Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 578946 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6100 on: February 15, 2019, 11:05:23 AM »
Ironically his right-wing pundits (e.g. Coulter) are publicly lambasting him for declaring a national emergency to get his funding.  Says Coulter: it's "designed for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for another 2 years"
I think this is just Coulter being jealous that someone else is scamming the stupidest people in the conservative base.

On a more serious note, Trump did give the opposition lawyers some really good material in the Rose Garden with this quote:
Quote
I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster…. I just want to get it done faster, that’s all.

That's about as close to saying that you are circumventing Congress for convenience as you can get without using those actual words. I'm really looking forward to how Sanders will spin this. My money is on, "If Congress had done their job to address this emergency, Trump wouldn't have had to make this declaration."

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6101 on: February 15, 2019, 11:36:39 AM »
Once again, Trump's own words and conduct will be used against him in legal challenges (much as they were for his first two travel bans).

What's interesting to me is that fight will take place almost entirely in Texas (red) and is already very unpopular among border towns like El Paso. It's going to get a heck of a lot less popular as private citizens are told they have to cede land and big ugly roads are built across national parkland in preparation for more barriers.

If you wanted to nudge deep-red Texas more purple I'm not sure you could devise a better way than unilaterally forcing a border wall through these towns.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6102 on: February 15, 2019, 11:41:03 AM »
Interesting commentary even from the GOP -
After failing to secure wall funding with a GOP held congress Trump tried to get it through a government shutdown, which didn't work. It's unpopular with the general public, unpopular in congress and unpopular with his own intelligence chiefs.

So he faced two choices - admit defeat or declare an emergency.  He's chosen the latter

What's interesting is that apparently even his own legal team has told him its unlikely stand up in court (which is no doubt why he's said, repeatedly, that 'we can do this, it's all very legal, it's in my power as President').  He's actually expecting the courts to block him at every turn - which I expect he'll use as a foil for the next 21 months.

Ironically his right-wing pundits (e.g. Coulter) are publicly lambasting him for declaring a national emergency to get his funding.  Says Coulter: it's "designed for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for another 2 years"

So weird to agree with something that Anne Coulter says.  I feel like I need a shower.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6103 on: February 15, 2019, 11:46:04 AM »
I'm really looking forward to how Sanders will spin this. My money is on, "If Congress had done their job to address this emergency, Trump wouldn't have had to make this declaration."

The whole "emergency" justification for the wall is kind of a new one, created out of political expediency.  Remember when we needed a wall to keep out terrorists?  Or when we needed a wall to keep out drugs?  Or to protect low-wage American jobs?  Or to keep out MS-13?

All of those reasons have fallen by the wayside, because they were all just post-hoc rationalizations for keeping out immigrant minorities that might threaten the conservative white voting bloc that keeps the GOP in power.  The only reason for the wall, all along, has been fear of brown people.  So it's an interesting development, I think, that being unable to fund the wall to keep out brown people he has been forced to resort to trying to fund the wall in order to "protect" brown people.  Calling the border situation a "humanitarian crisis" used to be a democratic talking point, an attempt to reframe the caravan as desperate refugees instead of an invading criminal army storming the gates.  Hilariously, Trump had to adopt the democrat's talking point on this issue in order to secure the funding his MAGA-hat wearing base wants because of racism.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding a hardcore Trump supporter who wants the wall to be built who has expressed one iota of compassion for the "humanitarian crisis" that Tump is now using to justify his emergency declaration.  These folks don't care about refugees and their struggles.  They were calling for razor wire and armed guards with tear gas and fire hoses to turn back the caravan, remember?  They wanted to shoot these people, not rescue them. 

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6104 on: February 15, 2019, 11:54:44 AM »
I'm really looking forward to how Sanders will spin this. My money is on, "If Congress had done their job to address this emergency, Trump wouldn't have had to make this declaration."

The whole "emergency" justification for the wall is kind of a new one, created out of political expediency.  Remember when we needed a wall to keep out terrorists?  Or when we needed a wall to keep out drugs?  Or to protect low-wage American jobs?  Or to keep out MS-13?

All of those reasons have fallen by the wayside, because they were all just post-hoc rationalizations for keeping out immigrant minorities that might threaten the conservative white voting bloc that keeps the GOP in power.  The only reason for the wall, all along, has been fear of brown people.  So it's an interesting development, I think, that being unable to fund the wall to keep out brown people he has been forced to resort to trying to fund the wall in order to "protect" brown people.  Calling the border situation a "humanitarian crisis" used to be a democratic talking point, an attempt to reframe the caravan as desperate refugees instead of an invading criminal army storming the gates.  Hilariously, Trump had to adopt the democrat's talking point on this issue in order to secure the funding his MAGA-hat wearing base wants because of racism.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding a hardcore Trump supporter who wants the wall to be built who has expressed one iota of compassion for the "humanitarian crisis" that Tump is now using to justify his emergency declaration.  These folks don't care about refugees and their struggles.  They were calling for razor wire and armed guards with tear gas and fire hoses to turn back the caravan, remember?  They wanted to shoot these people, not rescue them.

See also: racist gaslighting. Nothing new here, and Sanders explanations will have only a tenuous relationship to any truth, as per usual.

Importantly, we should not forget McConnnell's central role in this whole fiasco. He enabled Trump through this whole shitshow by not bringing the original budget (which may have actually even been veto-proof) to a vote back in December. 

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3506
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6105 on: February 15, 2019, 12:09:27 PM »
Importantly, we should not forget McConnnell's central role in this whole fiasco. He enabled Trump through this whole shitshow by not bringing the original budget (which may have actually even been veto-proof) to a vote back in December.

This quote from John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation is great,

Quote from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-trumps-national-emergency-set-a-problematic-precedent-for-conservatives/
“The real shame is that Congress hasn’t worked with him to come up with a more workable solution that responds to those threats. It seems to me that they’re not doing that because they just don’t like this president.
[emphasis added]

This means that your own party doesn't like the President. (But I suspect that Malcolm only means the Dems don't like him.)

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6106 on: February 16, 2019, 08:17:30 AM »
Once again, Trump's own words and conduct will be used against him in legal challenges (much as they were for his first two travel bans).

What's interesting to me is that fight will take place almost entirely in Texas (red) and is already very unpopular among border towns like El Paso. It's going to get a heck of a lot less popular as private citizens are told they have to cede land and big ugly roads are built across national parkland in preparation for more barriers.

If you wanted to nudge deep-red Texas more purple I'm not sure you could devise a better way than unilaterally forcing a border wall through these towns.

From Reuters: Texas landowners file first lawsuit to block Trump's national emergency declaration

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3506
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6107 on: February 16, 2019, 10:22:39 AM »
Once again, Trump's own words and conduct will be used against him in legal challenges (much as they were for his first two travel bans).

What's interesting to me is that fight will take place almost entirely in Texas (red) and is already very unpopular among border towns like El Paso. It's going to get a heck of a lot less popular as private citizens are told they have to cede land and big ugly roads are built across national parkland in preparation for more barriers.

If you wanted to nudge deep-red Texas more purple I'm not sure you could devise a better way than unilaterally forcing a border wall through these towns.

From Reuters: Texas landowners file first lawsuit to block Trump's national emergency declaration

The first of many, I'm sure. If Trump loses in 2020, the wall will never get built.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6108 on: February 16, 2019, 06:48:50 PM »
Once again, Trump's own words and conduct will be used against him in legal challenges (much as they were for his first two travel bans).

What's interesting to me is that fight will take place almost entirely in Texas (red) and is already very unpopular among border towns like El Paso. It's going to get a heck of a lot less popular as private citizens are told they have to cede land and big ugly roads are built across national parkland in preparation for more barriers.

If you wanted to nudge deep-red Texas more purple I'm not sure you could devise a better way than unilaterally forcing a border wall through these towns.

From Reuters: Texas landowners file first lawsuit to block Trump's national emergency declaration

What a horrific experience it is for these homeowners to have their lives upended this way!

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6109 on: February 16, 2019, 06:58:21 PM »
Here's a Washington Post article reviewing McCabe's memoir of working in the FBI with Jeff Sessions as head of the Justice department,

"He didn’t read intelligence reports and mixed up classified material with what he had seen in newspaper clips. He seemed confused about the structure and purpose of organizations and became overwhelmed when meetings covered multiple subjects. He blamed immigrants for nearly every societal problem and uttered racist sentiments with shocking callousness.
This isn’t how President Trump is depicted in a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. Instead, it’s McCabe’s account of what it was like to work for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The FBI was better off when “you all only hired Irishmen,” Sessions said in one diatribe about the bureau’s workforce. “They were drunks but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos — who knows what they’re doing?”"

It’s a startling portrait that suggests that the Trump administration’s reputation for baseness and dysfunction has, if anything, been understated and too narrowly attributed to the president.
The description of Sessions is one of the most striking revelations in “The Threat,” a memoir that adds to a rapidly expanding collection of score-settling insider accounts of Trump-era Washington. McCabe’s is an important voice because of his position at the top of the bureau during a critical series of events, including the firing of FBI chief James Comey, the appointment of special counsel Robert S. Mueller, and the ensuing scorched-earth effort by Trump and his Republican allies to discredit the Russia probe and destroy public confidence in the nation’s top law enforcement agency. The work is insightful and occasionally provocative. The subtitle, “How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” all but equates the danger posed by al-Qaeda and the Islamic State to that of the current president.

But overall, the book isn’t the comprehensive account McCabe was presumably capable of delivering. He seems reluctant to reveal details about his role in conflicts at key moments, rarely shedding meaningful new light on areas of the Trump-Russia-FBI timeline established by Mueller, news organizations and previous authors.

McCabe is a keen observer of detail, particularly when it comes to the president’s pettiness. He describes how Trump arranges Oval Office encounters so that his advisers are forced to sit before him in “little schoolboy chairs” across the Resolute Desk. Prior presidents met with aides on couches in the center of the room, but Trump is always angling to make others feel smaller.
McCabe was known as a taciturn figure in the bureau, in contrast to the more garrulous Comey. His book reflects that penchant for brevity, with just 264 pages of text. Even so, he documents the president’s attempts to impair the Russia probe and his incessant attacks on the FBI, describing the stakes in sweeping, convincing language.
“Between the world of chaos and the world of order stands the rule of law,” McCabe writes. “Yet now the rule of law is under attack, including from the president himself.”

