The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Blackhawk]

I don't entirely disagree with that. Then again, the subject came up because of people pointing out a dishonest criticism of Trump, not because of strategic voting or public support.

[GreenGoo]

I don't entirely disagree with that. Then again, the subject came up because of people pointing out a dishonest criticism of Trump, not because of strategic voting or public support.

Haven't we established that it wasn't honest? I'm not an expert on DACA, but as was pointed out, Obama was trying to make health insurance cheaper for more Americans, and the party of "No" wasn't helping. Obama did put a non-solution in place, the details of which escape me, that allowed for the continued existence of kids born to foreign parents to remain in America. If the GOP hadn't killed it, there would be no immediate need for DACA solution in the first place. i.e. Barring Republican action, the Dems wouldn't have to ask for a DACA solution in their negotiations.

So as far as I see it, the Dems found a "good enough in the meantime" solution then they went to fight the battle that was Obamacare. Drumpf comes in and butchers that "good enough" solution, leaving the "kids" (many are adults that have lived in America their entire lives) high and dry, so the Dems are up in arms about it, knowing that thousands of people are now at risk because of Drumpf's actions, and somehow it's the Dems fault because they didn't make a Drumpf-proof solution when they had the chance?

How is that in any way a remotely reasonable criticism at the best of times? And guess what? It's far from the best of times now.

I honestly don't give a crap about the Dems. In fact I don't know why we are talking about them at all. They are almost completely powerless right now, and the Republicans are busy blowing up the country. Drumpf comes in and blows up whatever the DACA solution was (someone, isgrim perhaps? Could you find out the details on that?) and somehow it's a legitimate criticism of the Dems.

Worse, Fitzy's concern was stated as whether the Dems "really" cared about DACA or were using it for political gain. I can't for the life of me understand how this could influence his vote in November or 2020 when the counter party is...corrupt and in many cases criminally incompetent.

It's maddening.

[El Guapo]

The basics of the DACA solution implemented by Obama was basically, if you meet specific criterion (something like, arrived in the U.S. after a certain date and before a certain age), and you registered with the government, did not commit any crimes, and probably a couple other criterion, the executive branch will decline to deport you. It was an executive action, and to be clear there are real concerns about whether it was legal (and IIRC, Obama himself had earlier in his term expressed doubts about his legal authority to issue a DACA policy, before coming around to it in part due to frustration over lack of congressional action on immigration). Trump's action on this was to announce late last year that he was undoing that executive action effective March 2018. And to be clear this wasn't 100% of Trump's own initiative - various Republican attorneys general had told the Trump administration that they would file a lawsuit challenging DACA's legality if he didn't repeal it, which is in part what prompted Trump's action.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/9 ... 6925165568

[Freyland]

Hoping for pics.



Cropped, of course, by all things holy.

[Fitzy]

I'll bow out now as I don't see this going in positive debate direction. Thank you for your opinions.

I guess I would ask you what you would do if the Dem in your area was a douchebag and the Rep in your area supported Drumpf every time he lied or undermined your country's institutions?

I'm not the guy with only 2 parties. That's an American specialty. It's not "us vs them" it's "either/or".

Abstain? Write in? How does that help anything? You have two choices. Vote for Republicans who have proven unable to govern in a responsible way (or at all, really), or Democrats, who...might have some skeletons in the closet, I guess? What kind of skeleton would give you a clear conscience to vote Republican?

When someone says they are out, dangling bait isn't very nice.

I have no clue, is pretty much my answer. Probably a huge skeleton though. I do normally vote Dem, even though I register independent. My line for voting Republican is civil rights. So they must support gay marriage, allowing abortion...you can probably count the number of Republicans on one hand who meet that. If I dislike the Democrat, I've always had a third party moderate who I liked. They've never won.

