Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,391
Pelosi, Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, Adam Schiff, Ted Liu, etc.
That was my immediate thought as well.


As for pulling FEMA from California, I agree with Vagabond. California is NOT entirely a liberal state. The northern part is very Republican and has been hit with the wildfires. I guess those Republicans are just collateral damage so that Trump can make a point. Or something.
Too bad :shuffle:


He sucks at being president.
Is there anything he doesn't suck at?




FDA has stopped routine food inspections due to shutdown https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/424562-fda-says-most-food-inspections-have-been-halted-amid-shutdown


Grassley says he'd encourage Trump to get out of NAFTA if Democrats reject the new trade deal. Yeah, that ought to help. Encouraging Trump's temper tantrum politcs :wall: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/424604-senate-chairman-trump-should-back-out-of-nafta-if-dems-block-new-trade-deal


Republicans want unity ahead of the new votes meant to reopen the government. F*cking idiots! https://thehill.com/homenews/house/424605-gop-emphasizes-unity-ahead-of-new-shutdown-votes
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,755
I realize there's no point in saying this but Trump's threat that if Democrats don't agree to the wall he will call an emergency demolishes any claim that there is any emergency. He's using the threat of a calling an emergency as political blackmail.

This is presidential malpractice.
 

MacMadame

Cat Lady-in-Training
Messages
28,750
How on earth are Democrats to blame or, at the very least, how can 32% find that Democrats are to blame
Not sure if that's a rhetorical question but according to the comments on Kamala Harris' various FB posts, the reasoning is like this:

-Democrats won't give Trump money for his wall
-Trump won't open the government until they do
-Therefore, it's the Democrats fault for not "being willing to compromise"

Yes, I understand that Trump is also not willing to compromise but it's okay when Trump does it because they want to "feel" safe and they will feel okay if there is a 2000 ft wall at our border. Even if it's useless.

Some money is going to go for border security and probably some of that for barriers and those of us opposed to that need to just accept that in a democratic system, compromise is necessary. But Trump's 2000 mile 30 foot wall to ensure the whiteness of America is not happening.
Is there any significant portion of the population that would be opposed to any barriers anywhere? We already have some in the places that make the most sense but there may be a few more places here and there that could stand to have one too.

This is actually how Trump could "win." He could get money for a few of those places and claim the Dems had agreed to fund "the wall."

Next time, the meme maker should try harder.
Or at least learn the difference between to, two and too.

My guess is Newsom, who had his first day as Governor of CA yesterday
Yes, Newsom specifically mentioned forest fires too and put in a dig about it's a hard problem to solve because most of our forests are on federal land. I'm sure that made Trump go bonkers.
 

rfisher

Looking for the next avatar
Messages
57,880
In Trumpian thought, he is never going to get CA's electoral votes, therefore, what the Republicans in the state think is irrelevant anyway.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,391
Not sure if that's a rhetorical question
Yes and no. I know the answer but I still don't understand how 32% can look at the facts and think that they look like Democrats are to blame. I know that there's a certain percentage that doesn't look at facts but Trump's base is "only" 30 something percent and I doubt that they asked most of them. So, a part of those 32% aren't Trump's base.



Is there any significant portion of the population that would be opposed to any barriers anywhere? We already have some in the places that make the most sense but there may be a few more places here and there that could stand to have one too.

This is actually how Trump could "win." He could get money for a few of those places and claim the Dems had agreed to fund "the wall."
The leaks from the WH meeting today suggest that he's too far gone for that.

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1083126550499942402

https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui/status/1083122505475391488

I'll echo Blue Ridge's and my own words: just how far are Republicans intend to let this go before they grow a pair and dig in their feet?
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,622
What I don’t understand is why the Democrats are not clearly spelling out the consequences of even giving Trump even an inch on this. They need to forget all the reasonable arguments, forget about the fact that the wall won’t do what Trump says it will do, and just keep repeating one thing: If they give Trump an inch on this, next time he wants something that Congress won’t pass, he will shut down the government again. And the next time, and the next time. Giving in to terrorists does not work and that is exactly how Trump is behaving.

