silentbob1272

The Trump Presidency

14,715 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, toadfishtom said:

Unless the dems get a majority in the Senate or Congress what will happen ? probably nothing.

I think that this stuff makes it more likely that they get the House majority in 2018.  The Senate is likely out of reach given the map, but it could also reduce the number of seats that the GOP picks up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, erWOR 404 Player Not Found said:

Trout I think you should stop saying "he's gonna come off like a conspiracy nut". 

He IS a conspiracy nut. That's about as concrete of a fact at this point as saying he's a massive liar. 

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, toadfishtom said:

I hope he falls on his face, but too many Republican politicians are just like WFW and sobeit , they will excuse anything he says or does.

And their reputations will go into the toilet along with his.  At some point, there is a political reality that sets in as people realize that his lies and conspiracy theories are risking their political careers.  Even the most ardent Trump supporter in Congress won't give up his/her seat for Trump.

big_dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many GOP congressmen are going to be willing to put their roosters under the blade for a President with record low approval numbers currently under investigation by the FBI? 

If... when the FBI drops the bomb, publicly, how many are seriously going to throw their political careers away to support treason? 

Leon Troutsky and holymoses like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless this FBI investigation turns up some solid evidence and we have another Watergate type situation where impeachment is a possibility and Trump is forced out. That is what I hope happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, toadfishtom said:

Unless this FBI investigation turns up some solid evidence and we have another Watergate type situation where impeachment is a possibility and Trump is forced out. That is what I hope happens. 

Removal from office is not the only serious consequences that a President faces.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Sessions runs the DOJ now.  So there's that.

Sessions recused himself because he has integrity. Nor is Trump the type of Authoritarian dictator that would go around shutting down investigations or sealing his records. 

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

He should have produced evidence that he said he had in which case he may have bluffed one time too many.  If he doesn't give up what he said he had soon then some form of what you said in the bold may be his best course of action and it will be forgotten.  He won't be the first POTUS to make such a mistake, better than not compounding the situation, if indeed he cannot prove himself.  

First of all No One would even consider tweeting this at 3:30 am..or anytime. This should tell you something about Trump.

He's trying anything to divert attention away from something. Surely this is obvious to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Sessions recused himself because he has integrity. Nor is Trump the type of Authoritarian dictator that would go around shutting down investigations or sealing his records. 

So Sessions is the only thing that keeps the DOJ from being a corrupt farce of justice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Also, this op-ed piece by a moderate Republican makes a good point:

Perhaps now Republicans can stop treating the president’s outbursts seriously. They need to call them what they are: Wild lies and accusations designed to distract from the very real investigation into Russian attempts to throw the election his way. In just a few brief lines, Comey eviscerated whatever credibility Trump still had. Whether the intelligence agency will find evidence of collusion remains to be seen. But what we do know is that Trump will not be able to lie his way through this nor distract the public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/20/comeys-testimony-humiliates-trump/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e34fecf4236a

Actually the last paragraph of that article is interesting as it touches on KGB level espionage, God were they good at it. They could never hope to significantly influence our election through propaganda or hacking into it. What they could do is slyly try to perpetuate the idea that they could and did. Not that the zealots needed them to nudge them toward that though.

Yeah that article is absolute garbage and only the last paragraph do they begin to touch on the real psychological operation but never mention who is really conducting it.

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Removal from office is not the only serious consequences that a President faces.  

:lol: Off with his head . ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Sessions recused himself because he has integrity. Nor is Trump the type of Authoritarian dictator that would go around shutting down investigations or sealing his records. 

:lol:

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Sessions recused himself because he has integrity. Nor is Trump the type of Authoritarian dictator that would go around shutting down investigations or sealing his records. 

Trump would be exactly like Putin if he could get away with it.Thank God for checks and balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, toadfishtom said:

Trump would be exactly like Putin if he could get away with it.Thank God for checks and balances.

