• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
You forget that, for Trump, l'état, c'est moi.
Click to expand...
More like après moi, le déluge.


angrysoba said:
I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a second and ask what is wrong with Trump pursuing background checks on people purchasing firearms?
Click to expand...
Consider that any law like that would inevitably be more harmful for minorities, perhaps.


a_unique_person said:
Looks like Trump will get a chance to weave his political magic again and nominate a judge for the Supreme Court that someone told him he should, and who will magically get approved by a compliant senate.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court justices can, and have been, impeached. Sad, though not at all surprising that not a hint of going after kegger Kavanaugh for lying under oath will ever be even whispered in the media (thus also proving that there is no leftist media in this country).
 
Looks like the Rasmussen conservatives got to him. Even after being convinced that an increased tariff would make him the Grinch That Killed Christmas and reversing himself, he still goes ahead with the tariffs? Not only is he in total panic mode, but he's so afraid of the hard right polls that he will do anything to appease the special interests. Just as he reversed himself on the agreement on the border because Coulter called him spineless, the America Firsters were polling at 9% "Disapproval". He announces his new **** China! program and they bounced to 2% approval. An 11 point swing in two days! Literally not possible with rolling/cumulative poll.

And for those that didn't work in supply chain, he just screwed over every retailer in the country. Christmas orders were on hold before he announced that he'd put off the tariffs to Save Christmas. They unleashed a torrent of them in the past few weeks as those goods have to be produced in Jul/Aug to ship in time for the season, particularly garments, toys and footwear. The US retailers are now on the hook for billions of dollars worth of goods that they will either take a loss on (if they "eat" the duty increases) or jack up the prices on.

A bleak shopping season will just fuel the concerns about the economy while he postures at the podium and shows how he just "made us" another hundred billion dollars off of China!
 
What has always concerned me the most seems like it's beginning to happen.
Roger Johnson, the president of the National Farmers Union, delivered a blistering rebuke to President Donald Trump...“Every time Trump escalates his trade war, China calls his bluff — and why would we expect any differently this time around?” he said...“But instead of looking to solve existing problems in our agricultural sector, this administration has just created new ones,” he said. “Between burning bridges with all of our biggest trading partners and undermining our domestic biofuels industry, President Trump is making things worse, not better.” News link
Click to expand...

How could anyone -- given Trump's disastrous business career -- NOT have seen this coming. Remember, his Atlantic City casinos looked real good at first. But eventually Trump lost everything. His strategy always turns out to be flawed. And he never learns. The owner of a manufacturing company I once worked for said this several years ago. "Okay he lost a lot of money. That happens in business. But Trump never seems able to draw any lessons from it. There's got to be something wrong with this guy."

And now he's our president. Doing to our nation what he did to the USFL. :(
 
The Atheist said:
G7 this year is going to be a blast. No wonder he wants his boss to re-join.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/115252305/trump-lashes-out-calls-chinas-xi-jinping-an-enemy
Click to expand...

And somehow I'm not that worried. I'm pretty sure most of the world doesn't take Trump seriously.

Trump trashing the economy is easily fixed by the 2020 election, unlike the real estate crash that happened because sleazy loan companies encouraged people to over extend themselves based on the real estate bubble.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
What? But aren’t the Democrats pushing for background checks?
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't think I've heard anyone raise the issue that it would hurt minorities more (though, it would prevent sales to convicted felons and minorities are overrepresented in that group).

The NRA opposes them. We do have background checks for most sales, but not for sales from individuals or at a gun show. The so-called gun show loophole gets a lot of attention, but I don't think it would do a damned thing to slow the mass shootings. I don't know that any of the shooters in the past several years have bought at a gun show (maybe the Vegas guy?) and I don't know how many of them would have been deterred by a background check.

Most Americans favor background checks. It's not at all clear to me how they're supposed to solve the rise in mass shootings.

I'm not saying that universal background checks wouldn't decrease deaths by gun, mind. I'm just saying that this topic comes up after every mass shooting as if it would reduce the number of these kinds of deaths and I don't see any obvious way it would have a substantial impact.

ETA: I see in the graphic in this article that experts regard background checks for gun buyers would be one of the most effective remedies to mass shootings. It doesn't explain how it would be effective.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Just spoke with President @JairBolsonaro of Brazil. Our future Trade prospects are very exciting and our relationship is strong, perhaps stronger than ever before. I told him if the United States can help with the Amazon Rainforest fires, we stand ready to assist!
Click to expand...
I'm sure Trump will be able to help. Starting fires is what he's best at.
 
phiwum said:
Yes. I don't think I've heard anyone raise the issue that it would hurt minorities more (though, it would prevent sales to convicted felons and minorities are overrepresented in that group).

The NRA opposes them. We do have background checks for most sales, but not for sales from individuals or at a gun show. The so-called gun show loophole gets a lot of attention, but I don't think it would do a damned thing to slow the mass shootings. I don't know that any of the shooters in the past several years have bought at a gun show (maybe the Vegas guy?) and I don't know how many of them would have been deterred by a background check.

Most Americans favor background checks. It's not at all clear to me how they're supposed to solve the rise in mass shootings.

I'm not saying that universal background checks wouldn't decrease deaths by gun, mind. I'm just saying that this topic comes up after every mass shooting as if it would reduce the number of these kinds of deaths and I don't see any obvious way it would have a substantial impact.

ETA: I see in the graphic in this article that experts regard background checks for gun buyers would be one of the most effective remedies to mass shootings. It doesn't explain how it would be effective.
Click to expand...

This may prove to be one of the few instances where Trump could be useful. If he pushes for universal background checks at least he may be able to talk the NRA round because he can’t be considered some kind of socialist-commie-SJW-insert-right-wing-talking-point here. Sometimes only people with the “credentials” or reputation that Trump has can get through to lunatics. Obama would have had no chance.
 
angrysoba said:
This may prove to be one of the few instances where Trump could be useful. If he pushes for universal background checks at least he may be able to talk the NRA round because he can’t be considered some kind of socialist-commie-SJW-insert-right-wing-talking-point here. Sometimes only people with the “credentials” or reputation that Trump has can get through to lunatics. Obama would have had no chance.
Click to expand...

But he's not pushing for universal background checks. He's talking about pushing for universal background checks, nothing more. He already backed down under NRA pressure and he's now positioning himself to take the NRA position, "Hey, look! We already have all these background checks. Mission accomplished."

The GOP has done everything in its power to defund mental health initiatives. Too much talk about mass shooters merely being people with a couple of loose screws and people are going to connect the dots and realize that nice old Mrs. Thompson, the guidance counselor at Bob Taft middle school may not have been the person qualified to be assessing mental health issues.

I've got five hundred baht burning a hole in my pocket that says he ultimately falls back on the popular Republican response... "See? We have enough regulations. We just need better enforcement."
 
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164914609180033026

As usual, the Fed did NOTHING! It is incredible that they can “speak” without knowing or asking what I am doing, which will be announced shortly. We have a very strong dollar and a very weak Fed. I will work “brilliantly” with both, and the U.S. will do great...

....My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?
Click to expand...

Jay Powell is an enemy of the United States? It must have been a real numpty who gave him that job, then. I wonder who that could be?
 
newyorkguy said:
What has always concerned me the most seems like it's beginning to happen.


How could anyone -- given Trump's disastrous business career -- NOT have seen this coming. Remember, his Atlantic City casinos looked real good at first. But eventually Trump lost everything. (
Click to expand...

The investors in Trump’s casinos lost everything, but did Trump, himself, lose money? When it was decided that the casinos needed to rent office space in NYC, they chose Trump Towers, where they paid full price. DJT sometimes siphons money out of a business he is running into the ground.
 
Tero said:
If Ruth Bader Ginsburg croaks, what are the chances of Democrats pulling off a MITCH with this and holding off any confirmation? Is there enough power in the Judiciary Committee?
Click to expand...

Zero. To pull a Mitch would require control of the Senate Majority Leader position, or the previous rules that he exploited to effectively force the Democrats to get rid of, given his strategy of total obstruction that he was and is gleefully engaging in.

Tero said:
Can they demand endless investigations like with Kavanaugh?
Click to expand...

...They didn't demand endless investigations with Kavanaugh in the first place?

They did demand that a whole lot of relevant documents be produced, yes, but only a tiny, tiny fraction of those that were pre-approved by the GOP were produced. There was the fact that Kavanaugh was heavily involved with stolen Democratic Party documents, too, and the outright perjury related to that, which honestly deserved more attention... much as that was probably more of a positive in the GOP Senators' opinions, given how strongly it proved that he was a partisan hack. There was the surprise sexual assault allegation, which the GOP and Trump Administration barely even gave a cursory glance and made clear that they wouldn't care about, even if true, and that heralded an outpouring of support for Kavanaugh from "conservatives"... after there had been a number of those "conservatives" who were previously a bit leery that maybe Kavanaugh wasn't enough of a scumbag for their liking. All that wasn't anywhere close to "endless investigation." Even if the GOP wasn't completely contemptuous of the legitimate concerns in play and didn't put party over country at every opportunity, it wouldn't have been endless.

dudalb said:
I predict that if the Dems get the White House and both houses of congress, we will see the Supreme court expanded by three or four seats...the FDR plan revived and this time it will pass.
Click to expand...

Only if they get a 60+ seat supermajority. Even if Moscow Mitch gets dumped, I would be surprised if another didn't rise to take his place, at this point, given who the GOP politicians actually answer to.

Upchurch said:
That's some small government conservatism, right there.
Click to expand...

It actually makes perfect sense, incidentally, when one understands that the GOP and their backers don't want a weak or small government. They want a strong government. One strong enough to suppress any and all dissidents.

Skeptic Ginger said:
And somehow I'm not that worried. I'm pretty sure most of the world doesn't take Trump seriously.
Click to expand...

Did they take Hitler seriously in the first couple years?

Skeptic Ginger said:
Trump trashing the economy is easily fixed by the 2020 election, unlike the real estate crash that happened because sleazy loan companies encouraged people to over extend themselves based on the real estate bubble.
Click to expand...

Easily fixed? I question that. Any political action is going to take time to manifest (even assuming that the GOP wouldn't continue the total obstruction tactics that they've been engaging in) and a lot of the tools to smooth things over have already been used up, last I heard. Then there's the loss of waaay too much talent in the federal government and quite a lot of deregulation that's letting the banks give out sleazy loans again anyways.

Anyways, moving on.

Justice Department goes out of its way to argue discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal

Yup. It filed briefs in cases that it had nothing to do with to try to say that discriminating against LGBT folk is great!
 
Last edited:
Trump Retweeted

Mark Meadows
@RepMarkMeadows
Andrew McCabe: fired for lying to the FBI, caught by the Inspector General for unauthorized media leaks, and—worst of all—one of the ring-leaders in spreading the debunked and disastrous "Russian collusion" conspiracy theory.
His reward? A paid CNN contract.
Comical.
 
Trump Tweeted

For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!
 
From the ACT:

Consultation with Congress
The President, in every possible instance, shall consult with the Congress BEFORE exercising any of the authorities granted by this chapter and shall consult regularly with the Congress so long as such authorities are exercised
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom