So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Omy]

I bet Mexico would agree to pay for an invisible, metaphorical wall...problem solved.

[Luke Warm]

maybe we could just stack up a bunch of used pink floyd 'the wall' albums, cassettes and cd's since most of us stream music now.

[Dancin'Dog]

Here's a good read about Mueller's investigation.









Heather Cox Richardson
December 27, 2018 at 5:20 PM ·
Over the holiday, someone asked me to explain what is happening with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Russian government's attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. Perfect timing, because I stumbled across something a few weeks ago that frames the whole investigation nicely.
In 2011, when Mueller was FBI Director, he gave a speech in New York. He explained that globalization and modern technology had changed the nature of organized crime. Rather than being regional networks with a clear structure, he said, organized crime had become international, fluid, sophisticated, and had stakes in the multi-billion dollar range. Its operators were cross-pollinating across countries, religions, and political affiliations, sharing only their greed. They did not care about ideology; they cared about money. They would do anything for a price.
These criminal enterprises, he noted, were working to corner the market on oil, gas, and precious metals. And to do so, Mueller explained, they "may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called 'iron triangles' of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat."
To combat that threat, Mueller said, the FBI had shifted focus "from a law-enforcement agency to a national security service that is threat-driven and intelligence-led."
It appears that various members of the 2016 GOP campaign were part of such an iron triangle.
Donald Trump had sought Russian business since 1996, but his financial connections with Russians really took off in 2008, when wealthy Russians poured money into Trump's US properties at a time when few others were interested in working with Trump. In September 2008, Don Jr. told a reporter: "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.... We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." Trump pursued the idea of a Trump Tower in Moscow, and in 2013, took the Miss Universe pageant there.
Then, in 2014, in response to Russian efforts to destabilize and absorb Ukraine, the US put sanctions on a number of Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin, freezing their assets and denying them visas. (Interestingly, at the time, GOP congresspeople complained that President Obama did not hit Putin more harshly.)
Now, it appears that Russia offered to help Trump get elected in 2016 in exchange for-- among other things-- an end to sanctions. And a Russian spy, Maria Butina, has recently admitted to infiltrating the NRA, which poured more than $400 million-- an unprecedented sum-- behind GOP candidates in the 2016 election.
It is this iron triangle of business, government, and criminals that Mueller is chasing down. It is taking a huge amount of time as he and his staff look at money laundering, cyber-hacking, blackmail, and what is popularly (but not legally) known as treason. It seems to me that he is aiming not at any one person, but rather at a criminal organization that is attempting to destroy NATO and turn the world over to an international cabal of oligarchs.
Mueller is spreading his evidence out in the court records he is filing, making it almost impossible for the president to stifle his discoveries, and he is spreading out cases amongst different agencies for similar reasons. And he is getting results. As of November, Mueller had indicted 33 people or entities, and 7 of them have pled guilty (5 were aides to Trump). There are also more than 3 dozen sealed indictments at the DC federal court, and it is likely that many, or most, or all, of them are related the Mueller investigation.
Mueller is the man who took down the Gambino crime family when no one else could make anything stick. He is thorough and he is tough. Sadly, I expect his final conclusions are going to be shocking: it seems to me that we will discover that not simply administration officials, but also a number of congresspeople and prominent business leaders are part of that iron triangle of international criminality Mueller warned about back in 2011, when the rest of us were still naive.

[scottish]

Interesting.   It reads like something out of a Dan Brown novel.

However Heather Richardson is a full professor of history and author of several books, including 'A History of the Republican Party'.    The source sounds pretty credible.

[Kyle Schuant]

So, your advice is, the US government should be able to predict the future. Avoid "pointless" conflicts, but also intervene early, when no real bloodshed has occurred yet, to prevent larger conflicts. Tell us exactly how that is done.

No. I am arguing for avoiding war if at all possible, and if going to war, then limited wars with limited aims. See for example the first vs the second Gulf Wars. The US leadership at the time of the first explicitly rejected "all the way to Baghdad" as, Dick Cheney said, it would lead to a lengthy involvement in a civil war. They kicked Iraq out of Kuwait and then sat there. The goal was to not have Iraq bother any of its neighbours any more, this goal was well-achieved.

