Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:20 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:

This type of brain cancer is not an easy one to overcome, but it sounds like they caught it very early on so he may yet make it through.


and if he does it'll be thanks to his taxpayer-funded healthcare

and if he doesn't i won't cry hilariously he has the same type of brain tumour one of my best friends who lived in arizona died of guess which one of them didn't have healthcare

not john mccain.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7508
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:38 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:It's all rooted in his ineptitude as a politician.

That was exactly the correct choice of words. He's inept. He doesn't have anywhere near what it takes to perform this job. Trump has been trying to be involved in politics for at least 17 years. Continuing to claim he's still new at this is a weak excuse for people who are trying to perpetuate this disaster of a presidency.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:47 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Zohar wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:But to claim this was a dumb thing to do is as i said, only dumb if you subscribe to the collusion theory.

No, it's dumb because Trump should know that everyone has their eyes on his relationship with Putin and Russia, and regardless of how innocent or not he is, he should avoid digging a deeper hole for himself and giving reasons for criticizers and investigators to look for further connections.


It's all rooted in his ineptitude as a politician. He honestly should just hire a person who walks around with him all day and advises him on how to be 'presidential'. Sort of like a princess diaries. But truth be told, that's not his style. I doubt he really cares. That's what is frustrating to me the most. I want to see stuff get done, but his constant tit-for-tat battle with the media is just getting in the way. The media will find a way to attack him, but he should do a better job not giving them gasoline to pour on the proverbial fire. It worked to get him elected, but it won't work to govern.


The "ineptitude as a politician" goes deeper than that. He has no courage either.

The Republican health care effort was not called "Trumpcare" for example. Trump worked as hard as he can to keep his name off the bill. Only Democrats called it Trumpcare. Beyond that, it was always Mitch McConnell's job or Paul Ryan's job to fix the health care bill. In effect, Trump is not courageous enough to put "skin in the game" on this important issue.

Trump's courage relates to the wall and (Anti-Muslim) immigration policy. Outside of that, he's basically ceeding away from all of his campaign promises. Carrier is firing a bunch of people, Trump hasn't really done anything to push his protectionist policy either (thank goodness for that, but that sux hardcore for his base). If anything, Trump is kind of going the opposite direction and trying to do it as silently as possible.

Maybe Trump will take responsibility and actually lead on Tax Reform. But I have my doubts on that.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
The Republican health care effort was not called "Trumpcare" for example. Trump worked as hard as he can to keep his name off the bill. Only Democrats called it Trumpcare. Beyond that, it was always Mitch McConnell's job or Paul Ryan's job to fix the health care bill. In effect, Trump is not courageous enough to put "skin in the game" on this important issue.


To be fair, these guys had 7 years to come up with something. They should have had something to put on his desk day 1. My guess is they believed HRC was going to be the next president too and so were gearing up to fight her, with no expectation they would need to pass any legislation.

As an aside, it just shows how difficult it is to take something away once you put it in place. Democrats do a better job of unifying (for the most part) than Republicans seem to do.

An aside of an aside. I can't stand Mitch 'turkey neck' McConnell.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:06 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
The Republican health care effort was not called "Trumpcare" for example. Trump worked as hard as he can to keep his name off the bill. Only Democrats called it Trumpcare. Beyond that, it was always Mitch McConnell's job or Paul Ryan's job to fix the health care bill. In effect, Trump is not courageous enough to put "skin in the game" on this important issue.


To be fair, these guys had 7 years to come up with something.


As did Trump. Or did Trump not run for President in 2012 or something?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8752
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:07 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:

This type of brain cancer is not an easy one to overcome, but it sounds like they caught it very early on so he may yet make it through.


and if he does it'll be thanks to his taxpayer-funded healthcare

and if he doesn't i won't cry hilariously he has the same type of brain tumour one of my best friends who lived in arizona died of guess which one of them didn't have healthcare

not john mccain.