Perhaps you should check that. Obama took more cases to the supreme court than any president. Further proof of your utter ignorance and blind partisanship. Obama was 100% authoritarian from targeting people with the IRS to constantly in the courts. By all means do not let things like facts get in the way of your alternative reality.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445185/trump-less-authoritarian-obama

Through personnel and policy, President Trump is limiting the executive branch. Lost in most of the coverage of President Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama administration’s transgender mandates is a fundamental legal reality — the Trump administration just relinquished federal authority over gender-identity policy in the nation’s federally funded schools and colleges.
 
In other words, Trump was less authoritarian than Obama. And that’s not the only case. Consider the following examples where his administration, through policy or personnel, appears to be signaling that the executive branch intends to become less intrusive in American life and more accountable to internal and external critique.
 
Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, a man known not just for his intellect and integrity but also for his powerful legal argument against executive-branch overreach. Based on his previous legal writings, if Gorsuch had his way, the federal bureaucracy could well face the most dramatic check on its authority since the early days of the New Deal. By overturning judicial precedents that currently require judicial deference to agency legal interpretations, the Court could put a stop to the current practice of presidents and bureaucrats steadily (and vastly) expanding their powers by constantly broadening their interpretations of existing legal statutes.
 
For example, the EPA has dramatically expanded its control over the American economy even without Congress passing significant new environmental legislation. Instead, the EPA keeps revising its interpretation of decades-old statutes like the Clean Air Act, using those new interpretations to enact a host of comprehensive new regulations. If Gorsuch’s argument wins the day, the legislative branch would be forced to step up at the expense of the executive, no matter how “authoritarian” a president tried to be.
 
Trump nominated H. R. McMaster to replace Michael Flynn as his national-security adviser. McMaster made his name as a warrior on battlefields in the Gulf War and the Iraq War, but he made his name as a scholar by writing a book, Dereliction of Duty, that strongly condemned Vietnam-era generals for simply rolling over in the face of Johnson-administration blunders and excesses. In his view, military leaders owe their civilian commander in chief honest and courageous counsel — even when a president may not want to hear their words.
 
When the Ninth Circuit blocked Trump’s immigration executive order (which was certainly an aggressive assertion of presidential power), he responded differently from the Obama administration when it faced similar judicial setbacks. Rather than race to the Supreme Court in the attempt to expand presidential authority, it backed up (yes, amid considerable presidential bluster) and told the Ninth Circuit that it intends to rewrite and rework the order to address the most serious judicial concerns and roll back its scope.
 
Authoritarianism is defined by how a president exercises power, not by the rightness of his goals. Indeed, if you peel back the layer of leftist critiques of Trump’s early actions and early hires, they contain a surprising amount of alarmism over the rollback of governmental power. Education activists are terrified that Betsy DeVos will take children out of government schools or roll back government mandates regarding campus sexual-assault tribunals. Environmentalists are terrified that Scott Pruitt will make the EPA less activist. Civil-rights lawyers are alarmed at the notion that Jeff Sessions will inject the federal government into fewer state and local disputes over everything from school bathrooms to police traffic stops.
 
A president is “authoritarian” not when he’s angry or impulsive or incompetent or tweets too much. He’s authoritarian when he seeks to expand his own power beyond constitutional limits. In this regard, the Obama administration — though far more polite and restrained in most of its public comments — was truly one of our more authoritarian.
 
Obama exercised his so-called prosecutorial discretion not just to waive compliance with laws passed by Congress (think of his numerous unilateral delays and waivers of Obamacare deadlines) but also to create entirely new immigration programs such as DACA and DAPA. He sought to roll back First Amendment protections for political speech (through his relentless attacks on Citizens United), tried to force nuns to facilitate access to birth control, and he even tried to inject federal agencies like the Equality Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into the pastor-selection process, a move blocked by a unanimous Supreme Court. In foreign policy, he waged war without congressional approval and circumvented the Constitution’s treaty provisions to strike a dreadful and consequential deal with Iran.
 