Maryland's 6th is shaping up to be the contest you describe. The leading D has accusations of sexual harassment in the past and in his current campaign. He's a wealthy narcissist who tried to buy a seat in 2016, but lost the primary after spending $13 million. On the primary! The leading R is probably moderate, but in 2016 when she ran, she refused to disavow Trump. So if the accusations are true and the D wins the primary, the choice would be a probable moderate R, who would be a safe vote on Trump's side, but not directly support or disavow his crap. Or a sexual harassing D, who would fight Trump. I'd have had a hard time pulling the lever for the D under those circumstances. But we moved to a distract where not even a single R has signed up for the primary. Yay gerrymandering!

I don't see myself as having two choices. I see it as partisanship tricking people into thinking they have two choices. There is almost always at least a third. If people would stop looking at the D and R and start looking at the person we'd be better off. That's the choice I make. And will continue to make.

[Holman]

People have been jumping on how strange it is that Michael Cohen claims to have paid the $130,000 hush money out of his own pocket.

Josh Marshall has a very interesting explainer on this, though. He has been studying Cohen for a long time.

tl;dr:

Cohen is always said to be "Trump's lawyer," but his real relationship to Trump is as a long-time business partner. He is a multi-multi-millionaire through real estate deals, and he's thought to have connections to Russian and Ukrainian organized crime (as does his childhood friend Felix Sater). He has probably been Trump's partner in oligarch-related money laundering down through the years. He has been involved in making Trump's problems go away before now.

In short, he is not Trump's lawyer but Trump's fixer. $130,000 is nothing to him, and it would be well worth the price in insulating Trump and his campaign from legal jeopardy here.

[hepcat]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

[Holman]

I get a big smile when these idiots think the background check wont pick up stuff and expose them. Do they simply think they can say Ive done nothing and get a job?

At least a dozen significant WH figures (including Jared) are said to lack security clearances. This is not normal and was never the pattern in previous administrations.

More than a year in, it's now assumed that these people lack clearances because they simply can't get them. They are all compromised in ways that make them vulnerable to blackmail or other exposure.

Do we really believe that they are being denied access to information simply because they lack clearances? Rule of law doesn't matter for the rulers and lawmakers anymore.

Did I say "at least a dozen" up there?

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 0861389825

Full report: More than 130 political appointees working in the executive office of the president did not have permanent security clearances as of November 2017, including Ivanka, Jared, and Don McGahn, according to internal W.H. docs obtained by NBC News.

[Moliere]

Vanity Fair's response? Priebus comes clean about everything

Just after six a.m. on January 21, 2017, at his home in Alexandria, Virginia, Reince Priebus was watching the cable morning news shows, getting ready to leave for the White House. Suddenly his cell phone went off. It was Donald Trump. The new president, sworn in less than 24 hours earlier, had just seen The Washington Post, with photos showing Trump’s inaugural crowd dwarfed by that of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

The president was livid, screaming at his chief of staff. “He said, ‘This story is bullshit,’ ” recalled Priebus. “He said, ‘There’s more people there. There are people who couldn’t get in the gates. . . . There’s all kind of things that were going on that made it impossible for these people to get there.’ . . . The president said, ‘Call [Interior Secretary] Ryan Zinke. Find out from the Park Service. Tell him to get a picture and do some research right away.’ ” The president wanted his chief of staff to fix this story. Immediately.

Priebus tried to talk Trump off the ledge. “It doesn’t matter,” Priebus argued. “It’s Washington, D.C. We’re in an 85 percent Democrat area. Northern Virginia’s 60 percent. Maryland’s 65 percent. . . . This is a Democrat haven, and nobody cares.” But Trump was having none of it. Priebus thought, “Is this something that I really want to go to battle over on day one? Who needs a controversy over the inauguration?” Priebus realized he faced a decision: “Am I going to go to war over this with the president of the United States?”

[Combustible Lemur]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

Wish, I could remember which show it was, but they reported that the CIA was denying reports that the CIA paid for basically the pees tapes being shopped around by Russian leakers to the US intelligence agencies.
They specifically did not deny that the shopping occurred or that other agencies didn't bite.
It was salacious, but not unbelievable.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Smoove_B]

Full report: More than 130 political appointees working in the executive office of the president did not have permanent security clearances as of November 2017, including Ivanka, Jared, and Don McGahn, according to internal W.H. docs obtained by NBC News.

