What will last of Trump?

[*Nately120*]

(07-18-2018, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Was that when Obama told him that no rational person could think a foreign nation could influence our election? 

There's that O word, again .

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 01:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: There's that O word, again .

I prefer the O face.

You know what I'm talking about:

[Arturo Bandini]

We're used to see politicians lie but like this it's a pretty new level.

He can't help make a sentence without lying.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I came out of the election thinking that at least Trump wouldn't have the support and knowledge on how to F things up too badly in a longterm manner. That is a good side of our government. Checks and balances do indeed work, at least overall.

Him picking at least 2 justices is potentially a long term problem, but once again, I don't think anyone too terrible will be picked because they still have to be approved.

Clinton chose 2 justices, W Bush chose 2, Obama chose 2. The world never ended, the country never ended. Sure Trump has shown shit judgement on choosing people, but in this case there is a counter-balance built in to the choosing/confirming process.

It is not a perfect system, but it is a pretty decent one. Trump's term will be over and 20 years from now it will be some other person who is a "nazi", or who "not a citizen", or a "war criminal", or a "rapist" who will be the new flavor of hysteria and source of end-of-days premonition for that 4-8 year span.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 04:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I came out of the election thinking that at least Trump wouldn't have the support and knowledge on how to F things up too badly in a longterm manner. That is a good side of our government. Checks and balances do indeed work, at least overall.

Him picking at least 2 justices is potentially a long term problem, but once again, I don't think anyone too terrible will be picked because they still have to be approved.

Clinton chose 2 justices, W Bush chose 2, Obama chose 2. The world never ended, the country never ended. Sure Trump has shown shit judgement on choosing people, but in this case there is a counter-balance built in to the choosing/confirming process.

It is not a perfect system, but it is a pretty decent one. Trump's term will be over and 20 years from now it will be some other person who is a "nazi", or who "not a citizen", or a "war criminal", or a "rapist" who will be the new flavor of hysteria and source of end-of-days premonition for that 4-8 year span.

The only problem with this scenario is McConnell has shown he intends to approve Trump's pick for SC as fast as possible.  That looks suspiciously like a lack of checks and balances.  And if anyone tries to actually check and balance they will be attacked as partisan and obstructionists.

No, I have no faith that the GOP members of congress will stand up to Trump in any meaningful way other than to voice "concern" and "dislike what he said".

[*Nately120*]

(07-18-2018, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I prefer the O face.

You know what I'm talking about:

Like any beta lib, I show my O face whenever Trump fails.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 04:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: The only problem with this scenario is McConnell has shown he intends to approve Trump's pick for SC as fast as possible.  That looks suspiciously like a lack of checks and balances.  And if anyone tries to actually check and balance they will be attacked as partisan and obstructionists.

No, I have no faith that the GOP members of congress will stand up to Trump in any meaningful way other than to voice "concern" and "dislike what he said".

Oh please.  It will be months before he is confirmed if in fact he is.  He will be questioned by the committees.  Interviewed by people from both parties.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 04:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh please.  It will be months before he is confirmed if in fact he is.  He will be questioned by the committees.  Interviewed by people from both parties.

Will he be interviewed?  Yes.

Will he be questioned?  Yes.

Will the Republicans rubber stamp him no matter what the Democrats say?  Probably yes.

Just look at what McConnell has said about it since Kennedy announced his retirement.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-18-2018, 04:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: The only problem with this scenario is McConnell has shown he intends to approve Trump's pick for SC as fast as possible.  That looks suspiciously like a lack of checks and balances.  And if anyone tries to actually check and balance they will be attacked as partisan and obstructionists.

No, I have no faith that the GOP members of congress will stand up to Trump in any meaningful way other than to voice "concern" and "dislike what he said".

Except Trump's efforts in implementing a healthcare system has already been shut down by cross-party voters. If he chooses someone truly terrible or unqualified (I am not talking "my party doesn't like him, so he's terrible") then there will be people who cross the party line and refuse to confirm him.

It literally only takes 2 people to stop it.

You know, kind of like a surplus of checks and balances. It doesn't matter what McConnell says if 2 out of 51 people disagree.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2018, 04:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except Trump's efforts in implementing a healthcare system has already been shut down by cross-party voters. If he chooses someone truly terrible or unqualified (I am not talking "my party doesn't like him, so he's terrible") then there will be people who cross the party line and refuse to confirm him.

It literally only takes 2 people to stop it.

You know, kind of like a surplus of checks and balances. It doesn't matter what McConnell says if 2 out of 51 people disagree.

I understand it "could" happen.  I doubt it "will" happen.

A SCJ is too important to the guys begging for votes at home.

Health care can be put off until they blame it on someone else.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: Will he be interviewed?  Yes.

Will he be questioned?  Yes.

Will the Republicans rubber stamp him no matter what the Democrats say?  Probably yes.

Just look at what McConnell has said about it since Kennedy announced his retirement.

Well there's your checks and balances.  Of course they will rubber stamp him barring him showing to be a loon.  Just like the dems rubber stamped Obama's picks and Bush's picks were rubber stamped.  etc etc

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:01 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: What do you expect after Trump's presidency is over? Do you think he is doing some serious damage that will last for years to come? Or do you think the next person in line will just step in and go "Alright everybody lets get back to good old text book politics and just completely denounce Trump right off the bat" and everything will be fine? 

In other words..... does the Trump presidency really matter? Is it really easy to just write off as an unfortunate event and the US will get a slap on the wrist for everything he's done that's seen as ridiculous and all will be forgotten?

You asked a good question. At the moment I see a legacy of bad policy, the effects of which will continue after Trump.