McCain is rich; he wouldn't go without care if he went without insurance.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:08 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:07 pm UTC

EDWOP: How did you edit your post without having it post an "edited by: username timestamp"? I quoted you and only deleted the quotes from me and zohar. I didn't pick up anything about the tax debate that Trump will have to own.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:09 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:EDWOP: How did you edit your post without having it post an "edited by: username timestamp"? I quoted you and only deleted the quotes from me and zohar. I didn't pick up anything about the tax debate that Trump will have to own.


If no one responds after you, you won't get an "edited by" stamp.

For example: I think you can tell that this line was an edit.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:11 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
As did Trump. Or did Trump not run for President in 2012 or something?


He did not run in 2012. He "explored" without actually officially filing an exploratory committee. But it's not his job to come up with legislation. He can guide and say what he'd sign or veto. But beyond making veiled threats to campaign against members of the republican caucus (did that yesterday), I don't know what more can be done. Rand Paul was on media outlets this morning and Trump had apparently called him and the other senators asking what needs to be done to get his vote. So Trump is doing something.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:12 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:EDWOP: How did you edit your post without having it post an "edited by: username timestamp"? I quoted you and only deleted the quotes from me and zohar. I didn't pick up anything about the tax debate that Trump will have to own.


If no one responds after you, you won't get an "edited by" stamp.

For example: I think you can tell that this line was an edit.


Right after I posted that I remembered that. But thanks for confirming. Pretty sure I ran into this once before.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:18 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:But it's not his job to come up with legislation. He can guide and say what he'd sign or veto.


There's a reason why 0bamacare worked. In particular, Obama was willing to put his name on the colloquial term to describe the legislation.

Trump may not know much about politics, but Trump knows a hell of a lot about branding. Trump understands the power of tweets and the bully pulpit. People listen to the President, even if its Trump.

trpmb6 wrote:Trump had apparently called him and the other senators asking what needs to be done to get his vote. So Trump is doing something.


How about Trump actually makes a tweet supporting the bill, instead of thinly veiled threats to Senators trying to get them in line? Even something simple like "New Health Care bill is the best we'll get without Democrats!" would put a hell of a lot of pressure on the rank-and-file.

How about calling it Trumpcare? Attach his name to it: so that any Senator who dares vote against it gets the wrath of Trump's base?

Nah, these things would require courage. Trump don't got any. Trump wants to do everything to help the bill without actually putting skin in the game. Trump doesn't want a "loss" on his plate. Trump will only support the bill after it becomes obvious that it'd be a win.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:26 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Nah, these things would require courage. Trump don't got any. Trump wants to do everything to help the bill without actually putting skin in the game. Trump doesn't want a "loss" on his plate. Trump will only support the bill after it becomes obvious that it'd be a win.


lol, that makes him sound like a politician :P

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4384
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:37 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Zohar wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:But to claim this was a dumb thing to do is as i said, only dumb if you subscribe to the collusion theory.

No, it's dumb because Trump should know that everyone has their eyes on his relationship with Putin and Russia, and regardless of how innocent or not he is, he should avoid digging a deeper hole for himself and giving reasons for criticizers and investigators to look for further connections.


It's all rooted in his ineptitude as a politician. He honestly should just hire a person who walks around with him all day and advises him on how to be 'presidential'. Sort of like a princess diaries. But truth be told, that's not his style. I doubt he really cares. That's what is frustrating to me the most. I want to see stuff get done, but his constant tit-for-tat battle with the media is just getting in the way. The media will find a way to attack him, but he should do a better job not giving them gasoline to pour on the proverbial fire. It worked to get him elected, but it won't work to govern.


Yes, the fact that Trump is incompetent at everything is a large problem. You'd think that would disqualify him from office, but, well, here we are. He's never going to get anything done--he has no idea what he's doing and is too conceited to realize it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:57 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Yes, the fact that Trump is incompetent at everything is a large problem. You'd think that would disqualify him from office, but, well, here we are. He's never going to get anything done--he has no idea what he's doing and is too conceited to realize it.

