The Apprentice Season 2 - The Second Presidency of Donald Trump

[$iljanus]

We've now reached the point of him openly and directly threatening the governor of Maine, on camera and in front of every other governor.



To make matters worse, when they asked Susan Collins if she was aware of how Trump spoke to and threatened her state's governor, she claimed that she hadn't heard anything about it.

She's useless. She was useless during the Kegger Kavanaugh nomination, useless during the current nominations. Can't even manage some faux outrage.

[Rumpy]

One of these days Trump and his administration will plunge headfirst into a trap, as he seems to be doing things without really looking. He'll find himself in a really ugly predicament that's difficult to extricate himself from.

[Holman]

One of these days Trump and his administration will plunge headfirst into a trap, as he seems to be doing things without really looking. He'll find himself in a really ugly predicament that's difficult to extricate himself from.

He has an entire Congress and a Supreme Court ready and willing to extricate him, as well as a compliant or at least cowed national media.

[Grifman]

Polls early in the Trump/Musk regime indicated overall support for the admin's expense cutting actions. However, that may be starting to turn as people see the details of what is exactly involved. A number of recent polls now indicate opposition, especially when specific programs such as Medicaid and food stamps are mentioned. I do find that heartening as most Americans are not beneficiaries of those programs for the poor.

In addition I have seen three or four town halls recently held by Republican congressman in a mix of swing and solidly Republican districts and the crowds were openly hostile and not buying what they were being told. Now whether those crowds were largely Republican or Democrats had turned out to express their anger, I don't know. But they weren't a good look for sure.

I can say this - if prices and stay high and a recession hits caused by these federal job cuts, Trump is done. As we have seen (and the Democrats found out) people care about their day to day pocketbooks the most and if prices stay high and people in the general economy start losing jobs, Trump's popularity will plummet. And to be honest, I really doubt this admin has the competency to try and manage a recession. There will all sort of plans and scheme put forward, but it's a clown car and they have no idea what they are doing, especially if Trump gets personally involved.

[Smoove_B]

When you say "Trump is done", what exactly does that mean in practical terms?

[Holman]

When you say "Trump is done", what exactly does that mean in practical terms?

It would be enough if it meant flipping the House to the Dems in 2026, which is actually within reach.

If Trump and the GOP become *extremely* unpopular (and the Dems play every card right, which so far they seem incapable of doing), there's the slightest of chances that the Senate could flip too. But don't get your hopes up for that.

[Smoove_B]

I'm just trying to follow through - the suggestion then is that current linchpin is that without the Dems controlling the House, there's no way to stop what he's doing?

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense, just trying to think through what having a Dem majority in the house would let them do that currently isn't possible right now and would have stopped what went on in the last month?

[Holman]

I'm just trying to follow through - the suggestion then is that current linchpin is that without the Dems controlling the House, there's no way to stop what he's doing?

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense, just trying to think through what having a Dem majority in the house would let them do that currently isn't possible right now and would have stopped what went on in the last month?

I'm not an expert, but I assume that a Dem-controlled House could take steps to defund DOGE and other unpopular activities, at the very least. Plus gum up the works in other ways, including subpoenas (and impeachment votes) that could at least highlight Trump and his cronies' corruption. Yes, they wouldn't show, but it would draw attention and hopefully shape the narrative.

It would give Dems a chance to Do Things, which they really don't have right now.

[RunningMn9]

I’ll be homeless by 2026. Got anything that might work quicker than that?

[Smoove_B]

I'm not an expert, but I assume that a Dem-controlled House could take steps to defund DOGE and other unpopular activities, at the very least. Plus gum up the works in other ways, including subpoenas (and impeachment votes) that could at least highlight Trump and his cronies' corruption. Yes, they wouldn't show, but it would draw attention and hopefully shape the narrative.

That's all true and I personally think historically effective, but now? I'm not so sure. If we were voting for a President next month? Maybe. But voting against this (presumably) in 2028? I am not sure - mainly because we don't know how expensive eggs or gasoline will be.

It would give Dems a chance to Do Things, which they really don't have right now.