The only way there should be any compromise is if funding for the entire government is in place for the remainder of Trump’s term (and I have no idea if they can even do that or if it has to be done each fiscal year.)
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,424
I'll echo Blue Ridge's and my own words: just how far are Republicans intend to let this go before they grow a pair and dig in their feet?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/us/politics/government-shutdown-trump-senate.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, . . . lamented on Wednesday morning that government shutdowns “never work” and turn federal workers into “pawns.” Though Senate Republicans had not reached a point of direct intervention yet, he said, “we’re getting pretty close.”
:watch:
What I don’t understand is why the Democrats are not clearly spelling out the consequences of even giving Trump even an inch on this.
The only person who needs that spelled out is the President, whose ability to apprehend the obvious, even when it is spelled out for him, is questionable. :shuffle:
 

mag

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,622
The only person who needs that spelled out is the President, whose ability to apprehend the obvious, even when it is spelled out for him, is questionable. :shuffle:
Well there are a lot of talking head out there who seem to think the Democrats should come to a compromise. I get that in the normal course of government that is the way things are done, but this is not the normal course of government. Trump is behaving like a crazy who has hijacked a TWA aircraft and is holding the passengers hostage in hopes of a billion dollars and a fully fueled jet. Paying ransom never works and it won’t work now.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,424
Well there are a lot of talking head out there who seem to think the Democrats should come to a compromise.
Most of them are shills for the Republican Party

If you listen to the video embedded in the article to which I linked in my previous post, you will hear Sen. Schumer talk about compromise -- by which he means comprehensive immigration reform. It's a great idea, but the only way that is likely to happen is if Senate Republicans insist on it. I am not holding my breath.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,755
This is Trump's own tweety description of the meeting:

Just left a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, a total waste of time. I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!
There's no opportunity for compromise there. He is saying if I re-open government, will you give me what I want? No? Then I'm out.

That's not negotiation. That's a demand and nothing else.

How anyone can put any onus on the Democrats in this is beyond me. What do they want Nancy to say? Yes, if you stop holding the government hostage I'll agree to what you demand?
 

starrynight

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,143
The confusing thing about most of the articles I have seen in Australian press is that they make it sound like all Trump wants is a one off allowance of 5.7 billion. Most people would probably think room could be made in the budget for a one off like that. But they don’t seem to be mentioning that the expense is way way higher than that? And without a clear plan and design and budget?

Most conservative governments/voters pride themselves on prioritising cautious and careful spending — this seems to be the opposite of that?
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,755
The confusing thing about most of the articles I have seen in Australian press is that they make it sound like all Trump wants is a one off allowance of 5.7 billion. Most people would probably think room could be made in the budget for a one off like that. But they don’t seem to be mentioning that the expense is way way higher than that? And without a clear plan and design and budget?

Most conservative governments/voters pride themselves on prioritising cautious and careful spending — this seems to be the opposite of that?
Trump isn't a conservative and the Republican Party has for some time concerned itself only with lowering taxes but not with budget balancing (except rhetorically when they are opposing Dem spending objectives).

The $5.7 billion isn't based on anything. Its just the current figure. Dems had been willing to go up to $1.6 on border security but were holding to $1.3 billion as a negotiating stance.

The Wall of course would cost multiples of $5.7 billion so what is the $5.7 billion for? Its just for political purposes so it doesn't matter what it would actually pay for. Getting money for the wall is a political symbol for Trump's base.
 

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,265
Glad to see the Democrats playing things smartly and creating logical arguments for not bowing down to Trump's demands. That is only to their benefit.
Logically... I don't know about. The current strategy is good, however I don't think it will change things. Voters from the previous elections are already decided. However, conservatives and libertians continue to throw away the future regarding young voters. They have completely alienated themselves a large group of potential voters that they will never have.

