The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

I do think it's pretty obvious we have ourselves the early frontrunner for the Dems.

Yes, we do. And it ain't Bernie.

[thesloppy]

Joe Biden seems like a least-common-denominator, "nobody's first choice, and everybody's second choice" kind of nomination that will fire up absolutely nobody.

[Thomkal]

Well my twitter feed was blowing up all of a sudden, and had to go check. NBC and CNN reporting some version of the Mueller investigation/report could be ending next week. Followed by tweets from journalist/lawyers/politicians that its not the end/just the beginning of the end/new AG Barr forcing Mueller to issue a report/etc. I've closed my twitter feed for the day

[molson]

The Predictit speculators like Harris, Sanders, Biden, and O'Rourke, in that order. With a big gap after that before the next bunched contenders - all of whom are trading lower to be the Dem nominee than Mike Pence is to be the Republican nominee.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Joe Biden seems like a least-common-denominator, "nobody's first choice, and everybody's second choice" kind of nomination that will fire up absolutely nobody.

Biden should have contended in 2016. A viable non-Bernie alternative to HRC might have very well won the nomination and probably beaten Trump. It would have been for Obama's third term, which would have been a pretty good sell, I think.

Hindsight is 20-20.

[tarcone]

Leave it to the Dems to throw an old white man up as their anti-Trump.

EDIT: LOL. Should have said moderate old white man. Sorry Bernie.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Leave it to the Dems to throw an old white man up as their anti-Trump.

EDIT: LOL. Should have said moderate old white man. Sorry Bernie.

If us Democrats are good at anything, its fucking up free wins.

[molson]

The Democrats need somebody that will get minorities out to the polls and that ain't Bernie.

[PilotMan]

Neither Bernie, nor Biden fire me up. Sigh. It's just like going back to the well again, and again, for that name. That was a great tactic in '16 wasn't it?



There are plenty of names in the hat who could be good choices, but because they aren't the big names, nobody wants to look at them. I still think that Booker is my person right now. Could change, but he's piqued my interest the most.

[NobodyHere]

Good news for the American public although Kamala Harris probably gets a sad from it.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Neither Bernie, nor Biden fire me up. Sigh. It's just like going back to the well again, and again, for that name. That was a great tactic in '16 wasn't it?



There are plenty of names in the hat who could be good choices, but because they aren't the big names, nobody wants to look at them. I still think that Booker is my person right now. Could change, but he's piqued my interest the most.

I think Harris has the best chance right now but Booker is in a good place if a front runner slips up.

Anyone besides Bernie or Warren

[whomario]

William Happer is Trump’s pick to chair new climate change panel - Vox

Amazing ...


Also, any hate tweets against the Netherlands yet ?

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/182335...utch-historian

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by whomario

William Happer is Trump’s pick to chair new climate change panel - Vox

Amazing ...


Also, any hate tweets against the Netherlands yet ?

Tucker Carlson, Rutger Bregman clash: Fox News host has meltdown with historian guest - Vox

That Tucker Carlson interview was awesome. Tucker absolutely lost it when he compared him to AOC. The Rights fear of that woman is so extreme and hilarious that it has to be the most entertaining political show going right now. My facebook feed is so full of memes about how stupid she is, without a single one actually attacking anything she actually has said/done. It is so obvious how dangerous the very idea of her is to the Right.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yes, it's obvious Dowless was doing illegal things. Was it enough to affect the margin of victory idk, but either way it's enough for a new election (and the question then becomes whether you run the primary back too.) How much Harris knew is up for debate (my impression of him is that he's a political neophyte, while Pettinger was the one smart enough to understand just how shady Dowless was and stay away after past experiences), but no surprise Dowless is holding out for immunity.

I'd like McCready the most of the three candidates, but at a certain point I'd just really like if Charlotte had a representative for most of this 2 year cycle.

So I missed this yesterday, but Harris's son, an assistant US attorney, testified that he had warned his father about Dowless repeatedly and cut off contact with him when it became apparent that his father was going to hire Dowless. Then when his father acted shocked that someone would break the law like Dowless and promised to turn over his emails, he ended up not doing that...so his son did it instead. Game over for Mr. Harris at this point I think:


https://popular.info/p/the-anti-ivanka

[Izulde]

Booker is one of my least favorite candidates in the Dem pool. I don't understand why he's so popular - he strikes me as a self-serving, grand-standing centrist who is basically duplicating Obama's playbook because it's the most obvious and politically expedient route to take.

Bernie and Warren are top of the list for me, with Gillibrand increasingly intriguing me - depends on how much of her leftward shift is legitimate vs political opportunism.

[Thomkal]

Harris is on the stand now in NC. Says about his son testifying against him:


"my 27-year-old son" is "a little judgmental and has a little taste of arrogance and some other things. And I'm very proud of him and and love him with all my heart."

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Booker is one of my least favorite candidates in the Dem pool. I don't understand why he's so popular - he strikes me as a self-serving, grand-standing centrist who is basically duplicating Obama's playbook because it's the most obvious and politically expedient route to take.

Bernie and Warren are top of the list for me, with Gillibrand increasingly intriguing me - depends on how much of her leftward shift is legitimate vs political opportunism.

The second part answers the first, at least for me.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

The second part answers the first, at least for me.

Agreed. Duplicate Obama is far more appealing to me than either Warren or Bernie.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Agreed. Duplicate Obama is far more appealing to me than either Warren or Bernie.

The apoplexy "Obama II: Electric Boogaloo" would send the #MAGA set into would be great for popcorn futures.

[ISiddiqui]

Obama is probably the most popular living Democrat, among Democrats, and it likely isn't even close to whoever is #2. Replicating Obama's playbooks seems to be genius if you can do it.

And, you know, there are still many centrist/slightly left Dems out there. Both Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are speaking more moderately than their New England or California opponents for a reason.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That Tucker Carlson interview was awesome. Tucker absolutely lost it when he compared him to AOC. The Rights fear of that woman is so extreme and hilarious that it has to be the most entertaining political show going right now. My facebook feed is so full of memes about how stupid she is, without a single one actually attacking anything she actually has said/done. It is so obvious how dangerous the very idea of her is to the Right.

I was not at all a fan of hers at first. I almost certainly would've voted for Crowley int he primary if I lived in that district. And she was making some comment about how we need to run progressives in red states because Bernie did so well in those Dem primaries, which I thought was a dumb comment that showed a lack of understanding of the differences between primary and general electorates in those states.

However, I really like the way she has handled the increased spotlight she is getting because of the ridiculous attention from the Fox News crowd. Her campaign finance questioning was outstanding. And it's endlessly entertaining how upset all the conservatives get at anything she does.

[Thomkal]

Harris calls for a new election in NC-says he is not up to more testimony due to his recent strokes, and left after calling for a re-do election.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

she was making some comment about how we need to run progressives in red states because Bernie did so well in those Dem primaries, which I thought was a dumb comment that showed a lack of understanding of the differences between primary and general electorates in those states.

Actually that makes some more sense than you'd think. For too long in really red states, Democrats would run someone who tried to appeal to moderates, which didn't work at all. So the idea was let's run someone Progressive to rally the base and see how many folks you can get to turn out. Stacey Abrams almost won the Governor in GA by doing that strategy (which was far more successful than the last few Dems running for statewide office - Jason Carter and Michelle Nunn and some dude who was known for his hat... I'm not kidding - who tried to be moderates).

[ISiddiqui]

Thinking about the Democratic primaries, here is my personal (very prelim) ranking among those who have announced and those who I think will announce:

1) Cory Booker
2) Sherrod Brown (yet to announce)
3) John Hickenlooper (yet to announce)
4) Julian Castro
5) Kirsten Gillibrand
6) Elizabeth Warren
7) Amy Klobuchar
8) Jay Inslee (yet to announce/may not)
9) Kamala Harris
10) Pete Buttigieg
11) Joe Biden (yet to announce)
12) Bernie Sanders
13) John Delaney (who?)
14) Tulsi Gabbard

[Thomkal]

Roger Stone's apology to the judge today under oath:


"I believe I abused the order for which I am sorry. I am kicking myself over my own stupidity. I offer no excuse for it, no justification. It was the outgrowth of a lapse in judgement."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually that makes some more sense than you'd think. For too long in really red states, Democrats would run someone who tried to appeal to moderates, which didn't work at all. So the idea was let's run someone Progressive to rally the base and see how many folks you can get to turn out. Stacey Abrams almost won the Governor in GA by doing that strategy (which was far more successful than the last few Dems running for statewide office - Jason Carter and Michelle Nunn and some dude who was known for his hat... I'm not kidding - who tried to be moderates).

I'm not talking about light red states like Georgia (where Bernie got crushed), but more the deep red states that he swept. I agree that Abrams going all in on a progressive message was her best strategy, but that's not the way to win in WV, ND, SD, etc.

[Thomkal]

Big courtroom day I guess: Judge in Miami rules that federal prosecutors broke the law by signing a immunity to prosecution deal with Jeffrrey Epstein and concealed it from his victims.



Jeffrey Epstein case: Federal prosecutors broke law, judge says | Miami Herald

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Agreed. Duplicate Obama is far more appealing to me than either Warren or Bernie.

Thirded. As for the "self-serving, grandstanding" part, well yeah, he's a politician.

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Harris calls for a new election in NC-says he is not up to more testimony due to his recent strokes, and left after calling for a re-do election.

Thanks for dragging that out buddy. (And thanks to his son for being smart and honest.) Also, congrats to Robert Pettenger on retaining his House seat! (Okay, I don't actually know how special elections play out down here, but I've always thought retirees had a disproportionate effect in special elections, and they're heavily Republican in this district.) There will obviously be a ton of outside money poured in, which will also likely make most people dislike both candidates more.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Roger Stone's apology to the judge today under oath:


"I believe I abused the order for which I am sorry. I am kicking myself over my own stupidity. I offer no excuse for it, no justification. It was the outgrowth of a lapse in judgement."

His testimony was such transparent bullshit. He was lying like a kid caught fucking the cookie jar.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Roger Stone's apology to the judge today under oath:


"I believe I abused the order for which I am sorry. I am kicking myself over my own stupidity. I offer no excuse for it, no justification. It was the outgrowth of a lapse in judgement."

Judge rules on Stone's gag order:


Judge ABJ is modifying the gag order. "No Mr. Stone, I'm not giving you another chance. I have serious doubt whether you learned any lesson at all." He can no longer speak publicly about the investigation or case, but he can still fundraise and proclaim his innocence.


.Judge ABJ makes it clear that this is his second chance. "This is not baseball. There will not be a third chance," she says. ABJ is clear that she will detain Stone ahead of trial if he violates the new gag order.

[Thomkal]

North Carolina Election board passes a unanimous resolution calling for a new election in NC-09. Harris vs McCready-would not surprise me to see Harris drop out and would not surprise me to not drop out either.

[Lathum]

Every time I walk in to the living room where my In Laws are binging FOX news they are talking about Jussie Smollett. It isn't as if they should be covering a story about a coast guard member who had a stockpile of weapons and a hit list of prominent democrats and CNN journalists. What could possibly have emboldened this guy.

I want to ask my MIL if she even knows the story but my wife has banned me from bringing stuff like that up with her.

Oh, and there is that little story about a republican rigging the NC election, but that black, gay, actor has committed such atrocities!!

[stevew]

How does Warren expect to win anything seeing how outraged everyone is over the Jussie stuff. Faking a hate crime and faking being NA may not be identical but the Venn diagram of people angry is pretty similar

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by stevew

How does Warren expect to win anything seeing how outraged everyone is over the Jussie stuff. Faking a hate crime and faking being NA may not be identical but the Venn diagram of people angry is pretty similar

I don't get any similarity between the two - one was a crime which someone undertook with a line towards deception for their own gain.

As far as I can tell the Warren/Native American thing is (1) Proven to have some substance (ie. the DNA test showed some heritage), (2) Is far from unusual in the US, I know loads of people personally who will swear blind they have Native American ancestry but have no proof beyond family stories indicating it, (3) I don't see her having said it as being some great 'ploy' to gain votes - its hardly a heritage which I expect made people think "that'd make her a great President" ...

I'm torn on Warren running on one hand I hate that Trump has an good avenue of attack on her, on the other I actually think she might make a good President ... and I expect whoever runs will have something made up to attack them with, probably with similar substance (cough) to Obama's birth certificate stuff ... as such I don't see why picking Warren is any different from anyone else, the Republicans will make up some slander on them.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Judge rules on Stone's gag order:


Judge ABJ is modifying the gag order. "No Mr. Stone, I'm not giving you another chance. I have serious doubt whether you learned any lesson at all." He can no longer speak publicly about the investigation or case, but he can still fundraise and proclaim his innocence.


.Judge ABJ makes it clear that this is his second chance. "This is not baseball. There will not be a third chance," she says. ABJ is clear that she will detain Stone ahead of trial if he violates the new gag order.

Silly me, I thought when you let him be out on bail in the first place that was his second chance.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Woman from HS on FB shared her SO's experience (also from HS). Union welder, lost some $18k in deductions (including union dues). Said he has never owed before but owes $4k this year.

Haven't checked out ours yet. They are really simple (basically just W2s and mortgage/property deductions) but I'm always afraid of finding out the total.

Yep, looks like we owe just short of $4k as well (and another $1200 for state).

Granted, we earned more than we did last year (not being unemployed for 2.5 months can do that). But the deduction changes (and likely changes to withholdings) didn't help any.

[Edward64]

This one is tough. On the surface, it gives me great satisfaction to not allow her to return. I want to say F-you and all that.

On the other hand, she is a US Citizen and assume she was a non-combatant. I can understand the desperation her father (and family) is going through to bring back her daughter.

Don't know how really sincere her statement is below but it does strike the right chord with me. Trump wants other countries to take back their nationals so shouldn't that apply here? But Trump notwithstanding, I think I lean more towards not letting her back in.

The article doesn't say but I did ask myself if it would make a difference if she was native born or naturalized US citizen. I also wonder if Male/Female (non-combatant) also matters. I don't think they should but, to me, it does.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/polit...hip/index.html

The father of the Alabama woman who joined ISIS is suing the Trump administration over her US citizenship and seeking her return.

Ahmed Ali Muthana filed a lawsuit on Thursday in federal court in Washington, DC, to prevent what he calls an "unlawful attempt" by the United States to rescind his daughter's citizenship.

At age 19, Hoda Muthana, who is from Hoover, Alabama, traveled to Syria to join ISIS. Five years later, Muthana now says she regrets what she did and wants to return to the United States.

President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday that he directed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to allow Muthana back into the country. Pompeo declared the same day, in a statement, that Muthana is "not a US citizen and will not be admitted into the United States. She does not have any legal basis, no valid US passport, no right to a passport, nor any visa to travel to the United States."

The lawsuit filed by her father "seeks injunctive relief preventing the United States government from unconstitutionally robbing (Muthana and her son) of their rights as United States citizens," according to the court document filed Thursday. He is requesting the court "find the US government has an obligation to assist in the return of its citizens from areas of armed conflict." The lawsuit was filed against Trump, Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr.

If she returns to the United States, Muthana "is prepared and willing to surrender to any charges the United States Justice Department finds appropriate and necessary," according to the lawsuit.

In a handwritten statement provided to CNN by a family representative, Muthana wrote that when she left for Syria she was a "naive, angry, and arrogant young woman."

"To say that I regret my past words, any pain that I caused my family and any concerns I would cause my country would be hard for me to really express properly," the statement reads.

"During my years in Syria I would see and experience a way of life and the terrible effects of war which changed me. Seeing bloodshed up close changed me. Motherhood changed me. Seeing friends, children, and the men I married dying changed me," Muthana wrote.

[PilotMan]

I think this is a circumstance where you can be more creative. You let her back, take away her citizenship, give her the opportunity to be near her family, live in the us and show how she's changed, but you take away her right to vote and force her to get a green card or something.

She's earned a retribution from the country, but ostracizing her just pushes her back to people who would try and use her again. Let her back in, you have a legal ability to keep an eye on her, while showing some compassion and allowing her family influences to normalize her again.

If you really want to make it black and white, meaning all or nothing, I have no issue with leaving her outside the country forever. She's earned that, if nothing else. Decisions always have consequences and that was a big one.

[Ryche]

This seems like a pretty clear cut case of treason under the constitution. She should be able to return but would be facing some pretty severe consequences.

[Lathum]

Take her back, give her a trial, then hang her and bury her at sea.

Probably the closest me and JIMG will ever be aligned on something political.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Take her back, give her a trial, then hang her and bury her at sea.

I think if she gets back on US soil that it opens up more complications.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Probably the closest me and JIMG will ever be aligned on something political.

Hah, let's not forget Trump also.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think if she gets back on US soil that it opens up more complications.



Hah, let's not forget Trump also.

Me and JIMG could not be farther apart on Trump unless he has suddenly decided to hate everything about the man.

[Kodos]

I think he meant Trump would like to hang her too.

[JPhillips]

I'm not opposed to a legal process that ends in her citizenship being revoked if such a procedure is warranted, but I'm very opposed to the President suddenly having the power to revoke citizenship at will.

[spleen1015]

There has to be a legal process that's more refined than the president saying she's not allowed back in the country, right?

I was thinking about this early this morning when reading this thread. The campaign season for 2020 is going to be absolutely nuts. At least to me, Trump seems to be pushing more and more boundaries and time goes on. WTF is he going to be like when he's running for re-election?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think he meant Trump would like to hang her too.

Yes.

[molson]

The loss of nationality statute is 8 U.S. Code § 1481. Just skimming a few cases, it looks like the normal course of events was a U.S. Citizen goes off to fight for his ancestral country in WWI or WWII, or Cuba during the revolution, or wherever, and the citizenship issue only comes up if they come back, or contact a U.S. embassy and try to get the wheels moving to come back. In which case they're denied entry, or, if they got in, deported, on the ground that they voluntary gave up their citizenship. And then that loss of citizenship is official.

So the U.S. would be justified in not letting her in, or, in letting her in, charging her with whatever crimes she committed, and then deporting her after she serves her sentence (if she's still alive by then). In either case, her loss of citizenship would be formalized as the grounds for keeping her out or kicking her out. Which is all done through the U.S. Attorney General and INS. The president can't strip someone's citizenship on his own, but he can "influence" the Attorney General's Office to, subject to the AG's self-enforced ethical duties and whatever independence they want to wield, though, I'm sure they'd be on the same page here.

[whomario]

One issue here is that Trump literally just pretty much "or elsed" European countries to take back their IS-recruits and wifes/children. Now he's refusing to do so himself.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by whomario

One issue here is that Trump literally just pretty much "or elsed" European countries to take back their IS-recruits and wifes/children. Now he's refusing to do so himself.

I actually agree with the US refusing to allow her back, and the UK refusing to take back a girl in a similar situation, but whomario is right: Trump said literally 48 hours before this broke that all European countries should take back their IS members.

Even when he could easily win popular support over an issue, he manages to contradict himself

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

The loss of nationality statute is 8 U.S. Code § 1481. Just skimming a few cases, it looks like the normal course of events was a U.S. Citizen goes off to fight for his ancestral country in WWI or WWII, or Cuba during the revolution, or wherever, and the citizenship issue only comes up if they come back, or contact a U.S. embassy and try to get the wheels moving to come back. In which case they're denied entry, or, if they got in, deported, on the ground that they voluntary gave up their citizenship. And then that loss of citizenship is official.

So the U.S. would be justified in not letting her in, or, in letting her in, charging her with whatever crimes she committed, and then deporting her after she serves her sentence (if she's still alive by then). In either case, her loss of citizenship would be formalized as the grounds for keeping her out or kicking her out. Which is all done through the U.S. Attorney General and INS. The president can't strip someone's citizenship on his own, but he can "influence" the Attorney General's Office to, subject to the AG's self-enforced ethical duties and whatever independence they want to wield, though, I'm sure they'd be on the same page here.

Yeah, I've seen the reporting that she burned her US passport in an Instagram post? Is that like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy, or does it have some validity?

If we were looking at technicalities, would the US be put in a position where the only way to say she pledged allegiance to a foreign government we were at war with would be to acknowledge ISIL's claim of legitimacy?

In real life, yeah screw her, but I don't see why they wouldn't just bring her back and try her for treason. There's enough public stuff she posted encouraging violence against Americans and service members it would seem to be an easy case. Plus she's psycho enough she thinks not only should she be allowed to come back, but the US Government should also pay for therapy to deradicalize her, so she'd probably happily volunteer other incriminating statements if we pretended we'd take her back.