The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I also don't understand how Trump specifically could get any credit for SCOTUS appointments. That's all McConnell.

Um, because he is the POTUS and the POTUS appoints justices? McConnell's job was to get them confirmed, but there is no confirmation without there first being an appointment. Hence why SCOTUS is a major campaign issue every presidential election cycle.

[digamma]

I think cuervo's point was that McConnell blocked Garland.

[cuervo72]

Right, that and basically that Trump was essentially given a list to choose from and he chose. I suppose he should get credit in that his election brought a Republican administration, but any Republican would have nominated conservative judges which would have been confirmed by McConnell. Simply nominating them takes no real talent.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Right, that and basically that Trump was essentially given a list to choose from and he chose. I suppose he should get credit in that his election brought a Republican administration, but any Republican would have nominated conservative judges which would have been confirmed by McConnell. Simply nominating them takes no real talent.

I hear ya but this seems a rather weak reason to not give whatever credit is due. Trump has done about a million things that is stupid that we can jump on him about. It seems petty to not acknowledge one of the few campaign promises he followed through on.

[cuervo72]

That he'd...nominate someone? There was an opening. Why would he not? I don't understand why that's an accomplishment. "I nominate ____." Whoa, that was difficult. Momentous! It's like giving him credit for taking the oath of office. Would any of the other 15 Republican nominees have passed on nominating someone?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Great post. One question I have been asking people who have voted over the last two national election cycles. If you could break down your vote, how much of your vote was for what it would do for "your side" and how much of it was against what it would do for the "other side"? I am making the assumption that you believe what is good for "your side" is good for the country. Or maybe it was just what was good for you which is fine too. One of the frustrations of the last two election cycles has been how little of the discussion is FOR something. I guess it t does not really make a difference in the end. I just find that the productive discussion require people speaking for something and not just against something.

This is a good post and one that's had me thinking a bit how to respond.


The best I can say, I guess, is the enemy of my enemy is my ally if not my friend.


If I am intellectually honest with myself, Im not sure I would have voted for any non-conservative last cycle. Solely because of the SCOTUS. I think it was pretty apparent 2 seats (at least) would change during this 4 year cycle...and Im not really sure I think any Executive Branch can have more impact than flipping the SC. That's getting way into the weeds...and its easy to say I just voted for a side there or that I was only concerned with winning. But I truly feel that more conservative policies are whats best for country, while also respecting that I may be wrong...but it is how I feel.


I have to be honest and look at my life. In many ways I am a product of government sponsored welfare. I was a ward of the state, grew up in foster and adopted homes, went to a free public school and was fed free lunch and rode to school (at times) on a free school bus.



As I try to analyze my thoughts they fall into this I believe in supporting kids and changing cycles. But the kid has to, somehow, see the need and desire to change. I wanted something different for as long as I can remember. I had friends who didn't. I dont know what that unique individual differentiation was ....but I grasped opportunities at every turn.



I attribute it to Divine intervention. That somehow God put the north star in my heart and had the courage and fortitude to chase it. I recognize, however, if you are a non-believer I my thought process will not resonate with you and will be discarded as foolish, simple, or stupid. And I suppose it may be. None of know for certain and wont until the end. But its all I have to explain it.



I've also seen the other side. I have listened to folks I grew up with who are disenfranchised and solemnly believe their only hope is the hand out. And I've listened at times to the discussions of how to work the system. And that's the right word, work...it is work to get free benefits. Salldy I do know some folks think that is their only way. Again what % of recipients are needful and appreciative, what % are lazy, what % are working the system.


I dont know how to answer that. I dont think there is an easy answer. 'The right thing is always the hardest thing to do' - yet we all want an easy button. Its hard to work 1 on 1 and change the world. There arent enough good people. So are we doomed? Should we just give up? Is my side right or yours? Does it even matter?


That's where my mind is on this reflective Easter Sunday.

[CU Tiger]

and again...all the crazy spacing there isnt mine. Im sorry. Im not editing it again.

[tarcone]

There is so much to be learned about poverty. It isnt just lot in life, it is a mind set. We will always have poor because that is what they know. Unless we change how they think and educate them on the soft skills of being middle class, they will never leave poverty.

The kids are the future of this nation. How we raise them and what we teach them sets up the next 4 decades of decisions for this country

I hope we all come together and understand the importance of our youth and train them to be productive members of society.

Just a ramble of thoughts that came to my mind reading parts of CUs post

[JPhillips]

With Rudy's comments this morning we've gone from

Of course we didn't do it

to

Of course we didn't know we did it

to

Of course we did it and that's fine

If there are no consequences for working with material stolen by a foreign government, you can be sure it will happen again in 2020 and most every election after that. The arms race will be what can you get from hostile foreign governments.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

That he'd...nominate someone? There was an opening. Why would he not? I don't understand why that's an accomplishment. "I nominate ____." Whoa, that was difficult. Momentous! It's like giving him credit for taking the oath of office. Would any of the other 15 Republican nominees have passed on nominating someone?

Brian's original point was that one of the few things Trump was involved in and actually campaigned on and got done was getting his SCOTUS appointments in. We can quibble about how much credit he deserves and who did the most to make it happen or how easy it was to do, but Brian is right. Trump did that. You're bending over backwards to not give him any credit at all, and it's pretty plain you can't be objective about it. And this is coming from someone who despises Trump nearly as much as the far left.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Brian's original point was that one of the few things Trump was involved in and actually campaigned on and got done was getting his SCOTUS appointments in. We can quibble about how much credit he deserves and who did the most to make it happen or how easy it was to do, but Brian is right. Trump did that. You're bending over backwards to not give him any credit at all, and it's pretty plain you can't be objective about it. And this is coming from someone who despises Trump nearly as much as the far left.

Well said. I agree.

[cuervo72]

If Hilary had won and had a Democratic senate, I wouldn't have given her any credit either. I just don't see a nomination as an accomplishment. It's procedural. Just like you don't get credit for having a Secretary of State.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If Hilary had won and had a Democratic senate, I wouldn't have given her any credit either. I just don't see a nomination as an accomplishment. It's procedural. Just like you don't get credit for having a Secretary of State.

No one is saying it is this massive achievement. But it does meet Brian's very low standard of being a campaign promise of Trump's that has actually been achieved (and, yes, he played a part).

[JPhillips]

Trump has filed a complaint against Elijah Cummings and the subpoena for accounting records. If Trump wins this seems like it would be very far reaching.

"Chairman Cummings has ignored the constitutional limits on Congress' power to investigate," the complaint filed by Mr. Trump reads. "Article I of the Constitution does not contain an 'Investigations Clause' or an 'Oversight Clause.' It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose," the complaint reads.

[Lathum]

It’s almost as if he has something to hide.

[Thomkal]

So suddenly he's a constitutionalist?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump has filed a complaint against Elijah Cummings and the subpoena for accounting records. If Trump wins this seems like it would be very far reaching.

Can't fathom he'd win. You can't sue Congressional members for carrying out their duties. And federal courts can't look into the motives behind Congressional subpoenas. Separation of powers and all that jazz.

[RainMaker]

The cases he cites too actually say the opposite of what his lawyers think. He has bad attorneys.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The cases he cites too actually say the opposite of what his lawyers think. He has bad attorneys.

It's hard to find good attorneys that don't take notes

[SirFozzie]

So, this is Trump's pick to run the fed board. (He was the one that said "Capitalism is more important then democracy" earlier)

n one of his 2002 columns, Moore suggested changes to March Madness tournament to get rid of "un-American" aspects of it. The first rule proposed by Moore was "no women."
"Here's the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no women announcers, no women beer venders, no women anything," he wrote in March 2002. "There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant." He later wrote that Bernstein, a CBS sports journalist at the time, should wear halter tops.
Earlier the column, Moore expressed disgust at a woman refereeing an NCAA game.
"How outrageous is this? This year they allowed a woman ref a men's NCAA game. Liberals celebrate this breakthrough as a triumph for gender equity," Moore wrote. "The NCAA has been touting this as example of how progressive they are. I see it as an obscenity. Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women? What's next? Women invited to bachelor parties? Women in combat? (Oh yeah, they've done that already.) Why can't women ref the women's games and men the men's games. I can't wait to see the first lady ref have a run in with Bobby Knight.

Moore wrote that this was part of the "bigger and more serious social problem in America" which was "the feminization of basketball generally." Moore added he didn't care about watching women's basketball and he was upset games were shown on ESPN.
"And while I'm venting on the subject, here's another travesty: in playground games and rec leagues these days, women now feel free to play with the men — uninvited in almost every case," added Moore. "There's no joy in dunking over a girl. Never mind that I can't dunk (except on the eight-foot baskets). If I could, I wouldn't celebrate dunking over someone named Tina."
Moore addressed complaints about his column the 13 days later, mocking claims of sexism.
"Several readers (all women) have called and e-mailed complaining about my last column as 'sexist' because I said that women shouldn't be permitted to ref the men's game," wrote Moore. "Their retort was: 'Well then why should men ref the women's games?' Look, for all I care the women can use chimpanzees to ref their games. I hate women's basketball."

[Atocep]

Matt Shea (Mr. Manifesto) showing off those good conservative values we're all missing.

Washington Democrats call for GOP state Rep. Matt Shea to be expelled after latest allegations | The Seattle Times

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump has filed a complaint against Elijah Cummings and the subpoena for accounting records. If Trump wins this seems like it would be very far reaching.

Well, at least Trump hasn't asked Mulvaney to fire him. (Probably.)

[RainMaker]

This is the guy Trump and 40 Republicans asked to be freed pending trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html

Our good friends the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia beheadings: Western Michigan-student-to-be executed

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is the guy Trump and 40 Republicans asked to be freed pending trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html

Our good friends the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia beheadings: Western Michigan-student-to-be executed

Sickening stories.

[digamma]

Productive executive time this morning, I guess.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is the guy Trump and 40 Republicans asked to be freed pending trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html

Our good friends the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia beheadings: Western Michigan-student-to-be executed

I looked at that the story with ad block off and there was an advertisement for a "Free Eddy" T-Shirt.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I looked at that the story with ad block off and there was an advertisement for a "Free Eddy" T-Shirt.

It wasn't an ad, it was a photo to accompany the article.

[panerd]

No shock... Biden announces. I think I would vote for Biden assuming Trump is still in office and running in 2020. (Would possibly vote for Buttigieg or O'Rourke) Most of the other candidates (Free college forgiveness! Just print more money!) would likely have me voting Libertarian and Sanders would probably have me voting Trump.

Wonder how the general public would lean for Biden vs Sanders vs the rest against Trump? If 2016 taught us anything the polls probably won't clearly answer that question.

[Kodos]

I'd like to see something like a Biden/Harris ticket. Something to please both centrist and more liberal Democrats.

[ISiddiqui]

It was no surprise, but eesh... Biden is my second least favorite candidate running (after Sanders). I mean, yes, I'd vote for him over Trump, but that's the lowest bar one can imagine.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'd like to see something like a Biden/Harris ticket. Something to please both centrist and more liberal Democrats.

That would really be a good way to piss off the Dems who want criminal justice reform. One of the marks against Harris is how heavy handed she was at times as an AG. Biden's campaign was smart to consider Stacey Abrams and if he wins, that may not be a bad call.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'd like to see something like a Biden/Harris ticket. Something to please both centrist and more liberal Democrats.

Harris wouldn't please as many liberal Democrats as you think she would. Like IS said, that angers the criminal justice reform crowd. I'd consider that a very underwhelming ticket and would be very reluctant in voting for it.

Biden is also my second least favorite candidate, though Beto is first among my most disliked.

[albionmoonlight]

New: at a recent Twitter all-hands meeting, an employee asked: Twitter has eradicated ISIS. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacists?

One answer that is discussed internally, we found: because it would mean banning some Republican politicians too https://t.co/x6JRvdvJJG pic.twitter.com/VRnht57WkN

— Joseph Cox (@josephfcox) April 25, 2019

From the "this should probably shock us, but we kind of already know it, so it does not anymore" files, Twitter admits that it does not take a strong hand in trying to shut down white supremacy because doing so would block content from some GOP politicians.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Biden is also my second least favorite candidate, though Beto is first among my most disliked.

+1


Biden's first event apparently is a fundraiser hosted by the CEO of Comcast. Given all the focus on campaign contributions, corporate influence, and net neutrality, this is just hilariously bad.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm a little less anti-Beto that some Democrats here. I'd put him above Buttigieg (ie, Mayor No-Policies) or Klobuchar.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

New: at a recent Twitter all-hands meeting, an employee asked: Twitter has eradicated ISIS. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacists?

One answer that is discussed internally, we found: because it would mean banning some Republican politicians too https://t.co/x6JRvdvJJG pic.twitter.com/VRnht57WkN

— Joseph Cox (@josephfcox) April 25, 2019

From the "this should probably shock us, but we kind of already know it, so it does not anymore" files, Twitter admits that it does not take a strong hand in trying to shut down white supremacy because doing so would block content from some GOP politicians.

I know the racism overlap is there, but I read it more that they find it a lot easier to block content of foreigners than American politicians. Which is probably a smart stance for a corporation based in the US and subject at times to the whims of those politicians.

