorney has access to his state tax returns which often should mirror the Federal returns.

    Someone bring popcorn. This is getting interesting.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Look for a vote by the House to hold him in contempt. If they do they will ask a federal judge to issue a warrant for his arrest.
    I'll believe it when I see it. I've always voted Democrat, but I am growing increasingly frustrated at the Democrats in Congress, especially Jerry Nadler. They are all smoke and no fire. "You'd better appear or else we'll subpoena you. Yes, we will, We mean it! Well, OK, no subpoena, but come next week. No? Then how about the following week? Well, then, here's that subpoena. What? You won't honor it? Well, you'd better! We mean it! We'll find you in contempt. Yes, we will. We mean it! Well, maybe we don't really mean it."

    Issue the subpoenas, for Pete's sake. If they're not honored, find them in contempt and have them arrested. No hemming and hawing, no hesitation. But stop talking about it. I'm ready to stop watching the news altogether. I'm almost ready not to bother voting. No matter who gets elected, it's the same old same old. All talk and no action.

    And speaking of Jerry Nadler . . . what in the name of heaven is wrong with his eyebrows?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    It's about appearing reasonable for when you get before a judge. If you do it straight off the bat, then you'll give the other side something to argue in court and the Judge something to think about. Whatever the situation, when you go before a court it is always better to manipulate the situation so that you look like an angel of reasonableness and the other side look like they have had every opportunity to do the right thing and now need to be slotted HARD. This is especially so when you are asking a court to do something that it doesn't do every day.

    Meanwhile, I have got my salt and butter ready, and the oil is heating up Gramps.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote:
    Meanwhile, I have got my salt and butter ready, and the oil is heating up Gramps.

    Sorry, I have to eat air popped popcorn and skip the butter. And even eat less than a cup of the popped corn. It's a diet thing, you know.
  • SirPalomidesSirPalomides Shipmate
    edited May 3
    Making "resistance" noises while doing nothing too rash that would scare the donors, lobbyists, etc. is the Democrat MO. The past two years Trump has piled horror on horror but they have spent the bulk of their energy chasing this Russian collusion conspiracy theory, which has now become a major propaganda weapon in his hands. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that they might have to defeat Trump in an actual election. On foreign policy- Syria, Venezuela, Israel, etc.- the Dems have been largely in lockstep with Trump and the national security state, with some noble exceptions. The recent votes to end the war in Yemen were good, if ineffectual, but where was this resistance when the war started under Obama?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    My opinion is that its not so much the Democrats who have done that but the bulk of the media. Senior democrats have been saying, 'wait and see' and I think the leadership in Congress is now saying 'stuff doing an impeachment process that is not going to oust the guy. We have to beat him in the next election'.

    As I understand US Politics the large field we have now is hardly unprecedented for the party out of the White House. Shortly after the first few primaries we will know who the serious contenders are and the rest will drop out. After the convention, that's when the serious stuff begins.

    On foreign policy, the specifics in those countries you mentioned are symptoms of the basic problem with Trump. Trump has bought American unilateralism back into play, with an added element of giving the finger to the UN and anything approaching anybody but Trump and his arsehole right-wing mates having an input into what the US does internationally. Iran was the classic case, but fortunately Trump over-estimated the extent to which America's European allies would go along with him. The result is as we now see it. Iran is limping along, damaged but not done in by US sanctions because of help from Europe.

    The Democrats, by contrast, are committed to working within the traditional alliance structures that won the Cold War. Unlike Trump, who famously balked at having to fight for small balkan countries, a Democratic President will likely be keen to renew alliances in Eastern Europe, to draw Turkey back into a co-operative relationship with the US, to extend and strengthen friendships in east asia and using the strength of these alliances show those countries who would harm us to continue trading for our mutual benefit (subject to a change in domestic policy on distribution).