The second Gulf War was and is an unlimited war with unlimited aims. Neither the US government and military, nor any of the lefties who are suddenly in favour of war in the Middle East now that the orange buffoon is against it, can tell us: exactly when will we have won and can go home? And if we don't win, exactly what price are we willing to pay before we call it quits?

Avoid war if at all possible, and if not, then limited war with limited aims.

It was not necessary to go to war in Afghanistan at all since the Taliban offered to give Bin Laden up to an international tribunal. And once at war, it was not necessary to occupy the country. As for Iraq, that was nothing but a war of aggression, as much as Germany's invasion of Poland was. And the US's presence there has only made the conflict longer and worse. Likewise Syria, which without Western involvement would have crushed the rebellion in a year or so. And Libya and Ukraine simply show what it means to trust Western promises, and serve as an example to ensure North Korea should never give up its nuclear weapons.

In 1936 Germany remilitarised the Rhineland (correction: it was not 1934). This was a violation of the treaty of Versailles and thus was a legitimate cause of war. And it was accompanied by Nazi rhetoric about conquering Europe, which Hitler had written a whole book about in 1923. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that if someone says he will do A, B and C, and he has now done A and B, that C will soon follow.

Avoid war if at all possible, and if not, then limited war with limited aims.

[toganet]

So, your advice is, the US government should be able to predict the future. Avoid "pointless" conflicts, but also intervene early, when no real bloodshed has occurred yet, to prevent larger conflicts. Tell us exactly how that is done.

<snip>
The second Gulf War was and is an unlimited war with unlimited aims. Neither the US government and military, nor any of the lefties who are suddenly in favour of war in the Middle East now that the orange buffoon is against it, can tell us: exactly when will we have won and can go home? And if we don't win, exactly what price are we willing to pay before we call it quits?
</snip>

To clarify again, (as others already have, so I guess I may be feeding a troll here) -- those of us on the "left" are not necessarily in favor of war at all (nor a consistent hive mind) but are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict.  This is very different than saying, "Let's do all-out war -- it makes my wallet fatter and I feel like a Big Man when guns go off!"

[Kris]

So, your advice is, the US government should be able to predict the future. Avoid "pointless" conflicts, but also intervene early, when no real bloodshed has occurred yet, to prevent larger conflicts. Tell us exactly how that is done.

<snip>
The second Gulf War was and is an unlimited war with unlimited aims. Neither the US government and military, nor any of the lefties who are suddenly in favour of war in the Middle East now that the orange buffoon is against it, can tell us: exactly when will we have won and can go home? And if we don't win, exactly what price are we willing to pay before we call it quits?
</snip>

To clarify again, (as others already have, so I guess I may be feeding a troll here) -- those of us on the "left" are not necessarily in favor of war at all (nor a consistent hive mind) but are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict.  This is very different than saying, "Let's do all-out war -- it makes my wallet fatter and I feel like a Big Man when guns go off!"

He’s been told this. Time and time again. He just jumps over the parts he doesn’t want to hear.

[nereo]

So, your advice is, the US government should be able to predict the future. Avoid "pointless" conflicts, but also intervene early, when no real bloodshed has occurred yet, to prevent larger conflicts. Tell us exactly how that is done.

<snip>
The second Gulf War was and is an unlimited war with unlimited aims. Neither the US government and military, nor any of the lefties who are suddenly in favour of war in the Middle East now that the orange buffoon is against it, can tell us: exactly when will we have won and can go home? And if we don't win, exactly what price are we willing to pay before we call it quits?
</snip>

To clarify again, (as others already have, so I guess I may be feeding a troll here) -- those of us on the "left" are not necessarily in favor of war at all (nor a consistent hive mind) but are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict.  This is very different than saying, "Let's do all-out war -- it makes my wallet fatter and I feel like a Big Man when guns go off!"

He’s been told this. Time and time again. He just jumps over the parts he doesn’t want to hear.

@Kyle Schuant - you'll find a great deal of agreement towards more limited military conflicts with defined goals throughout this forum and among the US populace at large. However, its your revisionist history, casual ignorance of facts and anti-US biases that I and many other are objecting to.  Things like calling these regions 'peaceful' before our involvement and placing all the blame solely on the Unite States, or making the crass suggestion that every death which has occurred would not have happened had we let these dictators and warlords carry on with their 'peaceful' (vomit) ways. Talking about the second gulf war as an 'unlimited war with unlimited aims' fails to put it into context with any of the must larger, much more expensive and expansive wars of the last century.

