The Trump Presidency

[newyorkguy]

I would actually prefer to see Trump serve out his four years and then in 2020 we elect a decent person to the presidency. I'm actually more afraid of Pence; he's a lot smarter and more competent. I don't want him in the White House because I think he is much more likely to accomplish a lot of the agenda: reduce people's healthcare, funnel tax relief to the wealthy and the corporations while those of us in the middle make up the difference by having the programs that help us get cut. Find ways to allow discrimination against gays, end the DoJ's efforts to get some police departments to better respect people's civil rights, beef up what is already the biggest military in the world while cutting funding for things like education, libraries and recreation programs. And criminalize abortion.

 

[The Don]

I would actually prefer to see Trump serve out his four years and then in 2020 we elect a decent person to the presidency.

The trouble is that, IMO, if Trump makes it to the end of his term then there's a high probability that he will be re-elected. Not only will be enjoy the locked-in support of 40%+ of the electorate but IMO it's likely that people will be enjoying their tax cuts before they are too badly hit by losing their healthcare or spiraling deficit.

It'll also mean that he's done nothing indictable or the GOP have chosen not to indict him. Either way President Trump's behaviour will by then by normalised.

 

[Stacko]

The trouble is that, IMO, if Trump makes it to the end of his term then there's a high probability that he will be re-elected. Not only will be enjoy the locked-in support of 40%+ of the electorate but IMO it's likely that people will be enjoying their tax cuts before they are too badly hit by losing their healthcare or spiraling deficit.

It'll also mean that he's done nothing indictable or the GOP have chosen not to indict him. Either way President Trump's behaviour will by then by normalised.

The top 0.1% - 1% of income earners isn't a large voting block. Everyone else is getting nothing or increases under his proposed plan.

 

[acbytesla]

I would actually prefer to see Trump serve out his four years and then in 2020 we elect a decent person to the presidency. I'm actually more afraid of Pence; he's a lot smarter and more competent. I don't want him in the White House because I think he is much more likely to accomplish a lot of the agenda: reduce people's healthcare, funnel tax relief to the wealthy and the corporations while those of us in the middle make up the difference by having the programs that help us get cut. Find ways to allow discrimination against gays, end the DoJ's efforts to get some police departments to better respect people's civil rights, beef up what is already the biggest military in the world while cutting funding for things like education, libraries and recreation programs. And criminalize abortion.

If it were only that simple. In many ways I agree. But I trust Pence far more when it comes to dealing with an international or any crises for that matter. Pence's positions on women and Gays and religious liberty is archaic. But Pence probably has far more respect for the Constitution and democratic principles. With Trump, I'm genuinely afraid the Republic will not survive or worse.

 

[phiwum]

A strong claim and not just speculation as I described it ealier. Going to be heroes or end up with a lot of egg on faces.

Prior to impeachment, much less removal, of the President and top two successors, Hatch is getting security briefings? Nonsense. Who would decide this? On what ground?

Honestly, this just sounds like total ********.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Prior to impeachment, much less removal, of the President and top two successors, Hatch is getting security briefings? Nonsense. Who would decide this? On what ground?

Honestly, this just sounds like total ********.

Would only be happening if action was imminent.

 

[phiwum]

It'll also mean that he's done nothing indictable or the GOP have chosen not to indict him. Either way President Trump's behaviour will by then by normalised.

I think that's a great point. While ousting a sitting president would be a significant event with the potential for even more division thereafter, normalizing Trump's behavior as president is arguably worse. A removal would send a message about this incompetence, ignorance and utter disregard for ethics and decorum.

 

[phiwum]

Would only be happening if action was imminent.

Assuming that it legally could happen as the article claims, the action you refer to requires that the Republican-held House impeach Trump and the Republican-held Senate vote to remove him. The latter I can see, but the former is not so obvious even if the evidence is quite strong.

So, you're willing to buy that someone (not a cabinet official, I would guess) has decided that impeachment will occur so soon, followed quite quickly by removal, not only for Trump, but also for Pence and Ryan, that Hatch ought to get security briefings. Some noble person or group is so clear in their vision of what will happen in the House and Senate that this is the only reasonable thing to do and totally legal and everything.

(Honestly, it might be legal. I don't know about that. I presume that Hatch has the appropriate security clearances.)

 

[acbytesla]

Assuming that it legally could happen as the article claims, the action you refer to requires that the Republican-held House impeach Trump and the Republican-held Senate vote to remove him. The latter I can see, but the former is not so obvious even if the evidence is quite strong.

So, you're willing to buy that someone (not a cabinet official, I would guess) has decided that impeachment will occur so soon, followed quite quickly by removal, not only for Trump, but also for Pence and Ryan, that Hatch ought to get security briefings. Some noble person or group is so clear in their vision of what will happen in the House and Senate that this is the only reasonable thing to do and totally legal and everything.

(Honestly, it might be legal. I don't know about that. I presume that Hatch has the appropriate security clearances.)

This is all nonsense. Congress can't make a pot of coffee without 3 committee meetings. In 1973 it took about a year after they discovered their were tapes in the White House before they were produced and the full extent of their corruption was exposed and weeks later the house still hadn't voted for Impeachment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

agreed

Comparing Nixon's corruption to Trump's, one has to look at the contrasts, not just the comparisons.

Fareed Zakaria on his program this morning offered some insight. Essentially Nixon had a more influential cabinet around him. They successfully refused some of Nixon's drunken and/or more corrupt orders. Nixon understood politics, he understood the job, he was competent.

Trump's presidency is framed around his narcissism. He is irrational and incompetent all the time instead of just when he is drunk. He has surrounded himself with people who cannot intervene, if they could, Trump wouldn't have them around him in the first place.

It's hard to compare the two men.

Then you have to look at the Republican Congress and other aspects of Trump's Cabinet. There was no massacre on Tuesday because no one resigned in protest of Comey's firing. The Republicans in Congress are in denial, perhaps also believing the Russia mess will go away the same way Trump thinks he can fire the people who keep looking into it. Perhaps they don't care as long as they believe they can accomplish their own goals.

Nixon spied on his political enemies. Trump is trying to quash enemies (real or perceived) who are looking into Trump's criminal acts. Nixon's goal was always political power. Trump's goal is adulation of himself.

Which is worse? It depends on what you measure by: Corruption resulting in personal financial gain (Trump) or political gain (Nixon)? 55,000 American deaths in Vietnam, for nothing? Breakdown of our democratic processes?

Bernstein is weighing in on CNN that the breakdown of democracy is more dangerous. Given the additional problems, we are in the era of unreliable information, people are even more gullible, marketing techniques are more sophisticated, he may be right.

 

[TraneWreck]

For some of us, the ambition is to be a nation of laws; for others, a nation of lols.

Lol
Your side is totally lawless and shows it daily. But of course you don't have the honesty to admit it.

It's always nice when someone delivers.

 

[acbytesla]

Comparing Nixon's corruption to Trump's, one has to look at the contrasts, not just the comparisons.

Fareed Zakaria on his program this morning offered some insight. Essentially Nixon had a more influential cabinet around him. They successfully refused some of Nixon's drunken and/or more corrupt orders. Nixon understood politics, he understood the job, he was competent.

Trump's presidency is framed around his narcissism. He is irrational and incompetent all the time instead of just when he is drunk. He has surrounded himself with people who cannot intervene, if they could, Trump wouldn't have them around him in the first place.

It's hard to compare the two men.

Then you have to look at the Republican Congress and other aspects of Trump's Cabinet. There was no massacre on Tuesday because no one resigned in protest of Comey's firing. The Republicans in Congress are in denial, perhaps also believing the Russia mess will go away the same way Trump thinks he can fire the people who keep looking into it. Perhaps they don't care as long as they believe they can accomplish their own goals.

Nixon spied on his political enemies. Trump is trying to quash enemies (real or perceived) who are looking into Trump's criminal acts. Nixon's goal was always political power. Trump's goal is adulation of himself.

Which is worse? It depends on what you measure by: Corruption resulting in personal financial gain (Trump) or political gain (Nixon)? 55,000 American deaths in Vietnam, for nothing? Breakdown of our democratic processes?

Bernstein is weighing in on CNN that the breakdown of democracy is more dangerous. Given the additional problems, we are in the era of unreliable information, people are even more gullible, marketing techniques are more sophisticated, he may be right.

I don't disagree with any of this. Nixon wasn't dumb and he wasn't ignorant. In fact he was something of a wonk. He was far more competent and he hired staff that could and did disagree with him. Nobody gets to that position without an ego an Nixon absolutely thought highly of himself. Nixon didn't just spy on his enemies. He played nasty tricks and didn't think twice about quashing them. He was very often dark morose and paranoid. He kept an enemies list.

I think Trump can be far more charming and personable than Nixon ever could. Trump and Nixon are very little alike with the exception of following the rules. They dont think they apply to them.

 

[TraneWreck]

Comparing Nixon's corruption to Trump's, one has to look at the contrasts, not just the comparisons.

[...]

