Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 715126 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4200
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7300 on: June 08, 2019, 06:59:33 AM »
So I'm sitting back, another Friday night, and now this https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/07/trump-says-agreement-reached-mexico-over-migrants/1368485001/

Quote
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Friday he will not put tariffs on Mexico after all, saying it has agreed to take new measures to stop the illegal flow of migrants into the United States

At this point, I'm thinking Trump was full of crap.  But why is he wasting my time?  This was a week when important things could have been taking place but instead the world was making war rooms to deal with his nonsense - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-07/ceo-war-games-hedging-against-the-chaos-of-a-full-on-trade-war

Quote
The company now has a "virtual war room" of about 150 employees mapping out the impact of various U.S. trade policy scenarios, according to a person familiar with its strategic planning. About 50 of them, mostly supply chain and logistics experts, are based in North America. The great unknown: Will Washington’s rapid policy shifts on trade end in 2020, or carry on for another four years if Trump is re-elected?

This was all political theater from the get-go. Trump says he’s going to do something “tough,” unless Mexico stops all illegal immigration, to make his base swoon. People freak out. Mexico gives a token response that won’t likely do much. Trump announces “mission accomplished.” Base ejaculates.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3892
  • Age: 28
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7301 on: June 08, 2019, 06:32:27 PM »
Quote
Three cheers for self-regulated industry.
Anyone knows of an example where a promise of an industry to self regulate, that they weren't going to do anyway, did actually happen?
The MPAA and ESRB come to mind.  Plenty of issues with the MPAA but I don't think anyone really bitches about the ESRB.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant though.

meghan88

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Location: Ontario
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7302 on: June 09, 2019, 02:03:53 PM »
Quote
Three cheers for self-regulated industry.
Anyone knows of an example where a promise of an industry to self regulate, that they weren't going to do anyway, did actually happen?
The MPAA and ESRB come to mind.  Plenty of issues with the MPAA but I don't think anyone really bitches about the ESRB.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant though.

Players in an industry might self-regulate if they can get good press and social capital out of it.  If it can be monetized, sure.  If it can't, then forget about self-regulation by corporations.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7303 on: June 09, 2019, 08:45:10 PM »
Quote
Three cheers for self-regulated industry.
Anyone knows of an example where a promise of an industry to self regulate, that they weren't going to do anyway, did actually happen?
The MPAA and ESRB come to mind.  Plenty of issues with the MPAA but I don't think anyone really bitches about the ESRB.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant though.

Players in an industry might self-regulate if they can get good press and social capital out of it.  If it can be monetized, sure.  If it can't, then forget about self-regulation by corporations.

The problem is that if they fail to maximize profits at the expense of all other considerations the executives are vulnerable to lawsuits by shareholders.  The only way they can do anything like 'self regulate' is if they can make the case that it is more profitable to do so than it is to just focus on profits by any means possible.

We created this system of corporate law that feeds back on itself.  The solution isn't in resenting corporations (legal persons) for doing that which we have created them to do.  The solution is to figure out a way to redefine what they are supposed to do,  Otherwise it is all just ranting at clouds.

Of course, their profits are maximized if they undermine democratic systems and create monopolies wherever they can. 

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1306
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7304 on: June 10, 2019, 01:54:56 AM »
Quote
Three cheers for self-regulated industry.
Anyone knows of an example where a promise of an industry to self regulate, that they weren't going to do anyway, did actually happen?
The MPAA and ESRB come to mind.  Plenty of issues with the MPAA but I don't think anyone really bitches about the ESRB.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant though.

Players in an industry might self-regulate if they can get good press and social capital out of it.  If it can be monetized, sure.  If it can't, then forget about self-regulation by corporations.

I don't know any details about this, but I guess it was either to prevent legislation (A school shooter played a video game, so people cried for regulation) or it would have cost them to not to that (parents complaining and saying they won't buy of there is no rating).
Anyway it really is not what I meant, I meant something that directly cost the industry money.



Quote
The problem is that if they fail to maximize profits at the expense of all other considerations the executives are vulnerable to lawsuits by shareholders.  The only way they can do anything like 'self regulate' is if they can make the case that it is more profitable to do so than it is to just focus on profits by any means possible.

We created this system of corporate law that feeds back on itself.  The solution isn't in resenting corporations (legal persons) for doing that which we have created them to do.  The solution is to figure out a way to redefine what they are supposed to do,  Otherwise it is all just ranting at clouds.

Of course, their profits are maximized if they undermine democratic systems and create monopolies wherever they can. 
I fully agree with this "communistic" analysis.
I always say the problem is the step from the stakeholder (everyone who is influenced) model to the shareholder (everyone who put money in) model.
In the "good ol' times" you could not do that, because the people who were affected by your actions knew you by name and could just walk to you to complain with their fists. (Of course reality wasn't that easy, but you get what I mean.)
Today you don't even know where the factory stands that produces the stuff you buy, and the only option you have to influence is to not buy, and instead buy from someone else you have no information about too.