Inevitably, the book includes disturbing new detail about Trump’s subservience to Russian President Vladimir Putin. During an Oval Office briefing in July 2017, Trump refused to believe U.S. intelligence reports that North Korea had test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile — a test that Kim Jong Un had called a Fourth of July “gift” to “the arrogant Americans.”
Trump dismissed the missile launch as a “hoax,” McCabe writes. “He thought that North Korea did not have the capability to launch such missiles. He said he knew this because Vladimir Putin had told him so.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/andrew-mccabes-disturbing-account-of-working-for-sessions-and-trump/2019/02/14/91eba5a4-3081-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.9f66323c83ba

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6110 on: February 17, 2019, 02:02:52 AM »
@DavidAnnArbor That is terrifying.  Anyone who thinks it's a breath of fresh air having a child at the controls of your Airbus A380 flight, even if it was just one time, better have a parachute!  The flight still has a long way to go before it reaches its destination.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6111 on: February 17, 2019, 07:57:17 AM »
Corrupt politicians are like cockroaches.   If you do see them during the day, it's usually because roach overcrowding has forced them out into the open.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6112 on: February 18, 2019, 07:25:45 AM »
I heard some of the interview between Steve Inskeep and McCabe this morning on my commute into work. There's no question that Trump and Sessions picked on him, repeatedly singling him out in public and ultimately firing him only hours before he would have qualified for full-pension.

While Comey was beyond their grasp, they clearly saw McCabe as someone where they could make an example of him. I don't think it was as much about McCabe himself as it was about deterring other people who might wish to act like McCabe.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6113 on: February 18, 2019, 07:31:22 AM »
Is there any way McCabe can take his pension issues to court to fight for it? Seems like an extreme raw deal. I wonder if the next President could give him back his pension.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6114 on: February 18, 2019, 07:43:24 AM »
Is there any way McCabe can take his pension issues to court to fight for it? Seems like an extreme raw deal. I wonder if the next President could give him back his pension.

Not yet.

At the moment, the Trump administration has refused to reveal the policies and performance that led to the firing.  McCabe is currently suing them (lawsuit filed in June) to get them to reveal this information.  Once they are legally forced to reveal that the firing was done for vindictive reasons rather than performance he should have a pretty good case.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6115 on: February 18, 2019, 07:59:11 AM »
Is there any way McCabe can take his pension issues to court to fight for it? Seems like an extreme raw deal. I wonder if the next President could give him back his pension.

Not yet.

At the moment, the Trump administration has refused to reveal the policies and performance that led to the firing.  McCabe is currently suing them (lawsuit filed in June) to get them to reveal this information.  Once they are legally forced to reveal that the firing was done for vindictive reasons rather than performance he should have a pretty good case.

Thanks for that information! Did not know about the lawsuit! I hope he gets his pension. That was rotten to the core.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6116 on: February 18, 2019, 08:30:17 AM »
The weekend McCabe was fired, the National Review published this explainer about McCabe and his pension:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/mccabe-pension-benefits-not-lost/

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2622
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6117 on: February 18, 2019, 08:33:11 AM »
I guess it is a no brainer that this wall is a "national security issue" while things like Puerto Rico's hurricane damage and Flint, MI's water crisis are not. As far as I know neither situation has been completely repaired?

I spent time last night reading about how the Nazis took power in Germany in the 1930s. I'm not calling the GOP or Trump Nazis. I am pointing out how the Nazis took measured steps to negate their opponents, negate the law and make examples of their rivals is worth study. As a teen with an interest in history I once wondered a great deal how a country would give itself over to a dictator like Hitler. Its all there for study if a person will spend the time.

Current events seem to me to be alot like some extreme personalities testing the waters to see how far they could push our country towards something more like totalitarianism. Can they spark enough hatred in their base? Can they ignore the law enough to get what they want? Can they direct enough low information people to do what the extremists want such as violence? Are their scapegoats effective enough? Can they get enough power lined up behind them to override the establishment?

I hope this is temporary. A diversion tactic that elections can rectify, not something with long term consequences. When working people are barely one paycheck away from bankruptcy, people will not have the ability to travel and protest, nor take time off work to work against a souring political scene. They can however be steered, lied to, and whipped into a frenzy - just like peoples in other countries who were desperate for a politician to deliver them from poverty. These Americans want a savoir, I think someone who can maintain the economic status quo or even reverse the clock when the reality is technology will continue change things. 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 08:36:53 AM by Just Joe »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6118 on: February 18, 2019, 10:37:41 AM »
Flint, MI's water crisis are not. As far as I know neither situation has been completely repaired?

The Flint water crisis is still not solved because many houses had pipes corroded by Flint river water that was not properly treated for ph.
And there are many homes that are still connected to water service lines made of corroded lead material.
The lack of funding is the main problem.

Are their scapegoats effective enough? Can they get enough power lined up behind them to override the establishment?


I'm reading how Central American farmworkers play a crucial role as farm laborers that will not be fulfilled by US citizens.