That's also true, I'm just wondering (as many others have suggested) what the best use of any political capital might be if they had it? I still think right now they're losing the messaging campaign and have been for a long time. They don't need to be in power to change how they're messaging things - and I'm not talking about giving a microphone to Chuck Schumer.

[Holman]

I’ll be homeless by 2026. Got anything that might work quicker than that?

Well, earlier we were talking about Arya Stark's list.

[GreenGoo]

I find it fascinating that the government is burning to the ground but help may be within reach if the dems play their cards perfectly, with zero margin for error.

Fascinating.

[Kraken]

It was down mostly due to economic indicators. Consumer confidence numbers fell q0% and pointed to higher inflation. New home sales down. Walmart lowered profit expectations on Thirsday.

Sounds like an excellent time to throw gasoline on the fire by purging the federal government and flooding the ranks of the unemployed!

Relax, the House is almost ready to cut taxes on the elite by a few trillion bucks. Unleash the oligarchs and prepare to be trickled on!

[Grifman]

I'm just trying to follow through - the suggestion then is that current linchpin is that without the Dems controlling the House, there's no way to stop what he's doing?

I'm not trying to be intentionally dense, just trying to think through what having a Dem majority in the house would let them do that currently isn't possible right now and would have stopped what went on in the last month?

A Democratic House could launch investigations, subpoena Musk, Trump’s cabinet members, etc, force them to testify, put them on the record, better expose to the American people the nature of what is going on. I never said it would stop what is going on, but if Trump’s poll numbers drop because this, that makes it harder for Republicans to support him. They lose the House and Trump becomes poisonous. Remember, he is a lame duck, and the power of such presidents always decreases over time.

[Grifman]

I find it fascinating that the government is burning to the ground but help may be within reach if the dems play their cards perfectly, with zero margin for error.

Fascinating.

History, for better or worse, often rests on thin margins for error. Such is the nature of things.

[Blackhawk]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

[Smoove_B]

A Democratic House could launch investigations, subpoena Musk, Trump’s cabinet members, etc, force them to testify, put them on the record, better expose to the American people the nature of what is going on.

Didn't we try that with the 1/6 stuff and they repeatedly refused to show up and didn't pay a price (if any) for a long time?

I never said it would stop what is going on, but if Trump’s poll numbers drop because this, that makes it harder for Republicans to support him.

Other than voting for his cabinet, I'm struggling to see what any members of the GOP have done over the last month that was in support of him. Well, not doing anything (and staying quiet and invisible) certainly helped him, but I'm also not convinced how exactly they could have opposed him signing all these Executive Orders and unleashing DOGE on the Capitol.

They lose the House and Trump becomes poisonous. Remember, he is a lame duck, and the power of such presidents always decreases over time.

I'm in the camp that believes we cannot wait until 2026. If we continue on this path (again, imho) we're not going to survive to midterms. Additionally, I am also now in the camp that believes the system that created (and now enables) what we're all living through can't be the same system that saves us from it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Remember, he is a lame duck, and the power of such presidents always decreases over time.

How many lame ducks have had their party actively campaigning for their 3rd term?

All these loyalty tests around the "stolen" 2020 election are setting up the apparatus for the 3rd term. Under the guise of restoring his stolen 2nd term.

[Kraken]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

The House is about to propose a bill that will require voters to register in person and present either a birth certificate or a passport. That'll stop maybe a few hundred (?) non-citizens from voting, along with a few million citizens who don't have those documents or can't present them in person.

[Blackhawk]

Don't worry, there will be plenty of places to register, all in nice, upscale areas and safely away from distracting bus routes.

[LawBeefaroni]

Don't worry, there will be plenty of places to register, all in nice, upscale areas and safely away from distracting bus routes.

Hassle free pre-registration is available online via x.com or through Amazon.com for Prime members!

[Grifman]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

The House is about to propose a bill that will require voters to register in person and present either a birth certificate or a passport. That'll stop maybe a few hundred (?) non-citizens from voting, along with a few million citizens who don't have those documents or can't present them in person.

There's no reason any newly future to be registered voted can't get that information. Older people had problems because of the sometime spotty nature of birth certificates decades ago, but today, that should not present a problem.

