The Trump Presidency – 2016

[bhlloy]

Yeah, how many times during the primary were Dems giddy that Trump was going to destroy the Republican party and give them a landslide, and then during the election they were giddy with every scandal that was going to destroy the Trump candidacy and give Clinton a landslide, this is no different.

Republicans have both houses and have a president who will implement any legislation they can possibly dream of, who doesn't give a flying shit about precedent or balance of power. Sure the headlines are going to be embarrassing for 4 years but 48% of the country will vote for and support Mickey Mouse if he's wearing their teams colors. This is absolutely the best of worlds for them.

There is absolutely zero chance Trump goes at the behest of his own party. Who is standing up to him? He was right during the primary, he could shoot somebody and he'd still get a majority of the party supporting him and get the support of his base.

[stevew]

Today in Everything is a Con News:

Shithead Marlins Owner Jeffrey Loria is to be named ambassador to France just conveniently after he's allegedly agreed to sell the team to Ivanka's brother-in-law(who basically doesn't have much actual cash money)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That's a question that I've thought about some. It partially boils down to percentages, of course, but the other real issue is the potential loss of positions within the industry. I'm now hearing rumors that World Relief may get *hammered* by this both short-term and long-term. i.e. They have to cut positions now due to loss of funding, and then if the flow actually does resume, they have a *much* harder time recruiting quality people to work for them because potential employees are concerned that the President might decide to do this again.

https://www.worldrelief.org/press-re...ents-in-the-us

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Where are your Cards Against Humanity skills?

Comeon on...

Everybody!

Step 4........

Step 4: Pee pee party?

[bob]

Can someone explain exactly what the charges for impeachment would be for Trump. And not just "treason"... what's the exact provable charge that could be brought.

[EagleFan]

If ever that swamp needed drained, it's right now.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by stevew

Today in Everything is a Con News:

Shithead Marlins Owner Jeffrey Loria is to be named ambassador to France just conveniently after he's allegedly agreed to sell the team to Ivanka's brother-in-law(who basically doesn't have much actual cash money)

Does anyone really believe that America the plutocracy just started in 2017 under Trump? I mean I guess I'm glad that the fans of the other side are coming around to reality after 8 years (when they had spent the 2001-2008 years complaining) Don't get me wrong it isn't a good thing and Trump has such contempt for the little people that he doesn't even attempt to hide it. But I would love to see the world where these ambassador positions were going to the 30 year coal mine worker, or the retired inner city school teacher, or the marine who lost his leg in Iraq. They are gifts to the players of the big game. Have been for some time...

Senate confirms Obama donors as ambassadors | TheHill

The Would-Be Ambassador To Norway Who Has Never Been There Himself : NPR

High Number of Ambassadorships Go to Bush Friends, Contributors - latimes

[bronconick]

Yeah, I think ambassadorships became little more than perks when travel and communications took seconds to hours instead of weeks.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't get what the upside is for Republicans to get rid of Trump. You're saying that there may not be any repercussions but not saying what they could possibly gain by doing it. Seems like a high risk, no reward scheme that comes from the left.

I think it only makes sense if they become convinced that eventually the scandals will be too extreme to ignore. If they believe this will happen eventually, sooner is better than later.

Of course if they are willing to put up with anything so long as Trump signs legislation, the status quo will work for them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Yeah, I think ambassadorships became little more than perks when travel and communications took seconds to hours instead of weeks.

Yes, you said it a lot less snarky than I did. I'm sure Ben Franklin probably had a lot more to do as Ambassador to France in the 1700's than Jeffrey Loria does in 2017. Though my guess is even back in the 1700/1800's these positions were given to those in positions of power and influence. I'm sure the board's historians can pinpoint the presidency where they started to become ceremonial and go to the high bidders but I think we can all agree it didn't start with Trump.

Which brings me back to where I always stand on Trump. Complain about serious problems with his presidency all you want but when my social media is flooded with "issues" like the ambassador one or the shocking fact that the large corporations are getting his ear while the local St. Louis businessman is left to go at it on his own you will get a snarky plutocracy comment. You can't fight every battle and this stuff is not just starting in 2017 with Trump. This has been America for quite some time.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by bob

Can someone explain exactly what the charges for impeachment would be for Trump. And not just "treason"... what's the exact provable charge that could be brought.

Well in the words of Gerald Ford (paraphrased), grounds for impeachment are what the majority of Congress thinks they are at the given time. And there's not exactly a full body of law to review. So, yeah?

[ISiddiqui]

Impeachment is given for "high crimes and misdemeanors (which I assume to be 'high' misdemeanors)". The definition of 'high' has never been determined, so basically, as digamma points out, it's whatever Congress determines to that to be.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Cheeto-in-chief is holding a 2020 campaign rally on Saturday.

So, since we're in the middle of a campaign, Mitch McConnell should probably hold off on any action on Gorsuch, right?

[Kodos]

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, since we're in the middle of a campaign, Mitch McConnell should probably hold off on any action on Gorsuch, right?

With Trump campaigning and there also being a declared opposition candidate in Kanye they should definitely leave the decision up to the people and hold off on any hearings until 2021. It's just be inappropriate to vote on a nominee in the middle of a campaign.

[mckerney]

FBI arrests man in Myrtle Beach allegedly planning attack 'in th - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather

A planned terrorist attack was stopped by the FBI, hopefully we can get a travel ban to stop people from people leaving South Carolina until we can figure out what the hell is going on there.

[Easy Mac]

All of the things he's saying he's done is "we stopped this, we repealed that, we backed out of this..." So that's not doing anything, that's literally the opposite of doing something.

[Easy Mac]

Seriously, he sounds drugged in his conference today.

[CrescentMoonie]

With at least semi-competent people like Harward, Acosta, Kelly, etc as replacement nominees, I'm wondering who is pulling the strings now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

With at least semi-competent people like Harward, Acosta, Kelly, etc as replacement nominees, I'm wondering who is pulling the strings now.

Yeah. It's surprising how much more qualified the replacements are than the initial nominees. Acosta is a very good selection for Labor Secretary (at least with the knowledge we have so far).

[digamma]

"Are they friends of yours?"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

"Are they friends of yours?"

That guarantee of 95% of the black vote might be in a little jeopardy...

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

FBI arrests man in Myrtle Beach allegedly planning attack 'in th - WMBFNews.com, Myrtle Beach/Florence SC, Weather

A planned terrorist attack was stopped by the FBI, hopefully we can get a travel ban to stop people from people leaving South Carolina until we can figure out what the hell is going on there.

Well this obviously hits pretty close to home for me. Thank God the guy was pretty stupid and was found by the FBI before he could do any harm. Don't worry Mckerney, I'm not leaving SC anytime soon

[larrymcg421]

So Trump didn't know the Congressional Black Caucus existed, assumed a black reporter would know them, and thought a reporter would be in charge of setting up a meeting between the President and members of Congress.

I don't know why any of that just happened. Obviously, it can't be stupidity, because as we recently have been reminded, Trump is a super duper intelligent businessman and this all must be part of some amazing secret plan he has concocted.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

That guarantee of 95% of the black vote might be in a little jeopardy...

As a white person, I can understand why that would offend an African American. And I figured that would get a lot of play on twitter.

If I may, as a white liberal, explain what I think he meant (so black-man-splaining I guess). I think he asked if she knew them simply because the way she was asking made it feel like she had been in contact with the Congressional Black Caucus (Trump had no idea what the CBC was) and that he needed to start a dialog with them regarding whatever he wants to do with Historical Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU, this time he might have been told that abbreviation an hour before). He was saying that he wanted to, but that the Caucus wanted nothing to do with him (as evidenced by his discussion on not getting the meeting with the black Congressman whose name I forgot because I'm about 32% racist). Therefore, since it seemed like she had an in, he thought he would be cutesy and ask her to help. I can't think for even a second that it crossed his mind that it would be interpreted as "all black people know all black people" (although that appears to be what all rich white people think).

So I'll tepidly defend him as just being dumb in the moment, not being overtly racist. If you look at other answers to questions, he seems to be just be really bad at responding to questions that can't be easily distilled into quips/campaign slogans.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Well this obviously hits pretty close to home for me. Thank God the guy was pretty stupid and was found by the FBI before he could do any harm. Don't worry Mckerney, I'm not leaving SC anytime soon

My wife is in San Antonio right now, is she going to be deported by to SC immediately or jailed.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

My wife is in San Antonio right now, is she going to be deported by to SC immediately or jailed.

Better get a Lawyer on call....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

As a white person, I can understand why that would offend an African American. And I figured that would get a lot of play on twitter.

If I may, as a white liberal, explain what I think he meant (so black-man-splaining I guess). I think he asked if she knew them simply because the way she was asking made it feel like she had been in contact with the Congressional Black Caucus (Trump had no idea what the CBC was) and that he needed to start a dialog with them regarding whatever he wants to do with Historical Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU, this time he might have been told that abbreviation an hour before). He was saying that he wanted to, but that the Caucus wanted nothing to do with him (as evidenced by his discussion on not getting the meeting with the black Congressman whose name I forgot because I'm about 32% racist). Therefore, since it seemed like she had an in, he thought he would be cutesy and ask her to help. I can't think for even a second that it crossed his mind that it would be interpreted as "all black people know all black people" (although that appears to be what all rich white people think).

So I'll tepidly defend him as just being dumb in the moment, not being overtly racist. If you look at other answers to questions, he seems to be just be really bad at responding to questions that can't be easily distilled into quips/campaign slogans.

To be honest, I'm more offended by the stupidity than any racism. How is it that he didn't know who the Congressional Black Caucus was? And after that, why didn't anyone tell him? Maybe they assumed that of course he knew about the CBC? It didn't seem like he had any idea though.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Better get a Lawyer on call....

I'm in a lawyer's office already... I've been incepted!

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

To be honest, I'm more offended by the stupidity than any racism. How is it that he didn't know who the Congressional Black Caucus was? And after that, why didn't anyone tell him? Maybe they assumed that of course he knew about the CBC? It didn't seem like he had any idea though.

If we being honest, you're offended at everything he does.

[albionmoonlight]

Attacking the media plays well with his base. A bunch of WA Post reporters saying "That press conference was crazy" is only going to boost his numbers.

[QuikSand]

wow what a day

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

As a white person, I can understand why that would offend an African American. And I figured that would get a lot of play on twitter.

If I may, as a white liberal, explain what I think he meant (so black-man-splaining I guess). I think he asked if she knew them simply because the way she was asking made it feel like she had been in contact with the Congressional Black Caucus (Trump had no idea what the CBC was) and that he needed to start a dialog with them regarding whatever he wants to do with Historical Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU, this time he might have been told that abbreviation an hour before). He was saying that he wanted to, but that the Caucus wanted nothing to do with him (as evidenced by his discussion on not getting the meeting with the black Congressman whose name I forgot because I'm about 32% racist). Therefore, since it seemed like she had an in, he thought he would be cutesy and ask her to help. I can't think for even a second that it crossed his mind that it would be interpreted as "all black people know all black people" (although that appears to be what all rich white people think).

So I'll tepidly defend him as just being dumb in the moment, not being overtly racist. If you look at other answers to questions, he seems to be just be really bad at responding to questions that can't be easily distilled into quips/campaign slogans.

Oh, I wasn't offended, nor do I think he was being overtly racist. (And of course, I lol'ed at the 95% comment when he said it, and chuckle about it all that time.) I just found it funny.

[Chief Rum]

I didn't see the press conference, but I just read the blow by blow of it on the Washington post website. I laughed at several points, particularly when Trump said he's not raving and that the U.S. and Russia would create "a great nuclear holocaust."

And then I sobered up cuz I remembered he is the President.

[Easy Mac]

I liked when he said that he read stuff about the how bad it would be if there was a nuclear holocaust and how people should read it.

Really... we've all seen The Day After and read Clifford books... we know what a nuclear holocaust would be like.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Really... we've all seen The Day After and read Clifford books... we know what a nuclear holocaust would be like.

Giant, red dogs everywhere.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

As a white person, I can understand why that would offend an African American. And I figured that would get a lot of play on twitter.

If I may, as a white liberal, explain what I think he meant (so black-man-splaining I guess). I think he asked if she knew them simply because the way she was asking made it feel like she had been in contact with the Congressional Black Caucus (Trump had no idea what the CBC was) and that he needed to start a dialog with them regarding whatever he wants to do with Historical Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU, this time he might have been told that abbreviation an hour before). He was saying that he wanted to, but that the Caucus wanted nothing to do with him (as evidenced by his discussion on not getting the meeting with the black Congressman whose name I forgot because I'm about 32% racist). Therefore, since it seemed like she had an in, he thought he would be cutesy and ask her to help. I can't think for even a second that it crossed his mind that it would be interpreted as "all black people know all black people" (although that appears to be what all rich white people think).

So I'll tepidly defend him as just being dumb in the moment, not being overtly racist. If you look at other answers to questions, he seems to be just be really bad at responding to questions that can't be easily distilled into quips/campaign slogans.

I'm not offended that he didn't know what the CBC is. Surprised, but not offended. Similar to how he seemed to not know who Fredrick Douglass was. I probably would've been more surprised if he knew who they were and had met with them already.

The comments about him believing all Black people know all Black people is just dumb. He may think that, but I don't think this derives from that belief.

Overall, there's just too much embellishment on both sides to make their narrative more provocative. Just report what happens. There's enough craziness going on that there's no need to enhance it.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Giant, red dogs everywhere.

[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?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Attacking the media plays well with his base. A bunch of WA Post reporters saying "That press conference was crazy" is only going to boost his numbers.

His approval ratings do not paint the picture of a winning strategy.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His approval ratings do not paint the picture of a winning strategy.

Except that approval ratings are largely meaningless, since he's already in office.

[Chief Rum]

But, yea, to albion's point, the numbers don't necessarily support that this appeals to his base.

At least not approval ratings. But it is also questionable how applicable those numbers are, he can have low overall approval ratings and yet still find a lot of support in his base. So technically you could both be correct.

[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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But, yea, to albion's point, the numbers don't necessarily support that this appeals to his base.

At least not approval ratings. But it is also questionable how applicable those numbers are, he can have low overall approval ratings and yet still find a lot of support in his base. So technically you could both be correct.

I think he's still very popular with 35-40%, but given the freak nature of his win, he can't afford to lose support. He didn't start with any cushion.

[cartman]

You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.

[Atocep]

I don't even know how a good portion of his base could look at today's press conference and be confident in our president.

The possibility that he's playing some master game above everyone's head is rather remote at this point.

[cartman]

25th Amendment, Section 4. Get familiar with it.

[CrescentMoonie]

Harward Turns Down Trump Offer

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't even know how a good portion of his base could look at today's press conference and be confident in our president.

The possibility that he's playing some master game above everyone's head is rather remote at this point.

They are incredibly stupid.

[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!