"Growers say it is getting harder to hire enough people to harvest crops before they rot.
Fewer seasonal laborers are coming from Mexico, the biggest supplier of U.S. farmworkers. Fewer Americans want to bend over all day in a field, farmers say, even when offered higher wages, free housing and recruitment bonuses."
Farmworkers vs robots: Will tomorrow fruit pickers be made of steel and tech? https://wapo.st/strawberryrobots

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6119 on: February 18, 2019, 12:24:24 PM »
I guess it is a no brainer that this wall is a "national security issue" while things like Puerto Rico's hurricane damage and Flint, MI's water crisis are not. As far as I know neither situation has been completely repaired?

I spent time last night reading about how the Nazis took power in Germany in the 1930s. I'm not calling the GOP or Trump Nazis. I am pointing out how the Nazis took measured steps to negate their opponents, negate the law and make examples of their rivals is worth study. As a teen with an interest in history I once wondered a great deal how a country would give itself over to a dictator like Hitler. Its all there for study if a person will spend the time.

Current events seem to me to be alot like some extreme personalities testing the waters to see how far they could push our country towards something more like totalitarianism. Can they spark enough hatred in their base? Can they ignore the law enough to get what they want? Can they direct enough low information people to do what the extremists want such as violence? Are their scapegoats effective enough? Can they get enough power lined up behind them to override the establishment?

I hope this is temporary. A diversion tactic that elections can rectify, not something with long term consequences. When working people are barely one paycheck away from bankruptcy, people will not have the ability to travel and protest, nor take time off work to work against a souring political scene. They can however be steered, lied to, and whipped into a frenzy - just like peoples in other countries who were desperate for a politician to deliver them from poverty. These Americans want a savoir, I think someone who can maintain the economic status quo or even reverse the clock when the reality is technology will continue change things.

The thing is The Nazi takeover happened close to 90 years ago and young people have read about it in history class but it was just subject matter and the next day they studied another part of history. They can't comprehend the evil that occurred. Trumps base see him as a driven strong leader who is keeping his promises. Hahaha. Same with parents not getting their kids immunized. They have no concept of how different diseases ravaged and killed millions of people over hundreds of years. The 1918 flu killed millions of people around the world but a small portion of our society gets the shots. What does it take to make people wake up to see Trump as a wanna be dictator and do these people have to see their babies die to realize that vaccinations can keep people from dying. People have to wake up. I see Trump at his rally's and people are wearing the MAGA hats and cheering him on. I always wonder why do they believe in him. What is the attraction? Then the lies he spews that have been proven as lies over and over again but the base doesn't care if he lies. Why don't they care if he lies? They wouldn't like it if someone was selling them a used car and were told it ran like brand new. Then they buy it and take it for a drive and the car conks out a mile down the road. This president infuriates me!

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6120 on: February 18, 2019, 12:42:43 PM »
I see Trump at his rally's and people are wearing the MAGA hats and cheering him on. I always wonder why do they believe in him. What is the attraction? Then the lies he spews that have been proven as lies over and over again but the base doesn't care if he lies. Why don't they care if he lies? They wouldn't like it if someone was selling them a used car and were told it ran like brand new. Then they buy it and take it for a drive and the car conks out a mile down the road. This president infuriates me!
Because he provides them with an emotional narrative that puts blame elsewhere (on others) and then presents himself as the person who will stand up to those others no matter what. That is why the border wall fight plays to his favor no matter how much of a pile of bullshit it is.

Given that it isn't a fact-based appeal, pointing out the lies doesn't really work to change minds. I'm not really sure what would other than undeniable proof that he is a traitor in cahoots with Putin. Honestly, I'm not even sure that would work because people really don't like being shown that they had been taken for fools. The transition to post-Trump is going to be really fucking ugly somewhere.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6121 on: February 18, 2019, 12:45:45 PM »
I thought this opinion piece about Mitch McConnell and his enabling of Trump was pretty spot-on. There will be no action on Trump from the Senate- be it checks and balances or otherwise -  until it is politically favorable to Mitch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/opinion/mitch-mcconnell-trump-emergency.html

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3804
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6122 on: February 18, 2019, 12:48:00 PM »
I thought this opinion piece about Mitch McConnell and his enabling of Trump was pretty spot-on. There will be no action on Trump from the Senate- be it checks and balances or otherwise -  until it is politically favorable to Mitch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/opinion/mitch-mcconnell-trump-emergency.html

I think Mitch McConnell is one of the most evil political figures in power right now. He truly has no moral compass whatsoever. It's breathtaking.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6123 on: February 18, 2019, 02:46:40 PM »
I think Mitch realized he couldn't control the President, aside from trying to not have Hillary Clinton be his President. He left the SCOTUS seat open essentially wagering all his chips on turnout from GOP base, and that wager paid off. The bill for Trump will come due in the future, but--while he has time--he's going to use his Senate powers to approve constitutionalist judges. After surviving 2016 and surviving Kavanaugh, he's on life #3.

If you asked him, he'd argue that this is what his voters want him to do.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6124 on: February 18, 2019, 02:53:12 PM »
'constitutionalist judges' is a term that's been seized by social conservatives.  I can't think of a single judge who does not base their decisions on their reading of the constitution, but if your ruling doesn't uphold certain conservative ideals you are 'legislating from the bench' - if it does you are 'defending the constitution'.  All in the eye of the beholder.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6125 on: February 18, 2019, 04:17:07 PM »
I thought this opinion piece about Mitch McConnell and his enabling of Trump was pretty spot-on. There will be no action on Trump from the Senate- be it checks and balances or otherwise -  until it is politically favorable to Mitch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/opinion/mitch-mcconnell-trump-emergency.html

I think Mitch McConnell is one of the most evil political figures in power right now. He truly has no moral compass whatsoever. It's breathtaking.

Yes, he oozes evil. Why don't these JERKS ever retire?

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2622
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6126 on: February 18, 2019, 04:24:13 PM »
The Flint water crisis is still not solved because many houses had pipes corroded by Flint river water that was not properly treated for ph.
And there are many homes that are still connected to water service lines made of corroded lead material.
The lack of funding is the main problem.

Yep, real problems all over the place that could be addressed with more money, money that will otherwise be spent on a pointless wall.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6127 on: February 18, 2019, 04:30:07 PM »
Another one for the pile. Trump tweeting about retribution for protected speech. Anyone have a good defense for this? Bueller?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6128 on: February 18, 2019, 05:31:55 PM »
Well I'll give him that SNL is 'fake news' (the grown-up word would be 'satire').  It's only slander (or a 'hit job') if it's factually inaccurate and demonstrably untrue. 

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2622
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6129 on: February 18, 2019, 09:00:04 PM »
Another one for the pile. Trump tweeting about retribution for protected speech. Anyone have a good defense for this? Bueller?

If free speech requires retribution Trump is in trouble being the dude that can't tell the truth more than once or twice a decade.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6130 on: February 18, 2019, 09:23:19 PM »
Well I'll give him that SNL is 'fake news' (the grown-up word would be 'satire').  It's only slander (or a 'hit job') if it's factually inaccurate and demonstrably untrue.

I think that the problem isn't with his characterization of SNL as fake news, it was his apparent call for retribution.  Republicans have a long history of publicly targeting individuals they don't like for "retribution", and then acting all surprised when some nut-job who spent too long in the conservative radio echo chamber decides to try to shoot that person.  Of course they always disavow people like Randy Weaver or Scott Roeder, but these guys don't magically appear out of nowhere.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6131 on: February 19, 2019, 06:52:09 AM »
Please tell me what crime Randy Weaver committed.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1961
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6132 on: February 19, 2019, 07:08:29 AM »
Trump is playing you all.  He knows what to say to create uproar so you don't notice all his other fuck ups.  Master troll.  He tries to have it look like he is an idiot, but that is part of the act, he is very calculated.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 07:11:07 AM by jim555 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6133 on: February 19, 2019, 07:18:42 AM »
Trump is playing you all.  He knows what to say to create uproar so you don't notice all his other fuck ups.  Master troll.  He tries to have it look like he is an idiot, but that is part of the act, he is very calculated.

I think Trump thinks he can use faux controversies to distract, and he certainly pushes issues that are intensionally divisive (e.g. NFL kneeling during the anthem).  But his polling would suggest his tactics are only useful at best for holding on to roughly 1/3 of the population. If anything opposition has hardened, the GOP has shrunk and independents are just sick of him.  He got shellacked in the midterms during a time when on paper everything should have been peachy for the GOP (economy, SCOTUS appointments, tax cuts). There's no end-game here.  His best hope is a 3rd party candidate that splits to vote.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6134 on: February 19, 2019, 07:57:56 AM »
'constitutionalist judges' is a term that's been seized by social conservatives.  I can't think of a single judge who does not base their decisions on their reading of the constitution, but if your ruling doesn't uphold certain conservative ideals you are 'legislating from the bench' - if it does you are 'defending the constitution'.  All in the eye of the beholder.

Yep.  This is a very important point to make.

All supreme court judges are constitutionalist judges.  They make decisions based upon what they believe the constitution meant.  Both conservative and liberal judges read between the lines and make judgement calls . . . that's actually the whole point of the job.  If you could just read the constitution and easily apply it to every legal situation that comes up there would be no need for a supreme court.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6135 on: February 19, 2019, 08:53:12 AM »
The bill for Trump will come due in the future, but--while he has time--he's going to use his Senate powers to approve constitutionalist judges.

This is a piece of propaganda that needs to be called out more often when it is encountered. As with what seems like just about everything else these days, when Republicans claim the Democrats are doing Something Bad it's a sure bet that they're just projecting to distract from the fact that they're the ones who are actually doing it.

Every Judge thinks of themselves as Following The Law / being a Constitutionalist. The difference in judgements comes because there is a lot of reasonable room for disagreement about what the Law / Constitution says and how it should be interpreted.

Last summer the Republican / "Originalist" / "Constitutionalist" Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old precedent that allowed unions to charge dues to government workers who benefit from the union's collective bargaining - regardless of whether the worker "joins" the union or not - by claiming that "this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech." We can discuss and disagree all day long about whether its fair to compel dues from people who don't want to join the union but benefit from its bargaining, but that's not the point. Is there anyone who seriously wants to defend the idea that the "original intent which should be interpreted as narrowly and literally as possible" of first amendment free-speech is union-busting?

It's even more obvious and blatant when it comes to issues like abortion or religion in public schools or voter suppression / gerrymandering. Republicans do not want "Constitutionalists", they want Conservative Activist Judges. They want them as young and as extreme as possible to serve out their lifetime appointments regardless of if they are passing over more qualified moderates. And they openly campaign on that desire to shove Conservatism down people's throats through the court system, laws and constitutional freedoms and equality under the law be damned. And it works, because the desire to steal the Supreme Court seat from Garland almost certainly won Trump the election.

So let's drop these propagandistic pretences about Republicans appointing "Constitutionalist" judges, because everyone can plainly see that it's not true. You may be more happy with the way conservative judges rule than the way liberal judges rule, but it's clearly not because Republicans are "Constitutionalist" and Democrats aren't.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 08:58:02 AM by sherr »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2836
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6136 on: February 19, 2019, 09:34:48 AM »
The bill for Trump will come due in the future, but--while he has time--he's going to use his Senate powers to approve constitutionalist judges.

This is a piece of propaganda that needs to be called out more often when it is encountered. As with what seems like just about everything else these days, when Republicans claim the Democrats are doing Something Bad it's a sure bet that they're just projecting to distract from the fact that they're the ones who are actually doing it.

Every Judge thinks of themselves as Following The Law / being a Constitutionalist. The difference in judgements comes because there is a lot of reasonable room for disagreement about what the Law / Constitution says and how it should be interpreted.

Last summer the Republican / "Originalist" / "Constitutionalist" Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old precedent that allowed unions to charge dues to government workers who benefit from the union's collective bargaining - regardless of whether the worker "joins" the union or not - by claiming that "this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech." We can discuss and disagree all day long about whether its fair to compel dues from people who don't want to join the union but benefit from its bargaining, but that's not the point. Is there anyone who seriously wants to defend the idea that the "original intent which should be interpreted as narrowly and literally as possible" of first amendment free-speech is union-busting?

It's even more obvious and blatant when it comes to issues like abortion or religion in public schools or voter suppression / gerrymandering. Republicans do not want "Constitutionalists", they want Conservative Activist Judges. They want them as young and as extreme as possible to serve out their lifetime appointments regardless of if they are passing over more qualified moderates. And they openly campaign on that desire to shove Conservatism down people's throats through the court system, laws and constitutional freedoms and equality under the law be damned. And it works, because the desire to steal the Supreme Court seat from Garland almost certainly won Trump the election.

So let's drop these propagandistic pretences about Republicans appointing "Constitutionalist" judges, because everyone can plainly see that it's not true. You may be more happy with the way conservative judges rule than the way liberal judges rule, but it's clearly not because Republicans are "Constitutionalist" and Democrats aren't.

Amen. This is was no more obvious, during the ruling of Citizens United, which gave corporations the rights of individuals and free speech. In the constitution the framers of the Constitution intentionally made the rights of corporations EXTREMELY limited. The original framers voiced concern that corporations may use their power to influence government and so included protections in the constitution. That ruling is about as blatantly anti-constitutionalist as you can get, and Republican nominated judges were the ones who made it happen. We will get another test with the "emergency" to fund the border walls. Again this is an attempt of the executive branch to strip the legislature of its constitutionally-mandated right to fund the government (i.e. it's unconstitutional). If this ruling is not overturned it will give future presidents the power to essentially become petty dictators ruling by fiat.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 09:40:41 AM by partgypsy »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6137 on: February 19, 2019, 09:41:33 AM »
Please tell me what crime Randy Weaver committed.
Mostly his actions with the Aryan nation and possession/distribution of illegal firearms.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6138 on: February 19, 2019, 09:45:43 AM »
The bill for Trump will come due in the future, but--while he has time--he's going to use his Senate powers to approve constitutionalist judges.

This is a piece of propaganda that needs to be called out more often when it is encountered. As with what seems like just about everything else these days, when Republicans claim the Democrats are doing Something Bad it's a sure bet that they're just projecting to distract from the fact that they're the ones who are actually doing it.

Every Judge thinks of themselves as Following The Law / being a Constitutionalist. The difference in judgements comes because there is a lot of reasonable room for disagreement about what the Law / Constitution says and how it should be interpreted.

Last summer the Republican / "Originalist" / "Constitutionalist" Supreme Court struck down a 40-year-old precedent that allowed unions to charge dues to government workers who benefit from the union's collective bargaining - regardless of whether the worker "joins" the union or not - by claiming that "this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech." We can discuss and disagree all day long about whether its fair to compel dues from people who don't want to join the union but benefit from its bargaining, but that's not the point. Is there anyone who seriously wants to defend the idea that the "original intent which should be interpreted as narrowly and literally as possible" of first amendment free-speech is union-busting?

It's even more obvious and blatant when it comes to issues like abortion or religion in public schools or voter suppression / gerrymandering. Republicans do not want "Constitutionalists", they want Conservative Activist Judges. They want them as young and as extreme as possible to serve out their lifetime appointments regardless of if they are passing over more qualified moderates. And they openly campaign on that desire to shove Conservatism down people's throats through the court system, laws and constitutional freedoms and equality under the law be damned. And it works, because the desire to steal the Supreme Court seat from Garland almost certainly won Trump the election.

So let's drop these propagandistic pretences about Republicans appointing "Constitutionalist" judges, because everyone can plainly see that it's not true. You may be more happy with the way conservative judges rule than the way liberal judges rule, but it's clearly not because Republicans are "Constitutionalist" and Democrats aren't.

+1000 to all of this.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6139 on: February 19, 2019, 09:49:21 AM »
I found this interesting:

Among the money Trump aims to reallocate with his emergency declaration is $2.5B appropriated by congress for drug interdiction.  One of the core arguments that Trump has used in declaring an emergency is that "drugs are pouring into our country from the southern border", yet he plans to directly tap funds for fighting illicit drugs to built a wall that he claims (falsely) is necessary to fight off illicit drugs.  in other words, we don't need money to fight off drugs because we need it for a wall to fight off drugs.

There's an amazing amount of circular logic going around here.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6140 on: February 19, 2019, 09:54:27 AM »
Please tell me what crime Randy Weaver committed.
Mostly his actions with the Aryan nation and possession/distribution of illegal firearms.
And speaking of white supremacy, this little thing happened in Alabama this month.
https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/02/18/alabama-newspaper-ku-klux-klan-to-night-ride-again-linden-democrat-reporter-goodloe-sutton/2910436002/
And here's the editorial (written by the newspaper editor):

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6141 on: February 19, 2019, 09:56:49 AM »
I found this interesting:

Among the money Trump aims to reallocate with his emergency declaration is $2.5B appropriated by congress for drug interdiction.  One of the core arguments that Trump has used in declaring an emergency is that "drugs are pouring into our country from the southern border", yet he plans to directly tap funds for fighting illicit drugs to built a wall that he claims (falsely) is necessary to fight off illicit drugs.  in other words, we don't need money to fight off drugs because we need it for a wall to fight off drugs.

There's an amazing amount of circular logic going around here.

Actually, this seems quite consistent to me.  He promised a wall over and over.  He didn't promise to fix America's drug problem.  He's focusing on one of the issues that got him elected.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6142 on: February 19, 2019, 10:02:35 AM »
I found this interesting:

Among the money Trump aims to reallocate with his emergency declaration is $2.5B appropriated by congress for drug interdiction.  One of the core arguments that Trump has used in declaring an emergency is that "drugs are pouring into our country from the southern border", yet he plans to directly tap funds for fighting illicit drugs to built a wall that he claims (falsely) is necessary to fight off illicit drugs.  in other words, we don't need money to fight off drugs because we need it for a wall to fight off drugs.

There's an amazing amount of circular logic going around here.

Actually, this seems quite consistent to me.  He promised a wall over and over.  He didn't promise to fix America's drug problem.  He's focusing on one of the issues that got him elected.

Actually, he did promise to end our country's drug problem, over and over.
What he also did was promise that "Mexico will pay ofr the wall".  So if anything, he's breaking a campaign promise by unilaterally declaring we must pay for the wall through funds appropriated by congress for other purposes.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12883
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6143 on: February 19, 2019, 10:21:08 AM »
I found this interesting:

Among the money Trump aims to reallocate with his emergency declaration is $2.5B appropriated by congress for drug interdiction.  One of the core arguments that Trump has used in declaring an emergency is that "drugs are pouring into our country from the southern border", yet he plans to directly tap funds for fighting illicit drugs to built a wall that he claims (falsely) is necessary to fight off illicit drugs.  in other words, we don't need money to fight off drugs because we need it for a wall to fight off drugs.

There's an amazing amount of circular logic going around here.

Actually, this seems quite consistent to me.  He promised a wall over and over.  He didn't promise to fix America's drug problem.  He's focusing on one of the issues that got him elected.

Actually, he did promise to end our country's drug problem, over and over.
What he also did was promise that "Mexico will pay ofr the wall".  So if anything, he's breaking a campaign promise by unilaterally declaring we must pay for the wall through funds appropriated by congress for other purposes.

Well, he's also an inveterate liar . . . so you have to take that into account.  :P

wbranch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Some Mountain Ridge
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6144 on: February 19, 2019, 10:39:47 AM »
Please tell me what crime Randy Weaver committed.
Mostly his actions with the Aryan nation and possession/distribution of illegal firearms.

Yep, no doubt that the FBI and US Marshals had a spectacular fuck-up when it came to dealing with the Weaver family. But he was far from innocent. Slate did a podcast on Ruby Ridge a few months ago and while I am sure some conservatives would think it would be some sort of liberal hit piece it actually made me feel more sympathy towards the Weavers. The way it all played out I think the settlement $$ was reasonable. But he should have just gone to court to began with. The podcast noted how in Vicki's notebooks/preaching she had said government agents would come to kill them in a standoff on the mountain side. And it all ended up coming true through their actions and the actions of the gov't.

The Weaver's type of religious extremist views are still very much an issue in the area. There are multiple groups in North Idaho and NE Washington that are still around promoting their idea of having their own "white" state. Republican Matt Shea in Spokane Valley has spoken to some of those groups and some of the videos/podcasts he puts out online are as extreme as it can get. I worked in Spokane Valley for a year leading up to the election and had plenty of coworkers who supported him because he was "pro-business". They ignored his other views as extra noise. There is a Rolling Stone article on him last fall that was very good. There are some interesting regional news/blog websites that I look at occasionally and can only handle small doses.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6145 on: February 20, 2019, 07:33:02 AM »
I also listened to the "Stand off" podcast.

The involvement with the Aryan Nation--while despicable--didn't sound criminal.

The gun sales seemed like they were drummed up by the Federal agents.

