The Trump Crime Family
- Thread starter Doc Holliday
- Start date
If North Korea isn't developing nuclear weapons and lobbying rockets over Japan, WTF do you care.
Maybe because historically populism is not associated very positively, to say the least!
True. We should not care.
We should care who owns his assets tho. Because it defines his politics and major decisions.
Cheers,
So, Obama gives a speech and says all the good things happening is because of him, before all the bad things were because of Bush.
Coming from a person who doubled the US debt in 8 years ( 9 trillion added ) it looks like he is a self absorbed narcissist. He sure like to pat himself on the back a lot, mentions his name constantly.
Now back to Trump, what an evil person for putting all those people to work and tweeting. Shame. Thankful that we have such a treasure ruining things here, lies a lot, does not keep campaign promises, spends us into a huge deficit but what a swell guy.
Coming from a person who doubled the US debt in 8 years ( 9 trillion added ) it looks like he is a self absorbed narcissist. He sure like to pat himself on the back a lot, mentions his name constantly.
Now back to Trump, what an evil person for putting all those people to work and tweeting. Shame. Thankful that we have such a treasure ruining things here, lies a lot, does not keep campaign promises, spends us into a huge deficit but what a swell guy.
STN, supposedly Obama was very concerned that if Romney won in 2012, the economy would take-off and he (Obama) wouldn't get credit. I'm not sure the economy took-off under Obama, but here we are two years later and he's still claiming it.
As I have stated before, I don't believe in giving Presidents and Prime Ministers too much credit for cycles, but they can certainly put in structural policies that either dampen or promote economic activity. Obama was not interested too much in the policies that would promote the business activity component of economic activity. There was always the Far Left's predilection with government spending and programs.
As I have stated before, I don't believe in giving Presidents and Prime Ministers too much credit for cycles, but they can certainly put in structural policies that either dampen or promote economic activity. Obama was not interested too much in the policies that would promote the business activity component of economic activity. There was always the Far Left's predilection with government spending and programs.
Populism in America typically triggers positive forces and political renewal in our country. Teddy Roosevelt was a populist and he is considered one of our greatest Presidents. Sometimes American populism is simply "throw the bums out". It has an impact on both parties as the ground underneath them begins to shift. Establishment Republicans aren't sure of their past positions that provided comfort for many Republican incumbents.
Unless the Democrats win back both houses, which seems very unlikely, he won't be crippled. (and even then, he will still have lots he can do with trade and the courts, and executive oversight as sambuca says).
But he does lash out when frustrated and even if he just loses the house, he will become much more frustrated. So yes, I expect much worse behavior from him should that happen.
It could be interesting if the Dems pick up the House. You have the whole impeachment thing. Many people don't quite understand that House members are generally more extreme than the Senate and would be itching for an impeachment. Unless Mueller gets something juicy, the impeachment most likely won't be picked up by the Senate.
The Dems I suspect would hold many hearings on various misconduct in the Executive Branch apart from Trump. Most likely the Democratic base would be screaming for House hearings on Trump, but that's basically preempted by the extensive Mueller probe. So it's up to Mueller for all the Trump haters. Perhaps the Mueller probe will get more fuel, but it's hard to see that with the Senate as an equal to the House and perhaps more powerful.
If history repeats itself, the party out of the White House does very well in the first midterm. I expect if the Dems take the House you won't hear much about history and a lot about how it is a referendum on Trump. Of course, when Obama got his ass handed to him in 2010 it was not a referendum on Obama, but just the unfortunate cycle of history.
The Dems I suspect would hold many hearings on various misconduct in the Executive Branch apart from Trump. Most likely the Democratic base would be screaming for House hearings on Trump, but that's basically preempted by the extensive Mueller probe. So it's up to Mueller for all the Trump haters. Perhaps the Mueller probe will get more fuel, but it's hard to see that with the Senate as an equal to the House and perhaps more powerful.
