Dangers of a Trump Presidency--Part 7

[demetriosj]

I'm sure I am just dense, but what is the lie you refer to? That she filed her taxes improperly?

Marriage fraud is not a lie?!

 

[MsZem]

So predictable, when you don't have a defense, attack the source. As you know, many sources are also covering this.

Then you'll have no problem posting evidence of constant lying from a more reputable one.

 

[Sparks]

Here is a closer look at Omar's marriage(s)

PolitiFact: Did Ilhan Omar marry her brother? The Minneapolis Star-Tribune investigated and here's what they found

For years, critics of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., have raised questions about her marriages and made the explosive claim that she had married her brother.

www.tampabay.com

 

[clairecloutier]

Shaun King argues in The Intercept that demonstrated racism should be considered an impeachable offense: https://theintercept.com/2019/07/19/trump-racism-impeachment-offense/

I know that King is considered a questionable figure by some, but I do appreciate his argument here, and think I agree with him.

The President of the U.S. has a sworn duty to protect and defend the rights and safety of U.S. citizens. How can he/she really do this if he/she is biased against certain groups of citizens??

Of course, though, this could be a very slippery slope, as people argue about what comments are or are not racist.

But it’s an interesting question.

 

[BlueRidge]

I don't think words are impeachable offenses, I think it needs to be actions.

 

[Prancer]

So predictable, when you don't have a defense, attack the source. As you know, many sources are also covering this.

You do realize that your link says pretty much nothing except that another article somewhere else said something?

An argument is only as good as the evidence that supports said argument, so the credibility of sources is a legitimate issue, not merely a deflection away from an assertion.

However, when challenging the credibility of a source, it is best to do so with a stronger, more credible source rather than simply dismissing a source.

Marriage fraud is not a lie?!

I am sorry, I am again dense. What is the marriage fraud here? What am I missing, aside from an unsubstantiated allegation that Omar married her own brother?

Your piece (I cannot call it an article) provides a handy link to the Politifact interview it cites, which outlines the evidence for and against Omar being married to her brother. According that link, the very same editor who was quoted in your link says that all of the evidence for Omar being married to her brother came from social media and that in spite of the controversy, no one has come forward with proof.

Hard to call something a lie if you can't establish a truth that makes the lie a lie.

But perhaps you were referring to something else.

 

[caseyedwards]

Shaun King argues in The Intercept that demonstrated racism should be considered an impeachable offense: https://theintercept.com/2019/07/19/trump-racism-impeachment-offense/

I know that King is considered a questionable figure by some, but I do appreciate his argument here, and think I agree with him.

The President of the U.S. has a sworn duty to protect and defend the rights and safety of U.S. citizens. How can he/she really do this if he/she is biased against certain groups of citizens??

Of course, though, this could be a very slippery slope, as people argue about what comments are or are not racist.

But it’s an interesting question.

He is right but also a total fraud who steals money

 

[allezfred]

The young children at the Trump rally shouting "Send Her Back!" demonstrated a very disheartening and frightening future for our country.

Twitler Youth

 

[misskarne]

Marriage fraud is not a lie?!

Hello! You still keep not answering our question.

What exactly do you think Trump meant when he told those congresswomen to "go back to where they came from"?

 

[Vagabond]

I know that King is considered a questionable figure by some, but I do appreciate his argument here, and think I agree with him.

The President of the U.S. has a sworn duty to protect and defend the rights and safety of U.S. citizens. How can he/she really do this if he/she is biased against certain groups of citizens??

Looking back retrospectively, would you say that the overwhelming majority of Presidents, who either (1) owned slaves, (2) opposed abolition, (3) opposed voting rights for blacks, (3) opposed voting rights for women, (3) opposed full citizenship for Native Americans, (4) opposed immigration (and in some instances) citizenship for people from Southern and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America, (5) opposed the E.R.A., and (6) oppose laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people, should have been impeached? Because if not, I don't see where your argument is going.

 

[VGThuy]

Some of this talk about tax cuts being great and if you disagree you're a socialist and want to turn this country into Greece reminds me of this Garfunkel & Oates song:

Save the Rich (Official Video) by Garfunkel and Oates

Riki "Garfunkel" Lindhome and Kate "Oates" Micucci sing a 'We are the World'-style parody about the current economic crisis. Directed by MATT and OZ. Pro...

www.youtube.com

[Verse 1]
Everyone knows these times are really tough
And we need to band together and say we've had enough
All the jobless people need to learn to be content
'Cause what we need to do is protect our one percent

[Chorus]
Save the rich
Let them know you care
Don't leave to languish
In their penthouse of despair

Save the rich
Let their bonuses be swollen
And let them keep it all tax free
Even if it's stolen

Save the rich

[Verse 2]
Let's give our job creators
More than their fair share
So they can go to Asia
And create jobs over there

There's loopholes and exemptions
And children to exploit
So give them special tax breaks
Go **** yourself Detroit!