There’s no doubt that Trump has expressed on occasion authoritarian desires or instincts. In the campaign, he expressed his own hostility for the First Amendment, his own love of expansive government eminent-domain takings (even to benefit private corporations), endorsed and encouraged violent responses against protesters, and declared that he alone would fix our nation’s most pressing problems. But so far, not only has an authoritarian presidency not materialized, it’s nowhere on the horizon.
 
Instead, he’s facing a free press that has suddenly (and somewhat cynically) rediscovered its desire to “speak truth to power,” an invigorated, activist judiciary, and a protest movement that’s jamming congressional town halls from coast to coast. This tweet, from Sonny Bunch, is perfect:
 
It was just three weeks ago that David Frum published a much-discussed essay in The Atlantic outlining how Trump could allegedly build an American autocracy. Over at Vox, Ezra Klein wrote at length about how the Founders’ alleged failures laid the groundwork for a “partyocracy.” And now? Trump’s early struggles are leading pundits to ask, “Can Trump help Democrats take back the House?” In the American system, accountability comes at you fast.
 
Liberals were blind to Obama’s authoritarian tendencies in part because they agreed with his goals and in part because their adherence to “living Constitution” theories made the separation of powers far more conditional and situational. But authoritarianism is defined by how a president exercises power, not by the rightness of his goals. It’s early, and things can obviously change, but one month into the new presidency, a trend is emerging — Trump is less authoritarian than the man he replaced.
 
— David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445185/trump-less-authoritarian-obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how f'ing stupid is Trump and the White House to tweet misleading and even false claims about what Comey and the NSA director were saying while they were testifying?

Trump p****ed off Comey by lying about the wiretap thing already, prompting Comey to publicly rebuke that claim.  And he follows up by making more false claims about what Comey was saying while he was saying it.  

Bad move, guys.

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Perhaps you should check that. Obama took more cases to the supreme court than any president. Further proof of your utter ignorance and blind partisanship. Obama was 100% authoritarian from targeting people with the IRS to constantly in the courts. By all means do not let things like facts get in the way of your alternative reality.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445185/trump-less-authoritarian-obama

Through personnel and policy, President Trump is limiting the executive branch. Lost in most of the coverage of President Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama administration’s transgender mandates is a fundamental legal reality — the Trump administration just relinquished federal authority over gender-identity policy in the nation’s federally funded schools and colleges.
 
In other words, Trump was less authoritarian than Obama. And that’s not the only case. Consider the following examples where his administration, through policy or personnel, appears to be signaling that the executive branch intends to become less intrusive in American life and more accountable to internal and external critique.
 
Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, a man known not just for his intellect and integrity but also for his powerful legal argument against executive-branch overreach. Based on his previous legal writings, if Gorsuch had his way, the federal bureaucracy could well face the most dramatic check on its authority since the early days of the New Deal. By overturning judicial precedents that currently require judicial deference to agency legal interpretations, the Court could put a stop to the current practice of presidents and bureaucrats steadily (and vastly) expanding their powers by constantly broadening their interpretations of existing legal statutes.
 
For example, the EPA has dramatically expanded its control over the American economy even without Congress passing significant new environmental legislation. Instead, the EPA keeps revising its interpretation of decades-old statutes like the Clean Air Act, using those new interpretations to enact a host of comprehensive new regulations. If Gorsuch’s argument wins the day, the legislative branch would be forced to step up at the expense of the executive, no matter how “authoritarian” a president tried to be.
 
Trump nominated H. R. McMaster to replace Michael Flynn as his national-security adviser. McMaster made his name as a warrior on battlefields in the Gulf War and the Iraq War, but he made his name as a scholar by writing a book, Dereliction of Duty, that strongly condemned Vietnam-era generals for simply rolling over in the face of Johnson-administration blunders and excesses. In his view, military leaders owe their civilian commander in chief honest and courageous counsel — even when a president may not want to hear their words.
 
When the Ninth Circuit blocked Trump’s immigration executive order (which was certainly an aggressive assertion of presidential power), he responded differently from the Obama administration when it faced similar judicial setbacks. Rather than race to the Supreme Court in the attempt to expand presidential authority, it backed up (yes, amid considerable presidential bluster) and told the Ninth Circuit that it intends to rewrite and rework the order to address the most serious judicial concerns and roll back its scope.
 
Authoritarianism is defined by how a president exercises power, not by the rightness of his goals. Indeed, if you peel back the layer of leftist critiques of Trump’s early actions and early hires, they contain a surprising amount of alarmism over the rollback of governmental power. Education activists are terrified that Betsy DeVos will take children out of government schools or roll back government mandates regarding campus sexual-assault tribunals. Environmentalists are terrified that Scott Pruitt will make the EPA less activist. Civil-rights lawyers are alarmed at the notion that Jeff Sessions will inject the federal government into fewer state and local disputes over everything from school bathrooms to police traffic stops.
 
A president is “authoritarian” not when he’s angry or impulsive or incompetent or tweets too much. He’s authoritarian when he seeks to expand his own power beyond constitutional limits. In this regard, the Obama administration — though far more polite and restrained in most of its public comments — was truly one of our more authoritarian.
 
Obama exercised his so-called prosecutorial discretion not just to waive compliance with laws passed by Congress (think of his numerous unilateral delays and waivers of Obamacare deadlines) but also to create entirely new immigration programs such as DACA and DAPA. He sought to roll back First Amendment protections for political speech (through his relentless attacks on Citizens United), tried to force nuns to facilitate access to birth control, and he even tried to inject federal agencies like the Equality Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into the pastor-selection process, a move blocked by a unanimous Supreme Court. In foreign policy, he waged war without congressional approval and circumvented the Constitution’s treaty provisions to strike a dreadful and consequential deal with Iran.
 
There’s no doubt that Trump has expressed on occasion authoritarian desires or instincts. In the campaign, he expressed his own hostility for the First Amendment, his own love of expansive government eminent-domain takings (even to benefit private corporations), endorsed and encouraged violent responses against protesters, and declared that he alone would fix our nation’s most pressing problems. But so far, not only has an authoritarian presidency not materialized, it’s nowhere on the horizon.
 
Instead, he’s facing a free press that has suddenly (and somewhat cynically) rediscovered its desire to “speak truth to power,” an invigorated, activist judiciary, and a protest movement that’s jamming congressional town halls from coast to coast. This tweet, from Sonny Bunch, is perfect:
 
It was just three weeks ago that David Frum published a much-discussed essay in The Atlantic outlining how Trump could allegedly build an American autocracy. Over at Vox, Ezra Klein wrote at length about how the Founders’ alleged failures laid the groundwork for a “partyocracy.” And now? Trump’s early struggles are leading pundits to ask, “Can Trump help Democrats take back the House?” In the American system, accountability comes at you fast.
 
Liberals were blind to Obama’s authoritarian tendencies in part because they agreed with his goals and in part because their adherence to “living Constitution” theories made the separation of powers far more conditional and situational. But authoritarianism is defined by how a president exercises power, not by the rightness of his goals. It’s early, and things can obviously change, but one month into the new presidency, a trend is emerging — Trump is less authoritarian than the man he replaced.
 
— David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445185/trump-less-authoritarian-obama

K

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, defcon4 said:

First of all No One would even consider tweeting this at 3:30 am..or anytime. This should tell you something about Trump.

He's trying anything to divert attention away from something. Surely this is obvious to anyone.

This tells me nothing.  He's tweeted thousands of times.  They were clearly all not to divert attention, but his way of bypassing the media to get his message out to the people.  

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