Nostalgia for the good old days of February
-
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
- Thread starter Locknar
- Start date
- Status
Nostalgia for the good old days of February
New director hardly means upheaval. There is no chance for meaningful discontinuity until a new director is selected, which could be years. And even then it remains plausible that the same forces will remain in power (since that microcosm has political factions independent of the national scene), so we could end up with Lee v. 2.0 ('...Now, with more quality echancement...') as the next director.
I don't
Dues to a lack of GOP spine, I reckon Trump will serve at least one full term.
I don't
Dues to a lack of GOP spine, I reckon Trump will serve at least one full term.
The 2018 midterms are going to be interesting. Trump can barely accomplish anything with a GOP house and senate. What happens if one, most likely the house, flips? Until then Trump can commit all the high crimes he wants since the GOP will let him do anything in order to cut taxes for the rich.
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
I don't
Dues to a lack of GOP spine, I reckon Trump will serve at least one full term.
At this point, I was thinking more of "Resignation" than "Impeachment". Although I believe PDJT would come up with a weasel reason other than "resign".
"I want to spend more time with the Family"?
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I think he has a point, but now is not the time for it. Even when Trump might be right, he screws it up.
My guess is that Gerrymandering will see the House safe for the GOP and electoral maths is against the Democratic Party in the Senate.
In any case, if I was the Democratic Party I'd want Trump to continue on to 2020 and more elections.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
It's more complicated, see the Qatar thread in the non-USA politics forum.
The Saudis might be behind Trump (not the Tweets per se). They want to manipulate Trump to back to their side against Qatar or something like that.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I have been in court professionally and personally (no, only as a witness, not the defendant) and the lawyers always, always tell you not to run your mouth at max. All one is doing is giving the opposition material. Stick to the facts, answer yes or no as far as possible and do not provide the opposition with ammunition.
Trump must be a lawyers worst nightmare.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
No, just no. The 4 musketeers in today's hearing all refused to state that Trump had not asked them to quash the investigation or try to influence Comey. Nor would they say what Comey said to them. They covered their asses saying they never 'felt' pressured. They refused to say if they had any written records and could not cite any law that prevented them from testifying.
It didn't go unnoticed by the Senators or the US MSM.
If the BBC thinks it was a nothing burger, they need a new restaurant reviewer.
Last edited:
Historically, yes, but the biggest terrorism threats recently have been Al Quaeda and ISIL, both of which hate Iran possibly more than they hate the West.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
snoop_doxie
Graduate Poster
And doesn't pay.
I was watching one of the cable news networks and one of the talking heads said:
"He is the worst client; he doesn't listen AND he doesn't pay."
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
One optimistic POV is that by gerrymandering, the GOP had to give up wide margins of safety. They do have some vulnerability.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,948
I don't think so. Iran could be the most peaceloving country; as long as they are not following a kind of medieval Sunni radicalism, they are a target for the IS. As is Belgium, for example. Denmark.
snoop_doxie
Graduate Poster
Could you explain the highlighted?
I understand gerrymandering, but the vulnerability to the GOP, not so much.
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
Shhh. Trump still doesn't know it's there.
Probably because he's Googling "Quatar".
"Who knew that you could have a 'q' word without a 'u' in it? SO WRONG."
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
It's because gerrymandering doesn't always create huge party majorities; it's usually used to create majorities just big enough to swing elections. While that can all but guarantee election for a particular party's candidate, it's only going to be consistently effective in the absence of what the voting public might perceive as big controversies. This is because even in our politically polarized political climate, there are still going to be people who cross party lines with their votes given a compelling reason to do so.
- Status