Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Card

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Indeed. He genuinely believes this is costing China a mint.

    Comment


      [URL]https://twitter.com/brendan_fischer/status/1129465434242191361?s=21[/URL]

      Comment


        Justin Amash of Michigan becomes the first GOP member of Congress to come out in favour of impeachment (read through for the whole thread).

        https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1129831615952236546

        Comment


          A chink, albeit slight, taken out of the traitor's armor.

          Here's hoping some fellow repukes show some spine and join...and...Nancy sees the light.

          Comment


            I view this as an outlier, and not the beginning of the dam starting to burst. Amash is wrong on most things, but he is pretty independent of the main caucus rather than representative of any wing. We'd need a couple more before you can look at it as a thing worth thinking about.

            Comment


              Agreed

              Comment


                [URL]https://twitter.com/scotthech/status/1129916124471189504?s=21[/URL]

                Comment


                  He's obviously seen Penny Mordant's idea and thought it would be great for America.

                  Comment


                    [URL]https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1130583073693868033?s=21[/URL]

                    Comment


                      What we really need right now is for a trump appointed judge to rule against him. As long as the judges are appointed by Obama (as Mehta was), trump will dismiss the rulings against him as partisan and political.

                      Comment


                        And Trump-appointed judges are 100% impartial?

                        Comment


                          Advocacy organisations, state attorney generals and other plaintiffs who sue to enjoy the Administration's actions regularly generally avoid district courts with a significant number of Trump appointees (the relevant rules give them a fairly wide choice of venues in which to bring such actions). And the way that case assignments work in the federal system mean that such cases are somewhat less likely to go to junior judges (which is what all of his are by definition).

                          Though it would only mean a slight change in his "reasoning" for rejecting such rulings. He's been slapped down by Bush and Reagan appointees on several occasions.

                          Comment


                            Ugh! The excitement coming from #Resistance circles, and from establishment Democrats, about the probably upcoming release of some Trump financials is getting very wearing.

                            The #Resistance still seems to have this bizarre fantasy that when the public find out Trump isn't as rich as he claims, and that some of his business dealings weren't 100% kosher, then all his support will suddenly vanish.

                            The establishment Dems, meanwhile, keep trying to get more and more and more info in the public domain, pretending that this might finally be the final piece with such clear evidence that Trump must be impeached. Yet they're never going to impeach - we've had more than enough info from Mueller and elsewhere that it's time. They're seem so scared of doing it, and instead keep making vague statements about getting more information. Suggesting that the Mueller redactions show all the bodies; that the Trump tax returns will show his direct debt to Russia; that the Deutsche Bank statements will show billion rouble transfers into Don Jr's accounts. They must know that this information isn't likely to be there, at least not in the clear form they're implying. And by not going for it now, they're basically saying "Everything Trump's done up to now is permissible". I fear that this is going to bite them hard on the arse when these investigations come up only with more of the same Not Absolutely Smashing You In The Face With A Baseball Bat level corruption and obstruction that they've already been unwilling to impeach on.

                            Comment


                              The #Resistance brigade are as tedious as they are deluded about the actual attitudes of many of their fellow citizens.

                              Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
                              The establishment Dems, meanwhile, keep trying to get more and more and more info in the public domain, pretending that this might finally be the final piece with such clear evidence that Trump must be impeached.
                              I don't think that that is the strategy.

                              Instead, the strategy is to tie him and his administration up in investigations to the extent that they have little time (and less political capital) to do more destructive things. If one takes your first point as a given, I don't see how a formal process called "impeachment" is going to change any of those peoples' minds either. And it certainly isn't going to change the minds of the GOP Senate majority, which has chose to tie itself to his mast.

                              Comment


                                I don't think impeachment will change anyone's minds, nor will it lead to the end of the Trump presidency because there's zero change of it having any success in the Senate.

                                But if you don't impeach for this, what do you impeach for? Unless they start explicitly saying that "Under normal circumstances we'd totally impeach and we'd like to have already started the process, but until the Senate comes to its senses we can't start", I feel that they're basically giving the administration a carte blanche for both its corruption and its blocking tactics.

                                Comment


                                  Seems to me that deciding not to impeach if a) one believes that there is zero chance of conviction, and b) that the process would not change the mind of any significant number of members of Congress and/or voters is a rather defensible position.

                                  It is for me a corollary of the basic fact that under our Constitution impeachment has always been a political process rather than some kind of apolitical "justice".

                                  As to blocking tactics, the Administration is on a Derby County in the Premier League-style losing streak in the courts, which most knowledgeable observers believe will only continue (I don't buy the "SCOTUS is in the tank because Kennedy's kid worked for Deutsche Bank" tenet of #Resistance faith, nor do many/any people whose view on SCOTUS I respect).

                                  As to corruption, all of these people have significant criminal exposure if and when there is a change at the Justice Department (and even before that, with respect to state crimes).

                                  As to an inability to enact a progressive agenda, that is entirely a function of GOP control of the Senate, and would have been the same under President Romney or Rubio (see also the reactionary judges who continue to be appointed).

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                    Seems to me that deciding not to impeach if a) one believes that there is zero chance of conviction, and b) that the process would not change the mind of any significant number of members of Congress and/or voters is a rather defensible position.
                                    It's totally defensible. Indeed, it's a position I fairly recently held.

                                    What I really wish is for the House Democrats to hammer home that impeachment isn't happening because Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have developed stockholm syndrome for Trump, not because of the electoral concerns of Nancy Pelosi.

                                    Comment


                                      Indeed

                                      But that would be a betrayal of the Democrats' tradition of forming circular firing squads whenever an occasion presents itself.

                                      My biggest fear about 2020 at the moment is that all of this infighting depresses turnout enough to let them win.

                                      Comment


                                        Comment


                                          From the WaPo, just because I found it fascinating.

                                          Comment


                                            Everyone really did like Ike didn't they.

                                            Comment


                                              Why did truman have such high unpopularity numbers?

                                              Comment


                                                He was a dick.

                                                Comment


                                                  The Korean War, and in particular firing McArthur.

                                                  Comment


                                                    But it also shows that Trump can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not fall below 35%, which was not the case with his predecessors. OTOH he's never had to be POTUS during a recession or oil crisis. A Marxist-materialist would just correlate the bumps with peaks and slumps in the world economy but note that Trump does not get the economic bump of other Presidents (he has less elasticity than anyone else).
                                                    Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 23-05-2019, 23:25.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X