Cont: The Trump Presidency 11: Insert something funny

[Trebuchet]

Surely the current president of the USA would be expected to publicly speak at the public service of a past POTUS? Especially given that Trump and Bush are republican presidents?

His family would certainly have the final word.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Uh, take a gander at Bill Clinton’s speakingfees while his wife was SoS?

You’ll **** yourself.

Unless you're claiming that that is either treason or conspiracy to defraud the US (and if you are, I'd love to hear your reasoning), then can you explain what relevance this has to what's being discussed? It seems like pure whataboutism, but hopefully you can offer a reasonable explanation for how it's not.

 

[wareyin]

That is a serious crime. How do the kids feel about it? If any of them has a long-simmering grudge against dear old Dad, he/she could get him locked up.

I agree, and find it quite surprising that he brags about it. I get the impression that his children either aren't interested in voting, or have been browbeaten into letting him do what he wants. I've never met them, so I have no idea their actual feelings on the matter.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Classic. And pictures speak louder than words.

IF anything, this proves that Trump deserves to to be President: Ben Carson didn't even understand that he had to get out from behind the curtain!

 

[The Big Dog]

Unless you're claiming that that is either treason or conspiracy to defraud the US (and if you are, I'd love to hear your reasoning), then can you explain what relevance this has to what's being discussed? It seems like pure whataboutism, but hopefully you can offer a reasonable explanation for how it's not.

Hi! I am afraid that I am going to have to insist that you read the entire post to which I was replying, particularly the second sentence.

 

[CapelDodger]

Surely the current president of the USA would be expected to publicly speak at the public service of a past POTUS? Especially given that Trump and Bush are republican presidents?

I'm not expecting it myself.

 

[CapelDodger]

His family would certainly have the final word.

Which is, of course, why I'm not expecting it.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Which is, of course, why I'm not expecting it.

My suspicion is they would much rather expect Trump not to attend. They may be Republican but they are definitely no fans of Trump in any way, shape or form.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Has anyone compared them to the red aliens in Sesame Street yet?

Yeah, somewhere...

 

[alfaniner]

BREAKING NEWS
"Former President George H. W. Bush will lie in state at the Capitol.
Current President Donald J. Trump will lie no matter where he is."

 

[acbytesla]

True, it's like there needs to be something between Conspiracy to Defraud the USA, and Treason. But seriously, until now who would have thought that any President of the US would sell out the country for his own profit?

The Founding Fathers. See the Emoluments Clause.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Uh, take a gander at Bill Clinton’s speakingfees while his wife was SoS?

You’ll **** yourself.

Why? Do you think that his speaking fees had something to do with her position as SoS rather than his position as the 42nd President of the US? After all, he was charging the same sorts of fees prior to her position as SoS and afterwards. Or do you just have an issue with people charging speaking fees? If so, do remember that DJT charged over a million for speaking at a Real Estate Convention in Florida a few years back.

 

[acbytesla]

Why? Do you think that his speaking fees had something to do with her position as SoS rather than his position as the 42nd President of the US? After all, he was charging the same sorts of fees prior to her position as SoS and afterwards. Or do you just have an issue with people charging speaking fees? If so, do remember that DJT charged over a million for speaking at a Real Estate Convention in Florida a few years back.

Ex Presidents have always been able to command exorbitant speaking fees. This is not news. Hillary spoke a bit about this in one of her books. When Bill and Hillary left the WH they were millions in debt. And they were in the black after one year. And keep in mind that at that time Hillary wasn't yet a US Senator.

 

[phiwum]

The Founding Fathers. See the Emoluments Clause.

Pretty plausible, I genuinely think, but there's an argument to be made

Being paid for services isn't an obvious emolument.

Like I said, I think it's a serious issue, but not a slam dunk. I think, with my limited knowledge, that the founding fathers wanted to exclude this sort of conflict of interest. But I also think that it's not quite so clear.

 

[acbytesla]

Pretty plausible, I genuinely think, but there's an argument to be made

Being paid for services isn't an obvious emolument.

Like I said, I think it's a serious issue, but not a slam dunk. I think, with my limited knowledge, that the founding fathers wanted to exclude this sort of conflict of interest. But I also think that it's not quite so clear.

I think it's more than clear. The US was a new nation with ties to European powers. The idea of American leaders being bought by King George or Napoleon was a major concern.

For the Founders, public corruption wasn’t just a theoretical danger. They viewed it as the primary threat to their independence. Living in a small, fledgling country, the Americans feared that the European powers would seize control of the American democracy by flattering and bribing our officials.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...peached-trump-in-a-new-york-minute-2018-08-10

 

[phiwum]

I think it's more than clear. The US was a new nation with ties to European powers. The idea of American leaders being bought by King George or Napoleon was a major concern.

Right, but it's not obvious that paying for services rendered is an emolument.

In any case, it doesn't matter when the Republicans own the Senate.

Again, I'm sympathetic with your claim but the Senate will require a clearer argument than that. It's going to take spine.

 

[Aridas]

Well, now that we've had a blue wave... It's time for Republicans to just keep making it clear that their party needs to perform some serious introspection and self-cleaning. In this case, we've got another Senate Republican threatening violence if Democrats don't get onboard with sabotaging the government.

Lee warned that the only way Democrats can avert violence is if they end their support for a long list of federal programs, agencies, and departments that also happen to be on the Koch brothers hit list going back three decades. Just a sampling of what Democrats have to willingly help eliminate to stave off a violent civil war according to Lee includes, but is not limited to: The interstate highway system, funding for K-12 public education, federal higher education accreditation, early childhood education, the Department of Commerce, housing policy, workforce regulations, and what the typically-Mormon Lee labeled the illegal “huge glut of federally owned land.”

Lee also believes that federal child labor laws, Social Security, and Medicare are patently unconstitutional. According to his mind, the only means of avoiding civil war is ignoring that part of the Constitution granting authority to Congress to appropriate funds for the general welfare and establishes the federal government as a legitimate governing entity.

Lee claimed that opposition to conservative policies, such as eliminating the federal government, is what he called “angry political rhetoric driving our politics toward violence,” stating emphatically::

“Ultimately, this will come down to a binary choice: federalism or violence.”

In somewhat separate news, it looks like we finally have some numbers on the effectiveness of voter ID laws, as such applied to the 2016 elections in NC!

For years, Republicans in North Carolina have alleged that in-person fraudulent voting is widespread while Democrats have said it is non-existent. But no one knew for sure, leaving the two sides talking past each other on voter ID.

On Friday, the State Board of Elections released the results of an extensive, objective audit of the 2016 election. It found that 4,769,640 votes were cast in November and that one (1) would probably have been avoided with a voter ID law. One out of nearly 4.8 million.

When a federal appeals court threw out North Carolina’s restrictive voting law last summer, saying it targeted black voters “with almost surgical precision,” Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore panned the judges and questioned their motives.

1 in roughly 5 million! Effective and urgently needed, eh?

With that said, there were also numbers for the votes that it found were cast by ineligible voters.

That said, all North Carolinians should value the integrity of our elections. The legislature and the Board of Elections must walk a fine line, doing nothing to discourage legitimate voters while doing their best to eliminate ineligible voting.

The Board’s investigation is helpful toward that end. It found 508 ineligible votes cast. About 87 percent of those (441) were felons who voted. State law prohibits felons from voting until their sentence is fully served, including probation and parole. It is believed that many of the felons who voted did not realize they could not vote while on probation.

The probe found 41 non-citizens, from 28 countries, voted. All were here legally, but were not eligible to vote. The audit also found 24 cases of double-voting and two cases of voter impersonation (one by mail and one in person).

The Board of Elections announced it is taking steps to address these problems.

508. Republican voter laws! Good for securing our elections against less than 0.2% of ineligible votes.

 

[acbytesla]

Right, but it's not obvious that paying for services rendered is an emolument.
In any case, it doesn't matter when the Republicans own the Senate.

Again, I'm sympathetic with your claim but the Senate will require a clearer argument than that. It's going to take spine.

Of course it is. POTUS works for the citizens of the United States. Playing games as to why he is receiving income from abroad while President can only leave Americans wondering who the President is working for. There is a reason why previous Presidents have put their finances in a private trust while they are in office. That Trump deliberately blasted a hole in that precedent should have been met with serious push-back.

 

[Ladewig]

Right, but it's not obvious that paying for services rendered is an emolument.

I suspect that the easiest way to make that determination would be to look at the bo9ks and see how much each country pays and how many services are delivered at Trump properties.

Of course, the president has absolutely no desire to open his books to show that he is not making absurdly large profits from certain countries. And that he is not making absurdly large profits from renting rooms to USSS agents who stay at Mar-a-Lago.

Any normal president would happily open the books in such a setting but not our president. It’s just one more ****-you that the president is throwing at the American public.

 

[alfaniner]

The PDJT must be close to final meltdown mode. No tweets for over 24 hours (except for the Happy Hanukkah obviously written by a staff member.)