[Blackhawk]

Don't worry, there will be plenty of places to register, all in nice, upscale areas and safely away from distracting bus routes.

Hassle free pre-registration is available online via x.com or through Amazon.com for Prime members!

No, no. Anyone can access those sites. It would open the doors to voter fraud by illegal aliens, terrorists, Antifa, DEI hires, and other undesirables.

[Blackhawk]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

The House is about to propose a bill that will require voters to register in person and present either a birth certificate or a passport. That'll stop maybe a few hundred (?) non-citizens from voting, along with a few million citizens who don't have those documents or can't present them in person.

There's no reason any newly future to be registered voted can't get that information. Older people had problems because of the sometime spotty nature of birth certificates decades ago, but today, that should not present a problem.

The in-person requirement is a bigger roadblock for poor people and minorities than the documents. If you haven't caught my sarcasm in the last couple of posts, I will be more to the point.

All they need to do is put them primarily in higher end white areas far from public transportation, with any in poor or minority neighborhoods being inconvenient and understaffed to ensure absurdly long lines (no water or sitting!), and presto! The voting demographic changes in their favor.

They already gave it a trial run with voting locations.

[Smoove_B]

The in-person requirement is a bigger roadblock for poor people and minorities than the documents.

Also quite a few voters in the disability community. Mail-in voting has arguably been transformative for them.

[Grifman]

Remember, he is a lame duck, and the power of such presidents always decreases over time.

How many lame ducks have had their party actively campaigning for their 3rd term?

All these loyalty tests around the "stolen" 2020 election are setting up the apparatus for the 3rd term. Under the guise of restoring his stolen 2nd term.

That doesn't make any sense. He's already getting his "stolen 2nd term" now. If he had won in 2020, he couldn't be president now.

It's an exaggeration to say that the "party" is actively campaigning for a third term. A few Republicans have supported it, but that's hardly the "party" as a whole. Even the Republican who introduced a resolution in favor of Trump running for a third term, submitted it in the form of requesting that Congress start the process of amending the constitution to do so. And that's not going to happen. IMO, it's all about sucking up to Trump and it's not serious.

Let me know when the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader come out in support of a third term. And it would never pass the courts, much less in many of the various blue states that would not accept putting him on the ballot. The constitution is pretty clear and there's no way any court, much less the Supreme Court would allow it.

And even a small informal poll at CPAC found 9 out 10 Republicans saying the constitution should have the final say on this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 921293007/

[Kraken]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

The House is about to propose a bill that will require voters to register in person and present either a birth certificate or a passport. That'll stop maybe a few hundred (?) non-citizens from voting, along with a few million citizens who don't have those documents or can't present them in person.

There's no reason any newly future to be registered voted can't get that information. Older people had problems because of the sometime spotty nature of birth certificates decades ago, but today, that should not present a problem.

Inconvenience is the point. They aren't stopping anyone from registering, but making it harder will deter those who can't or won't make the effort.

It's not clear that this bill will pass anyway. Assuming united D opposition, they'll need unanimous R support. Just a few defectors on either side will throw the outcome into question.

[LawBeefaroni]

Don't worry, there will be plenty of places to register, all in nice, upscale areas and safely away from distracting bus routes.

Hassle free pre-registration is available online via x.com or through Amazon.com for Prime members!

No, no. Anyone can access those sites. It would open the doors to voter fraud by illegal aliens, terrorists, Antifa, DEI hires, and other undesirables.

It would get their data. Pre-registration doesn't mean registration. But if it's convenient, people will line up to hand over their information.

[Grifman]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

The House is about to propose a bill that will require voters to register in person and present either a birth certificate or a passport. That'll stop maybe a few hundred (?) non-citizens from voting, along with a few million citizens who don't have those documents or can't present them in person.

There's no reason any newly future to be registered voted can't get that information. Older people had problems because of the sometime spotty nature of birth certificates decades ago, but today, that should not present a problem.

Inconvenience is the point. They aren't stopping anyone from registering, but making it harder will deter those who can't or won't make the effort.