    The war in Yemen is horrible. It is unconscionable that Congress can pass a motion through both houses to withdraw US aid for Saudi Arabia only to have Trump veto it. And we all know what is going on. Trump and his son-in-law want Saudi money, and the Israelis want Saudi silence when very shortly I expect them to annex large swathes of the West Bank. The Saudi nobility are truly awful. They maintain their regime through repression and fear. Their treatment of women and LGBTQI people is notoriously brutal. They breed and fund terrorist attacks on us. But they are the religious guardians of the holiest places in Islam. Muslims must depose them, not us. We should not be their allies. Netenyahu should be told to shelve his aquisitive plans. Perhaps a Democratic President will do so. I hope so. If America said clearly that they would not support his actions, that might be enough. If I was Netenyahu though, I would do it yesterday. Syria is in chaos. The only opposition would come from Iran and Turkey on the current configuration. If you are going to eject most Palestinians from the bulk of the West Bank, the moment is right now.

    I know nothing about Venezuela. That part of the world is under the care of our Canadian cousins on behalf of the Commonwealth.

    Gramps, I just came back to our Ravenna Hotel after eating a 4 course meal with wine and coffee. Popcorn right out :smile: Tomorrow I get to see something I have dreamed of seeing since I first heard about it: Mosaics laid under the orders of the Gothic rulers of Rome portraying Christ. They were Arians. I am told you can see the theology reflected in the art. :nerdgasm

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited May 3
    Sorry, major propaganda weapon? The Mueller Report? There are those opposed to Trump and those who love him. A major propaganda weapon is something that hits the undecideds. My bet is that they switched off early on, and are in major politics avoidance mode right now. They'll switch back on sooner or later, but mostly later. That is when all this shit will matter. Really, in terms of actually getting the bastard out, nothing matters right now that will not directly and unequivocally lead to Trump's certain removal from office, or that leads to shit the Dems can use on Trump in the 2 weeks before the election.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I remember when the Republicans tried everything they could to pin Benghazi on Hillary Clinton as a way to diminished the chances of her winning the election. And it worked.

    There are so many reasons why the Democrats want to keep the pressure on, but Pelosi has categorically said there will be no impeachment primarily because it will only solidify our presumptive president;s base. He does know how to turn negatives around to his advantage.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited May 8
    In case you have not noticed, we now have a dictator
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Surely that's premature. Aren't the battle lines being drawn for a showdown in the courts (please tell me the courts have jurisdiction)? Surely that is what Mnuchin is doing when he denies the request 'because the request does not have a proper legislative purpose' or whatever.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Surely that is what Mnuchin is doing when he denies the request 'because the request does not have a proper legislative purpose' or whatever.

    It's interesting the Mnuchin claims that a formal legal response from the Justice Department will be presented "soon". If I was going to defy Congress I'd be sure to have that legal argument ready from the beginning.

    For my part I'd say the person in real legal jeopardy should be Charles Rettig, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. His job is the one specified by statute to fulfill Congressional requests for tax returns.

    In possibly related news the New York Times seems to have gotten ahold of summaries of Trump's tax returns from for the decade from 1985 to 1994. Click through if you want to read the details. In case you were wondering about the source:
    While The Times did not obtain the president’s actual tax returns, it received the information contained in the returns from someone who had legal access to it. The Times was then able to find matching results in the I.R.S. information on top earners — a publicly available database that each year comprises a one-third sampling of those taxpayers, with identifying details removed. It also confirmed significant findings using other public documents, along with confidential Trump family tax and financial records from the newspaper’s 2018 investigation into the origin of the president’s wealth.

    Sounds like "someone who had legal access to" Trump's tax returns is firing a warning shot.

    The bottom line (so to speak) is that Trump over a billion dollars in the decade covered, which kind of begs the question of how he's supporting himself now. It seems like a situation where he'd be ripe for bribery and/or extortion.
  • HarryCHHarryCH Shipmate
    I don't think Hillary Clinton lost because of the Benghazi hearings. I think there are several reasons why Trump was elected: (a) the press paid a disproportionate amount of attention to Trump; (b) Comey made his announcement about reopening the investigation in to the e-mail server (while never mentioning the ongoing investigation into Trump); (c) the Clinton campaign made a minor mistake in where they focused their attention in the last few weeks; (d) Clinton made her "basket of deplorables" remark; (e) the Russions were trying hard to swing the election to Trump.