[Verse 3]
And those who don't create jobs
Really need help too
'Cause without their seventh home
How will they make it through?

It's not time for complaining
Not the time for class war
It's time to sacrifice yourself
To give them more and more and more
And more and more and more

[Chorus]
Save the rich
America's built on corporate greed
It's not Wall Street's fault
If you can't get what you need

Save the rich
Don't go crying to mommy
'Cause if you don't agree
Then you're a socialist commie

Save the rich

[Bridge]
Blame yourself for your problems
Not the bad economy
So what if those who have the most
Are the ones who put it in jeopardy?

**** your student loans
**** your kids and their healthcare
It'll only take 10,000 of your jobs
To put another private jet in the air

[Chorus]
Save the rich
It's so easy to do
Just let yourself be ignorant
To what's been done to you

Save the rich
By doing nothing at all
Deny all sense and logic
And just think really small

You should think really small
Or just don't think at all
And save the rich

 

[skatingguy]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in regards to the discussion of the Greek debt crisis, but American financial firms played a significant role in setting the stage for the crisis.

Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis
By LOUISE STORY, LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NELSON D. SCHWARTZFEB. 13, 2010

As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chaseand a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities.

Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis (Published 2010)

Wall Street did not create Europe’s debt problem, but bankers enabled Greece and others to borrow beyond their means, in deals that were perfectly legal.

www.nytimes.com

 

[mag]

Chris Hayes succinctly explains exactly why Trump is successful. It is terrifying.

Chris Hayes: Trumpism Must Be Peacefully But Completely Destroyed | All In | MSNBC

Chris Hayes says the people who feel moral revulsion at the "send her back" chant must collectively mobilize in greater numbers than the chanters.» Subscribe...

youtu.be

 

[mag]

Sorry, double post.

 

[skatesindreams]

Perspective about the religious divide created by Trump:

The God of Love had a really bad week

Diana Butler Bass writes that America's white churches are roiled by political division. Although pro-Trump evangelicals are a solid majority, the divides in other white Christian groups are fairly even. White Christianity right now is a dumpster of discord; internecine warfare has not been this...

www.cnn.com

 

[Reuven]

Y’all realise that facts and reality are part of the vast left-wing conspiracy, right?

 

[Vagabond]

Perspective about the religious divide created by Trump:

I don't think Trump is the one to blame for this. All he has done is exploit a divide that has been in existence for quite some time, if not always. What may be new is the explicit willingness to go along with a President and even say that he is doing God's work, notwithstanding what he does in his personal life.

 

[skatesindreams]

Trump makes a pretense of faith; as he mocks its' values/practices.
Many of his "followers" do the same.

 

[caseyedwards]

'Very substantial evidence' Trump is 'guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,' House Judiciary Chair says

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Sunday said Robert Mueller's report presents "very substantial evidence" that President Donald Trump is "guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors" -- an impeachable offense.

www-m.cnn.com

Impeachment though is not a lengthy process. It literally can be done in 3 months or less

 

[ballettmaus]

Impeachment though is not a lengthy process. It literally can be done in 3 months or less

Not if they have to sue to enforce subpoenas which I'm sure they'd have to do.

 

[caseyedwards]

Not if they have to sue to enforce subpoenas which I'm sure they'd have to do.

But the good thing about that is refusal to honor subpoenas is impeachable too

 

[Prancer]

But the good thing about that is refusal to honor subpoenas is impeachable too

Thanks for reminding me that July 18 has come and gone and Trump hasn't been impeached.

I am sure I speak for everyone when I say it's a shame you didn't take me up on my wager.

 

[ballettmaus]

But the good thing about that is refusal to honor subpoenas is impeachable too

How do you want to impeach witnesses who either don't work in the WH anymore, never worked there or hold advisory positions and/or the Deutsche Bank and the Trump Org's accounting firm?

 

[ballettmaus]

Op-Ed: Why "send her back" is even worse than "lock her up" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...orse-than-lock-her-up/?utm_term=.d25537181c8a

 

[Buzz]

Chinese investment in the US has plunged about 90% since Trump took office. Maybe a sharp drop in foreign investment will put a dent in Trump’s armour.