Weaver's son shouldn't have shot FBI agents.

But like you I came away from the whole thing thinking of the weavers much more sympathetically.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6146 on: February 20, 2019, 08:05:24 AM »
I also listened to the "Stand off" podcast.

The involvement with the Aryan Nation--while despicable--didn't sound criminal.

The gun sales seemed like they were drummed up by the Federal agents.

Weaver's son shouldn't have shot FBI agents.

But like you I came away from the whole thing thinking of the weavers much more sympathetically.

Going back to sol's original comment, he never said anything about his examples committing crimes.

Republicans have a long history of publicly targeting individuals they don't like for "retribution", and then acting all surprised when some nut-job who spent too long in the conservative radio echo chamber decides to try to shoot that person.  Of course they always disavow people like Randy Weaver or Scott Roeder, but these guys don't magically appear out of nowhere.

I don't think Randy Weaver was the best example, but I don't think the assertion was false either. He did have extremist views. Roeder is a better example because I think you can draw a clear line between politicians and media figures labeling abortion as baby murder and someone feeling justified that killing a doctor who performs abortions is vigilante justice.

ETA: maybe it was implied that he shot someone but I read the two sentences as separate thoughts.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2019, 08:11:21 AM by Dabnasty »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9855
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6147 on: February 20, 2019, 08:10:12 AM »
The still unraveling story about the WH's attempts to transfer (sell) Nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia seems like it has legs and could be a major headache for months to come.

A brief recap:
We learned from a 24 page press release from the House Oversight Committee (chair: Elijah Cummings - MD (D)) that team Trump attempted to deliver nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia even before Trump took office.  Such a transfer normally requires congressional approval, which was neither sought nor granted.  The WH's own lawyers and the National Security Council strongly advised against it.  Such a transfer could also be a violation of federal law and international non-proliferation treaties (of which Saudi Arabia is a signatory).

But wait - it gets even more incredible... among the people pursuing this transfer included then National Security advisor Michael Flynn, who was also a paid advisor for a group called IP3 that stood to profit from such a sale.  Also allegedly in this mess?  Jared Kushner, who was trying to broker a peace-deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel during this time frame.  Also in the mud here is Trump's inaugural committee chairman, Thomas Barrack, who allegedly acted as a bridge between Saudi Arabia and Kushner.


tl;dr - the report alleges that multiple senior-level persons within the WH were trying to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia against federal law and without congressional approval and against the advice of legal council, and all stood to personally gain if such a deal were completed.


Flynn could be in even more trouble.  Kushner too.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to


Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2084
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6148 on: February 20, 2019, 09:05:53 AM »
The still unraveling story about the WH's attempts to transfer (sell) Nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia seems like it has legs and could be a major headache for months to come.

A brief recap:
We learned from a 24 page press release from the House Oversight Committee (chair: Elijah Cummings - MD (D)) that team Trump attempted to deliver nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia even before Trump took office.  Such a transfer normally requires congressional approval, which was neither sought nor granted.  The WH's own lawyers and the National Security Council strongly advised against it.  Such a transfer could also be a violation of federal law and international non-proliferation treaties (of which Saudi Arabia is a signatory).

But wait - it gets even more incredible... among the people pursuing this transfer included then National Security advisor Michael Flynn, who was also a paid advisor for a group called IP3 that stood to profit from such a sale.  Also allegedly in this mess?  Jared Kushner, who was trying to broker a peace-deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel during this time frame.  Also in the mud here is Trump's inaugural committee chairman, Thomas Barrack, who allegedly acted as a bridge between Saudi Arabia and Kushner.


tl;dr - the report alleges that multiple senior-level persons within the WH were trying to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia against federal law and without congressional approval and against the advice of legal council, and all stood to personally gain if such a deal were completed.


Flynn could be in even more trouble.  Kushner too.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to
Iran-Contra anyone, but without any glossy benefit for the USA? I'm sure MBS would put those that technology to good use. The best use. And an increasingly nuclearized middle east (or anywhere for that matter) will probably help stabilize things. A Saudi nuke probably wouldn't make Iran reactivate it's program either. /s

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2154
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6149 on: February 20, 2019, 09:11:09 AM »
I also listened to the "Stand off" podcast.

The involvement with the Aryan Nation--while despicable--didn't sound criminal.

The gun sales seemed like they were drummed up by the Federal agents.

Weaver's son shouldn't have shot FBI agents.

But like you I came away from the whole thing thinking of the weavers much more sympathetically.

Going back to sol's original comment, he never said anything about his examples committing crimes.

Republicans have a long history of publicly targeting individuals they don't like for "retribution", and then acting all surprised when some nut-job who spent too long in the conservative radio echo chamber decides to try to shoot that person.  Of course they always disavow people like Randy Weaver or Scott Roeder, but these guys don't magically appear out of nowhere.

I don't think Randy Weaver was the best example, but I don't think the assertion was false either. He did have extremist views. Roeder is a better example because I think you can draw a clear line between politicians and media figures labeling abortion as baby murder and someone feeling justified that killing a doctor who performs abortions is vigilante justice.

ETA: maybe it was implied that he shot someone but I read the two sentences as separate thoughts.

A more apropos example would be Timothy McVeigh citing his outrage over the Ruby Ridge incident as his motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing.