The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quantum Quack said:
The bottom line is that the Presidents mandate is only present because the majority of USA citizens remain silent. (Hence the term pseudo mandate as it really is no mandate at all)
Click to expand...
Trump doesn't have a mandate. He never has. His job approval has fallen from 45% to 35% since assuming office.
 
#obstructionofjustice | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​


Would you believe another context has emerged for obstruction of justice?

Via NYT↱:

The president, when asked by the pool of reporters covering a midday meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House whether he supported Mr. Mueller, gave no answer, even though he often uses such interactions to make headlines or shoot down stories he believes to be fake.

That may have been by design, according to a person who spoke to Mr. Trump on Tuesday. The president was pleased by the ambiguity of his position on Mr. Mueller, and thinks the possibility of being fired will focus the veteran prosecutor on delivering what the president desires most: a blanket public exoneration.​

And just in case you missed it, the summary from The Hill↱:

On Tuesday night White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters flying with Trump on Air Force One that the president wasn't going to fire Mueller, tamping down such rumors.

“While the president has the right to, he has no intention to do so,” Sanders told reporters flying with Trump back to Washington from a day trip to Wisconsin.

However, White House sources told The Times that Trump is hard to predict, and they cannot be sure he won't fire Mueller. Others who had spoken with Trump Tuesday said that the president's ambiguity on Mueller was intentional and that the possibility of being fired would help keep Mueller in line.​

The idea, of course, is that Mr. Trump's staff apparently had to talk him out of firing Robert Mueller. And somewhere in the middle of it he went and did his boasting bit, and then someone ran to the freaking New York Times. Donald Trump doesn't beg. But that only begs the question: What does he have to do so that we will impeach him?
____________________

Notes:

Seipel, Brooke. "Top aides talked Trump out of firing Mueller: report". The Hill. 13 June 2017. TheHill.com. 13 June 2017. http://bit.ly/2smuoue

Thrush, Glenn, Maggie Haberman, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. "Trump Stews, Staff Steps In, and Mueller Is Safe for Now". The New York Times. 13 June 2017. NYTimes.com. 13 June 2017. http://nyti.ms/2rp6EGP
 
Maybe Mueller will resign and make sure the mystery around his resignation is fueled by Trumps apparent hedging...
Fiction:
Reporter: "Did the president force you to resign?
Mueller: "No comment"
 
iceaura said:
That is yet another false statement, intended to cover up the real world distinction between rightwing authoritarian propaganda and actual discussion or point of view; the false equivalency of the American authoritarian Right once again masquerading as a universal or disinterested cynicism.
Click to expand...
Feel free to trust Clinton. That's not my problem.
iceaura said:
Pat Buchanan is a familiar figure to followers of the rise of fascism in the US. So is Lew Rockwell.
Click to expand...
He is a familiar figure to me too. That's why I have written "Buchanan" instead of "some unknown freak". The point being?

By the way, one important characterization of a totalitarian society is that everybody violates some laws. One simply cannot exist without violating laws. With the consequence that everybody feels insecure: "If necessary, "they" can find a reason to imprison me."

What happens now closely remembers this. The law is clearly vague enough, and one can reasonably hope (and the anti-Trumpers obviously hope) that one can always find some "evidence" that Trump has violated the law and can be impeached. The only thing which prevents this is that those who decide about this are not (yet) under the control of the anti-Trumpers.

So, the question if Trump will be impeached or not has, quite obviously, not much to do with real violations of law, but is pure politics. And it does not matter at all how all this ends - the impeachment show will tell this to everybody: there is no rule of law in the US, but rule of political intrigue.
 
Last edited:
Schmelzer said:
Feel free to trust Clinton. That's not my problem.
Click to expand...
do you mean this person:
hillary-clinton-jpg.1499

or the other one what's his name ... Bill? ( or both?)
 
Quantum Quack said:
The bottom line is that the Presidents mandate is only present because the majority of USA citizens remain silent. (Hence the term pseudo mandate as it really is no mandate at all)
Click to expand...
Well, it's not a matter of remaining silent. It's a matter of our cockamamie way of electing a POTUS. We have an electoral college system. It's an undemocratic institution. That's how a person like Trump can lose the popular vote and win the election.

For the vast bulk our our history the electoral college hasn't mattered, because the winner of the popular vote normally wins the electoral college vote. But in recent years, that's increasingly not the case.
 
Schmelzer said:
He is a familiar figure to me too. That's why I have written "Buchanan" instead of "some unknown freak". The point being?
Click to expand...
That you clearly don't know much about him, or you wouldn't spam a science forum with his opinions.
Schmelzer said:
Feel free to trust Clinton. That's not my problem.
Click to expand...
I don't, of course - I have been an enemy of both Clintons for their entire national political careers. That would be obvious to anyone capable of evaluating American politics, when reading my posts.
And nobody here cares whether your bs is a problem for you - when you continually spam this forum with garbage and propaganda from the goofiest of the American fascist media feeds, whether your gullibility and ignorance is a problem for you or not is irrelevant.
Schmelzer said:
By the way, one important characterization of a totalitarian society is that everybody violates some laws. One simply cannot exist without violating laws. With the consequence that everybody feels insecure: "If necessary, "they" can find a reason to imprison me."

What happens now closely remembers this. The law is clearly vague enough, and one can reasonably hope (and the anti-Trumpers obviously hope) that one can always find some "evidence" that Trump has violated the law and can be impeached. The only thing which prevents this is that those who decide about this are not (yet) under the control of the anti-Trumpers.

So, the question if Trump will be impeached or not has, quite obviously, not much to do with real violations of law, but is pure politics.
Click to expand...
You are actually, sincerely, arguing that Trump is vulnerable to prosecution because of some net of petty laws he can't help but have broken, as a victim of an increasingly totalitarian situation. Trump, the billionaire Republican real estate magnate and elected President, is a potential victim of petty authoritarian law in your judgment.

You have no idea how utterly ridiculous that claim is, do you.

Here's a tip: you can tell when you are posting foolishness in ignorance, and are about to say something ludicrously false and quite silly about US politics: it's when you catch yourself typing the word "obvious".
 
iceaura said:
That you clearly don't know much about him, or you wouldn't spam a science forum with his opinions.
Click to expand...
A science forum almost without any real scientists, lol. This is a political discussion forum dominated by US liberals, where it is also allowed to discuss some scientific questions, nothing more.

Then, I don't evaluate people based on what I knew about them, but based on the content of what they write.
iceaura said:
You are actually, sincerely, arguing that Trump is vulnerable to prosecution because of some net of petty laws he can't help but have broken, as a victim of an increasingly totalitarian situation. Trump, the billionaire Republican real estate magnate and elected President, is a potential victim of petty authoritarian law in your judgment. You have no idea how utterly ridiculous that claim is, do you.
Click to expand...
Of course I know, and that's why this is, as usual, not my claim, but your fantasy.

And here is a tip how you can tell if you write something wrong about me: You use the word "you".
 
Schmelzer said:
Then, I don't evaluate people based on what I knew about them, but based on the content of what they write.
Click to expand...
Same as, in the case of a pundit and writer: You don't know much about what he has written.
Schmelzer said:
Of course I know, and that's why this is, as usual, not my claim, but your fantasy.
Click to expand...
Forgotten so soon? Here, again:
By the way, one important characterization of a totalitarian society is that everybody violates some laws. One simply cannot exist without violating laws. With the consequence that everybody feels insecure: "If necessary, "they" can find a reason to imprison me."

What happens now closely remembers this. The law is clearly vague enough, and one can reasonably hope (and the anti-Trumpers obviously hope) that one can always find some "evidence" that Trump has violated the law and can be impeached
Click to expand...
You simply have no idea how ridiculous that is.

Nothing that happens to Trump is going to "remember" any such situation. For starters, any vagueness works in his favor.
 
iceaura said:
I have been an enemy of both Clintons for their entire national political careers.
Click to expand...
Why? Because Hillary has devoted her entire life to community service? Or is it because Bill Clinton left office with a budgetary surplus, which could have been used to reduce the national debt and enable the funding of needed social services from the consequent savings in interest?
The interest on the national debt is how much the federal government must pay on outstanding public debt each year. The current interest on the debt is $266 billion. That's from the federal budget for fiscal year 2017 (October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017).
Click to expand...

Can you point to a specific instance which caused you to become an "enemy" of the Clintons?
 
Last edited:
It's just another wacko with a gun. We've seen this story many times before. The victims are different, but the story is the same.

This is good news for Trump as it shifts media attention away from his Russia and corruption problems.
 
joepistole said:
It's just another wacko with a gun. We've seen this story many times before. The victims are different, but the story is the same.

This is good news for Trump as it shifts media attention away from his Russia and corruption problems.
Click to expand...

Is it though? I mean, it was a middle aged, slightly overweight white guy... kind of Trump's bread and butter base it seems. He can't blame it on "da brown people!" this time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top