The Trump Presidency – 2016

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Shouldn't Puerto Ricans want statehood first?

97% in favor as of the last referendum in June.

[Ben E Lou]

He is the BEST negotiator!!!

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!"

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

97% in favor as of the last referendum in June.

A referendum that was heavily boycotted

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

He is the BEST negotiator!!!

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!"

Meaning "This will pacify my base for a few months and stop Texas and friends from suing the government. Then in 6 months I'll blame congress for not getting anything done." And we have ACA repeal the sequel.

[bbgunn]

Originally Posted by lungs

I've got a guy working for me that fell under DACA.

Sounds painful. Was he okay? He didn't break anything, did he?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

A referendum that was heavily boycotted

But the 2012 vote, though complicated, suggests support for statehood.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. Every Puerto Rican could call for statehood and the GOP will just ignore the issue.

[albionmoonlight]

PredictIt has Trump as a 45% chance to be the GOP nominee in 2020.

Is it me, or is that really low? He's shown no sign of not wanting to run. And the GOP establishment lacked the will/ability to keep him from being the nominee when he was the outsider. Now that he's the incumbent, that task is immeasurably harder. He is the establishment.

Yeah, the Mueller investigation is out there, but however that comes out, it would still require Congressional GOP buy-in to remove Trump, and nothing I have seen makes me think that they are willing to take that step.

I can see an argument that he's around 45% to win in 2020. But to be the nominee? Seems like an emotional, not analytical, price.

[jeff061]

I have him at a 55% chance of dropping dead of a heart attack before 2020.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I have him at a 55% chance of dropping dead of a heart attack before 2020.

Hmm. That's an angle I had not considered. He's certainly the least healthy president in my lifetime.

[CrescentMoonie]

He already can't get anything done and DACA is the latest thing causing GOP backlash against him. If anyone semi competent goes for the nomination then 45% will be high.

[JPhillips]

The more interesting prediction would be whether or not he replaces Pence.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Hmm. That's an angle I had not considered. He's certainly the least healthy president in my lifetime.

Not according to him.

[molson]

He does seem remarkably healthy for a 71-year old considering what we know about his diet and exercise habits. I mean, he looks awful, but he seems to get around OK, and plenty of 71-year olds look a lot worse. But surely problems are brewing for him.

[AENeuman]

I think it's quite possible that under the Trump administration my tax rate will lower, many Confederate statues will be removed, Obamacare will be improved and the DREAM act will pass.

Hillary who?

[Radii]

The stress of the job certainly seem like they could speed up physical issues or dementia (which a lot of people seem to speculate about though maybe they confuse the insane stuff we see due to narcissism as dementia).

There has to be a non zero chance that he steps down after 1 term in a huge blustery way blaming everyone around him on the way out, calling it a crap job that no one should want, claiming that he's accomplished more in one term than anyone else could accomplish in three (despite blaming others for failings at the same time, it'd be grand).

How damning will the Mueller investigation have to be to get the GOP to remove him? Presumably that's non-zero as well.

2018 elections swinging both house and senate are in play too but again, feels low.

Having someone else run against him in a primary and win? That sounds like the dream of someone on the far left who doesn't see reality, at least for now. So far, the right is all talk. Maybe that changes if things get even worse, but for now I'm not buying it as a possibility. Trump's base is pretty strong and unwavering and they hate a lot of other republicans and see them as liberals.

Assassination is a non-zero possibility as well.


But yeah I agree with Albion in the end, I'd probably put his odds of being the GOP nominee at 60-65% after combining all of the above.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

PredictIt has Trump as a 45% chance to be the GOP nominee in 2020.

Is it me, or is that really low? He's shown no sign of not wanting to run. And the GOP establishment lacked the will/ability to keep him from being the nominee when he was the outsider. Now that he's the incumbent, that task is immeasurably harder. He is the establishment.

Yeah, the Mueller investigation is out there, but however that comes out, it would still require Congressional GOP buy-in to remove Trump, and nothing I have seen makes me think that they are willing to take that step.

I can see an argument that he's around 45% to win in 2020. But to be the nominee? Seems like an emotional, not analytical, price.

I'd put renomination closer to 75-80% right now. If the GOP gets hammered in the midterms, then you look at it again.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Hmm. That's an angle I had not considered. He's certainly the least healthy president in my lifetime.

Not to mention that I'm sure a doctor daring to give him advice will just piss him off.

And of course:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politi...ise/index.html

[larrymcg421]

PredictIt says...

Trump .45
Pence .17
Cruz .06
Kasich .05
Rubio .05
Haley .04
Ryan .04
Sasse .03
Cotton .02
Paul .02

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But the 2012 vote, though complicated, suggests support for statehood.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. Every Puerto Rican could call for statehood and the GOP will just ignore the issue.

834,191 (44.4%) voters out of 1,878,969 voted for statehood.

[JPhillips]

But that ignores what was voted upon.

On November 6, 2012, eligible voters in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico were presented with two questions:

(1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.[25] A full 970,910 (54.00%) voted "No" on the first question, expressing themselves against maintaining the current political status, and 828,077 (46.00%) voted "Yes", to maintain the current political status. Of those who answered on the second question 834,191 (61.11%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.34%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.55%) chose independence.[2][3]

A majority wanted something besides the territorial agreement that they currently have, whether statehood or independence, either of which would require congressional approval.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

He does seem remarkably healthy for a 71-year old considering what we know about his diet and exercise habits. I mean, he looks awful, but he seems to get around OK, and plenty of 71-year olds look a lot worse. But surely problems are brewing for him.

His doctor assures us he's in great shape!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But that ignores what was voted upon.



A majority wanted something besides the territorial agreement that they currently have, whether statehood or independence, either of which would require congressional approval.

Most did not want statehood. I'm not sure how my post ignored anything. A sizable number of people wanted just a modification of current arrangements and left the ballot blank on the second question.

[JPhillips]

Right, presumably the minority of people that voted to remain a territory.

[Thomkal]

House leaders and the White House have agreed on a deal for Harvey aid/FEMA/Small Business Admin being restocked. Far as I know the border Wall was not part of the deal.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

House leaders and the White House have agreed on a deal for Harvey aid/FEMA/Small Business Admin being restocked. Far as I know the border Wall was not part of the deal.

Seems like funding/debt limit were also agreed to be extended through December.

Good.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Seems like funding/debt limit were also agreed to be extended through December.

Good.

Eh, kicking the can down the road is hardly an accomplishment.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Eh, kicking the can down the road is hardly an accomplishment.

For this Congress, it's like sending a man to Mars.

[Kodos]

[Ben E Lou]

Now that President Bannon is out of the picture, we get President Pelosi???

For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about - No action!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2017

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politi...aca/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politi...aca/index.html

Trump Reassures Dreamers They're Safe After Nancy Pelosi Asks Him To

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Another angle on Trump and his new BFF.

Donald Trump Gives Nancy Pelosi Both His Twitter Feed and His Support for the DREAM Act

[larrymcg421]

[SirFozzie]

Yeah, I was talking to SackAttack, and we both thought while it probably wouldn't last, it would be a good time to stock up on popcorn.

[Ben E Lou]

That awkward few minutes after the ellipses when we're not sure if the President Of The United States is about to announce via Twitter that he is switching Parties.

Republicans, sorry, but I've been hearing about Repeal & Replace for 7 years, didn't happen! Even worse, the Senate Filibuster Rule will....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 8, 2017

[Coffee Warlord]

No. Clearly the lights just cut out, and the Undertaker's theme just popped on.

[Qwikshot]

He's really hammering established Repubs...I just read Charlie Dent is not running...so PA (where I'm really from) is going to possibly have a change in some leadership.

[RainMaker]

It's kind of weird but he had the chance to do a ton of good stuff. He has a core of supporters that would support him if he turned full communist. So all he had to do was pick issues with decent support on either side and win.

Trump probably had a better chance as putting together universal healthcare than any President ever.

[stevew]

He's such a significantly flawed individual, but I think with his support base if he can just shift away from the dumb stuff, he can accomplish a lot. For example, we continue to have these ridiculous fights over the debt ceiling and that's just a self-inflicted political issue that doesn't even need to exist. It likely ends up as a greater source of pork because people require projects for their vote on the issue. I think you could pass Single Payer with Trump in office

[JPhillips]

There is no pivot.

This is who Trump is and will always be.

[NobodyHere]

Cruz says aide inadvertently caused his porn Twitter post

[Easy Mac]

Its nice to have someone other than Trump be an idiot in Washington for a brief moment.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by stevew

He's such a significantly flawed individual, but I think with his support base if he can just shift away from the dumb stuff, he can accomplish a lot. For example, we continue to have these ridiculous fights over the debt ceiling and that's just a self-inflicted political issue that doesn't even need to exist. It likely ends up as a greater source of pork because people require projects for their vote on the issue. I think you could pass Single Payer with Trump in office

The debt ceiling is just dumb stuff? Doesn't need to exist? Where exactly does all this money come from?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

The debt ceiling is just dumb stuff? Doesn't need to exist? Where exactly does all this money come from?

From the budget bills or continuing resolutions that fund the government at a deficit and ensure that the ceiling will be reached. It is dumb to say we agree to spend this money, but a few months later, we will have to agree again to spend this money.

The argument about the deficit should happen when the initial budget bill is making the rounds, not when we are in danger of defaulting on payments we've already agreed to make.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by panerd

The debt ceiling is just dumb stuff? Doesn't need to exist? Where exactly does all this money come from?

It's superfluous/redundant.

Think of it like this: the debt ceiling, if it were an actually useful tool, would prevent Congress from appropriating funds it didn't have the ability to spend. Kinda like how your card will get declined if the purchase you're attempting to make exceeds your credit limit or bank funds, right?

But that isn't how the debt ceiling works. Congress is allowed to appropriate the money regardless of that debt ceiling; all raising it does is determine whether they can borrow the money to pay for the spending they've already authorized.

Try that one with your bank. Go out and buy a $10k TV and then tell the bank "sorry, my debt ceiling has been reached, I'm not going to pay you." See how well that goes over.

But that's fundamentally what the debt ceiling does. It's a vestigial Congressional function that hasn't served any real purpose until the last 8 years when Congressional Republicans have weaponized it to hold the full faith and credit of the United States government hostage unless Democrats agree to repeal Obamacare or defund Planned Parenthood or some fucking thing.

And now Democrats are poised to weaponize it, albeit in a slightly different way ("we both know your caucus is incapable of responsible governance, so if you want our votes to help you avoid embarrassment...") and for different aims.

Although, really, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter whether Congressional formalization of the DACA program or the stabilization of the health exchanges are more noble goals than defunding women's health. The point is the same - it's an obscure legislative tool with no real raison d'être except, in the last ten years, to be used for legislative hostage-taking.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's superfluous/redundant.

Think of it like this: the debt ceiling, if it were an actually useful tool, would prevent Congress from appropriating funds it didn't have the ability to spend. Kinda like how your card will get declined if the purchase you're attempting to make exceeds your credit limit or bank funds, right?

Yes this is exactly the purpose of the debt ceiling.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But that isn't how the debt ceiling works. Congress is allowed to appropriate the money regardless of that debt ceiling; all raising it does is determine whether they can borrow the money to pay for the spending they've already authorized.

Try that one with your bank. Go out and buy a $10k TV and then tell the bank "sorry, my debt ceiling has been reached, I'm not going to pay you." See how well that goes over.

Exactly. The bank won't let you buy the 10K TV but for some reason we let the federal government keep doing it. State governments can't do this. Everything now is essential and even though I am phiosophicaly libertarian I am not saying get rid of welfare or get rid of social security like Ron Paul but yeah maybe we do need to severely cut back "defense" spending so we can actually come in under budget or have money for unexpected events like in Houston or Florida.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But that's fundamentally what the debt ceiling does. It's a vestigial Congressional function that hasn't served any real purpose until the last 8 years when Congressional Republicans have weaponized it to hold the full faith and credit of the United States government hostage unless Democrats agree to repeal Obamacare or defund Planned Parenthood or some fucking thing.

And now Democrats are poised to weaponize it, albeit in a slightly different way ("we both know your caucus is incapable of responsible governance, so if you want our votes to help you avoid embarrassment...") and for different aims.

Although, really, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter whether Congressional formalization of the DACA program or the stabilization of the health exchanges are more noble goals than defunding women's health. The point is the same - it's an obscure legislative tool with no real raison d'être except, in the last ten years, to be used for legislative hostage-taking.

I will leave this one to you on the GOP "manhandling" starting in the least 8 years. But again this is a complete failure by both parties to stop spending on anything...

2006: ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.’

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

From the budget bills or continuing resolutions that fund the government at a deficit and ensure that the ceiling will be reached. It is dumb to say we agree to spend this money, but a few months later, we will have to agree again to spend this money.

The argument about the deficit should happen when the initial budget bill is making the rounds, not when we are in danger of defaulting on payments we've already agreed to make.

I totally agree. The problem is nobody is going to vote out their party for not doing that so instead we have a 20+ trillion dollar debt. In the end who will come collect on it? I guess nobody but as we saw in 2006 once a chain of events starts it really snowballs fast. This $20,000,000,000,000 is going to catch up to some generation. Maybe not ours, maybe not our children's/grandchildren's but it will. World history says we are foolish to think otherwise.

And my 12 pack of diet coke is not $6 because of "trucking costs". Inflation effects everyone.

[PilotMan]

Is it though? That number will keep getting bigger, and income will keep getting bigger. If the govt is happy with the debt to income ratio, then it'll keep pace with that. Yes, they could find a way to close it, like oh I don't know, raising taxes, tightening budgets and paying it down.

Or, they could just do what Reagan started, where they spend now, on the hopes that income will keep pushing up higher and higher to justify today's expenses with tomorrow's money.

We saw how that strategy worked out in 2008/09. Where the govt had to spend a bunch of new money to stabilize the economy because they had already spent the money they were supposed to have for such things. Obama gets a bad rep for the deficit increase those years, but the wheels for it were set in motion long before, and if some kind of philosophical change isn't accepted, the next time will be multiples worse.

Once that cat was out of the bag, how could both parties not continue to do it? Look at the legacy that Regan is remembered by, had Bush I not raised taxes and made an attempt shore the whole thing up, Reagan might be remembered as the president who ruined the economy. Instead, it's Bush who is seen as the president who dropped the ball.

[panerd]

There's libertarian far right economic thinking (let it all blow up) that would probably cripple the country. I don't subscribe to that. But nothing can be cut? I get somebody in Seattle/San Diego/St. Louis is going to lose a job if we build one less fighter jet. But something can be cut there just aren't enough non career politicians who will go against their home districts to do anything about it.

[JPhillips]

The debt doesn't matter. Interest payments on the debt matter, and right now those are manageable. I'd still like to see us eliminate the structural debt, as there's no good reason to run hundreds of billions in debt during good economic times. We aren't near a debt crisis and inflation is below 2%. The debt shouldn't be our top concern.

[tarcone]

The Missouri state senator that called for Trump to be assassinated, was censured. There werent enough votes to expel her. Of course votes went down racial lines. She is black.

Next up is the white state senator that said the people that vandalized a confederate monument should be hung from a tree.

[Groundhog]

Meanwhile, Russia out there weaponizing social media...

How Russia Turned Americans into Weapons in Its Information War | Vanity Fair