Neb mentioned the Supreme Court, which may be stacked right for a generation. Huge implications for abortions, unions, and healthcare. Bad news for most Trump supporters--trash healthcare but greater limits on abortion.  Good news for corporations.

Hollo pointed out the fractures to our European alliances. They wont come back automatically. And Trump is not finished alienating them. Just to emphasize a point Hollo made--the forces that put  Trump in office will still be there when he is gone electing the "freedom caucus" and Trey Gowdy's replacement to Congress, and generally making government unworkable and giving Trump act-alikes power there to block and disrupt. People trust this trouble to pass. But there is no good reason to suppose it will. Too many voters zig exactly when and where they should zag if they want to MAGA. They don't seem to learn from their errors, as post ww2 generations did for so long.

I want to mention another area where wreckage is accumulating--Asia--starting with the trashed Iran Deal. I don't see how we can get that back. Right now Europe, China, and Russia, along with Iran, are holding to the Iran deal. The deal was an amazing accomplishment, getting so many adversarial countries to agree, and Iran subjecting itself to highly invasive searches.  But without the US it is doubtful it can hold. That bodes ill for ME stability. But there is not even a 2% chance a new president could salvage this. Also, who want to enter a long term deal with the US now?

In the Far East, China and NK have been empowered. Kim is literally out of the box. Allies SK and Japan cannot count on us. The TPP is going apace without us, without our ability to influence FE trade in our favor.

Toss in the Paris Accords, and Trump's legacy so far is deal busting, shattering years work of multilateral diplomacy.  Behind he leaves no accomplishment like the GI Bill or the Great Society or the China opening.  Trump has broken almost every thing the fringe right wanted broken back in the 80s. R v Wade will be the capstone.

People don't like long posts so I will skip the tax cut for the rich--his one major legislative accomplishment--and its effect on the deficit and our future.

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 04:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh please.  It will be months before he is confirmed if in fact he is.  He will be questioned by the committees.  Interviewed by people from both parties.

What sort of checks do you see on this confirmation, Mike? Who controls the committees interviewing him?

Is there a likelihood that enough Republicans could be swayed to vote against him, should he prove too far right from the mainstream?

[Dill]

(07-18-2018, 12:32 AM)hollodero Wrote: I think that one won't go away that fast. The US really established itself as an unreliable partner who doesn't give two cents about any contract made by the "wrong" America. Even if Trump is out of office, the next one might arrive soon and display the same attitude.
The fact that there once was a Trump is enough to shake confidence in the US. I know I see it that way, and I want Europe to move further away from the US for good instead of just waiting Trump out. I guess many see it in a similar way.

Another thing I don't like about this alienating of our European allies. When the US and EU stand together with their massive economies, they wield tremendous power over bad actors like Russia and to some degree China.

They also shore up democracy, not to mention rule of law in international relations, as far as that can be done.

To the degree the EU decides to go it alone, it weakens US and EU power. Not YOUR fault, of course. You gotta do what you gotta do when Trump shoves your leaders around and treats you like mooches, while giving your common adversary much more respect. It just seems like Trump is going down Putin's wish list and checking every box--GB, NATO, EU, Montenegro, Syria.

It is puzzling that too few Americans see anything concerning about insulting and alienating allies as adversaries cheer. So long as nothing changes TOMORROW, what's the problem?

[*Nately120*]

(07-18-2018, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Another thing I don't like about this alienating of our European allies. When the US and EU stand together with their massive economies, they wield tremendous power over bad actors like Russia and to some degree China.

They also shore up democracy, not to mention rule of law in international relations, as far as that can be done.

To the degree the EU decides to go it alone, it weakens US and EU power. Not YOUR fault, of course. You gotta do what you gotta do when Trump shoves your leaders around and treats you like mooches, while giving your common adversary much more respect. It just seems like Trump is going down Putin's wish list and checking every box--GB, NATO, EU, Montenegro, Syria.

It is puzzling that too few Americans see anything concerning about insulting and alienating allies as adversaries cheer. So long as nothing changes TOMORROW, what's the problem?

It depends on how Trump's supporters view our allies.  Maybe I don't give them enough credit, but I could see them watching Trump distance himself from them as a good thing.  They're super liberal socialists who are weak on terror, so Trump shouldn't get along with them right?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 06:05 PM)Dill Wrote: What sort of checks do you see on this confirmation, Mike? Who controls the committees interviewing him?

Is there a likelihood that enough Republicans could be swayed to vote against him, should he prove too far right from the mainstream?

The same kinds of checks that exist with a Dem President and a Dem Senate. They vet you, they question you, they have hearings and then they confirm you. It’s the presidents choice, and the senate should just make sure the nominee is qualified and sane. And yes I was against the Republicans holding up Obama’s last pick.

[NATI BENGALS]

Have you ever eaten super hot chicken wings and slipped up and shit your white undies making a nasty orange stain?

Long story short that orange stain doesnt come out.

Makes you worry about bugs in the house the longer you keep them around, just throw them out

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2018, 09:08 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Have you ever eaten super hot chicken wings and slipped up and shit your white undies making a nasty orange stain?

Long story short that orange stain doesnt come out.

Makes you worry about bugs in the house the longer you keep them around, just throw them out

You were willing to reveal that about yourself in order to make the analogy? That’s dedication my man.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-18-2018, 09:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You were willing to reveal that about yourself in order to make the analogy?  That’s dedication my man.

Analogy? Whoops i thought this was klotsch. Didnt mean to put my story about an orange shit stain here.

[Bengalzona]

(07-18-2018, 09:44 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Analogy? Whoops i thought this was klotsch. Didnt mean to put my story about an orange shit stain here.

Very subtle.

Did you thank Michaelsean for playing along?