If history repeats itself, the party out of the White House does very well in the first midterm. I expect if the Dems take the House you won't hear much about history and a lot about how it is a referendum on Trump. Of course, when Obama got his ass handed to him in 2010 it was not a referendum on Obama, but just the unfortunate cycle of history.
Right. He didn't. And you're still calling it scorched earth. It's weird. They didn't ask for the sentence to be pushed to a higher grade, or demand the maximum, or contest the 14 days. Yes, if he had been more cooperative, they could have actively recommended no jail time and did not. How you can consider telling the judge they would take no position other than yes, he should be sentenced in the normal 0-6 month range and a fine is scorched earth is mysterious to me. Your reality does not appear to line up with my own.
At least you recognize Benghazi as a sham/
He already tried that one, remember? "Float" is the operative word. If he wanted a deal, there would be one. He spiked it. More than once.
I agree the Dems are going to get some flack for being "obstructionist" - the question is will it stick and for how many people? Given his tendency to contradict himself and his general unpopularity, I suspect most of the blame won't stick on them. (Especially when they can point to Trump's behavior last time.)
@cloudsurf -
I don't think Pence is worse. He's a different kind of terrible, but he's less damaging to institutional cohesion. He also doesn't have Trump's mean streak, which is a big part of Trump's charisma. Pence is bloodless. Yes, he will attempt to put in all kids of weird Dominionist Theocracy, but he doesn't fire up people the same way. So I don't think he would be very effective outside of the fact that there will be a very strong push by the Press and everyone else to "get the bad Trump years behind us" if he comes in due to impeachment and removal. Lots of pretending Pence is normal and demanding everyone just get along for the sake of getting along.
In the end, I think even with that push, Pence is a pretty unlikeable guy (He was being booed in Indiana before he left) and wouldn't be able to escape the shadow of getting in due to a removal.
@Blaupunkt - It seems like it is a wash? There are definitely some things dumping the brand name where they can, but since he spends so much government money at his own properties and since high rollers who want access and foreign leaders and the like know they can basically spend money directly into his pockets by buying from his things, he is still making lots of money with it. I do expect most of that to go away once he no longer has direct power, but he will have made serious coin in the short term and he is old so the fall off won't hurt him much. (It isn't like he will have to rebuild himself for the last few years of his life.)
@sambuca - the rest of your "pragmatic compromise" list. (Remember, he has said he would deal on all these things, but he contradicts himself all the time, you have to look at what he has actually done)
- Immigration: He has already rejected deals there.
- Healthcare: He hasn't shown any inclination to make a deal there. I don't think he has even proposed any deals there. Has he made a single offer of any kind on healthcare? Saying "We will put in a great plan" isn't an offer.
- "He has targeted Big Pharma" - How? I mean, he talked tough a lot, but then he didn't actually *do* anything. There was a "blueprint" of stuff that might be considered to happen later. Nothing was actually conceded. (I remember Merck did a cool PR stunt where it slashed prices on the 7 drugs it had with the worst sales, but they didn't cut any important drugs.)
- Big Insurance: Not even sure what you are referring to here. I don't think he has ever even spoken out against the insurance companies? He just blames the ACA for prices. (I could be wrong on this, maybe he has targeted some insurance companies.)
And in all these cases, when he has talked about things, he hasn't really spoken about pragmatic compromise and making deals. He has "talked tough" about "winning". At *least* in the DACA case there was talk of "You pay for the wall and I will make DACA permanent", which is a pragmatic deal sort of approach - so I give you that one. But even the rhetoric in the others hasn't been like that as far as I can tell.
What on earth in Trump's history as President makes you think he would do this? When does he ever talk like this? He is the exact opposite, promising everyone everything they asked for.
(Side note about budgets. You are right that you don't remember many full complete budget deals getting struck under Obama, but then that's been the case for the last 30 or 40 years. Congress never gets all the appropriations bills passed, and does weird omnibus bills and continuing resolutions and such. It's a mess, and it predates Trump, predates Obama, and basically stretches all the way back to Reagan and Carter, which is when the new process came in.)
On populism I will agree with you that it is too broad a term that gets tossed around sort of haphazardly. Other than a vague sense of "We the People against the Elites" as a theme, the various "populist" movements haven't shared that much in common. They often disagree who "The People" are, who "The Elites" are, what is needed to fix things, etc.
I think the Democrats would be foolish to focus on Impeachment, especially since getting the Senate to remove would be almost impossible without something outrageously obvious and blatant coming out. (Which I would doubt very much.) If the Senate did vote to remove, it would be like 95-5 or something, because nothing that isn't that overwhelming is going to get a single Republican vote, let alone 17 or so. I just can't see it.
As you say, the Dems will hold hearings on that list of things the Republicans were circulating that they were afraid the Dems would hold hearings on. The fact that hearings are public, while Mueller is not, means both will go on. Also, there are all kinds of things on that aren't really related to Mueller, if I recall, so those wouldn't even have overlap.
You are absolutely right that the party out of Whitehouse usually does well in the first midterm election. It seems there are lots of years it is a 15-20 seat loss and others where it is a 30-40-50 seat loss (or more). I guess when it is >25 they get to call it a wave. I definitely remember lots of talk in 2010 about how it was a rejection of Obama. (And in 2006 it was a "rejection of Bush"). Everyone always claims a mandate if they end up with control of the Congress. I don't think it is worth listening to that much unless it is a 30-40 seat shift, myself. I would err on the conservative side and not call it a real "wave" unless the Dems picked up 40 or more seats, probably.
You might be smarter than the average Merbite. However, I mostly don't agree with you. What struck me on your pure spin was that 2010 was considered a rejection of Obama. I'm talking about the American media here. The ones who anointed him one of our greatest Presidents about six years in after terrible losses in Congress, Governorships and State Legislatures. The voter decides one thing and the media decides its another. There shouldn't be any disagreement on that. I will defend President Obama to an extent. American voters rarely know what they want. They seem to vote with anger and most of the time that's directed at the party in the White House.
I say "scorched earth". You say "RICO". Scorched Earth! RICO! Let's call the whole Special Counsel off. I say scorched earth because they are investigating anyone who ever worked with Trump and any ancillary issue. I'm not sure what to call it otherwise. I'm not interested in legal spin. They wanted Papa locked up longer. Mueller's very expensive lawyers don't push this shit through the Courts for 14 days jail time. Papa was publicly vacillating on his guilty plea. This probably could've been wrapped up a year ago if Mueller offered a light sentence. I'm also not interested in Mueller kicked this or that to this jurisdiction or that. I don't think that Mueller ever had any cause to raiding Cohen's offices in the first place. I'll say it again and again. The Stormy Daniels thing is a ruse. Directly, it's all to make the President look bad. Indirectly, it was a lever to open that door to Cohen's office.
I still think the President is naturally inclined to make a deal on many issues presuming he can figure out who the honest brokers are. The Dem leaders? don't think so. Republicans? too ideological or too in bed with special interests. We can agree special interest groups send lobbyists and money to Washington to basically preserve the status quo or change at the margins. It doesn't matter the President wants a replacement healthcare plan Republican Congress won't deliver one. Perhaps if the House and Senate were evenly divided the President could leverage moderates to swing on legislation, but let's face it the solid partisan push-button voting has been around for at least ten years.
Don't blame Trump for a lack of an immigration deal. For whatever reason, the Dems are digging in on some strange immigration positions. Both parties want to run on this issue over and over again. I have many Democrat friends who don't understand the Democratic party's fascination with protecting illegal immigration. There's some Trump haters right here who don't like the Dems immigration policies. My cynical view is that many Dems see illegal immigration was a winning issue in turning California solidly blue and think this strategy can be used across the map. The Dems won't give up on these fringe immigration issues unless they are beaten repeatedly on this issue in most states.
I say "scorched earth". You say "RICO". Scorched Earth! RICO! Let's call the whole Special Counsel off. I say scorched earth because they are investigating anyone who ever worked with Trump and any ancillary issue. I'm not sure what to call it otherwise. I'm not interested in legal spin. They wanted Papa locked up longer. Mueller's very expensive lawyers don't push this shit through the Courts for 14 days jail time. Papa was publicly vacillating on his guilty plea. This probably could've been wrapped up a year ago if Mueller offered a light sentence. I'm also not interested in Mueller kicked this or that to this jurisdiction or that. I don't think that Mueller ever had any cause to raiding Cohen's offices in the first place. I'll say it again and again. The Stormy Daniels thing is a ruse. Directly, it's all to make the President look bad. Indirectly, it was a lever to open that door to Cohen's office.
I still think the President is naturally inclined to make a deal on many issues presuming he can figure out who the honest brokers are. The Dem leaders? don't think so. Republicans? too ideological or too in bed with special interests. We can agree special interest groups send lobbyists and money to Washington to basically preserve the status quo or change at the margins. It doesn't matter the President wants a replacement healthcare plan Republican Congress won't deliver one. Perhaps if the House and Senate were evenly divided the President could leverage moderates to swing on legislation, but let's face it the solid partisan push-button voting has been around for at least ten years.
Don't blame Trump for a lack of an immigration deal. For whatever reason, the Dems are digging in on some strange immigration positions. Both parties want to run on this issue over and over again. I have many Democrat friends who don't understand the Democratic party's fascination with protecting illegal immigration. There's some Trump haters right here who don't like the Dems immigration policies. My cynical view is that many Dems see illegal immigration was a winning issue in turning California solidly blue and think this strategy can be used across the map. The Dems won't give up on these fringe immigration issues unless they are beaten repeatedly on this issue in most states.
Clara, we could take bets on whether Melania will divorce him or not. How long after the Presidency will she divorce him. Perhaps she and Barron stay next to him until his last dying breath.
However, isn't this just stuff tabloid stuff?
Most Americans I interact with either love or hate his policies. They don't care about his personality. They don't care about Melania. Democrats hate him and his policies. Republicans don't like him, but like what he's doing. More interesting is what people in the middle are thinking. Independent men seem to be saying he's an asshole, but my business or company is doing well. Independent women definitely are saying he's a pig.
The question is will the independent women be influenced by the economy or vote against the pig. I'm feeling some of a shift in conversations. I don't think as many independent women are going to want to change the balance of power in Washington. They will rationalize it by saying they are voting for the Republican representative not Trump. My prediction Dems narrowly win the House, but the Senate stays securely Republican. I know that two months ago that wouldn't be a radical prediction. However, much of American media recently has been more aggressively predicting a big blue wave and possibly the Senate. I don't see it or feel it. In fact, I feel momentum is shifting back to Republicans. I think all the books and anonymous insider critics are backfiring.
However, isn't this just stuff tabloid stuff?
Most Americans I interact with either love or hate his policies. They don't care about his personality. They don't care about Melania. Democrats hate him and his policies. Republicans don't like him, but like what he's doing. More interesting is what people in the middle are thinking. Independent men seem to be saying he's an asshole, but my business or company is doing well. Independent women definitely are saying he's a pig.
The question is will the independent women be influenced by the economy or vote against the pig. I'm feeling some of a shift in conversations. I don't think as many independent women are going to want to change the balance of power in Washington. They will rationalize it by saying they are voting for the Republican representative not Trump. My prediction Dems narrowly win the House, but the Senate stays securely Republican. I know that two months ago that wouldn't be a radical prediction. However, much of American media recently has been more aggressively predicting a big blue wave and possibly the Senate. I don't see it or feel it. In fact, I feel momentum is shifting back to Republicans. I think all the books and anonymous insider critics are backfiring.
I'm strictly commenting on that "fuck you all" face. I think Benito had a very "fuck you" look to him.
It was from Marcy Wheeler. I'm less than convinced by a lot of her theorizing, I think she tends to be good on legal structure and runs off a bit into the weeds for international stuff, but this comment comes out of something specific, which she explains here.
I'm going to repeat what I said above, I think, that we really have no idea where Mueller is or isn't going. There have been so many cases already of his team dropping elements in that we didn't even know were being looked at that I think we don't have much to draw conclusions about in advance.
I completely agree that the idea Pence didn't know about things and that lying to him was the reason Flynn was let go are both ridiculous on their face. Since his days as governor, Pence has always played dumb when confronted with things. It's his schtick, and I see no reason to extend him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I know.
And that's fine! We clearly come at this from very different sides. I guess want confuses me isn't that you draw different conclusions from what we can see, but that you seem to see a different reality than I do to even begin.
You talk about Trump making deals with moderates and things like that and it is clear you see an entirely different reality than the one I think we are living in, because the Trump you describe doesn't appear to exist in the world I am living in.
Right, here is another example. I remember the 2010 media narrrative being about the Tea Party winning and about Obama being checked and rejected by an angry electorate. I don't see what you are complaining about that "the people are pissed at the president" is the narrative this year since it was also the narrative then.
I don't know what to say about Papadopalous. They pled him down to the charge with the lightest sentence, then when he started being uncooperative they said "we aren't going to recommend to the judge to suspend the sentence" They didn't push for more, they didn't contest the judge deciding 14 days were enough. You seem to think the only light sentence that would have been light enough was none.
I get you don't like the probe. Yes, they are investigating the people who were around Trump, who else do you want them to investigate when the issue is whether or not there was malfeisance during the election? Yes, they are prosecuting the crimes they are finding, I'm not sure why you are against them doing that? As noted, Mueller has mostly NOT prosecuted these other crimes, he has farmed them out to other departments. It isn't Mueller's fault that Trump hired a lot of criminals. That's on Trump.
You say the raid the FBI (not Mueller, he handed that over since the charges there didn't concern Russia) did on Cohen was not valid, and Stormy Daniels is a ruse. I don't know what to say to that. You've decided the special counsel is invalid, and anything that comes from it is invalid on its face to you. ** shrug ** we just disagree on the fundamental premise.
I don't know what in the 30-40 years of Donald Trump being a media figure would lead you to believe in this Donald Trump who is naturally inclined to make a deal on issues,or one who cares about honest brokers. And we aren't going to agree on this, I think, unless there is some evidence you can show me of this behavior that I have missed?
Why do you think the President wants a replacement healthcare plan? Or a deal on immigration?
I can imagine that if someone could convince him "this would make you popular, sign it" he would do a deal on either of these. But that has nothing to do with him finding honest brokers or wanting moderates or wanting a real plan.
I mean, I guess I agree with you that if moderates got together and made a plan, Trump might sign it. But he would have nothing to do with getting them together, making the deal, or vetting the honesty of the brokers.
@sambuca - for the record, I agree with you about not caring about the state of Donald and Melania's marriage.
As for the election, I still think "House changes, Senate doesn't" is the reasonable bet. Yes, the media loves a horse race, and so the fact the races have tightened up means they are going to push the dramatic narrative (they always do) but at best the odds for a Dem takeover of the Senate have gone from "Ridiculous" to "Really unlikely".
The odds of the Dems getting the Senate are probably about the odds of Trump winning the presidency in 2016 - 20-30%. It can happen, as we have seen, but I still wouldn't bet on it.
As for the election, I still think "House changes, Senate doesn't" is the reasonable bet. Yes, the media loves a horse race, and so the fact the races have tightened up means they are going to push the dramatic narrative (they always do) but at best the odds for a Dem takeover of the Senate have gone from "Ridiculous" to "Really unlikely".
The odds of the Dems getting the Senate are probably about the odds of Trump winning the presidency in 2016 - 20-30%. It can happen, as we have seen, but I still wouldn't bet on it.
So Micheal Moore just made a statement that Trump will be a 2 term president.
As much as I think Trump is an absolute idiot, a liar, a fundamental ego maniacal and unfit dude I think Moore is right.
America is far from being fixed. Economic inequities and global trade (initiated mainly by the US) is killing american middle class which are way too upset. It takes years to overcome that.
It reminds me a few years ago I was in french island Guadeloupe. There was a general strike of the population. Everyone. Every gas stations, main groceries, all shops, all gouvernment services were close. Everything.
The strike was against the high cost of life. The problem was the island was living with the Euro dollar value with European price tag for everything but with non adjusted salary of a small tourist island.
America is living a similar problem.
It's not normal not being able to make ends meet in Washington, Boston, San-Francisco, New-York if you make 100k salary. But this is what's happening right now.
It's not normal for teachers in Arkansas to get a second night job because their main jobs is not enough.
Trump is just surfing on this wave. And he is good at it. He is great at bringing enough chaos to make sure he emerge as the populist ass hole against the elite. We have to give him credit to be able to do that while at the same time being himself the most elitist snob president the usa has ever got!!
Cheers,
As much as I think Trump is an absolute idiot, a liar, a fundamental ego maniacal and unfit dude I think Moore is right.
America is far from being fixed. Economic inequities and global trade (initiated mainly by the US) is killing american middle class which are way too upset. It takes years to overcome that.
It reminds me a few years ago I was in french island Guadeloupe. There was a general strike of the population. Everyone. Every gas stations, main groceries, all shops, all gouvernment services were close. Everything.
The strike was against the high cost of life. The problem was the island was living with the Euro dollar value with European price tag for everything but with non adjusted salary of a small tourist island.
America is living a similar problem.
It's not normal not being able to make ends meet in Washington, Boston, San-Francisco, New-York if you make 100k salary. But this is what's happening right now.
It's not normal for teachers in Arkansas to get a second night job because their main jobs is not enough.
Trump is just surfing on this wave. And he is good at it. He is great at bringing enough chaos to make sure he emerge as the populist ass hole against the elite. We have to give him credit to be able to do that while at the same time being himself the most elitist snob president the usa has ever got!!
Cheers,
Breaking news... Trump failed to stop hurricane. White house refuses to deny it caused hurricane Florence..... Stormy Daniels being questioned.
It's very far from certain. Moore really thinks he called Trump's victory for the right reasons. That's... dubious, since lots of people called Trump's victory for various reasons and they all get to claim they are right. He also predicted Trump would be impeached just a year ago. And I think before that he said Trump would be President for Life by suspending the constitution. (I think that was him.)
But look, it is pretty clear that the way the system is set up, there is virtually no way for a candidate on either side to ever drop below a 20-30% chance of winning. Things are just too polarized and there are structural issues that make it not a popular vote. That means he will always have a legit shot, even with his approval rating in the tank.
But the question is whether or not he owns those problems now. Clinton cleaned his clock among the working class and people earning <$50,000 a year. Poor *areas* voted for Trump, not poor *voters*. So a lot will depend on how those votes are distributed and what people think he is doing that helps or hurts. But if Middle Class = >$50,000 then yes, he won those, and he might still win them.
I'm not convinced he *is* good at that, though. His approval ratings are shit, and have stayed shit. He has a group of hardcore supporters, but I don't think he has been able to maintain the illusion of being the populist guy for most people. He hates the same people his core voters hate, yes, but that group doesn't seem to be as large as he might hope. I don't know how many people see his chaos and view it as "he is kicking the elite" versus "he's a giant douchebag".
He absolutely can still win in 2020. That's two years away and very hard to predict. But Trump's "the system is rigged" call had the advantage last time of him having no real track record. I don't think he can run the same playbook again.
Ho fuck I almost forgot about that! If I lose it's because the system is rigged!!! Fuck I still cannot believe he said that many times before being elected. It just reinforce me how a fucking loser he is. I still for the life of me cannot believe what people see in this moron!!
Cheers,
Similar threads