    My comment about (b) is that Comey is a lifelong Republican. (Trump should have thanked him.) My comment about (c) is this is the sort of error anyone could make. My comment about (d) is that this (however accurate) was a dumb, arrogant, unnecessary remark that no politician should ever make.

    I don't think any one of these factors was enough by itself.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    My comment about (a) is that I have always felt that if the media had completely ignored him, we'd have a different President now.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Harry CH, nice post. I agree. Trump did thank Comey of course.

    I reckon you could bribe Trump with a twinkie no matter what his wealth.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    HarryCH wrote: »
    I don't think Hillary Clinton lost because of the Benghazi hearings. I think there are several reasons why Trump was elected: (a) the press paid a disproportionate amount of attention to Trump; (b) Comey made his announcement about reopening the investigation in to the e-mail server (while never mentioning the ongoing investigation into Trump); (c) the Clinton campaign made a minor mistake in where they focused their attention in the last few weeks; (d) Clinton made her "basket of deplorables" remark; (e) the Russions were trying hard to swing the election to Trump.

    My comment about (b) is that Comey is a lifelong Republican. (Trump should have thanked him.) My comment about (c) is this is the sort of error anyone could make. My comment about (d) is that this (however accurate) was a dumb, arrogant, unnecessary remark that no politician should ever make.

    I don't think any one of these factors was enough by itself.

    You left out (f) for FEMALE.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Interestingly the Senate Intelligence Committee has subpœnaed Don Trump, Jr. I was surprised that this was the (Republican controlled) Senate committee rather than the (Democratic controlled) House committee that went after Junior first. Naturally the Junior Trump is hesitant about being questioned by Kamala Harris.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Makes a change for him from sympathetic fox
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    The House Judiciary committee are doing everything by the book - as @Simon Toad said, this is vital so that when it comes to court you can show the judge how incredibly reasonable you have been.

    I think impeachment is coming but again, the Democratic leadership are doing it by the book. There's two prongs to this 1) For the sake of the Consitution, Trump must be impeached; his crimes are huge but that doesn't change 2) That the Dems are planning of having to beat him in an election.

    That's what's going on. Trump's base are not remotely interested in his crimes. There is a surprisingly high floor that Trump's approval rating probably won't fall below. But the opposite is also true that there is a very low ceiling to his approval ratings. The pathway for DJT to win re-election is actually quite a difficult needle to thread, so whilst the Democrats (for the sake of all of us) cannot afford the slightest complacency, there is no need for despondency either. Although I understand the temptation when things look this bleak.

    I would highly recommend the wonderful Muellershewrote podcast if you want a detailed analysis of what is going on.

    Here's a quick summary;

    1) The Mueller report is actually dynamite.
    For various reasons, Mueller has been very conservative in how it has been written but it clearly shows Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That's banner headline number one. Secondly, it in no-way exonerates Trump - what it doesn't have is enough evidence to prove coordination between Russian agents and the Trump campaign. (It's worth noting that collusion is not a term in the Federal Code and hence Mueller has avoided it. The legal question is one of conspiracy). There are several spin-off enquiries (on-going federal criminal enquiries) and potential Congressional hearings - many of these could well lead to the uncovering of such evidence. If pursued properly I am sure they will. The Mueller report also lists 10 acts that potentially meet the requirements for a conviction of obstruction of Justice. Three of these are very likely to result in a conviction if they come before a court.
    2) Barr's summaries are deeply misrepresentative of the report
    Barr appears to be relying on the fact that on-one* will read the report and thus is trying to embed his narrative first so that people will not see the truth, but he has already been caught out lying to Congress.
    3) Mueller has indicated that Barr has misrepresented his investigation findings.
    When Mueller appears before Congress, I suspect things will become a lot clearer for many people. I am currently reading Andrew G. McCabe's book The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump. (former Deputy Director of the FBI). One of the things that jumps out of this is the character of Mueller. Strong, implacable, incorruptible and committed to both the FBI and truth. Whatever certain Republicans might try to tell you, this is not over and it is anything but a witch hunt. (Remember that Mueller is himself a life-long Republican).
    4) I watched a bit of the Judiciary Committee hearing on whether to find Barr in contempt. It was striking and very depressing how Republican after Republican was using the same script - "It's all over" / "Witch hunt" / "We've got more important things to do" / "There was no collusion" etc. It's all nonsense but it's also not surprising as it's the only defence they have. They are fighting tooth and nail to stop this thing unravelling.
    I think all of them either don't remember how Watergate unfolded or if they are too young, have never looked closely at what happened (Slow Burn on Slate is how I learnt about it). The parallels are stunning. And if this does all come crashing down, they have put themselves totally and completely on the wrong side of this.

    I remain appalled at the craven behaviour of the GOP. I think the Dems have no choice but to do this completely and utterly by the book. The GOP are playing the worst sort of politics with this whilst screaming that the Dems are playing politics. (They are not). The only way through this is to be tough and smart. I wish it would all move quicker but I don't think it can and still have the right result.

    Ultimately, I think Trump has over-reached himself. Because he has spent his entire life getting away with this shit, he believes he is untouchable. The GOP are trying very hard to make him so but I think in the end, it will all come tumbling down. When that happens, I really don't think anyone would dare pardon DJT. The GOP/Trump strategy is delay and delay and delay - it's all they've got. The Dems will need to be wise to this and not let Trump and his entourage wind down the clock and avoid justice but it won't happen as quickly as any of us want.


    AFZ


    *Apparently 3% of Americans have read the report in full - I'm impressed it's that many....
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited May 9
    *Apparently 3% of Americans have read the report in full - I'm impressed it's that many....

    Far fewer, since the Mueller Report in full has not been released. Virtually everyone who has read the report "in full" either works for the Justice Department or worked for the Special Counsel's Office. This may seem like parsing a technicality, but it's an important thing to remember. If the bits of the M****** Report that career Republican cover-up artist Bill Barr chose to release are "dynamite", think about what's been suppressed.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    HarryCH wrote: »
    I don't think Hillary Clinton lost because of the Benghazi hearings. I think there are several reasons why Trump was elected: (a) the press paid a disproportionate amount of attention to Trump; (b) Comey made his announcement about reopening the investigation in to the e-mail server (while never mentioning the ongoing investigation into Trump); (c) the Clinton campaign made a minor mistake in where they focused their attention in the last few weeks; (d) Clinton made her "basket of deplorables" remark; (e) the Russions were trying hard to swing the election to Trump.

    My comment about (b) is that Comey is a lifelong Republican. (Trump should have thanked him.) My comment about (c) is this is the sort of error anyone could make. My comment about (d) is that this (however accurate) was a dumb, arrogant, unnecessary remark that no politician should ever make.

    I don't think any one of these factors was enough by itself.

    You left out (f) for FEMALE.
    While not alphabetical, how far wrong is it to consider that elections are constitutionally rigged in the USA? The electoral college seems anti-democratic, making it difficult for people to be allowed to vote at all by preventing them from being on voter lists, the limiting and closure of voting places, and the ability of those in power to gerrymander electoral districts are what has been reported about American elections. Doesn't sound like fair voting.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    *Apparently 3% of Americans have read the report in full - I'm impressed it's that many....

    Far fewer, since the Mueller Report in full has not been released. Virtually everyone who has read the report "in full" either works for the Justice Department or worked for the Special Counsel's Office. This may seem like parsing a technicality, but it's an important thing to remember. If the bits of the M****** Report that career Republican cover-up artist Bill Barr chose to release are "dynamite", think about what's been suppressed.

    I agree completely. For those that have eyes to see, the Mueller report is actually really stark.

    The Starr report was cheap politics and sensationalist because it was basically a political game (and some of their behaviour, including how they tried to blackmail Lewinsky into incriminating Clinton was reprehensible). Mueller is a professional. This is a professional document. Break the code and it's all really clear cut. For fans of the UK show Yes Minister, I would put it like this: Sir Humphrey would understand what Mueller is saying and would be quietly looking at the line of succession...

    AFZ

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Interestingly the Senate Intelligence Committee has subpœnaed Don Trump, Jr. I was surprised that this was the (Republican controlled) Senate committee rather than the (Democratic controlled) House committee that went after Junior first. Naturally the Junior Trump is hesitant about being questioned by Kamala Harris.

    It is my understanding Junior is likely to refuse to testify.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    I would be very pleased if he did so. It's time someone lost it with him and filed contempt of Congress on him.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Resulting in incarceration, I should hope. It's high time that family occupied their fit dwelling.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    I hope Congress holds on to their newly found backbone, but I am doubtful. What CAN that man have to hold over them? I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.
    Now that is something that could give me nightmares just thinking about it!

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    I hope Congress holds on to their newly found backbone, but I am doubtful. What CAN that man have to hold over them? I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.

    Maybe the problem is that what you are assuming is important to them are actually things they are quite happy to compromise on, in order to get what is actually important to them.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I hope Congress holds on to their newly found backbone, but I am doubtful. What CAN that man have to hold over them? I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.

    I am sure Putin has naked pictures of T
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I hope Congress holds on to their newly found backbone, but I am doubtful. What CAN that man have to hold over them? I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.

    In the previous Congress the Senate Intelligence Committee, operating under chairman Richard Burr (R-NC), had a reputation for being a somewhat serious operation actually doing its job, especially when compared with its circus-like House counterpart being run by Devin Nunes. Unfortunately one of the things to come out of the M****** Report is that Burr had been funneling information about the Russia investigation to the White House counsel. It's possible that being tough on Junior is a way for Burr to reassert his fair and independent bona fides.

    More cynical commenters have suggested that this is an attempt to get Junior an Oliver North-style immunity agreement, which was how Ollie's conviction was eventually overturned. I'm not sure how plausible this is over what are almost certain Democratic objections to such an offer.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Being a cynic, I assume that what is most important to them is what is most important to the majority of people in power--namely, job retention, prestige, power, status, and money. This is common to whoever is in power at the moment, regardless of stated affiliation.

    Their craven behavior angers me but does not actually surprise me. What does surprise me is that Trump has succeeded in making them look like powerless, spineless wimps on a global stage, thus threatening their prestige, power, and status--and effectively they haven't done a damned thing to fight back till now. Not even remedies well within their power.

    It takes a lot to make a congress critter give up the power of his/her office, particularly to kiss the feet of another government branch. Which is why I'm wondering about naked pics.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    edited May 10
    I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.

    At least of the Repugnicans. I would like to believe that they are persons of principles and morals. If that is the case, the logical outcome would be join the Democrats in exposing and dealing with the utter turpitude of the current occupant of the White House. Since it appears that they won't do that, the logical conclusion would be that they are **not** persons of principles and morals.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »

    This. The history of the Trump Presidency is that the only Republicans who will stand up to him are the ones who do not plan to run for election again (and/or are dying).

    From a self-interest standpoint, a Republican seeking re-election fears having Trump's so-called "base" (you know: the deplorables) turn against them because that might cost the election. This is why the Republican party has been catering to (hostage to?) the far-right wing of the party. The situation has only become worse since Trump, because unaffiliated voters (a term I prefer rather than "independents") who, in the past, might have voted for a reasonable, middle-of-the-road Republican, have been so turned off by Trump that they will refuse to vote for any Republican no matter how appealing.

    I know that such voters exist because I am one--pre-Trump, I always would split my votes (local and federal) between Democrats and Republicans based on who I thought would do the best job. But it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican again.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Look for the farmers in the mid west to turn against him. They have been harmed the most by his tariffs. When he increases the tariffs on Chinese products, they increase tariffs on American produce.

    The people that benefit? Canadian Grain Growers, Australian Farmers, South American producers. European markets.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Look for the farmers in the mid west to turn against him. They have been harmed the most by his tariffs ...
    Then again, there must be many in his "base" who still support him despite having to pay for the tax cuts for his billionaire friends.

    Is it possible he's hoodwinked the farmers the same way he has others?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I hope Congress holds on to their newly found backbone, but I am doubtful. What CAN that man have to hold over them? I'm beginning to think T has naked pics of the whole 116th.
    A simpler explanation would be that the 115th was run by Republicans, who all saw how their voters adored him, and saw no benefit in opposing him (tax cuts, judges, attacking the social safety net.) What he has on them is the threat of losing a primary.

    The "newly found backbone" seems to be an almost entirely Democratic feature; I'm reasonably confident that continued Republican control of the Senate will prevent the House from attempting the most direct action against him.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Piglet wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Look for the farmers in the mid west to turn against him. They have been harmed the most by his tariffs ...
    Then again, there must be many in his "base" who still support him despite having to pay for the tax cuts for his billionaire friends.

    Is it possible he's hoodwinked the farmers the same way he has others?

    This is not what I am hearing from Iowa. Farm bankruptcies are at an all time high, especially dairy farms. They feel betrayed and are threatened. Many have "woke." A lot of them are saying they will never vote for a Republican again.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    According to Morning Consult Trump's approval ratings in Iowa are 44% approve, 52% disapprove - pretty much where they've been since May of 2017.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am hearing only one third Iowans would vote for Trump today.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am hearing only one third Iowans would vote for Trump today.

    It doesn't matter how many vote for Trump. It matters how many vote for the candidate running against him.
  • TukaiTukai Shipmate
    There are unconfirmed reports that Dept of Homeland Security agents arrested a bearded man last night arriving at Dulles international airport. He was reportedly in possession of a ruler, a protractor and a calculator.

    The man, is believed to be a member of the notorious Al-Gebra group, and is said to have been charged with carrying weapons of math instruction.

    Asked to comment, President Trump said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us more fingers and toes." Unidentified White House officials told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the President.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Tukai wrote: »
    President Trump said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, he would have given us more fingers and toes." Unidentified White House officials told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the President.

    Probably the despicable S. H.-S., who has more toes than she has brain cells responsible for conscience.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am hearing only one third Iowans would vote for Trump today.
    Hearing from what source?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Piglet wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Look for the farmers in the mid west to turn against him. They have been harmed the most by his tariffs ...
    Then again, there must be many in his "base" who still support him despite having to pay for the tax cuts for his billionaire friends.

    Is it possible he's hoodwinked the farmers the same way he has others?

    This is not what I am hearing from Iowa. Farm bankruptcies are at an all time high, especially dairy farms. They feel betrayed and are threatened. Many have "woke." A lot of them are saying they will never vote for a Republican again.
    Isn't that nice. Like a conversion. Was lost but now and found. Your farm is lost anyway and it's on your own head.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Except Trump states that he will use the proceeds from the tariffs to buy the farm goods. It is actually quite a lovely little scam: he imposes tariffs, driving up the price of goods for American consumers. The money comes to the federal government but the Republicans are good with it because it is not called a "tax" (even if it does function like one) and then Trump uses that money to buy votes for himself in Iowa by buying their produce, just prior to the election. Really, as a con game goes, it is quite elegant!

    To quote the old saying "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are good odds!"
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    David W

    It is coming from various readings of the Iowa Poll that was already cited: Here is a Chicago Tribune reading.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Gramps49

    Unfortunately that link isn't available in the UK or indeed most European countries. Can you summarise or maybe use the quotes function to quote a few extracts?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Gramps49

    Unfortunately that link isn't available in the UK or indeed most European countries. Can you summarise or maybe use the quotes function to quote a few extracts?

    Sorry about that. The Chicago Tribune Article was published on 12 May 2019.

    The key quote is this:
    Despite it all, Iowa has seemingly soured on the president and his party. The end-of-year Iowa Poll, an industry standard conducted by Des Moines-based Selzer and Co., found Trump with just 35 percent approval in the state. Only 34 percent of Iowans said they would back Republicans for Congress in 2018, and 61 percent said they were turned off by politics altogether.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    The danger, of course, lies in "turned off by politics altogether." Non-Republicans (including Democrats and others) and disillusioned Republicans not bothering to turn out to vote will almost guarantee a second term for you-know-who. Unless, of course, he is jailed by then.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Gramps49

    Unfortunately that link isn't available in the UK or indeed most European countries. Can you summarise or maybe use the quotes function to quote a few extracts?

    Sorry about that. The Chicago Tribune Article was published on 12 May 2019.
    No it wasn't. The date on that article is January 1, 2018 - and it's from the Washington Post, not the Chicago Tribune. Check under the reporter's byline, not the frame at the top of the page. (Also, it talks about the 2018 elections as something happening in the future.)
Sign In or Register to comment.