It's not clear that this bill will pass anyway. Assuming united D opposition, they'll need unanimous R support. Just a few defectors on either side will throw the outcome into question.

The law is probably just as hard on low income whites that now vote Republican as it is on low income minorities. Republicans don't think about that aspect because those people tended not to vote for them in the past. But it's there and they probably hurt themselves as much as they think they are hurting the Democrats.

[Kraken]

All of which is why we'll see significant election 'reforms' prior to 2026.

The House is about to propose a bill that will require voters to register in person and present either a birth certificate or a passport. That'll stop maybe a few hundred (?) non-citizens from voting, along with a few million citizens who don't have those documents or can't present them in person.

There's no reason any newly future to be registered voted can't get that information. Older people had problems because of the sometime spotty nature of birth certificates decades ago, but today, that should not present a problem.

Inconvenience is the point. They aren't stopping anyone from registering, but making it harder will deter those who can't or won't make the effort.

It's not clear that this bill will pass anyway. Assuming united D opposition, they'll need unanimous R support. Just a few defectors on either side will throw the outcome into question.

The law is probably just as hard on low income whites that now vote Republican as it is on low income minorities. Republicans don't think about that aspect because those people tended not to vote for them in the past. But it's there and they probably hurt themselves as much as they think they are hurting the Democrats.

Strategy aside, making it harder to vote isn't how you democracy. It's how you break democracy.

[Unagi]

Let me know when the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader come out in support of a third term.

Okay

[Zaxxon]

Boy, Grif, I want to believe. But your posts hinge on a whole lotta how things have always worked in an era of all sorts of ‘never worked this way before.’

[LordMortis]

The GOP administration keeps teasing Abstinence Johnson and he never pushes back nor even acknowledges the teasing and who will be the Senate Majority leader in 3 years? Johnson interprets The Constitution by convenience. Mr The People's House Holds the Purse Strings changed his entire tune in February much like he about faced on his own rhetoric concerning unelected bureaucrats controlling government in December.

“The executive branch of government in our system has the right to evaluate how executive branch agencies are operating and to ensure that not only the intent of Congress in funding mechanisms, but also the stewardship of precious American taxpayer dollars is being handled well. That’s what they’re doing by putting a pause on some of these agencies and by evaluating them, by doing these internal audits.”

[LawBeefaroni]

Remember, he is a lame duck, and the power of such presidents always decreases over time.

How many lame ducks have had their party actively campaigning for their 3rd term?

All these loyalty tests around the "stolen" 2020 election are setting up the apparatus for the 3rd term. Under the guise of restoring his stolen 2nd term.

That doesn't make any sense. He's already getting his "stolen 2nd term" now. If he had won in 2020, he couldn't be president now.

It's an exaggeration to say that the "party" is actively campaigning for a third term. A few Republicans have supported it, but that's hardly the "party" as a whole. Even the Republican who introduced a resolution in favor of Trump running for a third term, submitted it in the form of requesting that Congress start the process of amending the constitution to do so. And that's not going to happen. IMO, it's all about sucking up to Trump and it's not serious.

Let me know when the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader come out in support of a third term. And it would never pass the courts, much less in many of the various blue states that would not accept putting him on the ballot. The constitution is pretty clear and there's no way any court, much less the Supreme Court would allow it.

And even a small informal poll at CPAC found 9 out 10 Republicans saying the constitution should have the final say on this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 921293007/

That's a lot of reliance on "making sense' and polling. If we've learned anything in the past month, it's that none of that really matters to the executive anymore. Spray to all fields, flood the zone, and do what you want while everyone is scrambling to make sense of it.

Even then, the stolen election angle isn't inconsistent with the constitutional amendment. Note that the proposed amendment atill.prphibits a 3rd term for any president who served 2 consecutive terms, it conveniently excludes Obama and Bush and clearly signals that it is for Trump and his stolen second term. Is it likely to be duly voted on and passed? No. Who cares? It's more flood in the zone.

No, CPAC isn't the whole party. But it's where the party's direction has come from during thr MAGA run. It's whee the most radical ideas are floated and workshoped before going live.