Let's be fair here. Sessions, Pruitt and maybe Devoss are experts in their field. They are quickly dismantling Obama protections. Sessions just brought back civil forfeiture, aka sanctioned robbery. The EPA is being gutted, which is doing to cause millions of lives over the decades. ( Let's raise toxic waste limits because regulations are intrinsically evil) Devoss is bringing back for profit colleges because predatory schools are ok with her.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T402550 4830720 (NAD 83)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ivnja » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:54 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Democrats do a better job of unifying (for the most part) than Republicans seem to do.

As an aside about the aside, I've always found it interesting that A) this is something that rarely seems to be said about one's own party, B) supporters of each party regularly claim it about the other party, often simultaneously, and C) more often than not it's being leveled almost as a charge against the supposedly more unified party for falling in line behind their leaders no matter what (because the individual members are weak willed/unscrupulous/corrupt, I guess?), and conversely as a defense for why their own party agenda isn't moving forward. It probably does often hold true for the party not in power, though - it is easier to come together to try to slow the "damage" that the majority party is doing than for the majority to hash out the details of what they're trying to pass.

[I haven't been paying enough attention to these politics threads to know what party you may or may not be with; either way, I'm only meaning to remark on the general trend, not to single you out.]
Hi you.
She(?!)

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cyanyoshi » Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:46 pm UTC

ivnja wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Democrats do a better job of unifying (for the most part) than Republicans seem to do.

As an aside about the aside, I've always found it interesting that A) this is something that rarely seems to be said about one's own party, B) supporters of each party regularly claim it about the other party, often simultaneously, and C) more often than not it's being leveled almost as a charge against the supposedly more unified party for falling in line behind their leaders no matter what (because the individual members are weak willed/unscrupulous/corrupt, I guess?), and conversely as a defense for why their own party agenda isn't moving forward. It probably does often hold true for the party not in power, though - it is easier to come together to try to slow the "damage" that the majority party is doing than for the majority to hash out the details of what they're trying to pass.

[I haven't been paying enough attention to these politics threads to know what party you may or may not be with; either way, I'm only meaning to remark on the general trend, not to single you out.]


I'm not even sure what Democrats' message is in general, aside from "At least we're not the Republicans!" Maybe this kind of thing is unavoidable when the president and congress have utterly dominated the news cycle for the past 6 months, but I don't see any sense of intra- or inter-party unity coming from either side here.

On a tenuously related note, this FiveThirtyEight piece was an interesting read. The TL:DR is that Clinton would do a better job of not screwing things up, but the political climate would probably be even worse for Democrats. Just some food for thought.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:24 pm UTC

cyanyoshi wrote:On a tenuously related note, this FiveThirtyEight piece was an interesting read. The TL:DR is that Clinton would do a better job of not screwing things up, but the political climate would probably be even worse for Democrats. Just some food for thought.


That's interesting, but it's impossible to say what would have happened under Clinton, without assuming that Trump would have accepted his defeat with good grace if he'd lost. Which seems highly unlikely to me. For all we know, Trump might have called for--and received--an armed rebellion, and Clinton might have had to declare martial law, and the stock market might have crashed, and there might have been even more chaos than there is now.

But I'm not going to invest too much energy in thinking about things that didn't happen.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:32 am UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:
cyanyoshi wrote:On a tenuously related note, this FiveThirtyEight piece was an interesting read. The TL:DR is that Clinton would do a better job of not screwing things up, but the political climate would probably be even worse for Democrats. Just some food for thought.


That's interesting, but it's impossible to say what would have happened under Clinton, without assuming that Drumpf would have accepted his defeat with good grace if he'd lost. Which seems highly unlikely to me. For all we know, Drumpf might have called for--and received--an armed rebellion, and Clinton might have had to declare martial law, and the stock market might have crashed, and there might have been even more chaos than there is now.

But I'm not going to invest too much energy in thinking about things that didn't happen.

I read it earlier. At first blush it's a little sobering, but it's just one perspective. Albeit a data-driven one.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:37 am UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 3f19d8652f

Some of President Trump’s lawyers are exploring ways to limit or undercut special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, building a case against what they allege are his conflicts of interest and discussing the president’s authority to grant pardons, according to people familiar with the effort.

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.


Washington Post laying it down thick. That's a heavy accusation. Possibly its just his lawyers musing and maybe Trump caught wind of it. But such thoughts don't come forward unless there's low moral with regards to the Russia investigation.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4384
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:08 am UTC

My understanding is that it would be fully within Trump's power to do so.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2492
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:41 am UTC

As with "telling foreign powers state secrets", being able to doesn't mean that it'll look good...

(Like "double(/ing) down", it seems that "the optics" is the current phrase I should use, come to prominence during the Trump/Clinton campaign and being used by everyone else. I must remember to check their ngrams, some time.)

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:50 am UTC

He can't pardon himself away from an impeachment, at least. If anything, clear abuse of the presidential pardon would add fuel to the impeachment fire, provided Democrats swing a House majority.

Heh, maybe this should be in humorous items, but the Treasury and State dept are in a legal battle with each other (roughly speaking). And, of course, it involves Russia.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:30 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Washington Post laying it down thick. That's a heavy accusation. Possibly its just his lawyers musing and maybe Trump caught wind of it. But such thoughts don't come forward unless there's low moral with regards to the Russia investigation.
The Post needs to take a deep breath and some anti anxiety medication. His legal team would be remiss in their function if they didn't at least consider the possibility. And any Special Counsel is going to face this kind of attack.

Mutex
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:40 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Washington Post laying it down thick. That's a heavy accusation. Possibly its just his lawyers musing and maybe Trump caught wind of it. But such thoughts don't come forward unless there's low moral with regards to the Russia investigation.
The Post needs to take a deep breath and some anti anxiety medication. His legal team would be remiss in their function if they didn't at least consider the possibility. And any Special Counsel is going to face this kind of attack.

Similarly, Washington Post would be remiss if they didn't subject the president and his team to extreme scrutiny whenever they even suggest pulling this kind of trick, considering everything that's gone on before.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2697
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: Trump presidency

Postby orthogon » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:42 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:As with "telling foreign powers state secrets", being able to doesn't mean that it'll look good...

(Like "double(/ing) down", it seems that "the optics" is the current phrase I should use, come to prominence during the Trump/Clinton campaign and being used by everyone else. I must remember to check their ngrams, some time.)

Is that where it came from? I noticed everyone suddenly using it as though it had always been a common phrase. I don't like it, personally, because optics are the means (lenses and suchlike) or phenomena (refraction etc) by which things are seen, not the image itself of those things. Also, as a fellow citizen, you'll understand that the word also brings to mind the devices that dispense hard liquor, and, lets face it, politics these days could easily drive a person to drink...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:48 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:because optics are the means (lenses and suchlike) or phenomena (refraction etc) by which things are seen, not the image itself of those things

Yeah, that's the idea. The perception of actions can be iffy even if the actions themselves are legitimate. By using "optics", they're refraining from directly accusing someone of malfeasance.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7508
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:56 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And any Special Counsel is going to face this kind of attack.

Can you show a couple of examples of other special counsels that faced this sort of thing?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:03 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:And any Special Counsel is going to face this kind of attack.

Can you show a couple of examples of other special counsels that faced this sort of thing?


From a month ago by CNN

Not exactly an Alt-Right source

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2697
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: Trump presidency

Postby orthogon » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:05 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
orthogon wrote:because optics are the means (lenses and suchlike) or phenomena (refraction etc) by which things are seen, not the image itself of those things

Yeah, that's the idea. The perception of actions can be iffy even if the actions themselves are legitimate. By using "optics", they're refraining from directly accusing someone of malfeasance.

I get that, but I'm taking issue with which element is which in the metaphor. The object is what the politician did; the image is how it looks to the observer, which is what I think is meant by the phrase; the optics are the means by which the image is formed, which in this case ought to correspond to the news media, the twitters, and whatnot.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7508
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:16 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:From a month ago by CNN

Not exactly an Alt-Right source

Thanks. I didn't say I didn't believe the claim, I just wanted to see some evidence, that article was pretty helpful. It's also good at demonstrating the differences - Mueller is nonpartisan, Starr was (presumably still is) obviously Republican. Mueller was appointed by Trump's regime, Starr was appointed by an independent panel of judges. And that's without getting into the issue of the actual investigations and their severity.

I think that's the main point for me - that Trump nominated Sessions, Sessions chose Rosenstein, Rosenstein appointed Mueller. It seems more reasonable to me to be upset about the nomination from some judges you're not related to then to something that you essentially caused yourself. Of course the demonizing is not warranted in either case, but you can easily see from Newt Gingrich's statements that something here is highly suspect (saying he's fantastic at first, then an unreliable monster). It's pretty similar to saying a proposed bill is wonderful and amazing and then saying it's mean and has no heart! Almost as if all these people care about is their public perception than governing.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:28 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Thanks. I didn't say I didn't believe the claim, I just wanted to see some evidence, that article was pretty helpful. It's also good at demonstrating the differences - Mueller is nonpartisan, Starr was (presumably still is) obviously Republican. Mueller was appointed by Trump's regime, Starr was appointed by an independent panel of judges. And that's without getting into the issue of the actual investigations and their severity.

I think that's the main point for me - that Trump nominated Sessions, Sessions chose Rosenstein, Rosenstein appointed Mueller. It seems more reasonable to me to be upset about the nomination from some judges you're not related to then to something that you essentially caused yourself. Of course the demonizing is not warranted in either case, but you can easily see from Newt Gingrich's statements that something here is highly suspect (saying he's fantastic at first, then an unreliable monster). It's pretty similar to saying a proposed bill is wonderful and amazing and then saying it's mean and has no heart! Almost as if all these people care about is their public perception than governing.


I think for a few of Trump's surrogates that the issue isn't Mueller himself, it's the folks he's brought on for the investigation. Of course they are cherry picking names of people linked to democrat causes. One of the other issues Kellyanne Conway raised this morning, which I think is a valid one, are what seems to be a constant stream of leaks coming out of the investigation. Leaks are always selectively picked and often times placed out of context. I'd be mad about that too.

I still believe Mueller was the right choice. His link to Comey is maybe worthy of an eyebrow raise, but of course they're going to be associates. They freaking worked together for a lonnng time. He is a man of integrity and will get the job done. I take some of this pressure the administration is trying to apply as their way of getting Mueller to get his team in line and stop the leaks. The main reason for the Trump associates for wanting the investigation to stay out of their finances is likely because of the leaks. You know as soon as they start digging in they'll find something that is probably entirely legal but looks bad politically. And it'll get leaked, and put straight into a DNC ad.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:34 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:And any Special Counsel is going to face this kind of attack.

Can you show a couple of examples of other special counsels that faced this sort of thing?
Somebody has shown you. However understand the reasoning. If you are the man that who could be responsible for bringing down a President, then shouldn't your integrity be at question? Are you the right man for that job? In effect, are you more honest than Trump.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:35 pm UTC

I feel like I should take a moment to point out that, while it may seem like I am defending Trump, usually, I don't care for him at all. My facebook memories from last year constantly remind me of how much I was against him in the primary. I'd be perfectly happy with the democrats impeaching him and ending up with a president Pence.

But here's the thing. Trump or Pence, it doesn't matter. Nothing will continue to get done. It's the Republicans in Congress that can't get crap done right now. Maybe Pence can do a better job of wooing the establishment. But I don't exactly want someone who can woo the establishment. I want someone to fight the establishment.

Besides, it's not exactly in the best interest of democrats to remove Trump. I think they stand a better chance against Trump in 2020 than they do against a Pence led ticket in 2020.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7508
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:However understand the reasoning. If you are the man that who could be responsible for bringing down a President, then shouldn't your integrity be at question? Are you the right man for that job? In effect, are you more honest than Trump.