The last point is btw. the reason "the consumer has to decide" is never working and the favorite approach of industries to regulations. The free market illusion which, even if the theory was 100% right, cannot work in reality since nobody has all the information, not to speak about Average Joe.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7305 on: June 10, 2019, 11:24:11 PM »
The problem is that if they fail to maximize profits at the expense of all other considerations the executives are vulnerable to lawsuits by shareholders. 
I would think that a sensible shareholder and/or court would recognise the idea of short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. This is why, for example, we send our children to school rather than making them get a job the moment they're legally permitted to work. There are things a company can do which are legal but not moral, and therefore will hurt their brand image, etc. That's why defamation is an actionable affair; if something you say hurts a company's reputation, it ultimately hurts its profits. So if a company hurts its own reputation...?

Planning for the long-term is very unAustralian and unAmerican, I know, but there it is.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7306 on: June 11, 2019, 06:48:35 AM »
Quote
Three cheers for self-regulated industry.
Anyone knows of an example where a promise of an industry to self regulate, that they weren't going to do anyway, did actually happen?
The MPAA and ESRB come to mind.  Plenty of issues with the MPAA but I don't think anyone really bitches about the ESRB.

Maybe this isn't quite what you meant though.

Players in an industry might self-regulate if they can get good press and social capital out of it.  If it can be monetized, sure.  If it can't, then forget about self-regulation by corporations.

The problem is that if they fail to maximize profits at the expense of all other considerations the executives are vulnerable to lawsuits by shareholders.  The only way they can do anything like 'self regulate' is if they can make the case that it is more profitable to do so than it is to just focus on profits by any means possible.

We created this system of corporate law that feeds back on itself.  The solution isn't in resenting corporations (legal persons) for doing that which we have created them to do.  The solution is to figure out a way to redefine what they are supposed to do,  Otherwise it is all just ranting at clouds.

Of course, their profits are maximized if they undermine democratic systems and create monopolies wherever they can.

What do you think of Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act, which is designed to change the law so that corporations are able to act socially responsible without incurring liability?

Here's an in-depth explanation: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations

Here's a critique: https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2019/02/05/senator-warrens-accountable-capitalism-bill-has-big-problems/#188b6190471b

"The Accountable Capitalism Act — real citizenship for corporate persons

The conceit tying together Warren’s ideas is that if corporations are going to have the legal rights of persons, they should be expected to act like decent citizens who uphold their fair share of the social contract and not act like sociopaths whose sole obligation is profitability — as is currently conventional in American business thinking."
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 10:15:25 AM by Poundwise »

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7307 on: June 11, 2019, 07:13:12 AM »
His critique is solid but his last paragraph ruins it. Policy proposals aren't loophole free. You have to have help in committee and with the public to iron out and improve the proposals together. He's pretending as though these things are take it or leave it as is.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7308 on: June 11, 2019, 07:20:23 AM »
Indeed I would like the kind of committee process you're describing. The Affordable Care Act went through that.

When Republicans had unified control of government, they opted to not do that for either the American Health Care Act or for TCJA. So--assuming Democrats ever gain control again--why should they allow their agenda to be slowed down by letting committee hearings and markup happen?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13641
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7309 on: June 11, 2019, 08:05:23 AM »
Indeed I would like the kind of committee process you're describing. The Affordable Care Act went through that.

When Republicans had unified control of government, they opted to not do that for either the American Health Care Act or for TCJA. So--assuming Democrats ever gain control again--why should they allow their agenda to be slowed down by letting committee hearings and markup happen?

Just because Republicans are assholes doesn't mean that everyone else should stoop to their level.  It's painful sometimes to always have to take the higher road, but I feel like long term popular support in America is likely to continue to favor the Democrats as they show that they are the more reasonable group of people to elect.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7310 on: June 11, 2019, 09:20:21 AM »
The Democrats were granted a window with unified government control in 2008.

They went through that long process with Affordable Care Act, and the result was that they lost 700 seats in state legislatures in 2010, along with gerrymandered districts and (possibly) a right-ward biased census for years to come.

These windows are brief, and we're seeing the GOP make the most of theirs.


FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7311 on: June 11, 2019, 11:49:04 AM »
The Democrats were granted a window with unified government control in 2008.

They went through that long process with Affordable Care Act, and the result was that they lost 700 seats in state legislatures in 2010, along with gerrymandered districts and (possibly) a right-ward biased census for years to come.

These windows are brief, and we're seeing the GOP make the most of theirs.

Not always. It's only been swinging a lot recently. Dems used to more or less own the House. They had a 60 stretch from 1930-1996 with the exception of two elections. The GOP has really been eroding our system to entrench their power. Dems will need to fight back with something like forced multi-district congressional races if they want to destroy gerrymandering.