My favorite part of this is the news that hit last night - that Jared and Ivaka have taken on millions in additional debt over the last year. I'm sure this means nothing.

Trump’s updated disclosure form shows that Kushner appears to have tapped three different lines of credit since he began working at the White House.

The changes up the couple’s debts from a range of $19 million to $98 million to being valued at between $31 million and $155 million, according to Politico.

[Enough]

Such a great troll,

https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status ... 3719784448

https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status ... 3719784448

[Fitzy]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

Would you watch the tape?

[hepcat]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

Would you watch the tape?

I would have to in order to put it on the web site I would create for it, wouldn't I?

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

Would you watch the tape?

I would have to in order to put it on the web site I would create for it, wouldn't I?

goldengirlsgoldenshowers.ru

[El Guapo]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

Would you watch the tape?

I would have to in order to put it on the web site I would create for it, wouldn't I?

goldengirlsgoldenshowers.ru

Little does hepcat know that I've already purchased that domain...going to cost him a pretty penny.

[YellowKing]

Pee Arthur, Poo McClanahan, Betty Wipe, Estelle Wetty.....this sounds fantastic.

[hepcat]

I am willing to pay whatever it takes to get those domains for multiple reasons.

[El Guapo]

I will accept nothing less than ALL THE TEA in China.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Well, at least there’s one positive coming from Trump’s lawyer saying he paid Stormy Daniels’ hush money:

If this doesn’t end with a golden shower story I will be severely disappointed.

Wish, I could remember which show it was, but they reported that the CIA was denying reports that the CIA paid for basically the pees tapes being shopped around by Russian leakers to the US intelligence agencies.
They specifically did not deny that the shopping occurred or that other agencies didn't bite.
It was salacious, but not unbelievable.

I think the report you may be referring to came from the NYT. They reported that the CIA payed someone who claimed to have both the hacked NSA codes and the pee tapes 100K. The story says the CIA only cared about the NSA codes and refused any material on Trump, but turns the material the seller had, at least on the NSA codes, was bogus.

[Isgrimnur]

I would think Australia (.au) or Peru (.pe) would also be acceptable. Bermuda (.bm) could be used as a backup option.

[Fireball]

It is increasingly unlikely that everything will be okay.

Trump is killing American democracy, and the Republicans are fine with it.

How do we help curb them? Seriously glad you're there trying to stem the bleeding.

I wish I was. My job is basically just a front row seat to the end of American democracy. If we don't see control of the House change in November, America is over.

[Paingod]

Vanity Fair's response? Priebus comes clean about everything

When it came to Mueller’s investigation, Priebus insisted he personally had nothing to worry about. But Bannon warned that the hounds had been loosed. “You’ve got Mueller’s team, which has got 19 killers who are all experts in wire fraud, money-laundering, and tax evasion,” Bannon said. “Doesn’t sound like collusion to me. But they’ve got unlimited budgets and subpoena power. And here’s what we’ve got on our side: two guys who’ve got legal pads and Post-Its.

Man, I loved the sound of that.

[Remus West]

If people would stop looking at the D and R and start looking at the person we'd be better off. That's the choice I make. And will continue to make.

Congrats on electing Trump and those who support him. Those who voted for the third party - while knowing that candidate had no shot to win - would have turned the election had they voted for their choice between the two major candidates. This is the major problem. While I agree with you on principle, the outcome of voting that way, the price for it, was way way way too high this past election and will remain that way until the Republican party changes which will only happen if they are completely removed from power. Only by voting for the non-republican most likely to win does that happen.

I very much prefer to vote for people whose position I agree with but when the price of doing that means the person who's position and choices actively fuck the world up and/or erode the institutions of Democracy wins I stop being willing to pay the price.