This is a special prosecutor essentially appointed by the president himself. If Trump really wanted to he could order Sessions to fire Rosenstein until he gets a deputy that will agree to fire Mueller. Trump (presumably) trusted Sessions and Sessions (presumably) trusted Rosenstein, and Rosenstein made his choice. It was not enforced from an outside agency on Trump and this investigation. The integrity of the person should definitely be at question! BEFORE YOU FUCKING HIRE THEM.

Also, I'd be hard-pressed to find someone that's less honest than Trump, so yes, I trust Mueller more.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:49 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:However understand the reasoning. If you are the man that who could be responsible for bringing down a President, then shouldn't your integrity be at question? Are you the right man for that job? In effect, are you more honest than Trump.

This is a special prosecutor essentially appointed by the president himself. If Trump really wanted to he could order Sessions to fire Rosenstein until he gets a deputy that will agree to fire Mueller. Trump (presumably) trusted Sessions and Sessions (presumably) trusted Rosenstein, and Rosenstein made his choice. It was not enforced from an outside agency on Trump and this investigation. The integrity of the person should definitely be at question! BEFORE YOU FUCKING HIRE THEM.

Also, I'd be hard-pressed to find someone that's less honest than Trump, so yes, I trust Mueller more.


I do think this is at the heart of why Trump had a little tirade in a NYT interview about being disappointed in Sessions. But Sessions and Rosenstein are both men of integrity (Democrats may disagree, that's their prerogative, though maybe now they're happy with sessions? lol). Trump is clearly frustrated with the process and has a hard time hiding that. It all goes back to the fact that he isn't a politician and has little patience for the timeline of big government. He is used to seeing results or you get fired. You can't do that in the government, for better or worse.

Mutex
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:57 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Also, I'd be hard-pressed to find someone that's less honest than Trump, so yes, I trust Mueller more.

The only times I've seen Trump be honest is when he accidentally testifies against himself. He's a weird combination of a pathological liar, and someone who should be on America's Dumbest Criminals.

commodorejohn
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:58 pm UTC

It has nothing to do with patience or timeline; it has to do with his conviction that he's above accountability and nobody has any business looking into this - note especially the part where he makes a veiled threat about the special counsel staying out of investigating his/his family's/businesses' financials (which obviously are going to come up when looking into this, and which the counsel absolutely has the prerogative to investigate, provided any such connections come up in the course of the investigation.)
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby morriswalters » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:00 pm UTC

Fuck Trump. It isn't about him. It's about the process.

Wouldn't you question the integrity of a prosecutor if he declines to try a cop for killing a black man? The process is exactly the same. It's about trust. And it's at least one reason why two different groups of people can look at events like that and draw completely different conclusions about how fair the process is.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7508
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:19 pm UTC

What? You're comparing Mueller to a killing cop? No, this isn't equivalent to that. This is equivalent to me being a CEO of a company and being upset when my HR department, the one I'm responsible for hiring everyone in, does its job. Trump is being wildly accusatory about someone that he chose for the job. Clinton was being wildly accusatory for someone that has been enforced on him from outside. Also not good! But not ridiculous like Trump's actions.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:02 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:What? You're comparing Mueller to a killing cop? No, this isn't equivalent to that. This is equivalent to me being a CEO of a company and being upset when my HR department, the one I'm responsible for hiring everyone in, does its job. Trump is being wildly accusatory about someone that he chose for the job. Clinton was being wildly accusatory for someone that has been enforced on him from outside. Also not good! But not ridiculous like Trump's actions.

I read that as Trump being the killer who has a badge, and Mueller is the attorney.

The sourcing for the wapo pardon article is pretty sketchy. Nobody else that is major is reporting on it, so 538's suggestion is to wait. Someone familiar with the story is rock bottom on the usefulness scale. They don't even have that many people corroborating the hearsay. Ideally you would want multiple people agreeing he said that, or for the administration to confirm.
Last edited by sardia on Fri Jul 21, 2017 3:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: orthogon and 7 guests