I'm not sure I know of anyone who doesn't read Trump's presidency and this past election as a death knell for the GOP. Their electorate are old.  They make up a fewer and fewer percentage of people. Michigan for example that Trump won by 10k votes. Michigan has 100k people die each year. The electorate of Michigan will have not only changed by 500k, but will largely be a replacement of the old with the new. After Trump, I do think the GOP will try to pretend like it never happened. They know there won't be another Trump. There will be people who try. But beyond a few states like Wisconsin that continue to completely hate democracy on their state level, nationally, it looks like there will be a strong 10-15 year wind for Dems going forward to me.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7312 on: June 11, 2019, 12:07:48 PM »
I thought Trump would kill the GOP.

But the GOP--faced with open water--have treated their priorities of cutting taxes and appointing Federalist judges with extreme urgency.

And more than half of states still have unified GOP control. As long as they elect Republican Senators, the GOP is part of the national conversation and negotiations for years to come, even if they lose the WH.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7313 on: June 11, 2019, 12:31:33 PM »
I thought Trump would kill the GOP.

But the GOP--faced with open water--have treated their priorities of cutting taxes and appointing Federalist judges with extreme urgency.

And more than half of states still have unified GOP control. As long as they elect Republican Senators, the GOP is part of the national conversation and negotiations for years to come, even if they lose the WH.

I agree. It seems like the Dems have all but given up on ever taking a majority in the Senate anytime soon. As far as our democratic bodies go, dems seem to have the long-term upper hand.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7314 on: June 11, 2019, 02:57:14 PM »
The Democrats were granted a window with unified government control in 2008.

They went through that long process with Affordable Care Act, and the result was that they lost 700 seats in state legislatures in 2010, along with gerrymandered districts and (possibly) a right-ward biased census for years to come.

These windows are brief, and we're seeing the GOP make the most of theirs.

I'm not sure I know of anyone who doesn't read Trump's presidency and this past election as a death knell for the GOP. Their electorate are old.  They make up a fewer and fewer percentage of people. Michigan for example that Trump won by 10k votes. Michigan has 100k people die each year. The electorate of Michigan will have not only changed by 500k, but will largely be a replacement of the old with the new. After Trump, I do think the GOP will try to pretend like it never happened. They know there won't be another Trump. There will be people who try. But beyond a few states like Wisconsin that continue to completely hate democracy on their state level, nationally, it looks like there will be a strong 10-15 year wind for Dems going forward to me.

Michigan also had a major blue wave in 2018: Democrat women won the races for Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Multiple red congressional districts turned blue, and existing blue districts remained blue. All three liberal ballot proposals (voter service/access reform, anti-gerrymandering, and legalized recreational marijuana) passed with significant margins. The GOP would be stupid to assume that those 10,000 votes are safe in 2020.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2013
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7315 on: June 12, 2019, 07:36:58 PM »
Unfortunately Michigan still has a Republican controlled State Senate and House thanks to the gerrymandering of the past.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7316 on: June 12, 2019, 08:09:58 PM »
Unfortunately Michigan still has a Republican controlled State Senate and House thanks to the gerrymandering of the past.

Yes but with just the governor in power, he can veto any attempt to undo voter referendums. Signs are much better for Michigan than they are for Florida or Wisconsin.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7317 on: June 12, 2019, 08:23:58 PM »
I thought Trump would kill the GOP.

But the GOP--faced with open water--have treated their priorities of cutting taxes and appointing Federalist judges with extreme urgency.

And more than half of states still have unified GOP control. As long as they elect Republican Senators, the GOP is part of the national conversation and negotiations for years to come, even if they lose the WH.


I agree. It seems like the Dems have all but given up on ever taking a majority in the Senate anytime soon. As far as our democratic bodies go, dems seem to have the long-term upper hand.

People have been predicting the death of the Repubs for decades now, due to population turnover. What is forgotten in these predictions is that parties adapt. Our system encourages a two-party government, and when one falls behind it has to change to offer something. I grew up with near-total dominance of the Dems nationally. People younger than me may see the Repubs gerrymandering as something new, but I remember when the Dems were doing the same.
If the Repubs fall behind, they will just change the party goals to offer whatever it is the Dems are not offering that people want.
Repubs control the states now because Dems lost sight of the people. Someday it will swing the other way. My personal prediction is that this won't happen any time soon. The national Democratic Party is too extreme and out of touch to be very attractive to a large chunk of voters. The whole Trump-Russia hoax is proof enough of that.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 09:34:16 PM by Tom Bri »

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7318 on: June 12, 2019, 09:14:40 PM »
@Tom Bri you may want to edit your comment. You stuck your comment in a quote as though it came from me.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7319 on: June 12, 2019, 09:32:00 PM »
@Tom Bri you may want to edit your comment. You stuck your comment in a quote as though it came from me.

Wow. Sorry! Will do.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4287
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7320 on: June 13, 2019, 01:48:00 AM »
Interviewer:But should [Don Jr] have gone to the FBI when he got that email?

