The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    He doesn't have a mandate.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Trump doesn't have a mandate. He never has. His job approval has fallen from 45% to 35% since assuming office.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    #obstructionofjustice | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Would you believe another context has emerged for obstruction of justice?

    Via NYT↱:

    The president, when asked by the pool of reporters covering a midday meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House whether he supported Mr. Mueller, gave no answer, even though he often uses such interactions to make headlines or shoot down stories he believes to be fake.

    That may have been by design, according to a person who spoke to Mr. Trump on Tuesday. The president was pleased by the ambiguity of his position on Mr. Mueller, and thinks the possibility of being fired will focus the veteran prosecutor on delivering what the president desires most: a blanket public exoneration.

    And just in case you missed it, the summary from The Hill:

    On Tuesday night White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters flying with Trump on Air Force One that the president wasn't going to fire Mueller, tamping down such rumors.

    “While the president has the right to, he has no intention to do so,” Sanders told reporters flying with Trump back to Washington from a day trip to Wisconsin.

    However, White House sources told The Times that Trump is hard to predict, and they cannot be sure he won't fire Mueller. Others who had spoken with Trump Tuesday said that the president's ambiguity on Mueller was intentional and that the possibility of being fired would help keep Mueller in line.

    The idea, of course, is that Mr. Trump's staff apparently had to talk him out of firing Robert Mueller. And somewhere in the middle of it he went and did his boasting bit, and then someone ran to the freaking New York Times. Donald Trump doesn't beg. But that only begs the question: What does he have to do so that we will impeach him?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Seipel, Brooke. "Top aides talked Trump out of firing Mueller: report". The Hill. 13 June 2017. TheHill.com. 13 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2smuoue

    Thrush, Glenn, Maggie Haberman, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. "Trump Stews, Staff Steps In, and Mueller Is Safe for Now". The New York Times. 13 June 2017. NYTimes.com. 13 June 2017. http://nyti.ms/2rp6EGP
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Maybe Mueller will resign and make sure the mystery around his resignation is fueled by Trumps apparent hedging...
    Fiction:
    Reporter: "Did the president force you to resign?
    Mueller: "No comment"
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Feel free to trust Clinton. That's not my problem.
    He is a familiar figure to me too. That's why I have written "Buchanan" instead of "some unknown freak". The point being?

    By the way, one important characterization of a totalitarian society is that everybody violates some laws. One simply cannot exist without violating laws. With the consequence that everybody feels insecure: "If necessary, "they" can find a reason to imprison me."

    What happens now closely remembers this. The law is clearly vague enough, and one can reasonably hope (and the anti-Trumpers obviously hope) that one can always find some "evidence" that Trump has violated the law and can be impeached. The only thing which prevents this is that those who decide about this are not (yet) under the control of the anti-Trumpers.

    So, the question if Trump will be impeached or not has, quite obviously, not much to do with real violations of law, but is pure politics. And it does not matter at all how all this ends - the impeachment show will tell this to everybody: there is no rule of law in the US, but rule of political intrigue.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    do you mean this person:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    or the other one what's his name ... Bill? ( or both?)
     
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Take your choice. Feel free to believe Hillary. Feel free to believe Bill. Feel free to believe both.
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well, it's not a matter of remaining silent. It's a matter of our cockamamie way of electing a POTUS. We have an electoral college system. It's an undemocratic institution. That's how a person like Trump can lose the popular vote and win the election.

    For the vast bulk our our history the electoral college hasn't mattered, because the winner of the popular vote normally wins the electoral college vote. But in recent years, that's increasingly not the case.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That you clearly don't know much about him, or you wouldn't spam a science forum with his opinions.
    I don't, of course - I have been an enemy of both Clintons for their entire national political careers. That would be obvious to anyone capable of evaluating American politics, when reading my posts.
    And nobody here cares whether your bs is a problem for you - when you continually spam this forum with garbage and propaganda from the goofiest of the American fascist media feeds, whether your gullibility and ignorance is a problem for you or not is irrelevant.
    You are actually, sincerely, arguing that Trump is vulnerable to prosecution because of some net of petty laws he can't help but have broken, as a victim of an increasingly totalitarian situation. Trump, the billionaire Republican real estate magnate and elected President, is a potential victim of petty authoritarian law in your judgment.

    You have no idea how utterly ridiculous that claim is, do you.

    Here's a tip: you can tell when you are posting foolishness in ignorance, and are about to say something ludicrously false and quite silly about US politics: it's when you catch yourself typing the word "obvious".
     
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    A science forum almost without any real scientists, lol. This is a political discussion forum dominated by US liberals, where it is also allowed to discuss some scientific questions, nothing more.

    Then, I don't evaluate people based on what I knew about them, but based on the content of what they write.
    Of course I know, and that's why this is, as usual, not my claim, but your fantasy.

    And here is a tip how you can tell if you write something wrong about me: You use the word "you".
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Same as, in the case of a pundit and writer: You don't know much about what he has written.
    Forgotten so soon? Here, again:
    You simply have no idea how ridiculous that is.

    Nothing that happens to Trump is going to "remember" any such situation. For starters, any vagueness works in his favor.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Why? Because Hillary has devoted her entire life to community service? Or is it because Bill Clinton left office with a budgetary surplus, which could have been used to reduce the national debt and enable the funding of needed social services from the consequent savings in interest?
    Can you point to a specific instance which caused you to become an "enemy" of the Clintons?
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
  18. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Aye, I just made a thread about it - there was a shooting in Virginia this morning.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    How long ago? 30 minutes, 60 minutes... ( trying to work out the news delay here)
     
  20. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Looks like it was around 7:30am EST
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    It's just another wacko with a gun. We've seen this story many times before. The victims are different, but the story is the same.

    This is good news for Trump as it shifts media attention away from his Russia and corruption problems.
     
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Is it though? I mean, it was a middle aged, slightly overweight white guy... kind of Trump's bread and butter base it seems. He can't blame it on "da brown people!" this time
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    ?????????????? shooting is somehow connected to the Clinton's?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page