POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Hooahguy]

Well, at least Barr said he wont do that. But since hes leaving in a few days anyways, who knows what his temporary successor might do.

[ReluctantSamurai]

This could probably go in any of several threads, but I'll put it here.

My views on Donald Trump is certainly no secret. The man disgusts me, and I've been a Trump-basher here for a long time. However, in this case, I'm going to say I actually agree with him, regardless of his true intentions [looks around for a thunderbolt to come and strike me dead]:

https://www.businessinsider.com/lose...checks-2020-12

President Donald Trump on Tuesday night launched a surprise push to hike the stimulus checks in the COVID-19 relief package to $2,000 per person from $600.

Trump released a video criticizing the $900 billion coronavirus relief package that congressional lawmakers passed on Monday and demanding they increase the checks.

Democrats certainly showed how little they care for the American people (looking at you, Nancy Pelosi), when they rejected an earlier Trump aid package worth $1.8 trillion, saying it was unacceptable (and in fairness, there were some questionable items included in that bill), and instead, settled for a fraction of that in the latest proposal (of which almost half is unused money from the CARES ACT).

When one considers that the average back rent due by Americans amounts to about $5,400, that nearly 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty over the last 5 months, and there are nearly 50 million people with inadequate food supplies, a $600/person one-time check, an 11 week extension for unemployment, and a $300 unemployment benefits extension, is nowhere near enough.

There is certainly not an ounce of concern for people by Trump in demanding more money, but at this point, people desperately need the help, so who cares? GET THE MONEY OUT THERE!

And then there's this twit:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...on-his-way-out

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) this week claimed that President Trump is “trying to burn this country down on his way out” of office by not supporting the new coronavirus stimulus and government funding bill passed by Congress on Monday.

In an appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show Tuesday night, Klobuchar responded to the president’s remarks shared on Twitter earlier in the day, in which he called the $2.3 trillion package that includes stimulus checks of $600 to Americans “a disgrace,” adding that the payments should be increased to $2,000.

The Minnesota senator and former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate told Maddow that Trump’s failure to support the bill “is an attack on every American.”
“People who are struggling to get by right now, out of work, whose unemployment, the unemployment is going to basically end the day after Christmas if this doesn’t pass, people who are out of work, people who need the help,” she added.

So let me get this straight Amy, you'd rather send out a paltry $600 instead of a more robust $2000 (still inadequate, but more than triple what's in the current bill), and call the inclusion of $2000 instead of $600 "an attack on every American"?? Oh, BTW, you are worth around $2,000,000, so I doubt you understand what "struggling to get by" actually means

We will see how effective the Democrats will be in exploiting the GOP on this issue. I expect more spinelessness, and I feel sorry for those who could benefit from this. But perhaps they will surprise me and actually grow some cohonees.....

[Hooahguy]

Lol if you actually think that Trump is serious about $2,000 checks then you have either not been paying attention or are just an unserious person. The House GOP has already stated its complete rejection of it and the Senate GOP is deeply divided on the issue. As I recall it was Pat Toomey (R-PA) who blocked the Sanders/Hawley amendment that would have made the checks $1,200. And it was McConnell who put the brakes on a stimulus bill back in October.

As for Amy's comment, that clip you posted was laughably out of context. If you watch the whole thing (only 2:34), its extremely clear she was referring to Trump tanking the current relief bill, not the idea of larger checks. I invite you to go back and look at her past and current statements, she's been supporting larger checks for a while. The fact is that Jordan Uhl did not make that tweet in good faith. But then again he's never really been the brightest. Anyways you do realize that by Trump vetoing the aid bill, which was tied in with the government funding omnibus bill, we are headed for another government shutdown if something isnt resolved in the next six days right? With it goes a whole bunch of government programs that helps people. He isn't serious about this. If he was, he wouldn't have spent the past month focused on his dumb election fraud shtick. Nor would he have skipped town today for Christmas holiday as negotiations start up again. He just wants to muck things up. Thats what he's always done. Its a grave mistake to think that just because Trump said it that the GOP will automatically fall in line. This isnt something that will be resolved overnight, its going to be a protracted battle again which will result in delayed relief and even more people suffering. Its not just the $600 checks, its also the extra unemployment money, small business loans, funding for public health infrastructure for testing and the vaccine, etc. People are too focused on the $600 checks that they forget the rest of it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Lol if you actually think that Trump is serious about $2,000 checks then you have either not been paying attention or are just an unserious person.

Please don't insult me. OF COURSE it's a PR stunt, but it's a possible way to get some REAL relief to those who need it instead of the crumbs being offered. Congresswoman Tlaib already has an amendment ready to go:

https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/sta...68309955874818

[...]you do realize that by Trump vetoing the aid bill, which was tied in with the government funding omnibus bill, we are headed for another government shutdown if something isnt resolved in the next six days right? With it goes a whole bunch of government programs that helps people

Pelosi is claiming it could get done in a week or less.....

