The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I disagree. If the approval ratings were flipped I doubt the Russia story would be swaying as many GOP Senators. It might also change how things are going with his cabinet. Trump is already toxic enough that members of his own party are willing to attack him.

Don't forget, we're a month in and the WH hasn't done anything concerning legislation. That's shocking given total GOP control and the fact that most meaningful legislation comes in a President's first year.

Well, yes and no. On a very basic level, he's already the President. So he will have the powers proscribed to the position whether his ratings are high or low. And by law the government must follow his leadership, in and where the law does not provide methods by which to challenege him. So in that way, approval ratings, especially so early in his term are almost worthless.

Now, where they become an issue is if the low ratings affect the willingness of those he needs to support him, such as GOP congressmen. Low approval ratings could lead many in Congress to question whether supporting his policies are helpful to their own constituencies and to their political careers. So there is certainly a realistic consideration that low approval ratings will make for much tougher sledding for Trump to get his policies on place.

But in actual direct effect of his daily duties, they are essentially meaningless right now.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I have barely mentioned Trump going ons this last month to my gov/econ students. I feel most of what I would be doing is reacting to things. I feel it is my job to offer perspective, when possible.

That being said, I d not think I will be able to hold back on this exchange:

QUESTION: you said today that you have big intellectual margins (inaudible) 300 or more (ph), or 350 (ph) electoral (ph) votes. President Obama about 365

TRUMP: Yeah.

QUESTION: Obama 426... So why should Americans...

TRUMP: ...I'm skipping that information, I don't know, I was just given (ph) we had a very, very big margin.

QUESTION: why should Americans trust you the information?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know, I was given that information. I was given -- I actually, I've seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that?

I prefer Pete Alexander's answer on if he agrees: You're the President.

Also, his approval rating won't do below 30, because I assume that's his base and they'll ride and die with him, literally.

I like how he spent minutes talking about how they're the most productive white house in the first month ever.

And Republicans in the house/Senate don't care what his approval ratings are as long as he signs the bills they propose. They'll just stay in their little caves and only day something if he really goes off the deep end, then say something about leaks.

[bbgunn]

Originally Posted by lungs

So far the reaction I've seen in some of my circle of deplorables is that today's press conference was fantastic. Trump really shoots from the hip and that's what we need!

Yeah, that's what we need, alright. A President who says stuff without thinking about what he's saying.

Anyway, I understand the need to make the base happy, but the White House and Republicans, I would think, should be trying to make the independents happy as well. Independents turned Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc., into red states and gave Trump victory. You don't want to make them unhappy. Also, if GOP support is whittled down to Trump's base of supporters, yet they turn the vast majority of independents against Trump and the GOP, you're going to see a lot of congressional seats fall in 2018.

[RainMaker]

Pretty remarkable if true.

Fox News on Twitter: ".@johnrobertsFox: @POTUS was in fact fully briefed on the content of those conversations that Gen. Flynn had with the Russian ambassador. https://t.co/I70FlxuYCl"

[Ben E Lou]

Erick Erickson wrote a good piece this morning that's probably worth a read no matter what your political persuasion. (Spoiler: if you lean left, you'll stop gnashing your teeth about halfway through; if you lean right, you'll stop cheering...about halfway through. )

Difficult Truths, But Still Truths After Yesterday’s Trumpnami | The Resurgent

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Apologies for bringing actual legislation into this thread.

House votes to scrap Obama limits on drug tests for the unemployed | Washington Examiner

[CrescentMoonie]

Not mine, but I'm not sure of the origin--

Trump: "I am not a bad person"
Nixon: "I am not a crook"
Trump: "The leaks are illegal"
Nixon: "The leaks are unamerican"
Trump: "Alternative Facts"
Nixon: "If you read the transcript...some may reach "different interpretations"".
Trump: "The media is fake news and on a witchhunt against my administration"
Nixon: "The media is unfairly attacking the presidency for ratings. Unfounded claims."
Trump: "Russia was not involved in the election. The democrats and Hillary created this."
Nixon: "My office was not involved with the actions at the watergate hotel. Mcgovern and the democrats have created a false narrative to cripple my reelection campaign."

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Apologies for bringing actual legislation into this thread.

House votes to scrap Obama limits on drug tests for the unemployed | Washington Examiner

Not that I necessarily disagree with this, but just want to add that the most cost effective drug test (UA) is easily beaten these days. The cost of the more accurate and intensive blood based testing can exceed the monthly unemployment benefit, based on the number of parameters tested.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Apologies for bringing actual legislation into this thread.

House votes to scrap Obama limits on drug tests for the unemployed | Washington Examiner

"House votes to waste money on largely useless drug tests"

I am tired of all this winning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Not that I necessarily disagree with this, but just want to add that the most cost effective drug test (UA) is easily beaten these days. The cost of the more accurate and intensive blood based testing can exceed the monthly unemployment benefit, based on the number of parameters tested.

I didn't see the exact test cited in that article. Did you see another one that cited which test would be used?

[Easy Mac]

People may think all illegals need to go, whatever. But as someone who's 50% Mexican, I was called at various times Spic, Wetback, Rat, Ricky Ricardo (not sure why they thought that was insulting) in school.

So that the President of the country where I was born is even giving this a thought is fucking disgusting, and if you think it's a good idea, then fuck you.

https://apnews.com/5508111d59554a33be8001bdac4ef830

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

People may think all illegals need to go, whatever. But as someone who's 50% Mexican, I was called at various times Spic, Wetback, Rat, Ricky Ricardo (not sure why they thought that was insulting) in school.

So that the President of the country where I was born is even giving this a thought is fucking disgusting, and if you think it's a good idea, then fuck you.

https://apnews.com/5508111d59554a33be8001bdac4ef830

FWIW Sean Spicer says the story is untrue, which probably means it's true.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I didn't see the exact test cited in that article. Did you see another one that cited which test would be used?

No, just outlining the differences, but I would imagine it would be the UA due to the cost parameters of the blood screening tests, which can approach $4000 for a complete profile.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Not that I necessarily disagree with this, but just want to add that the most cost effective drug test (UA) is easily beaten these days. The cost of the more accurate and intensive blood based testing can exceed the monthly unemployment benefit, based on the number of parameters tested.

There's also no proof this would be anything more than wasted money.

This is up there with more vetting for people entering the country. Those for it assume there's a problem where one doesn't really exist.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There's also no proof this would be anything more than wasted money.

This is up there with more vetting for people entering the country. Those for it assume there's a problem where one doesn't really exist.

This is up there with voter fraud.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There's also no proof this would be anything more than wasted money.

This is up there with more vetting for people entering the country. Those for it assume there's a problem where one doesn't really exist.

Exactly, you either administer a cheap test that catches 1 out of 10-15, or administer a more accurate test that costs more than the benefits you are paying.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Exactly, you either administer a cheap test that catches 1 out of 10-15, or administer a more accurate test that costs more than the benefits you are paying.

Based on the results from the mandatory welfare recipient testing, it is more like catching 1 out of >100. All but one state that mandated testing had a rate higher than 1%, and all spent more on the testing than the savings.

[miked]

And most of the testing companies were owned by relatives of governors, senators, etc.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Erick Erickson wrote a good piece this morning that's probably worth a read no matter what your political persuasion. (Spoiler: if you lean left, you'll stop gnashing your teeth about halfway through; if you lean right, you'll stop cheering...about halfway through. )

Difficult Truths, But Still Truths After Yesterday’s Trumpnami | The Resurgent

He is a means to an end and that end is finally giving back to a group of people who behave as cultural elitists and insist people of good faith and conscience conform to values that do not reflect them instead of embracing a live and let live culture.

Emphasis mine as it relates to how we view cultural change in the US. It was this type of thinking that MLK was against in his letter from a Birmingham jail where he says..."Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”

As I'm sure you know far more than I could ever imagine, that the road to justice for all isn't paved with a live and let live attitude. The old argument that liberals all want to just get along and love isn't exactly accurate. They want a world where it's possible to coexist in a fair and just culture, and are willing to fight for it again.

[Drake]

Guy in my former church's worship band just posted this on FB:

I'm disgusted to here the rumors floating around that there are to be protests in Bloomington. I'm all for these people getting out of their parents basement for some sunshine, but we have parks and trails to occupy them. I'll be avoiding these babies and their nonsense, and I'll be double packing and making sure the horn works should I encounter a roadblock (speedbump in my book).

Grow up folks. Acting like babies and causing problems doesn't solve a problem, it just makes sure that no one, ever, will take you seriously.

I loved that verse in the Bible where Jesus shot the money changers in the temple because they might riot.

(Don't get me wrong. Roadblock protests piss me off, too. Not enough to think about reaching for my truck gun -- which I'd argue would be the stance of any responsible gun owner -- but I get the annoyance. Jumping from "they're having a protest" to "they'll probably riot and we should band together to stop them from tearing up this college campus that we would never actually set foot on because it's full of libtards" seems like a bit of a stretch.)

[Marc Vaughan]

Well I'll be going to the anti-Trump protest tomorrow here in Melbourne as we're being graced by the Presidents campaigning for 2020 .... if you don't hear from me for a while, I'll be busy being deported

[Drake]

This is America, we don't deport Europeans. Just brown people.

[CrescentMoonie]

Dear White, Christian Trump Supporters: We Need To Talk

I'll disagree with some of the specifics, but the overall tenor is spot on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Apologies for bringing actual legislation into this thread.

House votes to scrap Obama limits on drug tests for the unemployed | Washington Examiner

So much for the party of small government. Republicans sure love their nanny state these days.

I could maybe see it for certain types of benefits but unemployment is an insurance and benefits should not be doled out based on a drug test.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is America, we don't deport Europeans. Just brown people.

Spaniards should be careful, though.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Spaniards should be careful, though.

Their own fault. All those damned surprise inquisitions. Gets tiring.

[Drake]

Okay, I need somebody to ELI5 me on a talking point with regards to the Flynn situation.

I keep hearing the defense via my conservative friends (and a few politicians now) that whatever the FBI recorded between Flynn and the Russian ambassador is irrelevant because we're not allowed to spy on American citizens and release the info. The argument seems to be, in essence, that any evidence that might exist was gathered illegally, and therefore it would be inadmissible in court. Well, the gathering wasn't illegal, because no one was spying on Flynn (i.e., he was incidental to spying on the Russian ambassador), but releasing the information would be illegal...therefore, no action could be taken, regardless of whether or not what he was doing constituted treason.

That seems like really specious logic and hand-waving to me, but I fully admit that I'm not a lawyer, so just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate legal argument (because, for instance, the consequences of violating this principle would be worse for the justice system in the long run).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay, I need somebody to ELI5 me on a talking point with regards to the Flynn situation.

I keep hearing the defense via my conservative friends (and a few politicians now) that whatever the FBI recorded between Flynn and the Russian ambassador is irrelevant because we're not allowed to spy on American citizens and release the info. The argument seems to be, in essence, that any evidence that might exist was gathered illegally, and therefore it would be inadmissible in court. Well, the gathering wasn't illegal, because no one was spying on Flynn (i.e., he was incidental to spying on the Russian ambassador), but releasing the information would be illegal...therefore, no action could be taken, regardless of whether or not what he was doing constituted treason.

That seems like really specious logic and hand-waving to me, but I fully admit that I'm not a lawyer, so just because it doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate legal argument (because, for instance, the consequences of violating this principle would be worse for the justice system in the long run).

Legally, I can see why the evidence is inadmissable.

But unless someone has a hard on to charge Flynn, the real damage is done, and the legality of the investigative process is pretty much meaningless. Fact is, Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions and then lied to Pence about it (if you believe that whole line). So Flynn looks bad whether he is charged or not, and the damage is done.

Pointing to the legality of the investigative process is really just an irrelevant argument.

[kingfc22]

Didn't realize history changed overnight and the South won the civil war. Apparently the White House has moved.

[digamma]

#PrayforSweden

[digamma]

I post that in jest, but it's hard to take the man seriously (as his chief of staff tells us to do) when we have a mention of a fake terrorist attack that seems to have found its way into his speech because of a special report on immigration in Sweden. Wag that dog!

[CrescentMoonie]

John Roberts, Shepherd Smith, and Chris Wallace at Fox have all come out against Trump's comments about the press in recent days. Hopefully this is the tipping point for them to do some actual journalistic work about this buffoon.

Also, saw this tidbit today:

"If there’s one thing I’ve learned from dealing with politicians over the years, it’s that the only thing guaranteed to force them into action is the press – or, more specifically, fear of the press."

Donald Trump, "The Art of the Deal", page 305.

[Easy Mac]

Our President is a 9 year old boy in 1993 with his cutting edge "NOT" humor. I assume that's the reason milo yiannopoulos supports him.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Our President is a 9 year old boy in 1993 with his cutting edge "NOT" humor. I assume that's the reason milo yiannopoulos supports him.

Gee, I wish conservatives cared about free speech and the first amendment. I thought events like CPAC were supposed to be about the open exchange of ideas, not censoring people like Milo because they don't like what they have to say. More PC run amok on the right. /s

[Flasch186]

um, yeah nothing to do with him saying things making light of pedophilia et al. Just censorship run amok. /FactsMustFitNarrative

[CrimsonFox]

Just saw the "Milo on Bill Maher" episode.

He reminds me of Colton from Survivor.
or maybe a white male version of Omarosa

somewhere in there

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by digamma

I post that in jest, but it's hard to take the man seriously (as his chief of staff tells us to do) when we have a mention of a fake terrorist attack that seems to have found its way into his speech because of a special report on immigration in Sweden. Wag that dog!

This train wreck keeps rolling and rolling. Surely, at some point the Republicans are going to be done with this non-sense, realize they've got their wrong puppet in the doll house, take their loss and get ready for a new election?

[Drake]

No, no. In American politics, we always double down on our worst ideas. It's not just Republicans.

[kingfc22]

Another weekend spent golfing while on vacation.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

This train wreck keeps rolling and rolling. Surely, at some point the Republicans are going to be done with this non-sense, realize they've got their wrong puppet in the doll house, take their loss and get ready for a new election?

Did you watch the election at all? The GOP didnt want anything to do with Trump. And they still have nothing to do with him. He is an independent who ran as a R to get elected.

There is no "puppet". There is no "take their loss".

This is it. This is what the American people voted into office. The GOP better embrace him and try and cool his jets a little. There is nothing else they can do.

[Ben E Lou]

The Republicans in Congress aren't going to risk getting beaten in a Primary. My assumption is that Trump has to do to something so egregious/dangerous/stupid/illegal that somewhere close to half of Republican voters are calling for his head before Congress would act or the 25th Amendment would be invoked.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Another weekend spent golfing while on vacation.

We really doing this again?

2001-2008:
Team A: "George W Bush sure does go to his ranch a lot."
Team B: "9-11! OMG! He is the greatest ever!"

2008:2016:
Team B: "Obama sure spends a lot of time on vacation. Look at all the costs!"
Team A: "OMG! He is the greatest ever!"

2017:
Team A: "Another weekend spent golfing while on vacation."
Team B: "OMG!..."

I know it's different this time right?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Gee, I wish conservatives cared about free speech and the first amendment. I thought events like CPAC were supposed to be about the open exchange of ideas, not censoring people like Milo because they don't like what they have to say. More PC run amok on the right. /s

They should have just vandalized a university. Will get less media coverage than him not attending CPAC.

[Flasch186]

Perhaps Trump is a seeer of the future:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/21/overn...lm-suburb.html

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by panerd

We really doing this again?

2001-2008:
Team A: "George W Bush sure does go to his ranch a lot."
Team B: "9-11! OMG! He is the greatest ever!"

2008:2016:
Team B: "Obama sure spends a lot of time on vacation. Look at all the costs!"
Team A: "OMG! He is the greatest ever!"

2017:
Team A: "Another weekend spent golfing while on vacation."
Team B: "OMG!..."

I know it's different this time right?

I personally think it'd be great if Trump took a vacation for the next 4 years ... wouldn't complain at all

(I don't think that many on the left truly care or want him 'actively working' - its more poking fun at how much stuff he's doing which he attacked Obama for ..)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally think it'd be great if Trump took a vacation for the next 4 years ... wouldn't complain at all

(I don't think that many on the left truly care or want him 'actively working' - its more poking fun at how much stuff he's doing which he attacked Obama for ..)

I guess I get it. But I mean this is what then becomes the substance of the primaries and presidential debates and ultimately decides who is president. I remember after one debate Ron Paul was criticized by the New York Times for attempting to discuss monetary policy! (Maybe he wasn't the best candidate but at least wanted to talk issues) Why when one can debate whether Obama is a Muslim foreigner!

[Ben E Lou]

P.S. We should be together.

Trump supporter feat. Dido pic.twitter.com/ZgfIwvuzDz

— Nooruddean (@BeardedGenius) February 19, 2017

[Butter]

Just as a matter of course, Trump was never actually president in 2016.

I mean, why sully 2016's good name.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by panerd

We really doing this again?
...
I know it's different this time right?

Just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy since this individual spent so much time personal attacking this point and is going out of his way to hide it or downplay it.

I could care less, but when you run on a platform saying this is absurd and then do that exact same thing; well you can just stop talking at that point.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by panerd

We really doing this again?

2001-2008:
Team A: "George W Bush sure does go to his ranch a lot."
Team B: "9-11! OMG! He is the greatest ever!"

2008:2016:
Team B: "Obama sure spends a lot of time on vacation. Look at all the costs!"
Team A: "OMG! He is the greatest ever!"

2017:
Team A: "Another weekend spent golfing while on vacation."
Team B: "OMG!..."

I know it's different this time right?

I think it actually is. If Trump keeps his current pace up we'll spend more in 1 year taking care of Trump and his family than we did in 8 years of Obama.

And this is the guy that was going to drain the swamp and cut government waste? It's a talking point because Trump made it one by attacking Obama for vacations and golf. The golfing part wouldn't be a big deal if he hadn't made it one. The spending is regardless. This is the guy that had floated not taking a salary as president and we're likely to end up spending hundreds of millions to allow him to keep his lifestyle while in office.