Chinese Money in the U.S. Dries Up as Trade War Drags On (Published 2019)

Tougher regulations and uncertainty about tariffs have made America less friendly for foreign investment.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ballettmaus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/he-always-doubles-down-inside-the-political-crisis-caused-by-trumps-racist-tweets/2019/07/20/b342184c-aa2e-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html?utm_term=.a4ffef63be38

The White House vote-counters initially feared as many as 50 Republicans might defect to support the resolution, and Trump ordered an all-hands White House effort to keep the GOP caucus together. White House aides told allies on the Hill that it was okay to criticize Trump, as long as they didn’t vote with Democrats.


Trump was obsessed with the vote tally and received regular briefings.

One argument that I've heard from Democrats is that Trump wants them to impeach him. Am I really supposed to believe that a man who's afraid of a resolution actually wants to be impeached? Sure, he can cry victim and witch hunt if he gets impeached. But he'd probably go ballistic if he were impeached.

 

[ballettmaus]

So I found this Politico article yesterday quite depressing. It talks about the Democrats' current approach to force Trump into compliance with oversight. Basically it sounds like the approach is to pile up contempt citations, instances of lack of cooperation, etc., in the hopes of going to court and getting a judge or judges to rule that Trump HAS to comply. The problem is that if the court cases come up against conservative or Trump-appointed judges, the rulings could go against Congress and actually wind up reducing Congress's oversight role.

I understand their reasoning. It would be devastating if the courts restricted congressional oversight. The President, apparently, already has a lot of power because the Constitution is leaving so much up for interpretation, and the President should not get any more power.

On the other hand, was there ever a battle or a fight that was won without taking risks and/or by expressing fear and treading carefully? And what good is their power of oversight if the President is blocking it anyway?

They are certainly in a tough spot but the less that they do and the less that they hold Trump accountable, the more empowered he will feel and the more his behavior will be normalized.

(Plus, it's also one of the reasons why the pro-impeachment voices were/are for impeachment: they argue(d) that it would make it easier for Democrats to win the court fights).

I've been patient with Pelosi, because I really do think she knows how to play this game.

She knows how to play politics. I don’t believe she knows how to play this particular game, though. And yes, no one in Congress does. However, there are experts on the subject of fascism and authoritarians who could advise her on how to deal with Trump and the public but I have not heard that she is seeking such advise.

My guess is that she's waiting for the Mueller testimony and its aftermath.

What if the aftermath isn’t what she expected? What if people don’t care anymore because they have moved on, because the momentum is lost? What if fewer people than expected watch because it’s summer? What about the fact that she said that many don’t understand the process and expect immediate removal – the hearing won’t change that, will it?

I think that starting an inquiry would have given Democrats a chance to keep the report and Trump’s crimes in the news media, with Mueller’s testimony as one of the highlights. Now, it feels like it just pops up without much context in the middle of summer, only a few days before Congress leaves for summer recess.

I hope I’m wrong but I had hoped and was disappointed so many times over the past three years that I realized the other day that I don’t have any hopes that anything will come out of the hearing. I expect that it will happen, and then, the same people who are outraged over Trump’s activities will be outraged, there will be some big headlines, Trump will go on a twitter rant, then Congress will go on recess and afterwards, it will be back to "normal".

(That said, I think that forcing a vote on impeachment was ridiculous the other day. I don’t think impeachment should happen without hearings that expose all of Trump’s crimes and violations).

While he probably will not offer anything not already written in his report,

He has already said that he will limit his testimony to the report.

Pursuing impeachment earlier in the year would have served zero purpose. I'm expecting it to happen around September or October... once Trump's crimes have been exposed, without question. Barr, Roger Stone and others will likely be going down as well. At that point, and only at that point, will impeachment will have an impact, as we head into the election year

I believe their time to open an impeachment inquiry was in May and June, when they had the public's attention and interest and Mueller was fresh on their minds.

But in September, the public will be busy with getting their kids back to school and Congress will most likely be busy figuring out/passing the budget and avoiding a shutdown (and dealing with whatever the latest Trump scandal will be) and I expect that Mueller and the report will be even further removed from the public's minds than they are now.

 

[skipaway]

Ok, I’m sorry, but this just cracks me up. Twitter can be so awesome!
Ivanka buys her Daughter the Whitest Puppy Ever

 

[ballettmaus]

Ok, I’m sorry, but this just cracks me up. Twitter can be so awesome!
Ivanka buys her Daughter the Whitest Puppy Ever

I saw this yesterday and the puppy is cute and all but is there anyone in this family who isn't tone deaf and/or has at least a limited grasp of what "optics" means when you're leading a public life?

 

[demetriosj]

I saw this yesterday and the puppy is cute and all but is there anyone in this family who isn't tone deaf and/or has at least a limited grasp of what "optics" means when you're leading a public life?

You've got to be kidding, right?