The Guardian reports:

This really is not good.

I don't expect more from Trump, but at some point Republicans have got to take charge of this situation. Trump is not fit to lead. They are harming our democracy by not doing so.
If the GOP have not done anything to Trump in two years, they aren't going to. Many of the GOP are with this president as is; as long as he delivers on removing/permanently changing this country back to what it once was and allowing them more time to reminisce about "Mayberry and Peyton Place".
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,755
A couple of interesting things from a statement in December by Sen. Patrick Leahy:

Over the last two years, Congress has provided nearly $1.7 billion to build or replace fencing on the southern border, but the Administration has hardly spent any of that money, and the projects it has undertaken have ballooned in cost. So far, only six percent of those funds have been spent.

...The President’s own budget request to Congress for Fiscal Year 2019 was $1.6 billion for his wall, not $5 billion.
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/minority/statement-of-senate-appropriations-committee-vice-chairman-patrick-leahy-d-vt-on-the-trump-shutdown-threat

This whole shutdown stunt is based on complete Trumpian bull crap.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,391
The only way there should be any compromise is if funding for the entire government is in place for the remainder of Trump’s term (and I have no idea if they can even do that or if it has to be done each fiscal year.)
As far as I know, the DOD is funded for two years.


Well there are a lot of talking head out there who seem to think the Democrats should come to a compromise.
How much more compromise? They were willing to give Trump a lot of money for border security but time and again he has said no for various reason. The only thing they're not willing to give him is a wall. And why should they?

Although, I came across this on twitter https://twitter.com/EricKleefeld/status/1083108944560775168 :p
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,391
speaks facts
When they suit her. At other times, she's of the opinion that it's more important to be "morally right" than "factually right".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.69d324807ff6

Yes, she says a lot of things that are true and she says some things that others aren't saying as directly. But she also says a lot of things others have said before her and somehow, they suddenly have more weight when she says it (both negative and positive). I think she is in need of a good advisor as that isn't the first time she's made a misleading statement or bent the truth and I think getting the facts right are important especially when you fight for social issues.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,391

topaz

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,265
When they suit her. At other times, she's of the opinion that it's more important to be "morally right" than "factually right".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.69d324807ff6

Yes, she says a lot of things that are true and she says some things that others aren't saying as directly. But she also says a lot of things others have said before her and somehow, they suddenly have more weight when she says it (both negative and positive). I think she is in need of a good advisor as that isn't the first time she's made a misleading statement or bent the truth and I think getting the facts right are important especially when you fight for social issues.

So that means she's just like all of us, right? Your statement " they suddenly have more weight when she says it, I 'm not understanding. She's fresh in her authentic self. I can't read the article, it's blocked but I'm sure the author have their own motives/opinions just like we all do.

Whether or not she needs a "good" advisor(whatever that means) is up to her. She need to continue to keep it simple and place people around her she has a long trustworthy relationship. They are many and I mean many people in Washington who want her to fail and are attempting to undermine her at every turn. Democrats and Republicans. They are looking to somehow "expose" her.

Also, from what I've read and seen of her, she's doing very well. She's one of the few folks in Washington who her and her staff read every single memo, email, policy and legislative items put before her. 90% of the folks in politics don't read the materials they are given in their entirety.
 

skateboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,456
You know, a part of me almost wishes that the asinine wall gets built, just so that the idiots who so passionately support it will finally realize that it was not only one of the most ridiculous things for which we've ever wasted our time and tax dollars, but also absolutely ineffective.

(I'm not really serious here... just so damn frustrated and felt like venting.)
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,391
So that means she's just like all of us, right?
She's a human being with flaws. She has good ideas, goals that probably every politicians with compassion should have but she's a little fuzzy on how to implement them and she did make a few misleading claims/bent the truth a little. So, I think, based on that, she is indeed more or less like everyone else and probably most Democrats in politics (and maybe the occasional Republican) and not the rock-star I'm under the impression many are trying to make her out to be. (Although, the media hype probably contributes to that impression).



Your statement " they suddenly have more weight when she says it, I 'm not understanding.
When she suggested the 70% tax rate for the super rich, it seemed to be treated as if she came up with the idea herself and no one had ever said so before. I didn't know it but I learned from this board that there had been a similar tax before, so there was no reason to roll eyes at her or dismiss it as ridiculous.

Likewise, she is not the first to point out that undocumented immigrants are acting more American than Trump but I saw enthusiastic reposting of her words whereas I saw less enthusiasm when others said something similar before.

So, those are two examples of what I mean.



I can't read the article, it's blocked but I'm sure the author have their own motives/opinions just like we all do.

This is AOC's claim
“$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions ‘could not be traced, documented, or explained,’" Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a tweet that still appears on her timeline and has been shared more than 26,000 times. "$21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means 66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.”

Apparently, the WaPo gave her four Pinocchios for that arguing that it's not only money that the Pentagon spent but also money that they received and that it was over a 17-year-period over which actual Defense spending was $9 trillion whereas the money AOC is referring to that is needed for single payer is for the first ten years only.
I'm not sure if it warrants four Pinocchios, to me, she's simply comparing apples and oranges, but Anderson Cooper asked her about it and her answer was somewhat dismissive. (Emphasis is WaPo)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they’re missing the forest for the trees. I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

COOPER: But being factually correct is important--

OCASIO-CORTEZ: It’s absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, “Okay, this was clumsy,” and then I restate what my point was. But it’s -- it’s not the same thing as -- as the president lying about immigrants. It’s not the same thing at all.
Sure, Trump's lying his a$$ off. He's made 7,000 false or misleading claims since he became President. But we keep saying that two wrongs don't make a right and I think that applies to her, too. And I'm not implying that she's anywhere near as bad as Trump, I'm just saying that I don't think it's smart to justify her misleading claims with "Trump's doing it, too".
He and his followers already don't have any kind of relationship with facts, we can't afford a left that becomes dismissive of facts, too. And apart from the fact that it's wrong, it also gives the right ammunition and weakens the left because one of our weapon is facts.



They are many and I mean many people in Washington who want her to fail and are attempting to undermine her at every turn. Democrats and Republicans. They are looking to somehow "expose" her.
That is precisely why I think it's all the more important for her to get her facts straight. She is young and determined, she's probably someone who can affect change over time. But she won't be able to if she gives people ammunition by becoming careless with/dismissive of facts and loses her credibility. And while every politician makes misleading claims and Republicans lie their a$$es off, too, she's probably more likely to lose her credibility because she is making those claims about her agenda that already is unpopular with the right and she has enemies who want her to lose it.




Also, from what I've read and seen of her, she's doing very well. She's one of the few folks in Washington who her and her staff read every single memo, email, policy and legislative items put before her.
That is impressive. At the same time, it makes me wonder why she claimed what she claimed about the Pentagon and single payer (and why she made the rest of the misleading statement that she made because while she wasn't in Congress or even elected then she did make those claims about information that was publicly available, so easy to get right). Does she feel like she has to do it to push her agenda? If that's it then I hope she quickly stops doing it because it'll hurt her more than anything else. She can be the most effective if she sticks with the truth.
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
52,755
Just to add: isn't it odd how you don't see teasers like "wikiFeet: how online foot fetishists debunked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s fake nude" about any of the new white male members of Congress. What is this about? :confused:

AOC has something to say about this, "There is also a Daily Mail reporter (Ruth Styles) going to my boyfriend’s relative’s homes+offering them cash for “stories.”

Women in leadership face more scrutiny. Period."

ETA: A useful analysis:
The Exceptions to the Rulers
When people of color enter elite spaces, they’re often attacked as undeserving charlatans. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is no different.
(The Atlantic)
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 5, Guests: 9)

Top