The Trump Presidency: Part 18

[thaiboxerken]

And to add to The Don's analysis, Trumpublicans will cheat bigger than they did last time to steal the election using foreign aid from Russia and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Aridas]

I can't imagine why that's the case, but to each their own. People can simultaneously condemn Trump vocally and support veterans. The two aren't tied together by any means, and it sounds like they just did it while he was on stage. They didn't interrupt the actual parade at all.

Given the way Trump's handled veteran affairs, condemning Trump can be regarded as a well warranted part of supporting veterans, for that matter.

For that matter...

'Forever indebted' no more, Trump administration will end Fillipino veterans program

Yeah, the support for veterans is overwhelming, in a certain sense.

Anyways, to poke at a couple other things...

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman to be removed from National Security Council

I don't think I saw this poked at yet here. It's obvious retaliation for not being loyal to the death in his attempts to defend Trump from the consequences of his own actions, of course.

Republican congressman says you can't impeach Trump because everyone knows he's crooked

Thornberry admits it was inappropriate for Trump to pressure a foreign country for political smears, but not impeachable because Trump does it all the time.

“Not really anything the President said in that phone call that’s different from what he says in public all the time.”

That's... an interesting defense. If you consistently show that you're horrendously corrupt and criminal, no one is allowed to actually take action to stop you if they didn't do so at the very beginning. Uh huh.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Why is such a focus put on 2nd and 3rd hand witnesses, many of whom are Never Trumpers, or whose lawyers are Never Trumpers, when all you have to do is read the phone call (transcript) with the Ukrainian President and see first hand? He and others also stated that there was.....

.....”no pressure” put on him to investigate Sleepy Joe Biden even though, as President, I have an “obligation” to look into corruption, and Biden’s actions, on tape, about firing the prosecutor, and his son’s taking millions of dollars, with no knowledge or talent, from a.....

....Ukrainian energy company, and more millions taken from China, and now reports of other companies and countries also giving him big money, are certainly looking very corrupt (to put it mildly!) to me. Both Bidens should be forced to testify in this No Due Process Scam!

I will be releasing the transcript of the first, and therefore more important, phone call with the Ukrainian President before week’s end!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from “angels.” Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!

 

[Belz...]

Trump Tweets

Why is such a focus put on 2nd and 3rd hand witnesses, many of whom are Never Trumpers, or whose lawyers are Never Trumpers, when all you have to do is read the phone call (transcript) with the Ukrainian President and see first hand?

I wonder if Trump really thinks there's nothing wrong in that phone call transcript, or if he thinks there is, and that he can gaslight the entire world about it.

Both would be in-character.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if Trump really thinks there's nothing wrong in that phone call transcript, or if he thinks there is, and that he can gaslight the entire world about it.

Both would be in-character.

What's really weird is that it could be both. The insane can believe contradictory things at the same time.

 

[Belz...]

What's really weird is that it could be both. The insane can believe contradictory things at the same time.

I didn't do it but if I did it isn't wrong but if it is everybody else does it anyway and if not it's someone else's fault.

 

[TofuFighter]

Unless there is a significant economic downturn before the election, I think President Trump's reelection prospects are comfortably more than 50% because:

• Incumbents tend to get reelected unless something exceptional happens during their tenure and/or they are running against an exceptional candidate
• President Trump's support is more or less exactly where it was when he was elected
• The Democratic candidates are old and relatively uninspiring IMO
• The Republicans are making extraordinary efforts to try as suppress the Democratic Party vote
• Left-leaning third party candidates will poach support from the Democratic Party

It's quite possible that he'll lose the popular vote by an even wider margin and get a lower proportion of the vote, and still come out victorious - not least because in the key states, the GOP controls the election process.

Maybe, but...

• Incumbents do tend to get reelected, but this is far from a normal incumbent. Everything about this presidency is abnormal. The incumbent governor of Kentucky was not re-elected under these circumstances. I don't think that saying "he was a troubled candidate", which was the go-to line in the media, is a valid way of differentiating his position from trump's.
• Is trump's support the same? I have my doubts. What do you base this on?
• Dem candidates are arguably problematic, but not so problematic as the shrill, uncharismatic Hillary with the bad baggage, whether deserved or not, she carried into the 2016 election, her 'deplorable' faux pas, and the untimely announcement from Comey. Is Michael Bloomberg actually going to dive in?
• As they do, but I feel trump is undoing all of that by constantly trolling 'the left'.
• I haven't checked third party candidates, but on that note:
• Republican primary challengers Sanford, Walsh and Weld may or may not eventually complete their run, but they may also get a few Republican voters thinking about what they are doing

I'll state, for the record, that i was utterly wrong about 2016. People in South Africa pay a certain amount of attention, but in general are not that well versed in the goings on of US politics. Still, we get the headlines and the news on CNN/BBC etc. The lady in the office next to me asked whether trump could win, and i point blank said that could not happen. "They're not going to vote for a rank racist ******* to be their president"

As such, my initial reaction to the election result was (a) ok, so the USA is much more racist than I thought. (b) I am now utterly unsure about making predictions about their politics. I'm not really sure either of those two have changed much, but here I am making predictions again.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I didn't do it but if I did it isn't wrong but if it is everybody else does it anyway and if not it's someone else's fault.

It's more like "I didn't do it, and when I did it, it wasn't wrong, but I didn't do it, but I made the right choice by doing it...."

 

[Armitage72]

Federal contract funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars to Trump allies.

At least eight former White House, presidential transition and campaign officials for President Donald Trump were hired as outside contractors to the federal health department at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, according to documents newly obtained by POLITICO.

They were among at least 40 consultants who worked on a one-year, $2.25 million contract directed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma. The contractors were hired to burnish Verma’s personal brand and provide “strategic communications” support. They charged up to $380 per hour for work traditionally handled by dozens of career civil servants in CMS's communications department.

The arrangement allowed the Trump allies to cycle through the federal government's opaque contracting system, charging hefty fees with little public oversight or accountability.

Running the country like a business. It just happens to be a corrupt business, like all of his others.

 

[The Don]

Is trump's support the same? I have my doubts. What do you base this on?

If you believe the polls, yes it is. They take a small dip after each crisis/gaffe/revelation but in 2-3 weeks recover to 40% support overall and 90%+ among Republicans.

Dem candidates are arguably problematic, but not so problematic as the shrill, uncharismatic Hillary with the bad baggage, whether deserved or not, she carried into the 2016 election, her 'deplorable' faux pas, and the untimely announcement from Comey. Is Michael Bloomberg actually going to dive in?

The two successful Democratic Presidential candidates in the last 50 years have been "rock stars" with charisma to spare. The unsuccessful ones (Gore, Dukakis, Hillary and so on) tend to competent administrators but lacking in va-va-voom. If I look at the field of Democratic challengers they mostly fall into that latter category.

Michael Bloomberg would be a disaster, an ancient white male billionaire who doesn't seem to be able to decide whether he's a Democrat, Republican or Independent. President Trump and the GOP would have a field day with him.

As they do, but I feel trump is undoing all of that by constantly trolling 'the left'.

I think that President Trump is winding up his base nicely and the repeated lies may eventually sway some of the low information undecided voters out there.

I haven't checked third party candidates, but on that note:

Republican primary challengers Sanford, Walsh and Weld may or may not eventually complete their run, but they may also get a few Republican voters thinking about what they are doing

IMO GOP challengers are sound and fury signifying nothing.

OTOH an uninspiring enough Democratic Party candidate could either get disenchanted left wingers staying at home or voting Green - it doesn't take many votes in swing states.

 

[Trebuchet]

"Quid Pro Quo". You can't go five minutes on the news without hearing it. I'm really tired of it. And you know what? I think Trump's right. There wasn't one.
"Quid Pro Quo" as I understand it is basically "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." That's not what happened.
It's not bribery either, where you are given something of value to do something for someone.
Nor is it blackmail, which is "I saw you with your girlfriend, give me money or I'll tell your wife."
It's extortion, plain and simple. "Nice country you got there, shame if something happened to it."

 

[The Greater Fool]

"Quid Pro Quo". You can't go five minutes on the news without hearing it. I'm really tired of it. And you know what? I think Trump's right. There wasn't one.
"Quid Pro Quo" as I understand it is basically "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." That's not what happened.
It's not bribery either, where you are given something of value to do something for someone.
Nor is it blackmail, which is "I saw you with your girlfriend, give me money or I'll tell your wife."
It's extortion, plain and simple. "Nice country you got there, shame if something happened to it."

Extortion is a type of quid pro quo.
You give me money, you get to keep what you have.
This for that.

 

[varwoche]

You get your aid, though only if you dig up dirt on Biden.

No quid pro quo?! How much more clearly does it need to be stated?

 

[acbytesla]

"Quid Pro Quo". You can't go five minutes on the news without hearing it. I'm really tired of it. And you know what? I think Trump's right. There wasn't one.
"Quid Pro Quo" as I understand it is basically "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." That's not what happened.
It's not bribery either, where you are given something of value to do something for someone.
Nor is it blackmail, which is "I saw you with your girlfriend, give me money or I'll tell your wife."
It's extortion, plain and simple. "Nice country you got there, shame if something happened to it."

It's all of that. Quid pro quo simply means "this" for "that". A sale is a quid pro quo. A barter is a quid pro quo. A bribe is a quid pro quo. Extortion in all it's forms is a quid pro quo. I won't tell your husband you slept with me if we have a threesome with your girlfriend, is a quid pro quo.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have got so frustrated and sick with his lying and contemptuous nature and the way other political figures supposedly with some level of intelligence fawn all over him. The only way to cope now is to give thanks he's not my president and laugh about the absurdity of it all.

I must confess I come to US Politics to escape the absurdity of UK politics. One slight ray of light over here : Corbyn seems to have twigged that his best weapon is "Vote Johnson, get Trump". From bus-stop conversations and the like I've found the universal reaction to Trump is "There's something very wrong with that guy". Sadly, too many people don't recognise that the same things are wrong with Johnson, with just a slight difference in scale.

 

[Trebuchet]

Ok, I'll accept it's a quid pro quo. But I like "extortion" better.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ok, I'll accept it's a quid pro quo. But I like "extortion" better.

A very loaded word, and yes, entirely appropriate.

 

[acbytesla]

Ok, I'll accept it's a quid pro quo. But I like "extortion" better.

Me too. Quid pro quo sounds weird.

But it's been Trump and the GOP apologists that kept up the argument that it was never a "this for that" scenario. Every single argument that the Republicans have made has crumbled against the facts. Remember this one? The Ukrainians didn't even know the aid was being held up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Republican congressman says you can't impeach Trump because everyone knows he's crooked

That's... an interesting defense. If you consistently show that you're horrendously corrupt and criminal, no one is allowed to actually take action to stop you if they didn't do so at the very beginning. Uh huh.

That makes more than one Republican who has conceded:

“It is inappropriate for a president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival,”

Kennedy was the other.

It's a start.