[BishopMVP]

I'm pretty ambivalent on Biden as a politician, but it'll be fascinating now to see the internal civil war on the Dem side. I don't think the vocal feminist and #MeToo bloc will ever support him, so it'll be a good test to see just how much actual support that bloc has, and how many people like those ideas well enough but are willing to overlook them for a better chance to beat Trump.

I'm also not sure it'll be they who beat Biden, but I think it's more than a 50% chance this ends disastrously for him. He's gotten a pass on a whole lot of stuff because he's in a non-threatening position, and I don't think he understands the vitriol that will now be directed at him. I don't even think he really understands why his previous two Presidential campaigns failed to gain traction.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I'm pretty ambivalent on Biden as a politician, but it'll be fascinating now to see the internal civil war on the Dem side. I don't think the vocal feminist and #MeToo bloc will ever support him, so it'll be a good test to see just how much actual support that bloc has, and how many people like those ideas well enough but are willing to overlook them for a better chance to beat Trump.

I'm also not sure it'll be they who beat Biden, but I think it's more than a 50% chance this ends disastrously for him. He's gotten a pass on a whole lot of stuff because he's in a non-threatening position, and I don't think he understands the vitriol that will now be directed at him. I don't even think he really understands why his previous two Presidential campaigns failed to gain traction.

Well at this point it looks like Biden and Sanders are going to be taking broadsides at each other. Which benefits everyone else really. I imagine they'll both take each other down.

[JPhillips]

A new book claims Trump okayed paying North Korea 2 million for the medical expenses related to Otto Warmbeier.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A new book claims Trump okayed paying North Korea 2 million for the medical expenses related to Otto Warmbeier.

His base won’t care. He will spin it as being the price he had to pay to get him back on US soil and his base will call him a hero for bringing him back.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

His base won’t care. He will spin it as being the price he had to pay to get him back on US soil and his base will call him a hero for bringing him back.

Warmbeier's dad said, "sounds like it was a ransom payment."

[panerd]

The problem with our side/their sides politics is you can act outraged and then have to spin how half a billion was realeased to Iran right exactly the same.time as hostages were freed from there. Best to just not play the game and be outraged at everyone.

I know, I know Irans money right? Sure. Would you.be saying the same if Trump unfroze 500 million of North Koreas frozen assets?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I know, I know Irans money right? Sure. Would you.be saying the same if Trump unfroze 500 million of North Koreas frozen assets?

As part of a broader agreement? Yeah, I would.

The problem isn't as simple as no money for prisoners under any conditions. The problem is if Trump okayed a payment for a tortured, brain-dead guy and got nothing in return. A peace deal where both sides agree to exchanges of priorities is a very different thing.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well at this point it looks like Biden and Sanders are going to be taking broadsides at each other. Which benefits everyone else really. I imagine they'll both take each other down.

Which means we should count at least 4 more years of Trump.

[Brian Swartz]

Nah. There were lots of those on both sides in the last round of primaries.

[Edward64]

I'm not sure if this will help with increased "reasonable" gun control but it can't hurt. Hope he goes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eports-n999101

Oliver North, the president of the National Rifle Association, has asked its longtime spiritual leader and chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, to step down amid challenges surrounding the organization's fundraising and nonprofit status, the New York Times reported Friday.

The report came just hours after President Donald Trump addressed the gun owners' rights group at its annual meeting in Indianapolis. The organization's 2016 election spending, including $36 million to help Trump, has prompted regulators in its charter base of New York state to threaten to investigate its nonprofit status.

[whomario]

Without digging into it i kinda doubt he is under pressure because the members want more gun controll.

Related:

Trump told cheering NRA of US withdrawal from UN global arms treaty

Was only a matter of time for him to fully turn to that demographic

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure if this will help with increased "reasonable" gun control but it can't hurt. Hope he goes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eports-n999101

I'm not really sure what your post means, as the NRA is basically a gun selling organization. Anyhow, North is out as President and Wayne the weasel survives.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not really sure what your post means, as the NRA is basically a gun selling organization. Anyhow, North is out as President and Wayne the weasel survives.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure if this will help with increased "reasonable" gun control but it can't hurt. Hope he goes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eports-n999101

Originally Posted by whomario

Without digging into it i kinda doubt he is under pressure because the members want more gun controll.

Related:

Trump told cheering NRA of US withdrawal from UN global arms treaty

Was only a matter of time for him to fully turn to that demographic

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm not really sure what your post means, as the NRA is basically a gun selling organization. Anyhow, North is out as President and Wayne the weasel survives.

Without posting any opinionhere is a biased source of the genesis of this


400 Bad Request