The Trump Presidency (Act V - The One Where Everybody Dies)

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSupermeerkat said:
So Dolt45 is backing gun control at odds with the NRA. This is just another distraction- but for what? So many things to chose from.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/28/trump-background-checks-gun-control



President moron never, ever fails to surprise. Could this gun stance be the thing that does for him, or will it be water off a duck’s (duck a la orange?) back?
Click to expand...

If you'd asked me 2 years ago, yes. A republican taking on the NRA in normal circumstances would see his candidacy end then and there. But I also would've thought deriding American POW's in Vietnam would also be the end. So who knows.
 
lobosrul5 said:
If you'd asked me 2 years ago, yes. A republican taking on the NRA in normal circumstances would see his candidacy end then and there. But I also would've thought deriding American POW's in Vietnam would also be the end. So who knows.
Click to expand...
It remains to be seen as to whether Trump really will "take on the NRA".

Most likely we will just see a replay of what Trump has done on DACA/Immigration.... Make a proposal containing something most people want (like better background checks), throw in something that is really stupid and/or unrelated, a.k.a. a "poison pill" (giving guns to teachers, conceal-carry laws across state lines), demanding it all be passed together and then complaining how "the other side doesn't really want the good stuff because they won't accept the bad stuff".
 
Trump can take on anyone and anything. As he correctly said, he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and it would not matter. He is shifting opinion among his base, including on gunz/NRA, because his base is comprised of neo-monarchist worshipers who will always, always say "Yes" to muscle, then thank it for asking.

***

Meanwhile, kudos to all the GOP Russia sycophants. Putin may be exaggerating his case with the new nukes, but he has shown the wisdom of your early, and entirely voluntary, surrender. Best let the strongest lead; after all, it's what your body and soul clamor for.
 
lobosrul5 said:
If you'd asked me 2 years ago, yes. A republican taking on the NRA in normal circumstances would see his candidacy end then and there. But I also would've thought deriding American POW's in Vietnam would also be the end. So who knows.
Click to expand...

Even the NRA is being polite and respectful in disagreeing with him. They know where the real power is in the GOP right now. I noted that during the gun policy meeting a repeated point was that the legislature needed Trump to personally endorse these things to provide them with political cover. He's pretty much the only thing that can protect them from the NRA.
 
ponderingturtle said:
What specifically did he do for the money? Remember the supreme court made bribery much harder to convict.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-supreme-courts-bribery-blessing-mcdonnell-decision

What official acts by Kushner did he do for the money to fit with current supreme court rulings on bribery?
Click to expand...
Anything publicly known at this point is speculation, mostly based on what pointed questions Mueller has been asking. We won't find out for sure until there's an indictment (or not), but rumor has it he's been pretty blatantly peddling influence to other countries, as well as receiving giant questionable "loans" from companies.

Squeegee linked the most direct timeline earlier:
https://twitter.com/MichaelSLinden/status/969032605143326720

1) Trump promises to close the carried interest tax loophole that benefits private equity
2) Apollo (private equity firm) founder starts meeting with Jared Kushner
3) Kushner receives huge loan from Apollo
4) Trump reverses position on carried interest loophole
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
One thing that has struck me as very ironic, Obama was meant to be to - any moment now, he's just waiting for an excuse - going to unconstitutionally grab your guns, yet it is Trump that has gone on record saying he wants to unconstitutionally confiscate your guns and damn due process yet there isn't any signs (yet?) of a huge uproar about this gun grab.
Click to expand...

The Trump echo chamber r/The_Donald on Reddit is having a bit of a meltdown. They're very ban-happy but this particular event has led to them banning long time posters. You can get banned for approving of his comment because that means you want to take their guns, you can get banned for saying you disagree because you have to support our president... the only things you can say are "it's all part of his elaborate plan that will soon become clear" or "fake news".

It's... actually hilarious to watch.
 
So, Trump initially wanted to put tariffs on steel and aluminum. (Which of course could start a trade war that harms the U.S. economy, as well as increasing the cost of consumer goods.) That seems to be delayed, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in the white house:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/president-trump-will-announce-tariffs-at-meeting-thursday.html
The tariff issue has pit globalist elements of the White House, like chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, against more protectionist voices, like trade advisor Peter Navarro. The move not to announce trade actions Thursday reflects an ongoing disagreement between the Cohn wing and trade hawks like Navarro, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Last month, the Commerce Department recommended putting heavy tariffs or quotas on foreign producers of the metals. One of the possible options outlined in the report was a global tariff of 24 percent on steel imports.

On the other hand, despite many people wanting protectionist policies, they are also thinking of re-entering the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

From: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-trump-willing-to-negotiate-u-s-return-to-tpp
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday he had "begun to have very high-level conversations" on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and rejoining the regional trade pact is an option for President Donald Trump.

The fact that the Trump administration is still floundering and putting out mixed signals with regards to international trade can't be good for the economy, can it?
 
Segnosaur said:
The fact that the Trump administration is still floundering and putting out mixed signals with regards to international trade can't be good for the economy, can it?
Click to expand...


Depends. All he'll need to do is draw the US graph on top of the UK one and it'll look fantastic.
 
Coverage of Trump's meeting with steel and aluminum leaders and possible tariffs is all over the place. It looks like White House officials were trying to preempt Trump and say he wouldn't announce tariffs, but he actually did. I think?
 
Darat said:
This can't be true as no way would any decent and honest politician create dossiers of information on their political opponents.
Click to expand...

As much as I despise Trump, I got a felling this is SOP for any President, and a lot of other politicians as well. You always want to keep track of what the opposition is doing.
 
varwoche said:
The pace of events this week is truly breathtaking.

Jared was in hot water yesterday. As of last night, that water is scalding hot. We need a Jared thread.
Click to expand...

Jared deserves what he is going to get, but I am concerned this will fire up the Anti Semites.
 
LSSBB said:
jimbob said:
Indeed, I'd have thought that self-interest would make them abandon Trump. Nothing to do with the election, just that he's going to betray them on a whim.
Click to expand...

You can witness the mechanics of that on these very pages. Hyperpartisanship has replaced any kind of rationality. Gotta keep somehow tweaking the Libruls, while they have a nominal Republican in office. They feel either they can control him by running selected content on Fox News, or at some point Jesus will guide his hand. As if Jesus couldn't just guide Hillary's hand. Guess registering as a Democrat can stop Jesus.
Click to expand...


I can understand baiting liberuls. What I can't understand is being a political ally and thinking that Trump's not going to do you over when something doesn't go perfectly for him.
 
For whatever reason, Trump has the whole Republican Party tucked away in his back pocket, therefore Trump can do just about anything that he wants to do and the Republican leadership will quickly respond by licking it up and calling it ice cream.

Therefore, if Trump does actually get around to doing something that the NRA would hate if it were a President Clinton doing that something, then I expect that the NRA will love it since it is President Trump who the one who is doing that very same something.
 
Crossbow said:
For whatever reason, Trump has the whole Republican Party tucked away in his back pocket, therefore Trump can do just about anything that he wants to do and the Republican leadership will quickly respond by licking it up and calling it ice cream.

Therefore, if Trump does actually get around to doing something that the NRA would hate if it were a President Clinton doing that something, then I expect that the NRA will love it since it is President Trump who the one who is doing that very same something.
Click to expand...

There's also the problem with it not necessarily being a collision of values.

NRA has clear racist tendencies. If they hear "we're going to take away bad actors' guns" they may be nodding their heads, "yeah, the whole reason we have guns is to protect our white asses in the upcoming Race War - disarming negroes is completely aligned with NAR values."
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Been a member for years, and peruse their magazine monthly.

I personally have never picked up on any racist tendencies of the organization at large.

Do you have anything beyond a general perception on this?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's an accumulation of their responses over my lifetime of observing them. I say this as the owner of 5 sidearms.

I understand that gun ownership is not the equivalent of kookdom. But the NRA, my friend, is a death cult that does not represent its membership - they work for somebody else, not you. Just because they understand PR's role in normalizing doesn't mean they're not pandering to a more influential element and dragging your reputation through the mud along with it.

I'm reminded of Amway who had strict rules about how the sales strategy of accusing Proctor and Gamble of Satanism needed to be kept verbal. If they put it in their literature it'd be bad for PR.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Been a member for years, and peruse their magazine monthly.

I personally have never picked up on any racist tendencies of the organization at large.

Do you have anything beyond a general perception on this?
Click to expand...

I've not been a member, but I would ask, have they stood up to defend black people who were shot when they had guns?

For example, how visible were they when the black guy with a concealed carry permit was shot in his car by police? I don't remember hearing anything from the NRA defending him. I may have just missed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom