Donald Trump

mrussel1

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

But I don't understand not wanting to think about all the terrible shit that was done during the war either TBH. Because that's a view of just how bad things could get if people are dismissive of Trump's tactics now. WWII and the holocaust should ALWAYS be viewed as warnings for us in the present, since it would be extremely naive to think it or something similar in various ways, to a greater or lesser extent, can't happen again. When you see the warning signs in Trump that Hitler displayed as well in the years leading up to WWII, why would you assume that it might not get just as bad in America as it did in Nazi Germany (or even a fraction as bad, which is beyond bad enough!)? This is why I have always found this knee-jerk aversion to Hitler comparisons disturbing. It's like setting America up for terrible things my means of denial.

I think the 33% are susceptible to his bullshit but the majority of the country is not.  Personally, I'm concerned about the long term health of our democracy and the checks and balances that require commitment to the Constitution to work.  In other words, the most disturbing thing he has done so far is fighting the congressional oversight.  So often his rhetoric does not match his actions.  In fact, on the world stage, Trump comes off as toothless even with his saber rattling.  The most meaningful thing he has done is refuse to honor the JCPOA.  Everything else has been just noise.  Domestically, most of the immigration stuff is fairly appalling other than that, he continues to fold when the going gets tough.  It's always been his MO personally and professionally, to make a bunch of noise, but be a bore.  

Boy, I think you're really underestimating how dangerous Trump is TBH, and the actual harm he is doing, if you think "everything else is just noise". What about the deregulation of environmental protections, his trade war with China, the very real threat to women's rights, the impact of the travel bans, and the very serious and damaging impact he's having on the public as far as the free press goes? And just the rhetoric alone will also have a long-lasting negative impact on America, both socially and politically. I know what you mean about the 33%. The problem is that some of the bullshit actually affects the rest of the population as well, slowly but surely. That is how Hitler got the majority of Germans to go along eventually, and to at least be apathetic, and not just the minority that straight up supported him and his crazier viewpoints. The psychological affects of this shit gets under the skin. Plus, some of what you're calling noise really isn't, as Jose just suggested as well. I think you shouldn't be so dismissive of his "noise". It carries meaning.

The policies, while misguided and generally diabolical, are legal.  I'm against just about every one of them.  But they don't threaten our democracy.  Now do they harm individuals and environment?  Yes, absolutely.  But I am drawing a distinction between legal policies that I despise and someone moving towards a true dictatorship.  And you're right, it carries meaning and I think he means what he says, but he has the gift of the cult of personality.  Fortunately he's an old man and his children are even more of a bore than him, and without a personality.  That's why the family isn't as concerning to me long term.  

The abortion bills aren't legal. They are unconstitutional. So are a lot of the other things he's doing. Not to mention all of his illegal activity, lol, particularly when it comes to his profiting from the presidency, and the obstruction of justice, and his urging to ignore subpoenas... etc. How many investigations are still going on against him right now? Several, no? Like a dozen at least?

The bills will likely be stayed until they go to the SCOTUS.  And your secondary points are exactly what I have talked about, lack of adherence to congressional oversight.  All of your criticisms fall into that bucket.  

But you seem to be trusting that he's not going to get away with it... I think many disagree, and that is obviously why people are so worried, and why I think you should be more worried. You still seem to have total faith in those checks and balances that everyone was talking about in 2016... But I see a lot of good reasons not to have very much faith in them because of how Trump operates. That is the whole point I think. That Constitution of yours isn't actually infallible. Also, there are still kids in cages and still thousands of kids who were kidnapped by the government and still missing. Obviously checks and balances are not working.

Allie - I absolutely am worried about hte checks and balances because they fundamentally rely on the belief that the Constitution is more important than any one individual or party.  I am worried that he is going to get away with it.  I'm saying that much of his other noise on the world stage is just noise, but refusing the oversight is a huge problem.  It is THE problem in my view.  Much of his crazy ass EO's, including the JCPOA, the tariffs, the wall, all that bullshit can be deconstructed and put back by President Any Other Functioning Adult.  But if breaks the faith in the institutions and respect for the Constitution, that's the long term damage.  It's up to the courts now. And if he refuses after the courts, then it's truly impeachable, and unassailably so.  

I think I am with you on this. But let's say it goes to SCOTUS and he loses, which is the likely scenario and then he still refuses to provide the info requested..........what happens? 

He must be impeached.  That's the clear remedy,  especially when the two equal branches are united.  

pjhawks

The Juggler said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

But I don't understand not wanting to think about all the terrible shit that was done during the war either TBH. Because that's a view of just how bad things could get if people are dismissive of Trump's tactics now. WWII and the holocaust should ALWAYS be viewed as warnings for us in the present, since it would be extremely naive to think it or something similar in various ways, to a greater or lesser extent, can't happen again. When you see the warning signs in Trump that Hitler displayed as well in the years leading up to WWII, why would you assume that it might not get just as bad in America as it did in Nazi Germany (or even a fraction as bad, which is beyond bad enough!)? This is why I have always found this knee-jerk aversion to Hitler comparisons disturbing. It's like setting America up for terrible things my means of denial.

I think the 33% are susceptible to his bullshit but the majority of the country is not.  Personally, I'm concerned about the long term health of our democracy and the checks and balances that require commitment to the Constitution to work.  In other words, the most disturbing thing he has done so far is fighting the congressional oversight.  So often his rhetoric does not match his actions.  In fact, on the world stage, Trump comes off as toothless even with his saber rattling.  The most meaningful thing he has done is refuse to honor the JCPOA.  Everything else has been just noise.  Domestically, most of the immigration stuff is fairly appalling other than that, he continues to fold when the going gets tough.  It's always been his MO personally and professionally, to make a bunch of noise, but be a bore.  

Boy, I think you're really underestimating how dangerous Trump is TBH, and the actual harm he is doing, if you think "everything else is just noise". What about the deregulation of environmental protections, his trade war with China, the very real threat to women's rights, the impact of the travel bans, and the very serious and damaging impact he's having on the public as far as the free press goes? And just the rhetoric alone will also have a long-lasting negative impact on America, both socially and politically. I know what you mean about the 33%. The problem is that some of the bullshit actually affects the rest of the population as well, slowly but surely. That is how Hitler got the majority of Germans to go along eventually, and to at least be apathetic, and not just the minority that straight up supported him and his crazier viewpoints. The psychological affects of this shit gets under the skin. Plus, some of what you're calling noise really isn't, as Jose just suggested as well. I think you shouldn't be so dismissive of his "noise". It carries meaning.

The policies, while misguided and generally diabolical, are legal.  I'm against just about every one of them.  But they don't threaten our democracy.  Now do they harm individuals and environment?  Yes, absolutely.  But I am drawing a distinction between legal policies that I despise and someone moving towards a true dictatorship.  And you're right, it carries meaning and I think he means what he says, but he has the gift of the cult of personality.  Fortunately he's an old man and his children are even more of a bore than him, and without a personality.  That's why the family isn't as concerning to me long term.  

The abortion bills aren't legal. They are unconstitutional. So are a lot of the other things he's doing. Not to mention all of his illegal activity, lol, particularly when it comes to his profiting from the presidency, and the obstruction of justice, and his urging to ignore subpoenas... etc. How many investigations are still going on against him right now? Several, no? Like a dozen at least?

The bills will likely be stayed until they go to the SCOTUS.  And your secondary points are exactly what I have talked about, lack of adherence to congressional oversight.  All of your criticisms fall into that bucket.  

But you seem to be trusting that he's not going to get away with it... I think many disagree, and that is obviously why people are so worried, and why I think you should be more worried. You still seem to have total faith in those checks and balances that everyone was talking about in 2016... But I see a lot of good reasons not to have very much faith in them because of how Trump operates. That is the whole point I think. That Constitution of yours isn't actually infallible. Also, there are still kids in cages and still thousands of kids who were kidnapped by the government and still missing. Obviously checks and balances are not working.

Allie - I absolutely am worried about hte checks and balances because they fundamentally rely on the belief that the Constitution is more important than any one individual or party.  I am worried that he is going to get away with it.  I'm saying that much of his other noise on the world stage is just noise, but refusing the oversight is a huge problem.  It is THE problem in my view.  Much of his crazy ass EO's, including the JCPOA, the tariffs, the wall, all that bullshit can be deconstructed and put back by President Any Other Functioning Adult.  But if breaks the faith in the institutions and respect for the Constitution, that's the long term damage.  It's up to the courts now. And if he refuses after the courts, then it's truly impeachable, and unassailably so.  

I think I am with you on this. But let's say it goes to SCOTUS and he loses, which is the likely scenario and then he still refuses to provide the info requested..........what happens? 

Can we trust the scotus to go against him and the republicans? History would suggest the judges will rule on the constitution side but in today’s world I’m not sure they will go against the republicans and trump.

and I want to see the dems start putting those who ignore subpoenas in cuffs. It might only take to do it to one to show you will do it.

Halifax2TheMax

Kompromant. Folks may have had enough. Thug thuggary is not glen Gary glen ross, coffee is for closers, suckers.

https://apple.news/AvPHKYg6LTEmhTEwyZ3Mozg

josevolution

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

mrussel1

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

I dont see Roberts allowing that as Chief Justice. He would strive to keep SCOTUS independent and on the level as much as possible imo.

dignin

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

I dont see Roberts allowing that as Chief Justice. He would strive to keep SCOTUS independent and on the level as much as possible imo.

I wouldn't bank on that.

mrussel1

dignin said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

I dont see Roberts allowing that as Chief Justice. He would strive to keep SCOTUS independent and on the level as much as possible imo.

I wouldn't bank on that.

He preserved obamacare.  I'm not sure he's a shill.  He doesn't owe Trump anything either.  He seems so traditionally conservative and buttoned up, I can't...won't believe that he is with Trump.   Not yet at least.  It's really going to come down to arguments about the power of the executive branch. 

mcgruff10

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

I doubt it. Didn’t they rule against his travel ban?

josevolution

dignin said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

I dont see Roberts allowing that as Chief Justice. He would strive to keep SCOTUS independent and on the level as much as possible imo.

I wouldn't bank on that.

Me neither I don’t trust anyone anymore that has jurisdiction over this administration, most have tucked their tails and run for the hills ..

mrussel1

josevolution said:

dignin said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

I dont see Roberts allowing that as Chief Justice. He would strive to keep SCOTUS independent and on the level as much as possible imo.

I wouldn't bank on that.

Me neither I don’t trust anyone anymore that has jurisdiction over this administration, most have tucked their tails and run for the hills ..

You can't primary a scotus.  That's the threat that he uses.  He can't do a thing to Roberts or anyone up on that bench.  

mickeyrat

mcgruff10 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

I doubt it. Didn’t they rule against his travel ban?

initially on the first attempt.

The Juggler

I agree with you guys on John Roberts. He's not a Trumper...

dignin

Not a Trump stooge. But people also said the same thing about Barr at the start.

They are all still team players. We will see.

The Juggler

Well Roberts doesn't have the stain of Iran-Contra, and that 19 page bullshit memo on his record. Barr has had both of those scars on him since the beginning...

mrussel1

dignin said:

Not a Trump stooge. But people also said the same thing about Barr at the start.

They are all still team players. We will see.

I thought it was clear he was a stooge after he wrote that unsolicited memo about the 'witch hunt' last year.  

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

SCOTUS will protect the Baffoon !

That would be very distressing.  The other branches need to take their power back.  This is the time.  

The SCOTUS is broken. Too many of the judges are completely partisan, which is a situation created by the nomination and affirmation process, and it's now weighted towards a party that has completely abandoned any kind of respect for the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. That entire process desperately needs to be separated from government for America to have any hope going forward of a non-partisan, aka fair, SCOTUS.

PJ_Soul

This is fucking insane.

Trump abruptly cancels infrastructure meeting with Democrats after Pelosi says he is ‘engaged in a coverup’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-takes-aim-at-house-democrats-as-they-prepare-to-discuss-impeachment-calls/2019/05/22/a36ea0d0-7c79-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html?utm_term=.63a94d835528&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said May 22 that House Democrats believe “no one is above the law, including the president of the United States.” (Reuters)

By John Wagner ,

Rachael Bade and

Mike DeBonis

May 22 at 12:04 PM

President Trump abruptly canceled a meeting with Democratic leaders on Wednesday, saying he was unable to work with them on legislation following comments by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he was “engaged in a coverup.”

Trump made an unscheduled appearance in the Rose Garden shortly afterward and in a meandering 10-minute address said he had left the meeting with Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) at which they were supposed to talk about working together on a $2 billion infrastructure plan.

“Instead of walking in happily to a meeting, I walk in to look at people who said I was doing a coverup,” Trump said, adding that he can’t work on infrastructure “under these circumstances.”

Pelosi made her comments earlier Wednesday morning during a closed-door meeting with House Democrats called to discuss ongoing investigations of Trump and his administration. Despite her accusation of a coverup, Pelosi and all but one of her six committee chairmen with investigatory powers tamped down talk of impeachment proceedings during the meeting.

A growing number of rank-and-file Democrats have called for the launch of an impeachment inquiry against Trump as frustrations build over the administration’s stonewalling of congressional probes.

But during Wednesday’s meeting, most of the chairmen who addressed the caucus focused on recent successes in court battles to force the administration to comply with subpoenas and counseled a more measured course advocated by Pelosi, according to multiple people in the room.

House Democrats call for impeachment proceedings against Trump

After the White House blocked numerous congressional subpoena requests, lawmakers have begun calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump. (Blair Guild, JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

The meeting “reflected where most of this caucus is at,” said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.). “Have faith on the courts and have faith in process, and impeachment only if absolutely necessary.”

Addressing reporters afterward, Pelosi said Democrats had “a very productive meeting” and called for staying the course on investigations.

“We do believe that it’s important to follow the facts,” she said. “We believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States. And we believe the president of the United States is engaged in a coverup.”

In remarks to fellow Democrats during the meeting, Pelosi, according to multiple members, showed no sign of moving away from her approach.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi briefly speaks to the news media after leaving a House Democratic Caucus meeting at the Capitol, on Wednesday (Erik S Lesser/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

“Stay the course,” said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), summarizing Pelosi’s remarks.

After the meeting, Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) argued that the committees should continue investigating and that Democrats should focus more on legislation, saying that “the impeachment question is taking up all the oxygen in the room.”

“Look, in my mind, even if we impeach, the Senate isn’t going to do anything about it … so what is our goal?” she asked. “If we don’t want Trump to be the president … we’ve got to get him in 2020.”

During the meeting, House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was the only one of the chairmen to call for moving forward with impeachment proceedings, a stance consistent with her past advocacy for seeking to remove Trump.

“I never change my mind,” she told reporters afterward.

While other chairmen said they were outraged by Trump’s conduct, several offered reasons to follow Pelosi’s lead. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), for instance, warned that some freshmen lawmakers in swing districts could lose races if Democrats are too aggressive in pursuing impeachment.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump aimed a barrage of early-morning tweets at House Democrats questioning their priorities as they prepared to discuss investigations into the administration amid the growing calls for impeachment proceedings.

In his tweets, Trump claimed that Democrats are “getting ZERO work done in Congress” and are instead focused on what he called a continuation of a “Witch Hunt” into whether he sought to obstruct special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Trump wrote in the fourth of his tweets that began before 6 a.m.

The president’s Twitter rant came about three hours before the Democratic caucus meeting called by Pelosi.

Democrats have become increasingly frustrated with the administration’s refusal to cooperate with congressional requests for documents and testimony. That included the White House’s refusal to allow former counsel Donald McGahn to testify at a hearing Tuesday about key aspects of Mueller’s report.

During the meeting, most lawmakers appeared to side with Pelosi, according to people in the room. Even some of those who had advocated opening an impeachment inquiry sounded more measured as they left the meeting.

“I can see both sides,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a Judiciary Committee member who has been one of the most aggressive advocates for impeachment. “I think we’re better served to move forward with an impeachment inquiry at a minimum, but I can understand the other side’s logic.” (continued in next post...)

PJ_Soul

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who spoke up forcefully for an impeachment inquiry in a private leadership meeting Monday, declined to say after the meeting whether such an inquiry should now be launched.

“I just think we need to have a conversation about all the constitutional means that are available to us, and we’re having that conversation,” Raskin said.

One of the most vocal proponents of an impeachment inquiry, Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.), rose during the meeting and spoke about the need for the House to ensure that “no one is above the law,” making the case that impeachment proceedings would elevate the seriousness of the House’s response to Trump.

“People understand the gravity of this moment,” Cicilline said afterward. “There was a very candid, respectful discussion about the best way to proceed. I think everyone recognizes that this isn’t just about Donald J. Trump, but it’s about protecting the rule of law in this country and the implications it has for the future of our democracy.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N. J), who sits on the Ways and Means panel and has been involved in trying to get Trump’s tax returns, was among those who advocated a more methodical approach.

He argued that a recent court ruling upholding a House subpoena of some of Trump’s financial records was good news for Democrats — and that they don’t need to launch an inquiry to get information they need.

“The law is on our side,” he said, according to one person in the room. Members who spoke after him echoed the sentiment.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), one of the most liberal members in the caucus, retorted that the law might be on their party’s side but “the clock is not.” He and other Democrats have expressed concerns that Trump is merely trying to buy time to delay their investigations until after his reelection.

Pelosi called the caucus-wide huddle amid increased pressure from some of her members to begin an impeachment inquiry. Monday night, a band of frustrated House Judiciary Committee members — including powerful chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) — confronted Pelosi on her no-impeachment position and encouraged her to green-light an inquiry.

Pelosi refused, arguing that the caucus is not behind the move and that it would impede other committees in pursuing their investigations.

Pro-impeachment members, however, argue that an impeachment inquiry will enable investigators to more quickly secure documents and witness testimony that the White House has blocked at every turn. Since Monday, about 25 lawmakers have gone public to call for an inquiry to begin.

To ease the pressure and the tension, Pelosi had privately signaled that she will green-light more aggressive investigative measures, according to several lawmakers.

Pelosi, these lawmakers say, is also talking about so-called “inherent contempt” in a real way. That includes potentially tweaking House rules to allow chairmen to slap steep fines on Trump officials who ignore subpoenas.

Since taking control of the House in January, Democrats have passed several legislative measures, including bills on health care and ethics reform, that have not been taken up in the Republican-led Senate.

The tension over stepped-up House oversight of Trump comes amid continuing discussions of one potential issue on which both Trump and Pelosi have expressed hope for cooperation: investing in the country’s ailing infrastructure. Trump is scheduled to meet later Tuesday morning on the subject with Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and others.

But prospects for a deal seemed to have dimmed since Trump held an initial meeting with Democratic leaders several weeks ago at which there was an agreement on a goal of spending $2 trillion on roads, bridges, rail, airports and other infrastructure.

In a letter to Pelosi and Schumer on Tuesday night, Trump wrote that it is his “strong view” that Congress should pass the trade deal his administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico before turning its full attention to infrastructure.

The White House has stepped up pressure on Congress to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement by the summer amid continuing Democratic concerns about parts of the deal.

During an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday morning, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders accused Democrats of “dragging their feet” on the trade deal and chastised them for talking about impeachment.

“Hopefully they’re going to have a come-to-Jesus moment where they realize what a terrible idea this is,” Sanders said of the planned Democratic caucus meeting.

In his morning tweets, Trump continued to question why Democrats were interested in hearing the testimony from his aides and others who were interviewed as part of Mueller’s investigation.

Mueller’s report concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election “in sweeping and systematic fashion.”

The report did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges of criminal conspiracy with Russia against Trump or anyone associated with his campaign. It did not offer a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice.

Barr later concluded that there was not sufficient evidence for obstruction of justice, but House Democrats are continuing to pursue that issue.

“After two years of an expensive and comprehensive Witch Hunt, the Democrats don’t like the result and they want a DO OVER,” Trump said in one of his morning tweets. “In other words, the Witch Hunt continues!”

Later Wednesday morning, Trump returned to Twitter to justify blocking the testimony of McGahn, his former White House counsel, to the Judiciary Committee.

“He (Jerry Nadler) wants a show,” Trump said of the panel’s chairman. “He wants to use Mr. McGahn as a prop to spend three hours claiming that Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation. YET MR. MUELLER WASN’T OBSTRUCTED IN ANY WAY, HIS COPIOUS REPORT WAS RELEASED FOR ALL TO SEE, & THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.”

mrussel1

He sabotages the one thing he could get done.  Classic.