Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Rich

US Politics

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

So now that the televised plea and counter-argument have occurred, with the subsequent 2 minute candy meeting and walkout yesterday, what is the next step for each party, and what is the end-game for each?

For Trump, he has 2 acceptable options for him it seems. Compromising and backing off his wall is not one of them, and his history of lawsuits as a private businessman suggests that he will drag this out as long as he can and try to bury the other side with deep pockets. Unlike his business days, where he could afford expensive litigation to tire out the other side, the money this time is the lack of paychecks for Government workers, he can outlast them. So he can (a) just ride this out until the other side blinks (does he really care if it kills his chances of re-election, especially if we believe that he never wanted the gig n the first place and this was just a branding experiment gone horribly wrong?), or (b) declare a national emergency and get his funding without compromise. Although funny that it was pointed out (on CNN) that he says he will not declare an emergency as long as he thinks he can work out a deal, but will do so "if the other side proves to be unreasonable", and they raised the proper question "since by definition an emergency is an urgent situation, how can he delay action now and then say later it is an emergency when he has sat on his hands for so long with no change in conditions?"

For Democrats, do they have options other than (a) hold fast and watch the workers suffer, hoping they win the PR battle over whose fault it is, or (b) compromise and agree to wall funding to get government open again? Tough sell on option (a) if they keep touting that they are the party wanting to work out this problem. What concessions can they make to show that they are being reasonable without giving in fully? Or do they have a third nuclear option? That being, push hard for impeachment now? They have plenty of ammo to do it already, how would it play out if they now said "on top of everything else, we now have a leader who doesn't want to lead anymore, wants to shut down the government, keep it shut, and walks away from any meeting without any effort to fix the problems of his own making. So if he doesn't want to be a leader, maybe it's time to remove him from office and find someone who does?"

Does that ploy work, and could it be their ace in the hole, much like Trump's "emergency funding" ace in the hole?

What do Republicans do? It seems they are trying to concoct a new scenario where they offer DACA relief to the Dems like they so long wanted, in exchange for border wall money. This may be seen by the public as the best compromise. The Dems look weak if they give in, but look petty and vindictive with a purely political agenda if they don't take what they have advocated for which is now being offered. It makes them more about beating Trump than solving problems.

So thoughts on what the next moves are?

Yes Trump has effectively admitted that the option to declare an emergency is simply a ploy and an end run around congress since obviously no emergency exists and if it did, he can't sit back and wait for negotiations to play out.  That might hurt him in any legal challenge.

I think Trump hates losing and would be more open to compromise rather then risk an out right loss.  But its all about his base which he needs for support and rabble rousing as he faces serious investigations.  

Its really all about the GOP.  You see that support already becoming tenuous.  They only supported him because they wanted to support a winner.  If they cant win with him, they will drop him. If he goes down criminally, they will want to distance themselves.

The admin are a bunch of racists pandering to a racist base.  With that racist base, they have virtually no support.  

Trump probably will declare an emergency because he's being pushed by people like Stephen Miller and idiots like Sanders are providing strategy.  

Dems are doing the right thing by continuing to present options.  Trump's position (and Pence etc) that Pelosi refused to support a wall in return for re-opening government is a different way of saying Trump refuses to re-open government unless he gets a wall.  He isnt getting one unless he cheats to get it.

The strategy of shutting down government might be to try and produce obstacles to the many investigations into him also.  Hoping federal employees stop working and conducting investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Image result for animated us bill cartoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Image result for animated us bill cartoon

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 by JCon
Added reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

ImpassionedPoorHomalocephale-small.gif

Edited by wanna-b-fanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by JCon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

giphy.gif

 

and fox news be all like:

 

BGysLK.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by do or die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×