Your characterization and denigration ('lefties') of those who disagree with President Trump is equally off the mark. As numerous posters have pointed out (and you have ignored), wanting never to have become as militarily involved in a conflict does not mean those people should be in favor of an abrupt departure. Many who opposed a 'pre-eminent strike' on questionable intel now see a moral obligation to help rebuild what we destroyed - something you alluded to supporting but then seemingly reject now.

[Unique User]

Interesting.   It reads like something out of a Dan Brown novel.

However Heather Richardson is a full professor of history and author of several books, including 'A History of the Republican Party'.    The source sounds pretty credible.

Agree, there has been hints that this reaches far wider than I could have ever imagined.  It would be the height of irony that the 2016 campaign brought enough links together to bring it all down.  I have hope that the media will start clarifying money laundering when they use the term so that it doesn't sound so benign.  Money laundering is profiting off misery - disguising the origin of money from drugs, human trafficking, prostitution, illegal arms sales, embezzlement from governments and that country's citizens, etc. 

[Roadrunner53]

Harry Reid summed it all up! PERFECTLY!

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/harry-reid-trump-apos-worst-142200997.html

[toganet]

Interesting.   It reads like something out of a Dan Brown novel.

However Heather Richardson is a full professor of history and author of several books, including 'A History of the Republican Party'.    The source sounds pretty credible.

Agree, there has been hints that this reaches far wider than I could have ever imagined.  It would be the height of irony that the 2016 campaign brought enough links together to bring it all down.  I have hope that the media will start clarifying money laundering when they use the term so that it doesn't sound so benign.  Money laundering is profiting off misery - disguising the origin of money from drugs, human trafficking, prostitution, illegal arms sales, embezzlement from governments and that country's citizens, etc.

This is a great point.  Until I started working in Banking I was not really aware of what money laundering is, and how widespread of a problem it can be.  AML (Anti-Money Laundering) laws keep money out of the hands of terrorists and makes it much harder for criminal enterprises to succeed & grow.  This is something banks take very seriously, and if it comes out that financial institutions were willing and knowing participants in laundering money as part of the Trump scandal-o-rama, we will likely see more regulation.

[nereo]

I've been both surprised and appalled at how effective this current WH has been at writing off serious crimes as low-level offenses, and how willing their base has been to swallow that lie.  Perjury is viewed as something one can just 'stumble into' in front of a skilled prosecutor, rather than the severe and imprisonable offense of intensionally lying under oath.  Collusion (which was never technically a crime) and conspiracy is just people meeting to talk business, and 'defrauding' is business as usual and something all businessmen do. Working with our law enforcement agencies makes one a 'rat' instead of a patriot or cooperative citizen. Sharing non-classified information with the press makes one a 'leaker'. Sending someone to jail for witness tampering is "so unfair" when by all accounts these were deliberate acts designed to escape punishment after a court agreement had been obtained.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Hope voters will boot the Republicans out of all the branches of government for which there are elections.

[Kyle Schuant]

are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict. 

Great! Now, what constitutes responsible withdrawal? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


If this proves impossible - and given we've been there 17 years, it may actually not be possible - then at what point do we give up? How many more years, lives, and dollars? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


Because again: if you can't answer, then it goes on costing more years, lives and money. And if we haven't articulated exactly what we want, then we can't decide if it's worth the price being paid.


The onus to prove the argument is on those who argue for starting or continuing a war. This is doubly so when it is not you who'll be spending the years there, risking or suffering injury or death, or paying the financial cost of the conflict. Thus: be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


I've asked this several times and not got an answer. Which tells us why it's been seventeen years, 3 million dead, and at least a trillion dollars. For your household you do a budget, for a war you don't bother. Well, okay.

[JLee]

are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict. 

Great! Now, what constitutes responsible withdrawal? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


If this proves impossible - and given we've been there 17 years, it may actually not be possible - then at what point do we give up? How many more years, lives, and dollars? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


Because again: if you can't answer, then it goes on costing more years, lives and money. And if we haven't articulated exactly what we want, then we can't decide if it's worth the price being paid.


The onus to prove the argument is on those who argue for starting or continuing a war. This is doubly so when it is not you who'll be spending the years there, risking or suffering injury or death, or paying the financial cost of the conflict. Thus: be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


I've asked this several times and not got an answer. Which tells us why it's been seventeen years, 3 million dead, and at least a trillion dollars. For your household you do a budget, for a war you don't bother. Well, okay.

It sure sounds like you just argued that an 18yo fresh out of training, knowing jack shit about anything else, is more qualified to make such decisions than anyone else. That's simply absurd.

1) Those who are spending the years there are not ever the ones making the decisions
2) The financial cost of the conflict is being paid by everyone who's a net contributor to the tax/benefit system

You're right though - wars are expensive.  These guys must love it!

[nereo]

I've asked this several times and not got an answer. Which tells us why it's been seventeen years, 3 million dead, and at least a trillion dollars. For your household you do a budget, for a war you don't bother. Well, okay.

There have been quite a few responses to your outrageous and factually inaccurate claims, but you've ignored them entirely when they don't fit with your worldview (which includes a world without the US on the international stage).  And now you've added another factually inaccurate claim - that the war has been unbudgeted. Wheth you personally agree with costs or not, each country has repeatedly approved a budget (or CR) for the conflicts.  The US congress has literally debated and approved the scope and cost of the conflicts dozens of times.  Facts matter when making an argument on these forums.

[shenlong55]

are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict. 

Great! Now, what constitutes responsible withdrawal? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


If this proves impossible - and given we've been there 17 years, it may actually not be possible - then at what point do we give up? How many more years, lives, and dollars? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


Because again: if you can't answer, then it goes on costing more years, lives and money. And if we haven't articulated exactly what we want, then we can't decide if it's worth the price being paid.


The onus to prove the argument is on those who argue for starting or continuing a war. This is doubly so when it is not you who'll be spending the years there, risking or suffering injury or death, or paying the financial cost of the conflict. Thus: be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


I've asked this several times and not got an answer. Which tells us why it's been seventeen years, 3 million dead, and at least a trillion dollars. For your household you do a budget, for a war you don't bother. Well, okay.

I'm curious if you've withdrawn the oil from your vehicle yet?  Oh, you say that you haven't found a responsible way to do so yet?  You say your vehicle will break down about 15 minutes after you remove the oil?  Well, then maybe a responsible withdrawal isn't even possible.  At what point do you give up and withdraw it anyway?  How many more hours, gallons of oil and dollars are you going to spend on your vehicle?

If you can't answer these questions then it's just going to go on costing more time, oil and money.  And if you can't articulate exactly what you want then you can't decide if it's worth the price being paid.

[Davnasty]

are against irresponsible withdrawal from an existing conflict. 

Great! Now, what constitutes responsible withdrawal? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


If this proves impossible - and given we've been there 17 years, it may actually not be possible - then at what point do we give up? How many more years, lives, and dollars? Be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


Because again: if you can't answer, then it goes on costing more years, lives and money. And if we haven't articulated exactly what we want, then we can't decide if it's worth the price being paid.


The onus to prove the argument is on those who argue for starting or continuing a war. This is doubly so when it is not you who'll be spending the years there, risking or suffering injury or death, or paying the financial cost of the conflict. Thus: be precise in your answer, and show your workings.


I've asked this several times and not got an answer. Which tells us why it's been seventeen years, 3 million dead, and at least a trillion dollars. For your household you do a budget, for a war you don't bother. Well, okay.

I'm curious if you've withdrawn the oil from your vehicle yet?  Oh, you say that you haven't found a responsible way to do so yet?  You say your vehicle will break down about 15 minutes after you remove the oil?  Well, then maybe a responsible withdrawal isn't even possible.  At what point do you give up and withdraw it anyway?  How many more hours, gallons of oil and dollars are you going to spend on your vehicle?

If you can't answer these questions then it's just going to go on costing more time, oil and money.  And if you can't articulate exactly what you want then you can't decide if it's worth the price being paid.

Lol, not sure how I feel about the analogy but it's roughly as absurd as Kyle's request.

Kyle, what you're requesting, "Be precise in your answer, and show your workings", is a numerical answer to an equation with thousands of unknowable variables from a bunch of students armed with a textbook with half the pages torn out and a bunch of different teachers who may or may not be lying to them on any given day.

Then you compare this to coming up with a budget for our personal lives. When it comes to our individual budgets the questions are much simpler. How much should I allow for the electric bill? Well, I can ask the power company what electricity costs, I can look at the labels on my appliances, I can ask other people on the internet for advice, and after a few months I can look at my average costs to predict what I will pay in the future. When it comes to my electric bill and most other things that I pay for, I have access to all kinds of information via the internet and data from the millions of people who came before me and asked the same questions. So while I can't exactly predict the future, I can make a pretty good estimation of what's going to happen. Do you think we have similar information when it comes to making decisions regarding international conflict?

Keep in mind I'm not arguing against (or for) your position, only against your logic.

[OtherJen]

Can we stop paying him and his family of freeloaders? He's not going to feel the pain until the taxpayers stop paying for his golf trips.

Government Shutdown: Trump Suggests It Could Last ‘Months or Even Years’

[sequoia]

Can we stop paying him and his family of freeloaders? He's not going to feel the pain until the taxpayers stop paying for his golf trips.

Government Shutdown: Trump Suggests It Could Last ‘Months or Even Years’

I am all for shutting down until election if that means there is no second term for the crazy guy in the office. Yes this will hurt everyone but I am not so sure how to convince some of his die hard supporters that the person they are supporting is crazy and unqualified to work in WH. Maybe this will wake them up when the impact starts to hit everyone's wallet with furloughs, no government services, stock market taking a nose dive etc.

I do not want to see the crash of 2008 happen again in the near future, but it may take something like that to ensure we have some sane people (rep or dem) working at the WH.

[Khaetra]

I am all for shutting down until election if that means there is no second term for the crazy guy in the office. Yes this will hurt everyone but I am not so sure how to convince some of his die hard supporters that the person they are supporting is crazy and unqualified to work in WH. Maybe this will wake them up when the impact starts to hit everyone's wallet with furloughs, no government services, stock market taking a nose dive etc.

I do not want to see the crash of 2008 happen again in the near future, but it may take something like that to ensure we have some sane people (rep or dem) working at the WH.

MSNBC talked to a USCG guy who said this (he's a Trump supporter):

"If it wasn't affecting me, I would tell Trump to stand strong and get the wall money, but now that it's affecting me, I hope he hurries up and gets a deal done".  I wonder how he feels now that Trump said it could go on for months/years?  The USCG isn't something you can just walk away from job-wise.

[Omy]

This shutdown feels like more than just a political stunt to appease his base. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this might be a directive from Putin. How better to keep our country in a state of chaos than to shut the govt down indefinitely? And to say that he could declare a state of national emergency over this manufactured non-issue of his - it's the perfect way to give himself more power and control and relieve him from those pesky "checks and balances". We are in uncharted and dangerous territory.

Or it could be a huge distraction to take the attention off the Mueller investigation and other investigations against him. I find it bizarre that the person who manufactured the issue is also able to benefit by said manufactured issue by arguing that cases against him have to be delayed indefinitely because his lawyers are unable to defend him.

I also don't believe he's smart enough to come up with these ideas on his own. His advisors (Hannity, Putin, Bannon, etc) are calling the shots and trying to destroy us from the inside out.

[nereo]

This shutdown feels like more than just a political stunt to appease his base. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this might be a directive from Putin. How better to keep our country in a state of chaos than to shut the govt down indefinitely? And to say that he could declare a state of national emergency over this manufactured non-issue of his - it's the perfect way to give himself more power and control and relieve him from those pesky "checks and balances". We are in uncharted and dangerous territory.

Or it could be a huge distraction to take the attention off the Mueller investigation and other investigations against him. I find it bizarre that the person who manufactured the issue is also able to benefit by said manufactured issue by arguing that cases against him have to be delayed indefinitely because his lawyers are unable to defend him.

Except that the government at large continues to function, including the military. It's mostly services to our own citizens that are curtailed.
The WH also seems to have shot themselves in the foot (again) with the timing.  What shuold have been a glowing day about the robust jobs report instead got swamped by news of shutdown-disfunction.  In a way it seems like every time the WH should have had a good day/week it gets ruined by some self-manufactured crisis.

I'm sure Mueller loves to have the spotlight taken off of him. The more the nation's (and DJT's) attention is focused on something else the easier it is for him to continue his investigation.  In related news, Mueller's grand jury has been extended beyond its original 18 month term, suggesting more indictments are in the pipe.

[OtherJen]

This shutdown feels like more than just a political stunt to appease his base. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this might be a directive from Putin. How better to keep our country in a state of chaos than to shut the govt down indefinitely? And to say that he could declare a state of national emergency over this manufactured non-issue of his - it's the perfect way to give himself more power and control and relieve him from those pesky "checks and balances". We are in uncharted and dangerous territory.

Or it could be a huge distraction to take the attention off the Mueller investigation and other investigations against him. I find it bizarre that the person who manufactured the issue is also able to benefit by said manufactured issue by arguing that cases against him have to be delayed indefinitely because his lawyers are unable to defend him.

I also don't believe he's smart enough to come up with these ideas on his own. His advisors (Hannity, Putin, Bannon, etc) are calling the shots and trying to destroy us from the inside out.

Well, there’s this: While federal workers go without pay, senior Trump administration officials are poised to get $10,000 raises

and this: Trump threatens years-long government shutdown, emergency powers to build wall

Basically, it’s another money+power grab. The money is infuriating. The potential use of emergency powers is terrifying.

[nereo]

This shutdown feels like more than just a political stunt to appease his base. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this might be a directive from Putin. How better to keep our country in a state of chaos than to shut the govt down indefinitely? And to say that he could declare a state of national emergency over this manufactured non-issue of his - it's the perfect way to give himself more power and control and relieve him from those pesky "checks and balances". We are in uncharted and dangerous territory.

Or it could be a huge distraction to take the attention off the Mueller investigation and other investigations against him. I find it bizarre that the person who manufactured the issue is also able to benefit by said manufactured issue by arguing that cases against him have to be delayed indefinitely because his lawyers are unable to defend him.

I also don't believe he's smart enough to come up with these ideas on his own. His advisors (Hannity, Putin, Bannon, etc) are calling the shots and trying to destroy us from the inside out.

Well, there’s this: While federal workers go without pay, senior Trump administration officials are poised to get $10,000 raises

and this: Trump threatens years-long government shutdown, emergency powers to build wall

Basically, it’s another money+power grab. The money is infuriating. The potential use of emergency powers is terrifying.

Well teh President gets a pension for life of over $200k/year.  Other senior executive officials also get a pension, but I'm not sure what happens if yu are fired or quit a few monhts into the job.

[sequoia]

I am all for shutting down until election if that means there is no second term for the crazy guy in the office. Yes this will hurt everyone but I am not so sure how to convince some of his die hard supporters that the person they are supporting is crazy and unqualified to work in WH. Maybe this will wake them up when the impact starts to hit everyone's wallet with furloughs, no government services, stock market taking a nose dive etc.

I do not want to see the crash of 2008 happen again in the near future, but it may take something like that to ensure we have some sane people (rep or dem) working at the WH.

MSNBC talked to a USCG guy who said this (he's a Trump supporter):

"If it wasn't affecting me, I would tell Trump to stand strong and get the wall money, but now that it's affecting me, I hope he hurries up and gets a deal done".  I wonder how he feels now that Trump said it could go on for months/years?  The USCG isn't something you can just walk away from job-wise.

Exactly. Talk is cheap right? Lets build a wall! Everyone can say that easily, but I do not think everyone understand what that means.

I like to see how committed one is if in order to build a wall, your paycheck and benefit stop coming for a few of weeks. I understand this hurts both sides regardless of party affiliation, and that really sucks. But I just do not see any other way to make people to wake up and realize we have a crazy person steering the ship aiming straight for the ice berg.

I can not wait until he feel the need to go to Florida to go on vacation and go play golf in the middle of shutdown while more and more people is scrambling trying to put food on the table and pay their mortgages. Lets see how much support he gets for building the wall...

[nereo]

I don't think there's much support to build the wall to begin with.  it's not even a popular proposition among republicans. Those that actually live in counties where a wall would be built are far less supportive of it than conservatives in states that do not border Mexico.

According to a recent Reutger's poll, just 35% back funding for a wall, and just 25% supported shutting down the government to obtain funding.

[OtherJen]

I don't think there's much support to build the wall to begin with.  it's not even a popular proposition among republicans. Those that actually live in counties where a wall would be built are far less supportive of it than conservatives in states that do not border Mexico.

According to a recent Reutger's poll, just 35% back funding for a wall, and just 25% supported shutting down the government to obtain funding.

Yep. My dental hygienist is a Republican and voted for Trump. As of yesterday, she thinks the wall is ridiculous and pointless and doesn't understand why Trump won't give it up and end the shutdown. I don't think he'll get her vote a second time.

[OtherJen]

And as long as we're speculating on the Trump presidency:

US halts cooperation with UN on potential human rights violations

(Specifically, potential human rights violations occurring on US soil.)

[Zola.]

Trump looks desperate, digging his heels in. Will this be his undoing?

[sol]

In 2016 candidate Trump promised he would make the US debt-free over 8 years, by renegotiating trade deals that would turbo-power the economy and allow him to reduce the debt to zero while also lowering taxes.  Source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/02/transcript-donald-trump-interview-with-bob-woodward-and-robert-costa/

In his first two years of office, when he should probably be 25% of the way along towards that goal, he has increased the debt by approximately 10% instead of reducing it by 25%.  Source:  https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/govt.htm  The bulk of the increase is due to his corporate tax cuts.

I mean I probably shouldn't be surprised that he was blatantly lying through his teeth, but I think it's a useful reminder for fiscal conservatives who thought that Trump would represent a return to fiscal responsibility.  He has been the exact opposite, blowing up the deficit year over year, starting disastrous trade wars, and lowering revenues in order to bankrupt our country as quickly as possible.  If you're one of those people, Trump lied to you just like he lied to everyone else.  He doesn't care about balancing the budget in the slightest, and he's currently squandering the best economy we've seen in years, which should represent an opportunity to reduce the deficit, by spending lavishly in good times and thus ensuring we won't be able to provide needed stimulus during a future recession.  You've been had.

[talltexan]

No one believed Trump's promise to make the US debt-free within eight years. That wasn't why people voted for him.

[RetiredAt63]

No one believed Trump's promise to make the US debt-free within eight years. That wasn't why people voted for him.

Um, part of his platform?  And no one truly believes any politician re financial promises, but given sol's numbers, is anyone happy he is going in absolutely the other direction?

And if they didn't believe that, why should they think this wall thing was more than rhetoric?

[nereo]

No one believed Trump's promise to make the US debt-free within eight years. That wasn't why people voted for him.

Um, part of his platform?  And no one truly believes any politician re financial promises, but given sol's numbers, is anyone happy he is going in absolutely the other direction?

And if they didn't believe that, why should they think this wall thing was more than rhetoric?

This is what frustrates me so much with Trump supporters.  Any of his oft-repeated campaign promises that they don't support are dismissed as rhetorical, campaign bluster or not-to-be-taken literally.  All the others are 'definitely promises he made, so why is anyone surprised to see him try to carry them through?'  It's a choose-your-own path platform.  Focus on what he does and not what he has said, except when you should believe exactly what he said even though it isn't reflected in what he or his administration has done.

[OtherJen]

So now we’re not actually leaving Syria for at least months, if not longer. Oh, for a president who actually pays attention to security briefs (y’know, since he’s supposedly Commander in Chief) rather than ranting like a deranged child on Twitter.

Bolton Puts Conditions on Syria Withdrawal, Suggesting a Delay of Months or Years

[partgypsy]

Had to share

[Roadrunner53]

Had to share

Excellent!!!

[Omy]

Will health insurance premiums be paid for furloughed employees? Anybody know one way or the other?

[sol]

Will health insurance premiums be paid for furloughed employees? Anybody know one way or the other?

For now, all FEHB plans are still in effect, and are presumably being paid with IOUs.  So you can still go to the doctor.

If the shutdown does drag on for months or years, I don't think anyone really knows how long it will take for insurance companies to start complaining.

[OtherJen]

Will health insurance premiums be paid for furloughed employees? Anybody know one way or the other?

For now, all FEHB plans are still in effect, and are presumably being paid with IOUs.  So you can still go to the doctor.

If the shutdown does drag on for months or years, I don't think anyone really knows how long it will take for insurance companies to start complaining.

It will happen as soon as their shareholders start taking a hit.

[Omy]

Thanks, Sol.

In other news...conspiracy theory? Or truth is stranger than fiction?

https://narativ.org/2019/01/02/salvator-mundi-art-of-the-deal-the-lost-davinci/

[GuitarStv]

And as long as we're speculating on the Trump presidency:

US halts cooperation with UN on potential human rights violations

(Specifically, potential human rights violations occurring on US soil.)

The US has openly been torturing people without due process for more than a decade and a half at Guantanamo Bay.  Given that history, I don't really see why this is surprising or out of the ordinary.

[caracarn]

Wow.  Did Trump get impeached or something?  I had to go look for this thread when it was not appearing on my "new replies to posts" thread, and maybe thought it was locked.

Have we just reached our saturation point and we just don't give a %@#%@# anymore?  That might be great.

[sol]

Have we just reached our saturation point and we just don't give a %@#%@# anymore?  That might be great.

No, I'm just slowly coming to the realization that Trump is small potatoes.  There are larger problems in the works, and the fate of one overweight orange con man just doesn't seem that important anymore.  There are important policy decisions being made, and Trump is mostly a side show to that work.  There are real criminal enterprises attempting to influence those policy decisions, and Trump is just a pawn in that game.  Whether he goes to jail or not after losing a legit election probably doesn't matter much.

Much of the Trump discussion that used to be here has moved over other threads, like the one about Russian collusion or the one about Trump shuttering the government to get a wall.

[accolay]

MSNBC talked to a USCG guy who said this (he's a Trump supporter):

"If it wasn't affecting me, I would tell Trump to stand strong and get the wall money, but now that it's affecting me, I hope he hurries up and gets a deal done".  I wonder how he feels now that Trump said it could go on for months/years?  The USCG isn't something you can just walk away from job-wise.

What a douche. Sums up what I think about a large percentage of that side of Trump supporters: as long as you're not fucking me, go and fuck whoever you want.

[OtherJen]

MSNBC talked to a USCG guy who said this (he's a Trump supporter):

"If it wasn't affecting me, I would tell Trump to stand strong and get the wall money, but now that it's affecting me, I hope he hurries up and gets a deal done".  I wonder how he feels now that Trump said it could go on for months/years?  The USCG isn't something you can just walk away from job-wise.

What a douche. Sums up what I think about a large percentage of that side of Trump supporters: as long as you're not fucking me, go and fuck whoever you want.

From this NY Times article, yet another gem:

The shutdown on top of the hurricane has caused Ms. Minton to rethink a lot of things.

“I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

[OtherJen]

This should be surprising to no one, but here we are (from NBC News):

Government shutdown stops FDA food safety inspections

[Glenstache]

The Mueller investigation seems to be uncovering a lot of issues that would fall under RICO statutes (money laundering, fraud, etc). These types of issues can (and often do) lead to asset forfeiture. If brought as civil suits, these forfeitures could proceed without having to bring a suit directly against the president. A civil forfeiture would be brought against an asset as having been used in an illegal transaction. This is an interesting twist because it could lead to forfeiture of Trump Org assets without violating the "no indictments against a sitting president" policy at DOJ. I speculate that that scenario would spur a tweetstorm the likes of which we have not ever seen... followed shortly by a constitutional crisis that would make the Saturday Night Massacre look like sunday brunch.

[sequoia]

Have we just reached our saturation point and we just don't give a %@#%@# anymore?  That might be great.

No, I'm just slowly coming to the realization that Trump is small potatoes.  There are larger problems in the works, and the fate of one overweight orange con man just doesn't seem that important anymore.  There are important policy decisions being made, and Trump is mostly a side show to that work.  There are real criminal enterprises attempting to influence those policy decisions, and Trump is just a pawn in that game.  Whether he goes to jail or not after losing a legit election probably doesn't matter much.

Yep agree. He does not have the brain power to understand that he is easily swayed one way or another. Look at how Fox News say something and it influences his decisions.

[talltexan]

Trump is not small potatoes. Making him our President affects all important public issues because of the regulatory state that we have created and entrusted to that office.

I think interest in this thread is dying because it's crystallizing that Trump will make it to the 2020 election as a conventional candidate, running for re-election and enjoying the support of his party, although he will probably have to dispatch primary challengers as HW and Ford before him did. Beating an incumbent President is far from certain.

Installing Barr as Attorney General and booting out Rosenstein (did anyone notice that announcement happening within a few hours of the much-hyped immigration speeches?) pretty much mean that the Mueller investigation will no longer be a threat to Trump.