President Trump: OK, let's put yourself in a position, you're a congressman, somebody comes up and says "Hey, I have information on your opponent", do you call the FBI? I don't think -

Interviewer:But if it was coming from Russia you do -

President Trump: I tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life, I don't think in my whole life that I've ever called the FBI.  In my whole life. I don't, you don't call the FBI, you throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you -

Interviewer: But I've got a stolen briefing book, you call the FBI.

President Trump: Well that's different, a stolen briefing book. This isn't a stolen briefing book, this is somebody that said "we have information on your opponent".  "Oh, let me call the FBI." Give me a break. Life doesn't work that -

Interviewer: The FBI Director says that's what should happen.
 
President Trump: The FBI Director is wrong.

Interviewer: Your campaign this time around: if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

President Trump: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don't - there's anything wrong with listening.  If somebody called, from a country, Norway, we have information on your opponent, oh, I think I'd want to hear it.

Interviewer: You want that kind of interference in our election?

President Trump: It's not an interference, they have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong I'd go maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10360
  • 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 #7321 on: June 13, 2019, 05:19:25 AM »
Interviewer:But should [Don Jr] have gone to the FBI when he got that email?

President Trump: OK, let's put yourself in a position, you're a congressman, somebody comes up and says "Hey, I have information on your opponent", do you call the FBI? I don't think -

Interviewer:But if it was coming from Russia you do -

President Trump: I tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life, I don't think in my whole life that I've ever called the FBI.  In my whole life. I don't, you don't call the FBI, you throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you -

Interviewer: But I've got a stolen briefing book, you call the FBI.

President Trump: Well that's different, a stolen briefing book. This isn't a stolen briefing book, this is somebody that said "we have information on your opponent".  "Oh, let me call the FBI." Give me a break. Life doesn't work that -

Interviewer: The FBI Director says that's what should happen.
 
President Trump: The FBI Director is wrong.

Interviewer: Your campaign this time around: if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

President Trump: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don't - there's anything wrong with listening.  If somebody called, from a country, Norway, we have information on your opponent, oh, I think I'd want to hear it.

Interviewer: You want that kind of interference in our election?

President Trump: It's not an interference, they have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong I'd go maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.

Is the above transcript from an actual interview?
Either way Trump and many in his campaign have seemed unable to acknowledge that when you break the law that's a criminal activity. Cognitive dissonance at work.  I watched Guliani try to argue that even if members of the Trump campaign had lied to congress (Don Jr) or the special council "it doesn't matter" because they had not proven an underlying crime.
Um, no.  Lying under oath is perjury, which is a criminal offense punishable by incarceration, regardless of whether there's an underlying reason (crime) beneath those lies.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7322 on: June 13, 2019, 05:28:31 AM »
His mentality is cheat, lie, scam, scream, call people dispicable names, claw his way, step on people's faces, scream fire in a theater, thinks he is a reality tv star, tweets stupd stuff and thinks it is normal, wants loyalty but gives none in return, and will do whatever it takes to get to the top legally or illegally.

When I see past news clips of other presidents including Obama, it is a breath of fresh air to hear a gentleman speak eloquently and mindfully of subject matter. To have a vocabulary of more than 4 phrases grunted by our current president is refreshing. To listen to a speach that gives us hope and and not fear is what we need to hear.


talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7323 on: June 13, 2019, 07:33:29 AM »
Interviewer:But should [Don Jr] have gone to the FBI when he got that email?

President Trump: OK, let's put yourself in a position, you're a congressman, somebody comes up and says "Hey, I have information on your opponent", do you call the FBI? I don't think -

Interviewer:But if it was coming from Russia you do -

President Trump: I tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life, I don't think in my whole life that I've ever called the FBI.  In my whole life. I don't, you don't call the FBI, you throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you -

Interviewer: But I've got a stolen briefing book, you call the FBI.

President Trump: Well that's different, a stolen briefing book. This isn't a stolen briefing book, this is somebody that said "we have information on your opponent".  "Oh, let me call the FBI." Give me a break. Life doesn't work that -

Interviewer: The FBI Director says that's what should happen.
 
President Trump: The FBI Director is wrong.

Interviewer: Your campaign this time around: if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

President Trump: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don't - there's anything wrong with listening.  If somebody called, from a country, Norway, we have information on your opponent, oh, I think I'd want to hear it.

Interviewer: You want that kind of interference in our election?

President Trump: It's not an interference, they have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong I'd go maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.

I searched high and low on conservative media to find any acknowledgment of this, and--aside from Brian Kilmeade calling for a "clarification"--there was nothing.

Meanwhile, Liberals (and some Republicans of conscience) are freaking out. It's like two separate planets exist.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13641
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7324 on: June 13, 2019, 07:40:43 AM »
I thought Trump would kill the GOP.

But the GOP--faced with open water--have treated their priorities of cutting taxes and appointing Federalist judges with extreme urgency.

And more than half of states still have unified GOP control. As long as they elect Republican Senators, the GOP is part of the national conversation and negotiations for years to come, even if they lose the WH.


I agree. It seems like the Dems have all but given up on ever taking a majority in the Senate anytime soon. As far as our democratic bodies go, dems seem to have the long-term upper hand.

People have been predicting the death of the Repubs for decades now, due to population turnover. What is forgotten in these predictions is that parties adapt. Our system encourages a two-party government, and when one falls behind it has to change to offer something. I grew up with near-total dominance of the Dems nationally. People younger than me may see the Repubs gerrymandering as something new, but I remember when the Dems were doing the same.
If the Repubs fall behind, they will just change the party goals to offer whatever it is the Dems are not offering that people want.
Repubs control the states now because Dems lost sight of the people. Someday it will swing the other way. My personal prediction is that this won't happen any time soon. The national Democratic Party is too extreme and out of touch to be very attractive to a large chunk of voters. The whole Trump-Russia hoax is proof enough of that.

You mean the 'hoax' where the FBI found evidence that multiple key members of the Trump campaign contacted Russian nationals on more than 100 times, where Russia was proven to have interfered with the election, where the president was shown to have obstructed justice on 11 occasions, and where 37 people (including 13 Russian nationals) were indicted?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10360
  • 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 #7325 on: June 13, 2019, 07:51:47 AM »
I searched high and low on conservative media to find any acknowledgment of this, and--aside from Brian Kilmeade calling for a "clarification"--there was nothing.

Meanwhile, Liberals (and some Republicans of conscience) are freaking out. It's like two separate planets exist.
IMO too many people are willing to let short-term gains justify actions that otherwise they'd find objectionable, but none of these sycophants seem to think too far ahead and wonder what will happen when a future president from the other side takes advantage of the precedent set right now. 

It's not just limited to this administration either, though I think DJT has taken it way further and into territory that's deeply morally flawed.  For example, I think too few Dems objected to Reed exercising the 'nuclear option' that later allowed McConnell to pocket-veto Garland and appoint Cavanaugh with the barest of majority votes. 'W' used 9-11 to push the boundaries of EOs, which Obama then used to circumvent a gridlocked congress, and now DJT is taking it a step further, re-appropriating funds to his own projects (e.g. 'the wall') and declaring anything a 'national emergency' (Canada??) to exert power over commerce and immigration (both inherently in the domain of the legislature, not the executive branch).

At some point (be it 2020 or 2024 or whenever) Dems will regain the WH, at which point there will be few barriers on the presidency regardless of who controls congress, unless the current congress steps up and exerts its constitutional power. It may be in the GOPs short-term interests to remain docile now, but it will be in their long-term interests (not to mention the country's best interests) to curtail this ratcheting-up of executive power now.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 07:56:04 AM by nereo »

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7326 on: June 13, 2019, 07:53:42 AM »
Interviewer:But should [Don Jr] have gone to the FBI when he got that email?

President Trump: OK, let's put yourself in a position, you're a congressman, somebody comes up and says "Hey, I have information on your opponent", do you call the FBI? I don't think -

Interviewer:But if it was coming from Russia you do -

President Trump: I tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life, I don't think in my whole life that I've ever called the FBI.  In my whole life. I don't, you don't call the FBI, you throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you -

Interviewer: But I've got a stolen briefing book, you call the FBI.

President Trump: Well that's different, a stolen briefing book. This isn't a stolen briefing book, this is somebody that said "we have information on your opponent".  "Oh, let me call the FBI." Give me a break. Life doesn't work that -

Interviewer: The FBI Director says that's what should happen.
 
President Trump: The FBI Director is wrong.

Interviewer: Your campaign this time around: if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on an opponent, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

President Trump: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don't - there's anything wrong with listening.  If somebody called, from a country, Norway, we have information on your opponent, oh, I think I'd want to hear it.

Interviewer: You want that kind of interference in our election?

President Trump: It's not an interference, they have information. I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong I'd go maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.

Is the above transcript from an actual interview?
Either way Trump and many in his campaign have seemed unable to acknowledge that when you break the law that's a criminal activity. Cognitive dissonance at work.  I watched Guliani try to argue that even if members of the Trump campaign had lied to congress (Don Jr) or the special council "it doesn't matter" because they had not proven an underlying crime.
Um, no.  Lying under oath is perjury, which is a criminal offense punishable by incarceration, regardless of whether there's an underlying reason (crime) beneath those lies.

According to this, it was George Stephanopoulos interviewing Trump for ABC.

'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7327 on: June 13, 2019, 09:53:53 AM »
BWAHHH, hilarious...Trump referred to the Prince of Wales as the Prince of WHALES!

Hahahahahahaha! Very stable genius indeed!

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mistakenly-refers-to-the-prince-of-whales-internet-pounces-2019-6


Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7328 on: June 13, 2019, 09:59:03 AM »
BWAHHH, hilarious...Trump referred to the Prince of Wales as the Prince of WHALES!

Hahahahahahaha! Very stable genius indeed!

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mistakenly-refers-to-the-prince-of-whales-internet-pounces-2019-6

The memes are coming... I can feel it

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7329 on: June 13, 2019, 10:44:37 AM »

[/quote]

People have been predicting the death of the Repubs for decades now, due to population turnover. What is forgotten in these predictions is that parties adapt. Our system encourages a two-party government, and when one falls behind it has to change to offer something. I grew up with near-total dominance of the Dems nationally. People younger than me may see the Repubs gerrymandering as something new, but I remember when the Dems were doing the same.
If the Repubs fall behind, they will just change the party goals to offer whatever it is the Dems are not offering that people want.
Repubs control the states now because Dems lost sight of the people. Someday it will swing the other way. My personal prediction is that this won't happen any time soon. The national Democratic Party is too extreme and out of touch to be very attractive to a large chunk of voters. The whole Trump-Russia hoax is proof enough of that.
[/quote]

You mean the 'hoax' where the FBI found evidence that multiple key members of the Trump campaign contacted Russian nationals on more than 100 times, where Russia was proven to have interfered with the election, where the president was shown to have obstructed justice on 11 occasions, and where 37 people (including 13 Russian nationals) were indicted?
[/quote]

Hi GuitarSteve. I read the report end to end. No collusion with the Russians. Possible obstruction. But no collusion. He didn't do the crime, according to the two year investigation. To the point that when he won, the Russian Gov had no way to contact him! They (the Russians) thought he had so little chance of winning that they didn't even bother to get his phone number, that's how little contact there was. I get that you don't like Trump, and possibly Repubs in general. Plenty of good reasons for both positions, but this is, sorry, simply avoiding the facts as evidenced by the report.

How do you feel about the Hil campaign paying foreigners to contact Russian gov officials to dig up dirt on her opponent? Was this also collusion with Russians? Should she be indicted?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4287
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7330 on: June 13, 2019, 11:08:33 AM »
How do you feel about the Hil campaign paying foreigners to contact Russian gov officials to dig up dirt on her opponent? Was this also collusion with Russians? Should she be indicted?
Is that a reference to the dossier? The one that was first paid for by a Republican rival to Trump?  The one that was paid for through a commercial transaction?  The one that was compiled by a former operative of one of the "5 eyes" intelligence co-operative involving the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?  Do you not see how that was different from the Trump campaign soliciting free help from the Russian government?  How it was not putting Hillary at the mercy of a hostile foreign government, or in danger of illegally accepting foreign campaign contributions?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13641
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7331 on: June 13, 2019, 11:19:16 AM »
Could you quote the lines of the report where you read Mueller saying that there was 'no collusion'?

It would be strange for that conclusion to be drawn after writing in the report "[collusion] is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law." . . . when it discussed explicitly why collusion was not investigated by Mueller or his team.  But you should already know that having read the whole thing.


Of course, if it is proven that Hilary Clinton's campaign courted Russian officials to influence the election in her favour she should be in serious legal trouble and be forced to face the full consequences of her actions.  What's right doesn't change because of party affiliation.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7332 on: June 13, 2019, 11:25:27 AM »
Don't forget that Trump recently admitted that Russia helped him in 2016, and just this week admitted he would accept their help or the help of any other foreign government, agent, or entity in 2020. Ignore the trolls like Tom Bri , they're just interested in the attention more than anything like truth or justice.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10360
  • 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 #7333 on: June 13, 2019, 01:25:48 PM »
Hi GuitarSteve. I read the report end to end. No collusion with the Russians. Possible obstruction. But no collusion. He didn't do the crime, according to the two year investigation. To the point that when he won, the Russian Gov had no way to contact him! They (the Russians) thought he had so little chance of winning that they didn't even bother to get his phone number, that's how little contact there was. I get that you don't like Trump, and possibly Repubs in general. Plenty of good reasons for both positions, but this is, sorry, simply avoiding the facts as evidenced by the report.

How do you feel about the Hil campaign paying foreigners to contact Russian gov officials to dig up dirt on her opponent? Was this also collusion with Russians? Should she be indicted?

Let's start with the obvious - obstruction IS a crime, and one that's punishable by lengthy prison sentences.  Both in his report and in most recent public statement Mueller stressed that this was no an exoneration of Trump.  If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

Mueller then went on to ennumerate 10 separate acts which could constitute obstruction (again, a crime), though he explicitly noted that under longstanding DOJ guidelines he could not indict a sitting president.  He emphasized
"[Under the regulations of the DOJ] a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. (emphasis added).




caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7334 on: June 13, 2019, 02:57:17 PM »
Hi GuitarSteve. I read the report end to end. No collusion with the Russians. Possible obstruction. But no collusion. He didn't do the crime, according to the two year investigation. To the point that when he won, the Russian Gov had no way to contact him! They (the Russians) thought he had so little chance of winning that they didn't even bother to get his phone number, that's how little contact there was. I get that you don't like Trump, and possibly Repubs in general. Plenty of good reasons for both positions, but this is, sorry, simply avoiding the facts as evidenced by the report.

How do you feel about the Hil campaign paying foreigners to contact Russian gov officials to dig up dirt on her opponent? Was this also collusion with Russians? Should she be indicted?

Let's start with the obvious - obstruction IS a crime, and one that's punishable by lengthy prison sentences.  Both in his report and in most recent public statement Mueller stressed that this was no an exoneration of Trump.  If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.

Mueller then went on to ennumerate 10 separate acts which could constitute obstruction (again, a crime), though he explicitly noted that under longstanding DOJ guidelines he could not indict a sitting president.  He emphasized
"[Under the regulations of the DOJ] a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. (emphasis added).
Or taking the argument to it's logical conclusion. "If Donald Trump were not the President in that case we would explore the option of charging him with a crime."  Before all the Trumpeters start tooting, I understand that does not mean they would find enough to charge him.  However, using logic again, "if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." taken together as a logical train of thought with the above means it would have certainly been explored intently.  It was not, because they could not do anything, so they clearly avoided wasting taxpayers money on that front, which is excellent. They did not explore hypotheticals, and that is what leaves the Trumpeters their supposed gap, that is only a gap if you do not know how to think logically.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 02:59:32 PM by caracarn »

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1361
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7335 on: June 13, 2019, 05:25:08 PM »
I don't understand this very well.      First Trump says he did not collude with the Russians to get information for his 2016 campaign.

But yesterday Trump said:

Quote
“I think you might want to listen; there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump said. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘We have information on your opponent,’ oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

When Stephanopoulos asked the president whether he’d want that kind of “interference” in American politics, Trump pushed back on the word.

“It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.”

Is it acceptable for American election campaigns to receive assistance from foreign governments or not?


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10360
  • 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 #7336 on: June 13, 2019, 05:59:57 PM »
No, it is against the law. That is why DJT’s statements to Stephanopoulous made headlines in many media outlets - he outright said that he would break the law if presented with a new opportunity, and he does not seem to think there is anything wrong with doing so.

EDIT:  The Federal Election Commission chairwoman, Ellen Weintraub, released this statement yesterday in case there is any doubt about the illegality of accepting help from foreigners in a US election:
"Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office. It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept... Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation."
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 09:25:22 AM by nereo »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13641
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7337 on: June 13, 2019, 06:34:16 PM »
No, it is against the law. That is why DJT’s statements to Stephanopoulous made headlines in many media outlets - he outright said that he would break the law if presented with a new opportunity, and he does not seem to think there is anything wrong with doing so.

Yeah, but . . . why would Trump think it was bad?  It's what his campaign did in the last election . . . with no consequences.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10360
  • 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 #7338 on: June 14, 2019, 05:13:41 AM »
No, it is against the law. That is why DJT’s statements to Stephanopoulous made headlines in many media outlets - he outright said that he would break the law if presented with a new opportunity, and he does not seem to think there is anything wrong with doing so.

Yeah, but . . . why would Trump think it was bad?  It's what his campaign did in the last election . . . with no consequences.

Right, he doesn't seem to think it's a big deal - instead he tells people you'd be an idiot not to do it.  You can see something similar with his responses to Conway's repeated violations of the Hatch act (shrug) or numerous cabinet members enriching themselves through their jobs (doing a heck of a job!) or lying to the FBI & pleading guilty ('i hope you can let this go' / Flynn's a good man). 


MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2114
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7339 on: June 14, 2019, 06:32:50 AM »
No, it is against the law. That is why DJT’s statements to Stephanopoulous made headlines in many media outlets - he outright said that he would break the law if presented with a new opportunity, and he does not seem to think there is anything wrong with doing so.

Yeah, but . . . why would Trump think it was bad?  It's what his campaign did in the last election . . . with no consequences.

He doesn't think it's bad. Repeated violations of the law are now a feature, not a bug. Folks continue to get rewarded and not punished. 

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2326
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7340 on: June 14, 2019, 08:42:32 AM »
It is only okay if he cheats, lies and scams. If he finds someone else running against him doing the same, that person would be the worst person on earth according to Trump.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7341 on: June 15, 2019, 05:38:14 PM »
Classic Trumpism today:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1139891393252474880?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Quote
The Trump Economy is setting records, and has a long way up to go....However, if anyone but me takes over in 2020 (I know the competition very well), there will be a Market Crash the likes of which has not been seen before! KEEP AMERICA GREAT

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7342 on: June 15, 2019, 11:56:13 PM »
This is hopefully far fetched, but it keeps me up at night knowing we have a bully-lead government just itching to use all the new tech available to it (https://youtu.be/_qXOsONiLm0), especially Pompeo and Bolton.

On the flip side, you have US allies that really don't want another Iraq, so support for attacking Iran is pretty thin.  And yet here we are, selectively lending an ear to Saudi Arabia...  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48648788

And of course, Trump says "he doesn't want to have to" go to war with Iran, which is his usual preemptive tactic of blaming the victim for coming actions.   I hope the pattern doesn't play out, but Trump is so far in over his head these days, who knows.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7343 on: June 16, 2019, 12:23:25 AM »
I'm also very confused after reading the NYTimes article about US cyber attacks, to see Trump tweeting that this is treason?
Quote
Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia. This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country.....

.....ALSO, NOT TRUE! Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!

Uh, Mr. President, did you not know the government is launching cyber attacks?  The reporting cites sources, interviews, and quotes.  Unlike a Tweeted response.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4200
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7344 on: June 16, 2019, 06:15:46 AM »
This is hopefully far fetched, but it keeps me up at night knowing we have a bully-lead government just itching to use all the new tech available to it (https://youtu.be/_qXOsONiLm0), especially Pompeo and Bolton.

On the flip side, you have US allies that really don't want another Iraq, so support for attacking Iran is pretty thin.  And yet here we are, selectively lending an ear to Saudi Arabia...  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48648788

And of course, Trump says "he doesn't want to have to" go to war with Iran, which is his usual preemptive tactic of blaming the victim for coming actions.   I hope the pattern doesn't play out, but Trump is so far in over his head these days, who knows.

I worry about this, too. And of course, Trump has spent the past 2 1/2 years alienating our allies. Their lack of support for war with Iran probably means little to him. And we have a GOP that enables him and seems unable to stand up to him. This is a dangerous moment.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10360
  • 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 #7345 on: June 16, 2019, 01:25:14 PM »
On the positive side (I guess) - reports are filtering in that DJT is growing tired of John Bolton's war mongering and doesn't want open conflict with Iran.  Makes me wonder why he'd appoint someone who's openly supported military conflict with Iran for more than a decade.

It doesn't look like we'd have a 'broad coalition' of allies to support us with Iran, as Trump basically overturned the apple cart that was the Iranian nuclear deal but the allies stayed behind and have worked with Iran to put the apples back in the cart.

Is this metaphor getting too strained?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8492
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7346 on: June 16, 2019, 02:21:24 PM »
On the positive side (I guess) - reports are filtering in that DJT is growing tired of John Bolton's war mongering and doesn't want open conflict with Iran.

I wouldn't give those reports too much credence.  Trump has a long history of creating buzz about how he doesn't want to do something unpopular, right before he does that unpopular thing.  It's just a way of giving himself political cover for things he knows won't go over well.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7347 on: June 16, 2019, 04:19:02 PM »

Is it acceptable for American election campaigns to receive assistance from foreign governments or not?

The answer depends upon the nature and value of the assistance.

Suppose that A is  an agent of a foreign government.

 A told  presidential candidate B that their opponent C had an affair that resulted in C secretly arranging and paying for an abortion in A's country.

B understands that this information is valuable  because revealing it will
irreparably damage C's candidacy.

B directs campaign  underlings to reveal that C arranged and paid for the abortion.

B wins election.

Post-election polling shows that revelation of the abortion caused C's defeat.

There is no doubt that the information was highly valuable  to B.

Did B violate FEC law by accepting A's valuable information and revealing    C's involvement with his mistress' abortion?

No.





Suppose A wants B to win the presidency.

A comes to America to visit B.

A gives B  a suitcase  containing $100,000 to help B finance their campaign.

B accepts  A's valuable campaign contribution.

Did B violate FEC law by accepting  it?

Yes.


« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 04:27:55 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13641
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7348 on: June 16, 2019, 04:34:12 PM »
What if A wants B to win the presidency, holds many meetings with members of B's campaign, gives information to B about opponents, arranges for the release of documents that damage B's opponents, then starts a sophisticated (and expensive) campaign of misinformation on behalf of B involving a great many foreign intelligence agents?  And then B makes regular special concessions to A's country as a quid pro quo pay back?

As we've found out, not only is that completely fine but the Republican Party fully endorses this foreign influence.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #7349 on: June 16, 2019, 05:05:45 PM »
What if A wants B to win the presidency, holds many meetings with members of B's campaign, gives information to B about opponents, arranges for the release of documents that damage B's opponents, then starts a sophisticated (and expensive) campaign of misinformation on behalf of B involving a great many foreign intelligence agents?  And then B makes regular special concessions to A's country as a quid pro quo pay back?



B would argue that neither they nor anyone associated with their campaign  accepted any money directly  from A and that the "special concessions" were nothing more than B's exercise of  their constitutional power to conduct foreign policy.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 05:09:32 PM by John Galt incarnate! »