[El Guapo]

If people would stop looking at the D and R and start looking at the person we'd be better off. That's the choice I make. And will continue to make.

Congrats on electing Trump and those who support him. Those who voted for the third party - while knowing that candidate had no shot to win - would have turned the election had they voted for their choice between the two major candidates. This is the major problem. While I agree with you on principle, the outcome of voting that way, the price for it, was way way way too high this past election and will remain that way until the Republican party changes which will only happen if they are completely removed from power. Only by voting for the non-republican most likely to win does that happen.

I very much prefer to vote for people whose position I agree with but when the price of doing that means the person who's position and choices actively fuck the world up and/or erode the institutions of Democracy wins I stop being willing to pay the price.

Also, if you want to fix the problem of being stuck with only two real parties (which I agree is a problem), the main answer is to help groups that want to implement things like ranked choice voting in elections. Those can be done at the state level (so avoids the congressional deadlock on doing anything worthwhile), and will allow third parties to actually compete without benefiting the major party farthest away politically from any given third party.

Just voting third party under the current system neither checks Republican Party tyranny nor actually helps third parties advance.

[Zaxxon]

Agreed on all counts. There's no such thing as a third-party vote today, at least on the national scale.

[pr0ner]

It is increasingly unlikely that everything will be okay.

Trump is killing American democracy, and the Republicans are fine with it.

How do we help curb them? Seriously glad you're there trying to stem the bleeding.

I wish I was. My job is basically just a front row seat to the end of American democracy. If we don't see control of the House change in November, America is over.

Is there ever a time when things don't default to doom and gloom for you?

[Fitzy]

If people would stop looking at the D and R and start looking at the person we'd be better off. That's the choice I make. And will continue to make.

Congrats on electing Trump and those who support him. Those who voted for the third party - while knowing that candidate had no shot to win - would have turned the election had they voted for their choice between the two major candidates. This is the major problem. While I agree with you on principle, the outcome of voting that way, the price for it, was way way way too high this past election and will remain that way until the Republican party changes which will only happen if they are completely removed from power. Only by voting for the non-republican most likely to win does that happen.

I very much prefer to vote for people whose position I agree with but when the price of doing that means the person who's position and choices actively fuck the world up and/or erode the institutions of Democracy wins I stop being willing to pay the price.

I didn't vote for any 3rd party candidates in 2016 nor did I vote for any Republicans. Even though all of the elections I voted for in 2016 were a foregone conclusion, I voted for every Democrat on the ballot. They were better candidates than the Republicans and a big part of that was refusal to agree that something was wrong with Trump.

I do reserve the right to change my mind in 2018, but nothing I've seen from any Republican running has me reconsidering my 2016 stance. I don't particularly like all of my choices, but they are far better than the R's or there are no R's running. I haven't finished examining all of my choices yet though, since most aren't even known.

Seriously, how is Donald Trump my fault, when I took the time to research, seek out and examine every candidate to the best of my ability and came to the same result as the rest of you wanted? The only difference is I'm unwilling to promise I will vote for someone just because they are a Democrat. And I have, not in 2016, but in the past, voted for independents, and god forbid, the occasional Republican.

Finally one last comment. Take a look at what I wrote and what you responded to. I said, let's make sure we get the best people. You responded with congrats on electing Trump and those who support him. So it seems you are a secret Trump supporter after all. I believe we got a bad president, probably the worst in our history, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM OR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTED HIM, but if you think he's great...ok.

[LordMortis]

Agreed on all counts. There's no such thing as a third-party vote today, at least on the national scale.

We're normally pretty close on things but I diverge with you here. While my thresh hold has been met to reject third parties for the dismantling of the republican party in its current state, I'm not prepared to look at all 3rd party voting with the same sense of banana republic fascist distrust that I look at republicans beholden to multinational oligarchical authoritarian structure premised on a lie of white supremacy and the idea that there will be cake. Nor am I willing to look at non voting protesters that way. Even in the face of the tyranny of the WASPish minority, I reject this, lest we all fear our inability or lack of desire to become the persecuted liberal demanding to instate our own tyranny

[Fireball]

It is increasingly unlikely that everything will be okay.