Bernstein is weighing in on CNN that the breakdown of democracy is more dangerous. Given the additional problems, we are in the era of unreliable information, people are even more gullible, marketing techniques are more sophisticated, he may be right.

All great points.

The other thing that separates Trump is that he has a really long track record of actually corrupt and illegal business practices.

Set aside the links to the Russian mafia, which are going to come to light, before he announced, he paid a $10 million fine for not establishing money laundering procedures at some of his casinos.

Let's recall that Whitewater was a deal where 4 people borrowed $200,000 to buy land and lost money on the deal. The list of corrupt and illegal **** that has been litigated is incredible - racial discrimination suits, Trump University...

 

[acbytesla]

Comparing Nixon's corruption to Trump's, one has to look at the contrasts, not just the comparisons.

Fareed Zakaria on his program this morning offered some insight. Essentially Nixon had a more influential cabinet around him. They successfully refused some of Nixon's drunken and/or more corrupt orders. Nixon understood politics, he understood the job, he was competent.

Trump's presidency is framed around his narcissism. He is irrational and incompetent all the time instead of just when he is drunk. He has surrounded himself with people who cannot intervene, if they could, Trump wouldn't have them around him in the first place.

It's hard to compare the two men.

Then you have to look at the Republican Congress and other aspects of Trump's Cabinet. There was no massacre on Tuesday because no one resigned in protest of Comey's firing. The Republicans in Congress are in denial, perhaps also believing the Russia mess will go away the same way Trump thinks he can fire the people who keep looking into it. Perhaps they don't care as long as they believe they can accomplish their own goals.

Nixon spied on his political enemies. Trump is trying to quash enemies (real or perceived) who are looking into Trump's criminal acts. Nixon's goal was always political power. Trump's goal is adulation of himself.

Which is worse? It depends on what you measure by: Corruption resulting in personal financial gain (Trump) or political gain (Nixon)? 55,000 American deaths in Vietnam, for nothing? Breakdown of our democratic processes?

Bernstein is weighing in on CNN that the breakdown of democracy is more dangerous. Given the additional problems, we are in the era of unreliable information, people are even more gullible, marketing techniques are more sophisticated, he may be right.

I don't disagree with any of this. Nixon wasn't dumb and he wasn't ignorant. In fact he was something of a wonk. He was far more competent and he hired staff that could and did disagree with him. Nobody gets to that position without an ego an Nixon absolutely thought highly of himself. Nixon was paranoid and didn't just spy on his enemies, he kept a list. And didn't think twice about squashing them.

I think Trump can be far more charming and personable than Nixon ever could. Trump and Nixon are very little alike with the exception of following the rules. They dont think they apply to them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The claim is that he was recorded talking about Russians washing money into the GOP.

ETA: read this if you want to know what they are saying about it:
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/13...ded-may-9th-hatch-getting-security-briefings/

That reads like a left wing version of Alex Jones.

And of course they ask for donations multiple times.

 

[Stacko]

That reads like a left wing version of Alex Jones.

Why would Orin Hatch be boning up on POTUS preparedness?

And of course they ask for donations multiple times.

Louise Mensch runs it. It's not left-wing just conspiracy driven and virulently anti-Putin .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Following a bit of web surfing on the cred of Patribotics, I found this interesting tidbit on Kos:

Louise Mensch is not a Nutter, and she may be the reason why Biglygate is big-league

The online magazine Slate had published an article at the end of October about mysterious pings that had been detected between a Russian bank, Alfa, and a server connected to the Trump organisation, but the New York Times quoted FBI officials as saying they had looked into it and decided there “there could be an innocuous explanation” for the computer contacts.

Two months later, however, the BBC put out a story echoing Mensch’s original report about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court warrant issued in October to allow the justice department to look into transfers and communications between the Russian banks and Trump associate – and that US intelligence agencies were investigating the link.
The Guardian separately confirmed the original request for a Fisa warrant, which had been turned down earlier in the summer, and former officials said they believed that the Mensch and BBC account of the Fisa warrants was correct.

Supposedly some direct evidence of Russian banks pouring money into the Trump campaign.

 

[zorro99]

Glancing at the other headlines on the home page, I'm thinking this is not a particularly reliable site. More of a left-wing version of fake news.

Infowars isn't a reliable site either but that doesn't matter if people believe it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Supposedly some direct evidence of Russian banks pouring money into the Trump campaign.

Suppose it exists and is deliberately ignored by the investigative committee.

 

[phiwum]

Suppose it exists and is deliberately ignored by the investigative committee.

The Democrats would publicize it, through leaks if needed.