President-Elect Donald Trump: The Thread

[caulfield12]

Draft dodging, orangutan man kicked off MLK weekend by attacking civil rights hero John Lewis on Twitter.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-...m=.6f72cd0b182a

 

And this also happened.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/changing-nationa...-160343558.html

And this...DC National Guard leader to be replaced in the middle of Inauguration Day. Petty.

 

 

I'm going to bet none of those representatives fighting to remove youth paintings or Trump will take the time out of their busy schedules to watch Hidden Figures with their families, though. Not even on MLK weekend.

Edited January 15, 2017 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

Draft dodging, orangutan man kicked off MLK weekend by attacking civil rights hero John Lewis on Twitter.

So he should just sit there and let a political hack who was famous 50 years ago belittle him and the Presidency? Get over it already. Lewis hasn't done anything since then, how long you gonna ride that?

[pettie4sox]

So he should just sit there and let a political hack who was famous 50 years ago belittle him and the Presidency? Get over it already. Lewis hasn't done anything since then, how long you gonna ride that?

 

At some point, Trump's twitter will have to be disabled. It's pretty comical how thin skinned the guy, but if some world leaders start goading him, that's when issues could arise.

[Kyyle23]

So he should just sit there and let a political hack who was famous 50 years ago belittle him and the Presidency? Get over it already. Lewis hasn't done anything since then, how long you gonna ride that?

 

 

If Trump can question the presidency as much as he has, he should be able to turn the other cheek when it comes his way. Should McCain get over it when Trump questions his military service? Dude was a draft dodger. You are better than this Alpha, this is not ok. Nobody on either side of the aisle should "get over" the things being said and done right now

 

[BigSqwert]

So he should just sit there and let a political hack who was famous 50 years ago belittle him and the Presidency?

He publicly questioned Obama's presidency for years. Obama actually acted presidential and ignored him. We now have the first internet troll as president.

[BigSqwert]

Even an insincere gesture is too much for Trump:

 

UPDATE: Trump no longer to visit National African American Museum on MLK Day due to scheduling issues, transition officials tell @ABC.

Edited January 15, 2017 by BigSqwert

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-attack-on...-171644389.html

 

Well, Trump has pissed off the entire city of Atlanta, the Congressional Black Caucus and BIGLY increased sales of all John Lewis' published works...ironically, much more than he has helped LL Bean for/by unethically touting them.

[Balta1701]

Both British and Israeli intelligence appear to have deliberately leaked to press in their countries that they don't trust the incoming administration's security and by broadcasting that widely they're hoping that their partner countries come to a similar conclusion - specifically they're worried that any high level information passed to the US will be passed to Russia, and that becomes a conduit for information to be passed to Iran/Hezbollah in the case of Israel.

[southsider2k5]

5%

 

 

It'd be higher but I don't think he lasts a whole term.

 

I keep seeing this said, but why do people think that enough Republicans will vote to impeach him for this to actually happen? Let's not forget that the Democrats haven't held this few legislative seats in what, 100 years?

[southsider2k5]

So he should just sit there and let a political hack who was famous 50 years ago belittle him and the Presidency? Get over it already. Lewis hasn't done anything since then, how long you gonna ride that?

 

Obama let Republicans belittle him for eight years.

[Quin]

I keep seeing this said, but why do people think that enough Republicans will vote to impeach him for this to actually happen? Let's not forget that the Democrats haven't held this few legislative seats in what, 100 years?

 

I think he resigns or the corruption becomes to much for the Rands, Rubios and Grahams

 

[Balta1701]

I think he resigns or the corruption becomes to much for the Rands, Rubios and Grahams

You realize how few Republicans you just listed?

 

How many Republicans can afford to have the outright white supremacists turn against them in their next election?

[caulfield12]

I think he resigns or the corruption becomes to much for the Rands, Rubios and Grahams

 

Ted Cruz will be interesting to watch to, as he dances from "supporter" to "antagonist" with the political winds.

 

Really, all those guys like Rubio, Kasich and Ted Cruz each find themselves in quite uncomfortable positions at the moment, but it's up to them to figure the way out of the wilderness. Basically, Trump replaced (or outmaneuvered) the Kasich-friendly head of the Ohio GOP out of spite, so it's a weird situation in terms of Trump and Kasich both competing for control of the state. Plus, we know Trump won't let a good grudge die quietly.

 

If Ryan can successfully "replace" ObamaCare and sell it effectively to the American people, then he becomes the heir-apparent as Pence is too old and out of touch to most (well, not to mention his extreme social positions).

Edited January 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Ted Cruz will be interesting to watch to, as he dances from "supporter" to "antagonist" with the political winds.

 

Really, all those guys like Rubio, Kasich and Ted Cruz each find themselves in quite uncomfortable positions at the moment, but it's up to them to figure the way out of the wilderness. Basically, Trump replaced (or outmaneuvered) the Kasich-friendly head of the Ohio GOP out of spite, so it's a weird situation in terms of Trump and Kasich both competing for control of the state. Plus, we know Trump won't let a good grudge die quietly.

 

If Ryan can successfully "replace" ObamaCare and sell it effectively to the American people, then he becomes the heir-apparent as Pence is too old and out of touch to most (well, not to mention his extreme social positions).

 

During the recent questioning I got the feeling that Cruz is trying to see himself up as the Republican "Not Trump" candidate.

[southsider2k5]

Ted Cruz will be interesting to watch to, as he dances from "supporter" to "antagonist" with the political winds.

 

Really, all those guys like Rubio, Kasich and Ted Cruz each find themselves in quite uncomfortable positions at the moment, but it's up to them to figure the way out of the wilderness. Basically, Trump replaced (or outmaneuvered) the Kasich-friendly head of the Ohio GOP out of spite, so it's a weird situation in terms of Trump and Kasich both competing for control of the state. Plus, we know Trump won't let a good grudge die quietly.

 

If Ryan can successfully "replace" ObamaCare and sell it effectively to the American people, then he becomes the heir-apparent as Pence is too old and out of touch to most (well, not to mention his extreme social positions).

 

Pence isn't that old, he isn't even 60 yet.

[caulfield12]

You realize how few Republicans you just listed?

 

How many Republicans can afford to have the outright white supremacists turn against them in their next election?

 

And it works the other way for Dems in more moderate/conservative states, or ones in states with a particular industry (like pharmaceuticals) that needs to protected.

 

See the recent drug importation vote, you'll never get Washington State or New Jersey Senators to go against their own industries, despite what's "right" for the majority of the country. The problem here is that "all politics is local" has now become "all local politics is national" thanks to Twitter/social media.

 

At any rate, for the five or six GOP Senators we can list, you might have 10-15 Dems who are back on their heels and the fact that there are so many more Dem seats under fire in 2018 compared to this past election. OTOH, if Trump's presidency starts out as a disaster, the DEMS have a huge opening to exploit public outcry over health care, Social Security cuts, immigration, the environment, education, 1% vs. 99%, etc...they just have to figure out how to use Obama's mailing list/database infrastructure and obviously new "non-Clinton" leadership must emerge.

 

Whether it's Schumer, Warren, Sanders, Ellison, Barbara Lee...the old guard of Pelosi/Reid needs to be pushed out the door.

 

 

 

And the more that I think about it, the more likely someone INSIDE the Trump administration like Mattis becomes a hero of the left and takes the opportunity to run against Trump. Whenever there's a constitutional crisis, it feels like Americans trust former military leaders to get them through it, moreso than career politicians.

Edited January 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Pence isn't that old, he isn't even 60 yet.

 

Perception.

 

Because of his views, he really feels like someone from Trump's "Make America Great Again" 1950's sitcom world. You could see him serving in the Eisenhower Administration or playing the father figure on Leave It To Beaver.

 

He's not the type of Republican who can win a national race with the changing demographics working against him. He's certainly not going to attract the independent and moderate voters at all.

Edited January 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[jasonxctf]

I keep seeing this said, but why do people think that enough Republicans will vote to impeach him for this to actually happen? Let's not forget that the Democrats haven't held this few legislative seats in what, 100 years?

 

Trump is he conduit to having Pence as President. Every Republican in the house/senate would rather have Pence. I think if there's a serious enough issue, you'll get some serious movement on it. It'll be political theater for the ages.

[jasonxctf]

For those who don't know, impeachment requires simple majority in the house and 67 in the senate.

