silentbob1272

The Trump Presidency

40,715 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, MAD597 said:

I don't think the the Russian issue classifies as a "conspiracy" anymore. It would not surprise me one bit if the collusion came out in the open was admitted to by the Trump administration and they brushed it off said "meh" and just continued on, just like the whole "locker room" talk crap that blew over but would have tanked every other politician in the country.

"Yea we colluded with Russia we are going to drop sanctions but hey they helped us prevent HRC being elected, we did the country a service, next question please" "Emails, Benghazi, Pizzagate"

 
Wouldn't surprise me either, but it's a textbook conspiracy theory at this point.
 
I'd wait until the facts come out before speaking in definitive terms about the worst treason our country has ever seen. That's really no different than a tweet about Obama spying on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carter said:

I'd wait until the facts come out before speaking in definitive terms about the worst treason our country has ever seen. That's really no different than a tweet about Obama spying on you.

I near always have a peanut's whisper advocating for the other side of a particular issue in my mind... even on Trump's collusion. But to say the magnitudes of publicly known evidence on the issues are equivalent just does not make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Carter said:
 
Wouldn't surprise me either, but it's a textbook conspiracy theory at this point.
 
I'd wait until the facts come out before speaking in definitive terms about the worst treason our country has ever seen. That's really no different than a tweet about Obama spying on you.

The amount of high level people that quit/recuse themselves or were fired due to this issue is proof enough that something real is going on. Otherwise I might agree with you but at least a half dozen people close to the Trump administration have quit their jobs due to this.

"Conspiracy theories" with no merit don't cause this amount of high ranking officials to just randomly quit or get fired during the same time period.

I do think we are in an era where Conservatives can pretty much get away with anything so I doubt anyone will ever be held accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

giphy.gif

That he's threatening the Democrats to fall in line says everything you need to know about GOP unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MACK2THEFUTURE said:

I near always have a peanut's whisper advocating for the other side of a particular issue in my mind... even on Trump's collusion. But to say the magnitudes of publicly known evidence on the issues are equivalent just does not make sense to me.

 

1 hour ago, MAD597 said:

The amount of high level people that quit/recuse themselves or were fired due to this issue is proof enough that something real is going on. Otherwise I might agree with you but at least a half dozen people close to the Trump administration have quit their jobs due to this.

"Conspiracy theories" with no merit don't cause this amount of high ranking officials to just randomly quit or get fired during the same time period.

I do think we are in an era where Conservatives can pretty much get away with anything so I doubt anyone will ever be held accountable.

Something real is going on... but we don't know what it is yet. 

4c64d6c6e09fa525ec4b3f7c0ea802c689f8f91a

MACK2THEFUTURE and lostone like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lock Him Up  . . . .  Lock Him Up . . . .  Lock Him Up 

 

The totality of the crooked Whitehouse all reverts to #1 so he needs to go before it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Trump usually lashes out and looks for a scapegoat when he knows he has ****** up. Accomplishing nothing of note during his honeymoon period is just another example.

"and it has been a lot" :lol: 

The Supreme Court appointment is the main thing I was going for here since imo we were screwed with whoever won the 2016 election, so I will be happy if he just goes away. I'm not concerned with the method by which he goes away, he just needs to go away at this point.

mdrake34 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want any Trumper to tell me what POTUS has done in an effort to better the lives of Americans. So far his plans (opposite of his platform) have been to eliminate programs that promote our health and environment; remove sactions from enemy countries; tried to ban Muslims, tried to cut healthcare benefits for thousands; hopes to redo tha tax code to benefit millionaires; meets in Mar-a-lago with foriegn leaders that if met at the Whitehouse the conversations would have been recorded. Add these to the Russian controversy and his conflict of business possibilities even though it's Ivanka on the surface, should make any reasonable being with a lick of sense realize his winning the election was a huge mistake.

Share this post


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

That he's threatening the Democrats to fall in line says everything you need to know about GOP unity.

It is smart of him to try a get bipartisan support, but he is pretty stupid for thinking he has any leverage in these negotiations. If he actually paid attention during the previous budget shutdown, the minority party face little to no backlash.  Plus dems might actually want a shutdown, because it neuters his administration from following through with his agenda.  

He thinks he can dangle CSRs for the wall, but as soon as you are negotiating with dems, CSR is a given. Plus Trump sucks at bluffing. He already showed that during TrumpCare fight and subsequent revivals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

It is smart of him to try a get bipartisan support, but he is pretty stupid for thinking he has any leverage in these negotiations. If he actually paid attention during the previous budget shutdown, the minority party face little to no backlash.  Plus dems might actually want a shutdown, because it neuters his administration from following through with his agenda.  

He thinks he can dangle CSRs for the wall, but as soon as you are negotiating with dems, CSR is a given. Plus Trump sucks at bluffing. He already showed that during TrumpCare fight and subsequent revivals.  

If a shutdown means that there aren't enough Republicans to pass then that's on the GOP.  If the Democrats filibuster and create a shutdown then that's on the Democrats.  The latter would be a stupid tactic for Democrats at this point.  Trump is tripping all over himself and it's hurting Republicans, so why do something that would get sympathy for the GOP?

And I completely agree that by now it's obvious that Trump is all bluster and bluff.  I doubt anybody in Congress takes him seriously when it comes to negotiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently Jeff Sessions doesn't understand that Hawaii is a state and that federal judges there have the same Constitutional authority as judges elsewhere:

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” Mr. Sessions said this week in an interview on “The Mark Levin Show,” a conservative talk radio program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, big_dog said:

I want any Trumper to tell me what POTUS has done in an effort to better the lives of Americans. So far his plans (opposite of his platform) have been to eliminate programs that promote our health and environment; remove sactions from enemy countries; tried to ban Muslims, tried to cut healthcare benefits for thousands; hopes to redo tha tax code to benefit millionaires; meets in Mar-a-lago with foriegn leaders that if met at the Whitehouse the conversations would have been recorded. Add these to the Russian controversy and his conflict of business possibilities even though it's Ivanka on the surface, should make any reasonable being with a lick of sense realize his winning the election was a huge mistake.

He also signed a bill to allow ISP's to sell our data without our permission further compromizing our privacy.

MACK2THEFUTURE likes this

Share this post


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

So apparently Jeff Sessions doesn't understand that Hawaii is a state and that federal judges there have the same Constitutional authority as judges elsewhere:

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” Mr. Sessions said this week in an interview on “The Mark Levin Show,” a conservative talk radio program.

 

Share this post


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

Trump usually lashes out and looks for a scapegoat when he knows he has ****** up. Accomplishing nothing of note during his honeymoon period is just another example.

The guy is just a total embarrassment in every possible way. Who acts this way? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MAD597 said:

He also signed a bill to allow ISP's to sell our data without our permission further compromizing our privacy.

He also nullified gun control measures Obama put in place to prevent people from buying guns who receive social security for mental illness or people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs.

Fun times.

Share this post


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

He also nullified gun control measures Obama put in place to prevent people from buying guns who receive social security for mental illness or people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs.

Fun times.

Yea that was just silly, on what planet is it ok for confirmed people with mental illensses to buy guns? How can that be justified by anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Carter said:

He also nullified gun control measures Obama put in place to prevent people from buying guns who receive social security for mental illness or people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs.

Fun times.

He also revoked protections for women workers.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-pulls-back-obama-era-protections-women-workers-n741041

Share this post


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

I was just reading this . . .

President Trump’s Quiet Bid to Kill President Obama’s Legacy

President Donald Trump is a prolific user of an obscure 20-year-old law to overturn protections put in place by his predecessor.

04.21.17 1:00 AM ET

It must be shocking for a president elected on his promise to rack up so many wins that we’d tire of winning to approach the 100-day mark with no real legislative achievement. White House aides desperate to load up the president’s scorecard are claiming a bevy of rollbacks of Obama-era regulations as the most impactful measures that have passed Congress since the new administration took office.

That’s truebut it’s also true that these measures, taken together, are deeply unpopular with the broader public. A week after White House legislative affairs director Marc Short urged reporters to pay more attention to President Donald Trump’s prolific use of an obscure twenty-year-old law, the Congressional Review Act, to overturn protections put in place by his predecessor, Trump kept the media away from two of his most controversial signings.

With no cameras to record the moment, he repealed online privacy protections for consumers, and he signed a measure removing a rule from the final days of the Obama administration to prevent governors from withholding federal funding from health care providers if they provide contraception and abortion services.

A partial de-funding of Planned Parenthood satisfies his conservative base, but why would Trump pull the plug on Internet privacy protections?

“You would be very hard-pressed to find a single person in the United States not connected to the telecom industry who believed this was a good thing,” said Robert Weissman, president of nonprofit consumer rights group Public Citizen. “It was a big deal to Comcast and Verizon.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the CRA is a nifty mechanism the Trump administration is using to pay back corporate donors and lobbyists, roll back protections for consumers, and advance a conservative agenda on the environment and women’s health.

 

“CRAs are boring and complicated for people who don’t think about policy, but that’s all they’ve got,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way. He predicts their actions will come back to bite the GOP in next year’s congressional elections. “Undoing environmental regulations to make the air and water dirtier, is that what you voted for?”

President Bill Clinton signed the CRA into law in 1996. It was part of the anti-government fervor unleashed by Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. Weissman at Public Citizen called it “a kind of gentle offering to make the rest of Gingrich’s house of horrors go away.”

Before Trump latched onto it, the law was used only once by President George W. Bush, who repealed an ergonomics rule that Clinton had put in place. It had to do with repetitive motion injuries, and the rule would have forced large employers to take steps to mitigate those injuries. UPS among others vociferously opposed the rule, and got it rolled back.

“You can almost like a laser trace these back to industries that wanted to see the rule repealed,” said Lisa Gilbert with Public Citizen. “This is a story of industry influence.”

In Washington, it’s a familiar storyjust not the one that Trump ran on when he promised to “drain the swamp.”

The CRA allows the incoming administration to repeal with a simple majority in the House and Senate within sixty legislative days any regulation put in place during the final six months of the previous administration.

Obama did a burst of progressive rulemaking at the end of his eight years that he could have done a lot earlier. The question arises: Why didn’t the Obama administration issue regulations earlier in the year?

“He was afraid of being too political,” said Weissman, “And at the beginning of 2016, not many people thought Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton.”

The window for additional CRAs closes on April 28th, with the tally so far of 13 passing through the House and Senate and signed into law, and two more having passed the House and awaiting action in the Senate. Another seven are teed up and ready to go if the House chooses to act. (Public Citizen has a user-friendly chart at RulesatRisk.org.)

The first one out of the box right after Trump took office was an Obama-era rule requiring oil companies to disclose how much they’re paying foreign governments in royalties. It was seen as an anti-corruption measure, and it quickly came out that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as head of ExxonMobil had lobbied hard against the rule. Its repeal was reported as a gift to the oil lobby.

Another early gift went to the NRA, when the Senate passed with 57 votes (all 52 Republicans and 5 pro-gun Democrats) and Trump signed into law a measure undoing an Obama-era law that blocked some 75,000 people from buying a gun because they had been deemed incapable of handling their financial affairs because of mental illness.

It’s not immediately apparent what Trump’s core supporters are getting out of these CRAs. When he overturned the Stream Protection rule, allowing mining companies to dump pollutants into nearby streams, Public Citizen pointed out, “It isn’t coastal Democrats whose crops won’t grow, whose drinking water will be poisoned and whose children will end up in the hospital. It’s the rural working-class voters who backed Trump and live close to these drill sites whose families will suffer the most.”

A prepaid card rule issued by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is rumored next on the GOP hit list. It has safeguards against fraud and unauthorized charges for consumers who use prepaid credit cards. It’s obvious which industry would benefit from its repeal.

The White House says its anti-regulatory agenda is designed to create jobs and spur the economy, logic that doesn’t always apply. When Short briefed reporters early this month, claiming a “dramatic impact” on the economy with $10 billion in savings over twenty years, he was asked, “If the purpose is to create jobs and stimulate the economy, how is repealing Internet privacy rules doing that? What is the justification?”

He didn’t have much of an answer other than the “totality” of these measures helps lift the burden of regulation.

“It’s a story that’s not been told,” Short said.

Telling that story is not going to get Trump the credit he wants at the 100-day mark. Repealing a bunch of regulations with party-line votes is not much of an achievement. It’s more like business as usual for the special interests.

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