Trump Thread

[HopAlongBunny]

The best way to drain the swamp is to protect the swamp critters:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...bbyists-2017-6

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._to_trump.html

At least someone is looking after the inhabitants

[Gilrandir]

As for loyalties, you did see what he did to Putin's pet syrian, correct?

If you mean something serious you don't warn those who are at the receiving end of your ire a day in advance.

[HopAlongBunny]

Get ready to rock!
Freedom is about to be spewed all over America!!!
In a double header Congress seeks to repeal much of Dodd-Frank and sideline the consumer protection bureau:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ion-bill-ever/

Of course the Comey testimony tomorrow will be the major story, and likely a good reason to drink; so Cheers!!! for that

[Vuk]

Mr. Trump is gracing the first product my new start-up is offering. We should have them in hand Friday.
You can buy one ($10 plus shipping) by sending me a message on my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/BeBrazenBeMighty/

[Gilrandir]

Didn't know Comey was a weather master (aka cloud lifter):
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/u...testimony.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He's not. This cloud will lift when this presidency ends and a proper liberal is returned to office. Until then, the media emasculation of the office will continue.

[Shaka_Khan]

[Gilrandir]

He's not. This cloud will lift when this presidency ends and a proper liberal is returned to office. Until then, the media emasculation of the office will continue.

Ends untimely?

[Greyblades]

Has there ever been a time when the position of president wasnt under one cloud or another?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has there ever been a time when the position of president wasnt under one cloud or another?

NONE of them are without their detractors to be sure. However, the kind of slow-motion feeding frenzy we are currently witnessing was NOT a hurdle faced by the Obama administration, nor by the Clinton administration except during the impeachment debacle. Bush 41 was treated reasonably well by the media.

[HopAlongBunny]

Transcript from politico:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...39295?lo=ap_b2

It's all true Katie!

[a completely inoffensive name]

No difference as neither are impeachable.

As Comey stated, 'Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest?'

[HopAlongBunny]

Nothing much seems to have changed from where we were before the testimony.
Comey deferred most of the zingers to the special prosecutor. So when, and if that is finished and sees the light of day, all will be revealed
Right now it comes down to the fact the President is untouchable w/o the political will to act; that barrier is insurmountable with or w/o cause.

PS. please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

[HopAlongBunny]

Team Trump open with a predictable gambit:
deny, deflect, defame.

It seems to be an instinctive reaction from Trump. He says he will tell his story under oath (I won't hold my breath waiting for that)
In a test of relative credibility there is no choice.

[Montmorency]

Interesting. All the legislation signed into law by the sitting administration?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Interesting. All the legislation signed into law by the sitting administration?

My earlier comments in this thread that the real goal of the constant drumbeat to impeach Trump was a tool for emasculating his administration is reflected in your cite. THAT has always been the prime goal (though they'd love to dump him if the could). Kill Trump's effort to make change and his followers will fade away and Washington can get back to the usual.

[Montmorency]

My earlier comments in this thread that the real goal of the constant drumbeat to impeach Trump was a tool for emasculating his administration is reflected in your cite. THAT has always been the prime goal (though they'd love to dump him if the could). Kill Trump's effort to make change and his followers will fade away and Washington can get back to the usual.

Not quite what I was getting at; I should larify that I'm not talking about Trump. The number of bills is comparable to equivalent periods in other administrations, and for the most part isn't related to President Trump anyway: minor (i.e. trivial) changes in the verbiage of prior legislation, various special considerations for specific individuals or groups, namings of federal buildings...

The fact that most bills aren't related or relevant to the Presidency is why this struck me, that the absolute number of bills is so few. It turns out that Congress rarely sends up more than a few hundred bills per session for executive authorization in modern times, regardless of who is President. I had been under the impression that this sort of routine, low-impact work, generally voted upon unanimously and with little debate, created a much higher volume of bills actually signed into law, on the order of dozens per week. So I was wrong about that. Congress in fact does much less than I realized!


As for the substance of your comment, I suspect the reason the Trump administration and the Republican Congresspeople don't put up all the momentous things they routinely herald for the near future, rather than any Democratic or media opposition, is because they have none. There is no policy, no legislation, only the shell game toward the next election. Once they've reconciled their pillaging of government infrastructure with funding their pork commitments, they'll put up their budgets and their proposals to either privatize or eliminate entirely some civic institution or endowment, but that's about it. I have to believe that the GOP isn't much interested in governing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have to believe that the GOP isn't much interested in governing.

Just figuring that out?