 

So that would mean dems + 24 r's in the house

And then the tough part... dems + 19 r's in the senate.

 

So for the senate the obvious r's would be

 

1. Graham

2. McCain

3. Rubio

4. Murkowski

5. Sasse

6. Flake

7. Collins

8. Paul

9. Portman

10. Heller

11. Burr

12. Toomey

Then find 7 more???

 

 

[Balta1701]

Trump is he conduit to having Pence as President. Every Republican in the house/senate would rather have Pence. I think if there's a serious enough issue, you'll get some serious movement on it. It'll be political theater for the ages.

How would they survive their next election without Trump's most ardent voters?

[caulfield12]

Balta's right...you're wiping out roughly 15-20% of the voters (nationally), and at least half of them were more pro-Trump than pro-Republican.

 

 

[Balta1701]

So what percentage would you people put on Trump starting WW3?

So, been thinking about this a lot since yesterday's rant against NATO and the EU. It's become quite clear that Donald Trump not only doesn't respect these organizations, but given his moves already to pushing the British departure and allying with Russia, he's actually interested in weakening or even dismantling them. I think it's worth pausing to remember why these two institutions were created in the first place - they are perhaps the reason why there hasn't been a WW3.

 

NATO and the EU were deliberately created both to counter the Soviet threat but to also make it so that minor disputes in Europe did not blow up as they had repeatedly throughout history. None of us have lived in a world like that, where there were multiple alliances in Europe each trying to undercut the other to gain influence or power for themselves. For all the talk about how bureaucratic the EU is, managing the issues of 27 different nations in a diplomatic way still remains a major accomplishment.

 

Back out and imagine some of the world's situations without these organizations and I flash to fear. Just last year we had a Belgian based terror cell make a major attack in France and cooperation between those countries led to their capture - there was no French military operation to raid Belgian facilities. A few years ago with Greece on the edge of economic collapse there was no alliance struck with Britain to protect them militarily in the event they defaulted on debt to Germany. There was no breakup of the EU when they faced a massive influx of refugees hitting specific countries or when a US President decided to invade a random country in the middle east. There was no picking of ethnic sides by different countries in the Yugoslavian conflict. When Argentina invaded the Falklands, France did not get pulled in despite the fact that a French-made Exocet Missile sank a British ship. You can keep doing this, go back through the colonial wars for independence and they stayed colonial rather than expanding back to Europe.

 

A major reason why none of these blew up was NATO and the EU - organizations established to deal with those economic and strategic threats in a coordinated way. Each country has sacrificed some of their ability to act on their own in exchange for the security of not having the country right next door as a major threat. If they can't count on the country next door as not being a threat, then they have to prepare as though they would be, and that preparation destabilizes the region until shots ring out.

 

There's a reason these things were constructed. Unwieldy as they may be sometimes, we haven't had another European war because of them. Get rid of them...and none of us have lived in a world like that, so even I can't say how it will go.

[StrangeSox]

The thing that's still the most confusing to me is getting rid of all of that...to what end? What does the US possibly have to gain by blowing up many of its existing alliances in order to capitulate to a second-tier economic country run by an autocrat who isn't actually offering anything in return?

[Soxbadger]

The thing that's still the most confusing to me is getting rid of all of that...to what end? What does the US possibly have to gain by blowing up many of its existing alliances in order to capitulate to a second-tier economic country run by an autocrat who isn't actually offering anything in return?

 

God cant you liberals just leave Trump alone. Why are you asking questions about his plan? Dont you know that America is going to be great again if only you would just not question authority and blindly follow. I swear you are a Nazi with all of your damn questions.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

The thing that's still the most confusing to me is getting rid of all of that...to what end? What does the US possibly have to gain by blowing up many of its existing alliances in order to capitulate to a second-tier economic country run by an autocrat who isn't actually offering anything in return?

 

If you follow his logic from the campaign (ha!) this is all positioning his administration to obtain better leverage/bargaining power when it comes to his later demands. I think with those military alliances he's looking to cut costs/get paid for our involvement, which in theory isn't a bad idea, but he's Trump so he goes about it in the absolute worst way possible.

 

Also re: Russia, at least if we're going to war with China it'd be nice to have Russia as an ally. Problem is, who knows how long that alliance lasts, if it ever starts.