Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

The senate will get their heads outta their asses before Trump backs down and they'll get funding without needing the president. They're just playing stupid games with people's lives right now, but you take away people's paycheques and they get angry and angry people vote assholes out of office pretty quick, they won't want to risk that. Can you imagine if in 2020 the Democrats won the senate and the presidency to go along with congress all because Donny Shithead wanted to build a wall? Republicans everywhere would lose their ******* minds. 

31 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The senate will get their heads outta their asses before Trump backs down and they'll get funding without needing the president. They're just playing stupid games with people's lives right now, but you take away people's paycheques and they get angry and angry people vote assholes out of office pretty quick, they won't want to risk that. Can you imagine if in 2020 the Democrats won the senate and the presidency to go along with congress all because Donny Shithead wanted to build a wall? Republicans everywhere would lose their ******* minds. 

Even if a bipartisan bill is passed in both houses, does it not require the President to sign off on? If he refuses to sign a bill agreed to by Republicans that does not include wall funding, what is the next step to get around him (my knowledge of the procedures of US politics is somewhat hazy, need a primer from this guy I guess).

2 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Even if a bipartisan bill is passed in both houses, does it not require the President to sign off on? If he refuses to sign a bill agreed to by Republicans that does not include wall funding, what is the next step to get around him (my knowledge of the procedures of US politics is somewhat hazy, need a primer from this guy I guess).

They can override the veto if they get 2/3 support in both Chambers. No way the GOP does that. 

 

Reference: 
override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm

Edited January 10, 20197 yr by JCon
Added reference.

7 minutes ago, JCon said:

They can override the veto if they get 2/3 support in both Chambers. No way the GOP does that. 

 

Reference: 
override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/override_of_a_veto.htm

Edited January 10, 20197 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

10 minutes ago, JCon said:

They can override the veto if they get 2/3 support in both Chambers. No way the GOP does that. 

I am not so sure about that. The unity behind Trump is eroding, he is a useful idiot but if you think for a second that the GOP will put their well being second to Trump getting his way with a wall that most of them don't even want you're deluded. 

This idea that Trump is the only one that can motivate their base is ridiculous. That base is so ****** they'll vote for any republican, they should be much more concerned about driving anyone who is even a little bit of a moderate R right into the hands of the Democrats because Trumps base is too small to carry elections. 

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

I am not so sure about that. The unity behind Trump is eroding, he is a useful idiot but if you think for a second that the GOP will put their well being second to Trump getting his way with a wall that most of them don't even want you're deluded. 

This idea that Trump is the only one that can motivate their base is ridiculous. That base is so ****** they'll vote for any republican, they should be much more concerned about driving anyone who is even a little bit of a moderate R right into the hands of the Democrats because Trumps base is too small to carry elections. 

It would certainly be a slap in trump's face.  It would be the end of the "unity" between White House and GOP.

17 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I am not so sure about that. The unity behind Trump is eroding, he is a useful idiot but if you think for a second that the GOP will put their well being second to Trump getting his way with a wall that most of them don't even want you're deluded. 

This idea that Trump is the only one that can motivate their base is ridiculous. That base is so ****** they'll vote for any republican, they should be much more concerned about driving anyone who is even a little bit of a moderate R right into the hands of the Democrats because Trumps base is too small to carry elections. 

McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said they wouldn't even consider bringing the bill to the Senate that was just passed last week in Congress, couldn't support it, even though the Senate just passed the same bill RIGHT BEFORE XMAS! The GOP is doubling down on stupid, if that's possible. 

Edited January 10, 20197 yr by JCon

22 minutes ago, JCon said:

McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said they wouldn't even consider bringing the bill to the Senate that was just passed last week in Congress, couldn't support it, even though the Senate just passed the same bill RIGHT BEFORE XMAS! The GOP is doubling down on stupid, if that's possible. 

Right now they are, they're playing chicken hoping that people blame the Democrats, but I don't think it's playing out that way and people are rightly pointing their fingers at a Republican president, this coupled with the latest from Mueller means that it's only a matter of time until the senate drops Trump like bad habit and goes into self preservation. Hell even Fox News is starting to poke holes in Trump. The GOP cares more about the GOP than they do Trump and the second Trump is bad for the GOP they'll try and pull the "see, we stopped this mad man! love us!"

https://www.thewrap.com/trump-villain-1950s-tv-series-trackdown-build-wall-save-world/

4 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

https://www.thewrap.com/trump-villain-1950s-tv-series-trackdown-build-wall-save-world/

That is one helluva find!

Speaking of which... This sure didn't age well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/jan/10/if-there-is-a-concrete-wall-in-front-of-you-go-through-it-says-trump-in-2004-speech-video

6 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Speaking of which... This sure didn't age well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2019/jan/10/if-there-is-a-concrete-wall-in-front-of-you-go-through-it-says-trump-in-2004-speech-video

Speaking of doubling down on stupid, how will Fox spin this:

Trump says he ‘never said’ Mexico would pay for the wall. But he did – a lot

https://globalnews.ca/news/4833557/trump-mexico-border-wall-write-a-cheque/

...

“I said they were going to pay for it — and they are. They are paying for it with the incredible deal we made called the USMCA.”

In fact, in October 2016, during the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump released a document called “Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter,” in which he said Mexico would “reimburse” the U.S. for the “full cost of the wall.”

In a separate plan presented to the Washington Post during the campaign, he suggested he would cut off access for Mexican immigrants who send money home to their families until Mexico made a “one-time payment” of billions of dollars for the wall. (The plan was regarded as likely illegal, the Washington Post reported.)

...

Micheal Cohen will testify before Congress in a public setting, well this should get Cheetolini in a better mode today.

Edited January 10, 20197 yr by bustamente

More details:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-to-testify-to-house-oversight-committee.html

Given his decade long history of handling Trumps "deals"....many interesting questions could be asked, and not just about Stormy and the Bunny.

Individual 1 and his current crazed lawyer have plenty of pre-spinning to do....

Love this logic:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cnns-jim-acosta-mocked-for-accidently-proving-that-border-walls-work

“Jim Acosta just posted one of the biggest self owns ever,” social media strategist Caleb Hull responded. ‘He's walking along the border where there's a wall in place talking about how there's nothing that ‘resembles a national emergency situation’ and ‘there's no migrants trying to rush.’ That's because there's a wall, Jim.”

 

Reminds me of:

 

and fox news be all like:

 

18 minutes ago, do or die said:

More details:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-to-testify-to-house-oversight-committee.html

Given his decade long history of handling Trumps "deals"....many interesting questions could be asked, and not just about Stormy and the Bunny.

Individual 1 and his current crazed lawyer have plenty of pre-spinning to do....

He will say that Trump knew full well about the payments to the mistresses and that it was to avoid impacting the campaign.  That's campaign finance violations and it's a felony.  That alone, absent anything else, is a felony and an indictable offense.  We can debate the severity and Paul Edwards had a hung jury but it might, by itself, create a debate over whether you can indict a sitting President.

And ofcourse, what else.  Cohen had that recorded conversation referring to transferring all the Enquirers material to them...surely there are many more damning things.

As more and more information drips out on Paul Manafort it becomes apparent that he is as scummy and greedy a human being as it gets, and of course Trump knew nothing about any of it.

1 minute ago, bustamente said:

As more and more information drips out on Paul Manafort it becomes apparent that he is as scummy and greedy a human being as it gets, and of course Trump knew nothing about any of it.

Birds of a feather...

From the article I posted above:

The former FBI Director Mueller is investigating possible collusion by Trump’s campaign with Russians who interfered in the 2016 presidential election, and possible obstruction of justice by the president. Trump denies any wrongoing by himself or his campaign.

Mueller has said that Cohen gave the special counsel’s team “information about attempted by other Russian nationals to reach” Trump’s presidential campaign as far back as November 2015.

Which links to this:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Thursday that he welcomed Cohen’s public testimony before the Oversight panel but also said it would be “necessary” to have Cohen appear behind closed doors as his committee probes Russian interference.

Edited January 10, 20197 yr by do or die

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

He will say that Trump knew full well about the payments to the mistresses and that it was to avoid impacting the campaign.  That's campaign finance violations and it's a felony.  That alone, absent anything else, is a felony and an indictable offense.  We can debate the severity and Paul Edwards had a hung jury but it might, by itself, create a debate over whether you can indict a sitting President.

And ofcourse, what else.  Cohen had that recorded conversation referring to transferring all the Enquirers material to them...surely there are many more damning things.

My concern about the public testimony is that it circumvents the Mueller investigation. I know Mueller knows all this information (and we do too) but it puts it out there allowing time for the public to become comfortable with the allegations. Unless there is something "new", then why not just let Mueller continue. Presumably, he must be close? Everyone's is jail now or has been indicted or plead guilty. The only ones left are named "Trump" and I expect those to come down very soon. 

Now Trump says that you are all stupid and I never said that Mexico would write a check.

Just now, bustamente said:

Now Trump says that you are all stupid and I never said that Mexico would write a check.

He is not talking about us......just his supporters

More wisdom from the grand Emperor, "Wheels are older than Walls"

4 minutes ago, do or die said:

He is not talking about us......just his supporters

I'm  not sure how his supporters will square this. They've been foaming at the mouth for more than two years repeating that Mexico will pay. But now, what will they say? They need Fox to provide them a new line.