As for Amy's comment, that clip you posted was laughably out of context.

Not so. Her pathetic bleating for the American people is what's laughable. Talking about unemployment running out---do you really think this bill is going to help with that? Consider the numbers I quoted....back rent to the tune of $5400 on average, 8 million more Americans fallen below the poverty line (in America that's $12760 for single people, $26200 for a family of four).

She fails to mention that the $284 billion in the bill for small businesses will take weeks/months to process, and more of those businesses are going to fail regardless. And the duration of this stimulus is very short---much of it expires in March which is just kicking the can down the road. And aid to states and local governments is completely lacking in the bill. If Congress hadn't been sitting on its' collective duffs all summer and fall, the situation wouldn't be this dire. But holy hell, three cheers for the sudden cause for bi-partisanship.......and the fact that an over 5000 page bill was dumped on staff desks to be voted on two hours later.

Her best line came at the very end...."Which party has people's back, and which party is in the White House?" Now THAT'S laughable...

You missed my point altogether, made in the first link. My bad for not being more clear. This whole bunch of BS puts Dr. No in a tough spot:

1. He can cave and accept a larger stimulus figure after fighting for months to keep it down.

2. He can block the larger checks and take the political heat for it.

Pelosi is already hedging:

https://www.dailyposter.com/p/force-...-on-direct-aid

She says she wants to bring it up by unanimous consent — a process that gives any single member of the House the ability to raise an objection and block it. That could let her pretend she tried to force a vote, but was thwarted by a Republican dissenter. But she is House Speaker — there are ways for her to truly force a vote.

As the American Prospect’s David Dayen notes, Pelosi could, for instance, do it under a separate process of suspending the rules which would mean that to stop it, “140 Republicans have to buck Trump and deny a cash lump-sum payout to the American people.”

Further noted in the article:

The whole situation could be a big winner for Democrats and show they actually care about human beings. It gives them a high-profile moment to appear as if they care about improving the grotesque spending package that’s currently on the table.

Americans are in bread lines, and yet the current omnibus legislation skimps on direct aid to millions of people — while offering billions of dollars worth of tax breaks for race horse owners, landlords, NASCAR and corporate executives’ three-martini lunches.
The current bill spends only $166 billion on survival checks, while devoting $200 billion to new tax breaks for the rich. It exempts business expenses under the paycheck protection program from taxes, while taxing workers’ jobless benefits and ending a paid coronavirus sick leave mandate.

It offers just $25 billion in rental assistance, at a moment when an estimated 14 million American households are in danger of eviction and will owe roughly $70 billion in unpaid rental and utility debt by January, according to Moody's Analytics Mark Zandi. The bill includes a separate retroactive tax break for landlords projected to cost $3 billion — which probably doesn’t help people pay their rent.

So unless a third round of stimulus is in the works, this round will serve as a small band-aid until spring. And unless the Democrats win both Georgia seats, getting anything from the GOP for another stimulus package will be worse than pulling eye teeth.

[Montmorency]

Meh.

Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks. At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!

To the extent this information is reaching the public - remember that the House passed the relatively-generous HEROES Act in like June - I'm not sure there is a difference in impact on whatever audience there is between a tweet and a unanimous consent process (and attendant inevitable loud Republican dissent) and, well, doing something else specific.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...trump-demanded

Gotta get ahead of the Backroom truce.

[Hooahguy]

The fact that you read anything written by Walker Bragman really speaks volumes... anyone who wrote an article titled "a liberal case for Donald Trump" is a deeply unserious person who does not argue in good faith. Ever.

Yes, the GOP shot down the UC vote today, but if you did a bit more research you would see that the House is going to do a full vote on Monday on the issue. But it will go nowhere because of Mitch.

There was never a chance $2k checks would pass in a Republican Senate. Trump's entire goal this whole time is to cause chaos. And this is that chaos. It is distressing to me that you are falling for the "both sides" thing, Dems passed multiple aid bills months ago (hardly sitting on their behinds like you claim), yet they seem to be the main focus of your ire. I would say its curious, but then again you do read Bragman and Co. so it makes sense.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Yes, the GOP shot down the UC vote today, but if you did a bit more research you would see that the House is going to do a full vote on Monday on the issue.

Yes, I did "more research" and realize the procedure. Pelosi already knew the UC vote would fail, hence the call for full vote on Monday.

But it will go nowhere because of Mitch.

That's the point. Do everything you can, and when the GOP blocks an attempted amendment in favor of more money, the onus falls on the Republicans.

It is distressing to me that you are falling for the "both sides" thing

And how is that? I've been saying for a long time, that even if the Democrats snag the two Georgia seats, it's still going to be difficult to get meaningful legislation passed. There will be little incentive for cross aisle co-operation, and I don't expect anything to come from attempts at making that happen.

...yet they seem to be the main focus of your ire. I would say its curious, but then again you do read Bragman and Co. so it makes sense

The difference between a centrist political view, and a leftist view. That you consider anything he publishes as not arguing in good faith speaks volumes.....

[ReluctantSamurai]

This will make things interesting:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...-defeat-451485

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and President Donald Trump's defeated electors from Arizona may force Vice President Mike Pence to publicly pick a side in Trump’s bid to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Gohmert and a handful of the would-be electors sued Pence in federal court on Monday in a long-shot bid to throw out the rules that govern Congress' counting of electoral votes next week. It’s an effort they hope will permit Pence — who is tasked with leading the Jan. 6 session of the House and Senate — to simply ignore President-elect Joe Biden's electors and count Trump's losing slates instead.

Though the lawsuit itself is unlikely to gain legal traction, it does put Pence in the position of having to either contest the suit — putting him on the opposite side of Trump and his GOP defenders — or support it and lay bare the intention to subvert the will over the voters in the 2020 election.

It's likely Pence skips town after the Biden win is confirmed:

At least earlier this month, Pence was planning to oversee Biden’s victory and then try to escape Trump’s ire by heading abroad for what might be his final diplomatic trip in office. If Pence ultimately opts out of participating in the session, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Senate president pro tem, would likely preside.

[Hooahguy]

Yes, I did "more research" and realize the procedure. Pelosi already knew the UC vote would fail, hence the call for full vote on Monday.

The vast majority of MoC were already gone for the Christmas holiday hence the UC. Even if she did drag every MoC back for a last minute full vote, McConnell wouldnt have acted on it anyways. The result would have been the same either way. I was going to write up a whole paragraph and all that but to be completely honest, I dont have this fight in me so I'll just leave Rep. Omar's tweet on the subject and be done with it:

Dems attempted to negotiate a deal with Mnuchin, but McConnell shut it down.

Dems successfully negotiated a deal with McConnell, but Trump refused to sign the bill.

At this point, no one knows who we are suppose to negotiate with.

Stop the “two sides” narrative to this mess.

Anyways, Trump ended up caving and signed the Covid bill/omnibus bill on Sunday. I found this is a really interesting thread, written by someone who was a lawyer who worked with him on a deal in the 90s:

He will sign. In 1998, I was the tax lawyer representing Conseco in a joint venture with the Trump Organization to buy the General Motors Building. Conseco put up 99.9% of the capital, Trump put up 0.1% of the capital, and Lehman Brothers loaned the rest. The joint venture agreement was very straightforward. Income and deductions were based on capital contributions. Everything was agreed quickly by the lawyers. However, on the day before signing, we were told that Mr. Trump would be arriving at 10pm at our offices to negotiate the deal (which had already been negotiated).

He arrives with an entourage. A podium had been set up for him at the front of a long table in a conference room. He asks for some minor corporate changes. But then he demands that he get all of the depreciation deductions. Having negotiated, he put on his coat and left. All of the lawyers look at each other. The general counsel of Conseco said, “We put up 99.9% of the money; we get 99.9% of the depreciation deductions.” Trump’s lawyers say, “Don’t worry, he’ll sign.” I go home to sleep.

The next morning my corporate partner and Trump’s corporate lawyer take the joint venture agreement to Trump Tower for Trump’s signature. I’m in my office. The phone rings.
It’s my corporate partner. “Mr. Trump wants to speak to you.”
“Yes, Mr. Trump,” I say.
“Were you there last night?” he asks.
“Yes, Mr. Trump, I was.”
“Did you hear me last night?” he asks.
“Yes, Mr. Trump, I did.” I reply.
“So, does this agreement give me the depreciation deductions?” he asks.
“No, Mr. Trump, it does not.”
He’s angry now. “You were there last night, you heard me, and this agreement does not give me the depreciation deductions? Why not?!”

I know that the agreement could have been structured for Trump to get depreciation deductions (if he was willing to provide a “bottom guarantee”). But it wasn’t, so I answer truthfully: “Mr. Trump, the law does not permit you to get depreciation deductions.” He’s furious now. “The law does not permit me to get depreciation deductions?!”
“That’s right, Mr. Trump.”

He slams down the phone and signs the agreement.

Basically he's done this before.

One notable thing to watch is the NDAA, which he made good on his veto threat for. The House voted overwhelmingly to override the veto, but things are stalling in the Senate. Bernie rightfully threatened to filibuster the veto override vote as a way of forcing McConnell to bring up the $2,000 checks for a vote (which he wasnt going to do until the filibuster threat it seems). McConnell responded by trying to tie the higher stimulus checks to a full repeal of Section 230, which they are mad about because Republicans like big corporations until they get de-platformed due to hate speech. But repealing 230 is a huge risk as it may lead to a serious crackdown of all speech on the internet. So thats a potential poison pill. Definitely will be following the developments here.