Trump is killing American democracy, and the Republicans are fine with it.

How do we help curb them? Seriously glad you're there trying to stem the bleeding.

I wish I was. My job is basically just a front row seat to the end of American democracy. If we don't see control of the House change in November, America is over.

Is there ever a time when things don't default to doom and gloom for you?

If you can't see how our institutions are crumbling, and how the very concept of rule of law as it pertains to the executive branch is at risk of collapsing, then you are blind. There is no reason to think that our governmental system can survive the presidency of a person like Trump, particularly when the Republican Party has gone all-in on his democracy-eroding agenda. No other presidential system ever has.

[Remus West]

If people would stop looking at the D and R and start looking at the person we'd be better off. That's the choice I make. And will continue to make.

Congrats on electing Trump and those who support him. Those who voted for the third party - while knowing that candidate had no shot to win - would have turned the election had they voted for their choice between the two major candidates. This is the major problem. While I agree with you on principle, the outcome of voting that way, the price for it, was way way way too high this past election and will remain that way until the Republican party changes which will only happen if they are completely removed from power. Only by voting for the non-republican most likely to win does that happen.

I very much prefer to vote for people whose position I agree with but when the price of doing that means the person who's position and choices actively fuck the world up and/or erode the institutions of Democracy wins I stop being willing to pay the price.

I didn't vote for any 3rd party candidates in 2016 nor did I vote for any Republicans. Even though all of the elections I voted for in 2016 were a foregone conclusion, I voted for every Democrat on the ballot. They were better candidates than the Republicans and a big part of that was refusal to agree that something was wrong with Trump.

I do reserve the right to change my mind in 2018, but nothing I've seen from any Republican running has me reconsidering my 2016 stance. I don't particularly like all of my choices, but they are far better than the R's or there are no R's running. I haven't finished examining all of my choices yet though, since most aren't even known.

Seriously, how is Donald Trump my fault, when I took the time to research, seek out and examine every candidate to the best of my ability and came to the same result as the rest of you wanted? The only difference is I'm unwilling to promise I will vote for someone just because they are a Democrat. And I have, not in 2016, but in the past, voted for independents, and god forbid, the occasional Republican.

Finally one last comment. Take a look at what I wrote and what you responded to. I said, let's make sure we get the best people. You responded with congrats on electing Trump and those who support him. So it seems you are a secret Trump supporter after all. I believe we got a bad president, probably the worst in our history, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM OR ANYONE WHO SUPPORTED HIM, but if you think he's great...ok.

You may not have voted independent in the last election but the mindset to do that is what allowed Trump to win. Look at the margins in the battle ground states and then take the 3rd party votes and see how they would have impacted the election if they had simply said "I really like Jill Stein better but Hillary gets my vote because Trump is so very very bad." Bernie supporters who voted anything other than HRC deserve a hot poker up the ass IMO because I don't care how screwed you may have felt he got that doesn't mean the US deserved to be Trumped upon.

As I said, which you failed to read just as you failed to note that my comment addressed the part I quoted rather than your entire post, I agree with you in principle. It is the risk reward for doing so that tilts the balance towards voting Dem. You'll also note that I said the non-Republican most likely to win. If that means I elect a Green party candidate based off their opposition of Trump and the current Republican party alone then so be it. Anyone running for office under the Republican name right now carries the weight of all the horrible things they are doing.

[Rip]

The suggestion that our democracy can't survive Trump is laughable.

[Smoove_B]

I think you have those words a bit mixed up. Instead, I think it should be: The idea that our democracy elected Donald Trump is laughable.

[Rip]

I think you have those words a bit mixed up. Instead, I think it should be: The idea that our democracy elected Donald Trump is laughable.

That is equally true.

People should be wary of predicting catastrophic consequences of Trump. Once he is gone and life goes on as it always has those people will wish they had that credibility back. I predict that once he is gone these same people will have a new bogeyman that they will be convinced will destroy the country. They will be wrong then as well.

[LordMortis]

The suggestion that our democracy can't survive Trump is laughable.

I agree but then I also think the idea that our democracy necessarily will survive Trump is also laughable. When I believe we can't survive, no doubt about it, then I'm done. What's the point in not being done? I don't know the odds that we don't survive, whatever they are I don't like them and I think they go down dramatically if this current round of republican leadership holds court in Congress to back him. 2018 may not be our last gasp but it's most definitely a desperate gasp and 2016 began only gasping I've seen in my lifetime. We're not on life support but we need to get the hospital for treatment. It's not gonna get better on its own.

[Unagi]

[Combustible Lemur]

The suggestion that our democracy can't survive Trump is laughable.

While I'm not as absolutist as fireball, one he didn't say can't, second danger is always laughable until your safety gear breaks and you're dead.
History is littered with nations that thought the danger to their institutions was laughable, until the revolution/ coup.
Congressional majority currently acts as the employee of Trump. Multiple congress people have openly said their job is to do Trumps agenda. The administration's open policy is that foreign interference in our elections is a hoax. The processes by which the judiciary is theoretical partisan neutral is broken, and there is open warfare against the national intelligence apparatus, federal law enforcement, and the free press. All of which are steps towards undemocratic governance. Democratic watchdogs across the world are downgrading US democracy.

It's not a big leap from Republicans maintain house and senate control, to altering rules into an effective single party system.

Voter suppression, foreign propaganda, political and racial gerrymandering, suggestions of state media, obstruction of independent judiciary, rejection of the popular vote, are all things already happening.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Zaxxon]

Agreed on all counts. There's no such thing as a third-party vote today, at least on the national scale.

We're normally pretty close on things but I diverge with you here.

That's great and all, but it's a fact. There is no third-party candidate on the national scale that has a chance of winning a major election. Or that will, anytime soon.

Is there? If I'm wrong in this I'd love to hear it (really, I would. I think we'd be far better off if there was a viable third party).

To the best of my knowledge, Perot was the last 'serious' third-party Presidential candidate. He competed twice, and earned a total of zero electoral votes. The last few major 'wins' by third-party candidates are an Alaskan governor (an 'independent' who was really an R) and Bernie Sanders/Angus King, both of whom are 'independents' who are really Ds.

Call me when an actual third-party candidate wins the Presidency, or a Senate seat or Governorship.

Absent that, when you vote for a third party, you are either throwing it away (when the spread between the 2 'actual' candidates is not especially contentious) or you're effectively voting for the candidate less similar to your choice (by withholding your vote from the candidate who could actually win who is closer in platform to your third-party choice).

[Rip]

The suggestion that our democracy can't survive Trump is laughable.

While I'm not as absolutist as fireball, one he didn't say can't, second danger is always laughable until your safety gear breaks and you're dead.
History is littered with nations that thought the danger to their institutions was laughable, until the revolution/ coup.
Congressional majority currently acts as the employee of Trump. Multiple congress people have openly said their job is to do Trumps agenda. The administration's open policy is that foreign interference in our elections is a hoax. The processes by which the judiciary is theoretical partisan neutral is broken, and there is open warfare against the national intelligence apparatus, federal law enforcement, and the free press. All of which are steps towards undemocratic governance. Democratic watchdogs across the world are downgrading US democracy.

It's not a big leap from Republicans maintain house and senate control, to altering rules into an effective single party system.

Voter suppression, foreign propaganda, political and racial gerrymandering, suggestions of state media, obstruction of independent judiciary, rejection of the popular vote, are all things already happening.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Baloney. There is no voter suppression. Gerrymandering has been around since 1812. There isn't and never will be a state media. All of these things are ridiculous.

How is the judiciary being obstructed? It isn't operated any different than it has ever been.

How do you reject the popular vote? Popular vote been the measure of winning the POTUS so there is nothing to reject.