US Politics: Lock Him Up!

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Guess they weren't conservative enough.

+1

[Ormond]

After having read the last few pages, a couple of quick comments:

First, it amazes me that the discussion about turning swing states into allocating electoral votes by congressional district has talked about this as if Trump himself would be behind it. Trump's narcissism ensures that he will believe he'll win re-election no matter how electoral votes are allocated. Didn't he actually say it would be a good idea to do away with the electoral college in a meeting with senators AFTER the November election until McConnell told him this was a bad idea? If this electoral vote thing happens in Wisconsin or Florida, it will be because Republicans in general like the idea as a way to help any Republican candidate, not because Trump himself will be pushing it.

Second, as to the likelihood of Trump's physical health failing --- not sure I would bet on that one. The main negative factor for him is his frequent hostile outbursts, which are definitely associated with a much higher risk of heart disease. Plus his narcissism may make him less likely to consult a physician when symptoms crop up.

 However, that must be balanced with the fact that his mother lived to be 88 and his father lived to be 93, and that Trump does not smoke or drink alcohol. Trump's father had Alzheimer's, but that didn't manifest until he was 87. 

Trump's chances of having a heart attack during the next four years are probably higher than those of the average President, but I'm not sure they are higher than the average for a man his age, and so I wouldn't count on physical health problems leading to his removal from office during the next four years.

Also, he is not going to have a "mental breakdown" that will lead him to be much "crazier" than he is now. His present problems are not going to lead him to develop schizophrenia or another major mental illness even with the extra stress. It seems to me the possibility there would be that under extra stress he will be even more likely to do something that would make him impeachable -- but that won't be a "breakdown."

 

[The Anti-Targ]

50 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

From the WaPo article.  This has the unique ability in being unpalatable to libertarians and the hard right for creating an income cap and effectively being an "entitlement," unsupportable by anyone on the left because the credits are still age-based rather than focused on providing for those in economic need, and unpopular on its face since it doesn't take a budget scorer to know this will render millions of people's current plans unaffordable.  Nice work GOP Congress!

Don't you still have to be able to afford to buy the insurance up front? The poorest people (who don't qualify for Medicaid / care) won't be able to afford to buy the insurance in the first place, so a tax credit is going to be worth jack poop.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Ormond said:

First, it amazes me that the discussion about turning swing states into allocating electoral votes by congressional district has talked about this as if Trump himself would be behind it.

I agree.

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Don't you still have to be able to afford to buy the insurance up front? The poorest people (who don't qualify for Medicaid / care) won't be able to afford to buy the insurance in the first place, so a tax credit is going to be worth jack poop.

Yep.  Yeppers.  Yes-indeedy.  That 2 - 4 grand ain't gonna mean jack shit to them.

[DMC]

Oh yeah, as for going forward without CBO scoring, that might be all well-and-good at the committee process, but (from the same WaPo article linked above):

Quote

Coming out of a closed-door GOP conference meeting last week, several House Republicans expressed concerns that the committees might start to work on the legislation without a complete fiscal assessment. To be eligible for special budget rules known as “reconciliation” — allowing bills to pass in the Senate by a simple majority — the legislation cannot increase the deficit after its first 10 years in effect.

Several House GOP aides involved in drafting the legislation could not say when the Congressional Budget Office would provide its formal analysis of the bill, but the two committees of jurisdiction are poised to advance the bill without it.

 

[TerraPrime]

Did I read correctly that Trey Goudy is saying Trump's claim of being wiretapped is unfounded? 

 

Yes, yes I did. 

 

“I don't think the FBI is the Obama team and I don't think the men and women who are career prosecutors at DOJ belong to any team other than a blindfolded woman holding a pair of scales,” Gowdy said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-wiretap-obama-trey-gowdy-235713

[OldGimletEye]

Just in case you wondering: We would be better off if the Republican Party was demolished?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/6/14838122/republican-health-bill-obamacare-replacement

Quote

Little in politics shocks me. The process House Republicans want to use for their healthcare bill does. After literally years of complaining Obamacare was jammed down the American people’s throats with insufficient information or consideration, the GOP intends to hold committee votes on their bill two days after releasing it, and without a Congressional Budget Office report estimating either coverage or fiscal effects. It’s breathtaking.

 

[Fragile Bird]

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

Not sure if this was posted but this is bad. This needs to be investigated.

 

Linking the article would be more helpful than linking a tweet. I'd do it except I'm on my tablet now and have not figured out how to do that yet.

[ThinkerX]

Quote

I have been thinking about Trump and Russia. Much as I despise Trump, I don't think he colluded  with Russia to win the election. I think there is so simpler explanation for his behaviour.  During the campaign,  and article estimating his net worth mentioned that no American lenders would give him any credit. He had gone bankrupt too many times. Even European lenders were a bit gun shy and referred him to Russian banks. 

I suspect Trump has borrowed vast sums from Russian banks and is unable to make the payments. Any contacts with Russians during the campaign were more to find a way to get out from under them than in rigging the election. Hence the note of panic when the subject comes up.  Breaking an unenforced  law is small potatoes to Trump as he has done worse many times. Being shown, on national TV, as a bankrupt incompetent businessman, with no way to hide his problems,  is what I think is driving him now.

Grounds for the emolument (sp?) clause?

Quote

 

[Fragile Bird]

I'm seeing stories on my Facebook feed that Khizr Khan, the father of the soldier killed in Iraq who gave such a memorable speech at the Democratic convention, has been advised that his 'travel privileges' are under review. He was supposed to be here in Toronto on Tuesday to give a speech, but cancelled on Sunday when he heard the news. 

Mr. Khan is originally from Pakistan but has been a US citizen for 30 years.

Tonight, while channel surfing, I came across an HBO documentary about Arlington cemetery, simply called Arlington. The HBO film showed people visiting the graves of their loved ones and talking about them, with no input from any interviewer by way of questions. Mr. Khan and his wife were among the people in the film, which I assume was made long before their appearance at the DNC.  If you come come across it on HBO I recommend it as a moving tribute to the those who gave up their lives and their families who grieve for them.

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Linking the article would be more helpful than linking a tweet. I'd do it except I'm on my tablet now and have not figured out how to do that yet.

Article

[Crazydog7]

I left town four days ago and that is almost a century in Trump time.  My cousin and her husband live in that part of Florida that always has to pay the bill when Trump rolls through town.  They were bitching about the extra expense but I'm sure that will evaporate in a few months when the 2020 Campaign season starts and the next Liberal straw man can be blamed for all of their problems.  Liberals are always over the next hill wanting to take their guns away after all.  

So I missed all of this Obama wiretape stuff at least.  Utterly frightening that fringe stuff you read on Brehetbart is going to be run up the flag pole every Monday for the next four years.  Something tells me we are going to look back on the "alternative facts" comment as the good old days. 

Still for everyone comparing Trump to Hitler to me he is just a more insane version of chauncey gardiner.  I don't credit him with having the ability to put any kind of sinister agenda into place he just wants everyone to kiss his ass and tell him how wonderful he is and seems to be genuinely confused when it doesn't work.  It would be hilarious if it wasn't so Goddamn serious.   

[butterbumps!]

12 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

There is a greater than 50% chance that some Trump scion* runs for office in the next 10 years.  My money is on Ivanka.  And she would be very effective and very terrifying.  Like Galadriel with the ring.  Just saying.

*Noun chosen on purpose

What leads you to believe one of his spawn will run for office, and who you believe their supporters would be?    I also wonder if you might be giving Ivanka too much credit.   She's been effective as a fig leaf for Trump; she enabled a bunch of already Republican-leaning white women to feel less shame voting for him by papering over his misogyny and roughness (which conversely loses her a lot a points with liberal women).   But I'm not sure how much is really "there" in her own right.   She comes across well (sometimes, and to some audiences) in relation to him; I don't know that people will clamor for her after this failed Trump experiment (I'm thinking the Trump name will be pretty done), and after her father is no longer around as a foil.

[denstorebog]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

What leads you to believe one of his spawn will run for office, and who you believe their supporters would be?    I also wonder if you might be giving Ivanka too much credit.   She's been effective as a fig leaf for Trump; she enabled a bunch of already Republican-leaning white women to feel less shame voting for him by papering over his misogyny and roughness (which conversely loses her a lot a points with liberal women).   But I'm not sure how much is really "there" in her own right.   She comes across well (sometimes, and to some audiences) in relation to him; I don't know that people will clamor for her after this failed Trump experiment (I'm thinking the Trump name will be pretty done), and after her father is no longer around as a foil.

I have also assumed from the beginning that Ivanka was being groomed as a potential successor. Why else is she a practical member of the adminstration and part of meetings that she should be nowhere near? Why else is she being profiled as a voice of reason in the White House with specific trademark issues and with a certain sympathy towards Democrat causes? She is young and attractive which opens up the Republican brand to a whole new demographic, and running as the first female president really fucks with the Democrats' reliance on identity politics.

It's impossible to say what the Trump name means 8 years from now, but we can't conclude with certainty that it will be a 'failed experiment'. I don't buy that it's a given that Donald's approval ratings will ever move below 40%, if he is able to keep pinning his own failures on media, liberals, Obama, Santa Claus et. al. That could give Ivanka a strong starting base that would largely stick with her even if she tried broadening her appeal to moderate democrat voters and even distancing herself a bit from her father's lunacy, in style if not in substance.

Making actual predictions at this point is pretty useless, but given acceptable end-term poll numbers for Donald in 2024, I think she could represent a perfect mix between the established Trump name and a youthful, sane breath of fresh air. (It would all be a fucking sham, of course, but not necessarily impossible to pull off.)

[butterbumps!]

33 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I have also assumed from the beginning that Ivanka was being groomed as a potential successor. Why else is she a practical member of the adminstration and part of meetings that she should be nowhere near?

Trump runs his businesses like a bloated mom and pop operation.  She was at those meetings for family business, and because Trump seems to believe this family business model translates to running the country.  And because these people are tone deaf and clueless.

Quote

Why else is she being profiled as a voice of reason in the White House with specific trademark issues and with a certain sympathy towards Democrat causes? She is young and attractive which opens up the Republican brand to a whole new demographic, and running as the first female president really fucks with the Democrats' reliance on identity politics.

Is it so that she ends up in office, or because that's the stupid racket they've been running in terms of the Trump family business?   She's always been portrayed as the softer, "voice of reason" Trump.   Trump's been pretending to be the "in your face, hyper masculine super successful" businessman caricature for years, which captures a certain audience/ customer base, and Ivanka's been pretending to be the "having it all super successful competent businesswoman" to capture an additional customer base.   Ivanka's line is literally self-described as a kind of "gateway" brand to the overall Trump empire.  The idea was that women of means would start off buying Ivanka's crap, grow to love the Trump brand, which would lead into their families staying at the hotels, buying golf memberships, etc.  The women in her target customer base tend to be fairly well off, educated and urban, which means they're probably not super socially conservative.  Hence, her brand relies on a kind of anodyne, sort of Democratish-sounding messaging. 

I don't think her being a woman is nearly enough to overcome her being a Trump.   

 

ETA:   it's Kushner you should be watching.  

[Ice Queen]

13 hours ago, Mexal said:

More sad shit from the Marine Times.

As bad as that is, did you read the comments? There are people (read: men) actually defending this. 

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

What leads you to believe one of his spawn will run for office, and who you believe their supporters would be?    I also wonder if you might be giving Ivanka too much credit.   She's been effective as a fig leaf for Trump; she enabled a bunch of already Republican-leaning white women to feel less shame voting for him by papering over his misogyny and roughness (which conversely loses her a lot a points with liberal women).   But I'm not sure how much is really "there" in her own right.   She comes across well (sometimes, and to some audiences) in relation to him; I don't know that people will clamor for her after this failed Trump experiment (I'm thinking the Trump name will be pretty done), and after her father is no longer around as a foil.

Ivanka is an enabler of the kind any woman with sense, conservative or liberal, despises. 

She may be around because she's the only one who can keep Daddy in line. 

Someone mentioned pedophilia earlier. Those photos of her with Daddy when she was a teenager are still floating around. It's pretty obvious that he had the hots for his own daughter and she doesn't seem to be squirming away from him, either. 

[denstorebog]

26 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

ETA:   it's Kushner you should be watching.  

That makes no sense. Kushner is as much a Trump as Ivanka. If the Trump brand is as damaged as you say, pushing Donald Trump's son-in-law (complete with the rest of the family for every photo op and campaign event) won't fly.

I don't know what kind of political platform Ivanka would run on. It could be tailor-made to whatever is needed at the time. But I don't think it's out of the question that she could represent "more Trump" for a hypothetical 40% of Americans who want that, and "young, succesful woman who provided a voice/face of reason during the Dark Days" for everyone else. Again, I'm not saying that image isn't a sham; it most certainly is. But it might be sellable if the circumstances are right.

I guess it depends on how sure you are that Trump's presidency will be commonly remembered as a disaster. Drudge, Breitbart and Fox will do their damndest to serve another narrative for millions and millions of Americans, and so far it's working.

Ivanka is an enabler of the kind any woman with sense, conservative or liberal, despises. 

Her father is self-admittedly guilty of sexual assault. On fucking tape. If that doesn't prevent him from being elected, then certainly pinning the much more abstract 'enabler' label on Ivanka (like they tried doing with Hillary) won't be an automatic disqualification for her.

[Rippounet]

39 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I have also assumed from the beginning that Ivanka was being groomed as a potential successor. Why else is she a practical member of the adminstration and part of meetings that she should be nowhere near? Why else is she being profiled as a voice of reason in the White House with specific trademark issues and with a certain sympathy towards Democrat causes? She is young and attractive which opens up the Republican brand to a whole new demographic, and running as the first female president really fucks with the Democrats' reliance on identity politics.

The Simpsons called it, so it has to happen now.

[Ice Queen]

17 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Her father is self-admittedly guilty of sexual assault. On fucking tape. If that doesn't prevent him from being elected, then certainly pinning the much more abstract 'enabler' label on Ivanka (like they tried doing with Hillary) won't be an automatic disqualification for her.

No, but I'd post those photos all over social media. Pedophilia might not be a disqualification...but incest might be.