President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since most people renew insurance on a calendar basis, very few will lose anything immediately. It's when they go to renew next year that the **** hits the fan and in the interim the Republicans will scramble to get something and blame their inability to do something on Democrats and they will be believed.

One of the most important provisions of the ACA was the end of "rescission," the previous practice where an insurer could look for an excuse to cancel a policy if the owner started making big claims or just was diagnosed with an expensive illness. If that prohibition ends, insurers could start canceling expensive policyholders the next day.
http://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/rescission/
 
I thought that Trump would start acting sane after the election. That just maybe, his totally off his rocker attacking everyone who has the temerity to criticize him or his actions would be slowed by the serious nature of the job.

The latest reports are that his naiveté about the job have not yet been dented. He still believes:

1. That he is more knowledgeable about government, the economy, and international affairs than everyone else on the planet.
2. That he can govern just by acting confident and not listening to anyone else.
3. That everyone will naturally go along with him because it will be obvious how superior his ideas are.
4. That the main job of the rest of the country is to agree with and extol him.
5. That if this happens then the economy will improve and everyone will agree that he was right.

I think he has a rude awakening coming. However, I'm still not sure about the Limbaugh effect. In the past, whenever any Republican dared to criticize Limbaugh for his disgusting behavior, they would always cave-in and apologize the next day. Donald Trump is the electable Rush Limbaugh so he may not get any real criticism on the Republican side. However, Limbaugh never had any control over laws or policy, so it is possible that if Trump begins having a negative effect, he might begin to get criticism on the Republican side. It'll be interesting to observe.
 
Have people actually stopped listening to Donald Trump?
From those tweets it seems he's still living the campaign. I can see how that would be his comfort-zone in what must be a very confusing and unsettling time for a man of his years who was never very sharp at the best of times.
 
I sometimes wonder if at some point, the Trumpmeister may get so fed up, he may just hand in his resignation.
Not until he's had the last word on everything.

I'm liking the thought that the Russian imbroglio might hang on Trump like birtherism did on Obama, only more so because Trump will stay on it like a dog with a bone himself. I'd rather not think about what the people around him and the Republican Party will actually be doing in the meantime.
 
Not until he's had the last word on everything.

I'm liking the thought that the Russian imbroglio might hang on Trump like birtherism did on Obama, only more so because Trump will stay on it like a dog with a bone himself. I'd rather not think about what the people around him and the Republican Party will actually be doing in the meantime.

Poetic justice if he ends up being declared the first illegitimate POTUS. If only the GOP didn't have control of the whole government.
 
Poetic justice if he ends up being declared the first illegitimate POTUS. If only the GOP didn't have control of the whole government.
I can't see Trump failing legitimacy tests as specified constitutionally. In a more rarified sense it's a matter of opinion, of course, many of which have already been formed.

My opinion, which fortuitously will forever remain untested, is that if you could ask the drafters of the Constitution if the Trump phaenomenon was the sort of thing they were trying to preclude they would answer in the affirmative to a man. Without having to ask what "preclude" means.
 
In a Tweet attack against Hillary Clinton (?) Friday morning, the president-elect tweeted:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

What are Hillary Clinton's people complaining about with respect to the F.B.I. Based on the information they had she should never...have been allowed to run - guilty as hell. They were VERY nice to her. She lost because she campaigned in the wrong states - no enthusiasm!
6:25 AM - 13 Jan 2017 Link

As I heard a criminal lawyer say on a radio interview, this was (and is) a stupid comment for Trump to have made. In the (unlikely) event that Clinton is indicted and put on trial at some point in the future -- and with our new president I guess anything is possible -- how would Clinton ever get a fair trial after the president-elect has publicly pronounced her "guilty as hell?" That could be a major issue; the president prejudicing the entire country against "the defendant."
 
In a Tweet attack against Hillary Clinton (?) Friday morning, the president-elect tweeted:

As I heard a criminal lawyer say on a radio interview, this was (and is) a stupid comment for Trump to have made. In the (unlikely) event that Clinton is indicted and put on trial at some point in the future -- and with our new president I guess anything is possible -- how would Clinton ever get a fair trial after the president-elect has publicly pronounced her "guilty as hell?" That could be a major issue; the president prejudicing the entire country against "the defendant."

Has to be a pretty small minority that give his words any weight.
 
I can't see Trump failing legitimacy tests as specified constitutionally. In a more rarified sense it's a matter of opinion, of course, many of which have already been formed.

My opinion, which fortuitously will forever remain untested, is that if you could ask the drafters of the Constitution if the Trump phaenomenon was the sort of thing they were trying to preclude they would answer in the affirmative to a man. Without having to ask what "preclude" means.
I almost think it needs a new thread but that would no doubt devolve into the usual argument of sour grapes and get over it.

But what I'd like to discuss is hypothetically what happens when there is clear evidence an election was rigged. What would will happen when evidence emerges the Trump team did indeed coordinate with Putin? The latest is Flynn called the Russian Ambassador before Putin said he wouldn't retaliate over the retaliation.

Trump adviser and Russian ambassador have regular contact, White House says

That's on top of Manafort and Tillerson's direct ties to Russia. I suspect Trump has too much hubris to be careful of such appearances.