[Sarmatian]

My earlier comments in this thread that the real goal of the constant drumbeat to impeach Trump was a tool for emasculating his administration is reflected in your cite. THAT has always been the prime goal (though they'd love to dump him if the could). Kill Trump's effort to make change and his followers will fade away and Washington can get back to the usual.

I have to ask you, do you really think Trump's goal is to make changes? Serious changes, that is. Fighting for the common man, draining the swamp, that sort of thing. He's the perfect representative of big business, something Republicans have always supported. Congress is heavily influenced by corporations already and has been for quite some time. It feels like business as usual.

I understand and agree that Democrats want to emasculate his administration, but the way you said Washington, it felt like you meant the entire political establishment was against him.

[HopAlongBunny]

Thank god someone is seeking to help the rich!
After making tons of money (but less than they could've made) under the cumbersome Dodd-Frank socialist regime, Republicans are banding together "For Freedom!"
Blowing away regulations and the nanny-state overseer that was the Consumer Protection office will make America's banks safe (to fail again)

https://wonkette.com/618405/house-vo...ncial-collapse

The only thing better than financial collapse averted at at taxpayer expense, is to set the table to do it twice :)

Other things the fearless GOP has been doing while Trump takes the headlines:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story...is-week-000455

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have to ask you, do you really think Trump's goal is to make changes? Serious changes, that is. Fighting for the common man, draining the swamp, that sort of thing. He's the perfect representative of big business, something Republicans have always supported. Congress is heavily influenced by corporations already and has been for quite some time. It feels like business as usual.

I understand and agree that Democrats want to emasculate his administration, but the way you said Washington, it felt like you meant the entire political establishment was against him.

I was thoroughly convinced that he went there to make changes. I would fully concur that -- as with so many before him -- what the voters THOUGHT he was promising and the specifics of his ACTUAL efforts towards change would NOT correspond 1:1.

And yes I DO mean that significant components of the Washington establishment on the GOP side would like to see him out of office and to ensure that he accomplishes only limited objectives. The establishment GOP wants a tougher Southern Border....but nothing resembling a metaphorical wall. The establishment GOP doesn't want Obamacare but they don't want to pay the political cost of repealing it either...they want a GOP version that changes it a little at the edges but keeps all the popular provisions. The establishment GOP wants to campaign on small government...but don't want it too small or they lose that beautiful campaign issue....

How BADLY does Trump really want such changes? I am not sure....but I don't think the current game-smiths in D.C. will let us find out anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope impeachment charges move forward under a Dem congress under entirely political pretenses. And that it becomes precedent.

If this Republic is going to have another dramatic institutional shift along the lines of 1820, 1865, and the 1930s I would wish for a more active Congress, with a dramatically weakened president.
Enough of this imperial presidency concentrating the 'will of the people' into practice.

[Pannonian]

I hope impeachment charges move forward under a Dem congress under entirely political pretenses. And that it becomes precedent.

If this Republic is going to have another dramatic institutional shift along the lines of 1820, 1865, and the 1930s I would wish for a more active Congress, with a dramatically weakened president.
Enough of this imperial presidency concentrating the 'will of the people' into practice.

Isn't that Parliamentary government?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Isn't that Parliamentary government?

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

[Pannonian]

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

[Montmorency]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

Almost all presidents increased power, but they did not increase power to the same degree. Jackson, Lincoln, teddy, FDR really shifted the perception of what the president is/ can be

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

His was the largest single change aside from FDR. However, ACIN is correct that a majority tried to enhance federal power and that Lincoln was certainly not the first.

Washington -- the least power acquisitive of them -- used a recess appointment to pick the CJ of the SCOTUS
Jefferson began a war with the Barbary pirates without Congressional approval, made the Louisiana purchase without prior approval, and allowed support for the slave rebellion in Haiti while minimizing support for the French there.
Monroe allowed General Jackson to conquer Florida as a "oopsie" while conducting a punitive campaign against the Seminole.

...and that is just the first 5. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, emanicipation proclamation, and --arguably -- his refusal to see participation in the Union under the Constitution as voluntary, were merely the biggest growth in executive power during our Republic's first century. He was certainly not alone.

[Montmorency]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone that it would be desirable.

In other news, Puerto Rico votes for statehood again.

The 2012 referendum had a good turnout at 3/4, so while this plebiscite had a much bigger proportion voting for statehood, 97% to 61%*, the turnout at 1/4 is embarrassing.

Unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to the matter.

*This figure not counting the 500,000 blank answers (out of 1.9 million ballots) to the 2012 question on desired status, which altogether suggests most Puerto Ricans don't have much concern about formal status one way or another.

[Sarmatian]

Or simply let POTUS be divided into president and prime minister. Problem solved