So, on the thread topic, the web is getting sticky.

On the hypothetical topic, I think it is going to be an interesting year, bigger than Watergate.
 
In a Tweet attack against Hillary Clinton (?) Friday morning, the president-elect tweeted:

As I heard a criminal lawyer say on a radio interview, this was (and is) a stupid comment for Trump to have made. In the (unlikely) event that Clinton is indicted and put on trial at some point in the future -- and with our new president I guess anything is possible -- how would Clinton ever get a fair trial after the president-elect has publicly pronounced her "guilty as hell?" That could be a major issue; the president prejudicing the entire country against "the defendant."

He can't think more than 140 characters ahead.
 
Looks like their going with tax cuts for the rich repeal and release white papers. I thought they'd at least go with repeal and delay since the current direction will disproportionately affect deep red states like Kentucky and West Virginia. Sucks to be one of the 20 million plus that will lose health insurance due to this but the Trump kids need their tax cuts.


The Republicans got what they wanted out of 'em. They won't give a damn about how they feel until 2018, and they'll have had two years to lie to them in the interim.

Never give a sucker an even break.
 
Pres.-elect buys junior's failing business in South Carolina, sues the state demanding that it clean up pollution he caused:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...rs-with-bill-for-trump-jr-s-mess-854853699850

If you buy a business, isn't that like debt, you bought the pollution clean up cost as well? I get it the Trumps are using a sweetheart deal to screw the taxpayers.

What I don't get is why SC laws don't say the debt is what you bought.

Did the state inspect the property? Is that how they would be liable?
 
Because sometimes I can't stand sitting through Maddow's tedious unnecessarily long buildups to get to the point, I looked for other sources.

NYT: Trump’s Role in Son’s Failed Deal May Yield First Test for a State Regulator
This year, D B Pace applied under a state program to undertake a voluntary cleanup of the property. If approved, the company would also gain protection against liabilities related to any pollution there, such as chemical contamination of local groundwater, caused by Titan Atlas and other past owners.

There is, however, a catch: To qualify for the protections, the buyer of a contaminated property must not be affiliated with a former owner, or have had involvement with the site. The program’s rules exist, lawyers said, to prevent a polluter from evading liability by using another company to stand in its place. “You are basically drawing a line in the sand,” said John P. Boyd, a lawyer in Columbia, S.C., who negotiates such so-called brownfields agreements for companies buying contaminated land.
How can this even be a question, it was a sweetheart deal.

Apparently the slumlord Trump Jr tried to extort a lease extension to prevent rusting barrels from leaking.
The lawsuit at issue was filed in April by a former tenant at the Titan Atlas factory. In it, a building products company, Saint-Gobain Adfors, charged that it had complained since 2014 to Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump Organization lawyer, Michael Cohen, that rain coming through the building’s rotting roof was damaging materials stored there.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, according to the lawsuit, insisted that the roof would be repaired only if the company extended its lease. In late 2015, when heavy rains hit the Charleston area for days, $4.5 million worth of products were destroyed, Saint-Gobain Adfors maintains.

Oh what a tangled web they wove with every slimy deal they drove.

Donald Trump Jr., who along with his brother Eric is expected to run the Trump Organization when their father becomes president, did not respond to written questions from The New York Times.
So not a connection but now the kids are in charge directly with the company that bought their own business.

I don't see how they get away with this scam. But who knows, the Trumps are experts at scams.
 
:confused: I genuinely don't follow what your line of reasoning is.

You said Obama did not receive money from a foreign government, it was from the Nobel committee in Norway and not their Government.

So, I would expect as long as Trump does not receive money from a foreign Government, his business earnings from private ventures in other countries would likewise not violate any rules.
Chris B.
 
As many people have tried to point out, the Nobel Prize Committee is not an agent of the Norwegian state and it's taking gifts from a "King, Prince, or foreign State" without permission that's prohibited.

Tolls has pointed out your error most recently and, IMO, most succinctly.

Then in the same respect, Trump receiving foreign monies that are not directly from foreign governments should also be acceptable.........
Chris B.
 
I don't see how they get away with this scam. But who knows, the Trumps are experts at scams.

I don't know how either, but I'm sure he will. He gets away with everything. It's kind of his thing. We might as well get used to it.
 
I don't know how either, but I'm sure he will. He gets away with everything. It's kind of his thing. We might as well get used to it.

... and one point Maddow was making was that, now some civil servants in SC need to decide if the state or Trump will pay for the clean-up. Do they risk retribution for an official decision that hurts Trump's bank account, or do they risk looking like you're currying favor with a decision that's beneficial to him? This is going to come up again and again; there's no realistic way to avoid conflict of interest between Trump's businesses and the government.
 
... and one point Maddow was making was that, now some civil servants in SC need to decide if the state or Trump will pay for the clean-up. Do they risk retribution for an official decision that hurts Trump's bank account, or do they risk looking like you're currying favor with a decision that's beneficial to him? This is going to come up again and again; there's no realistic way to avoid conflict of interest between Trump's businesses and the government.

Of course there is, and Trump has stated it several times - there is no conflict of interest!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom