45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Countdown said:
Yipper said:
Trump is having quite a bit of success in international relations and taming the axes of evil. Afghanistan got a MOAB and made Iran suddenly less vocal. North Korea has quietly paused its nuclear testing after pressuring China to pressure NK. And Hamas is dropping its call for Israel destruction for the first time in over a quarter of a century. The anti-Trump obsessives will be tearing their hair out!
The MOAB appears to have achieved good PR but little else. NK is publishing movies of the White House being nuked and how exactly is Iran ""less" vocal?
Byker28i said:
Meanwhile the russians are claiming to have dropped nukes off the coast of the US to create a tsunami because the US are building up troops on the russian border.
Funnily enough, just reading that on Apple news app. Telegraph story but it is a retired colonel. Viktor Barantetz. Russia says he is talking out where the sun don't shine, so it must be true?If I have understood this right, Trump is proposing (via Twitter, so possibly just flying a kite) a fairly major change to US legislative process.
Background: As I understand it, in the upper legislative house (the Senate), in principle legislation goes through on a 51v 49 vote (or 51 v 50 if it is tied and the VP casts his deciding vote). Except that in those precise circumstances the minority will filibuster the legislation to kill it. And a filibuster can only be defeated by a 60/40 vote. All of which was supposedly set up to encourage the upper house to be a bipartisan and consensual chamber for finalising legislation.
Some time ago the Dems put a crack in that. When they had control of the Senate, they were being filibustered by the GOP over Federal Appeal court judge appointments. So they said for those, a filibuster can be broken with 51 votes.
This came back to bite them hard on the ass with Neil Gorsuch, because last month the GOP senate leader used that rule change to the GOP advantage to neutralise the Dems' attempt to filibuster Gorsuch. Gorsuch was duly appointed to the SCOTUS.
At the time I recall reading rumblings of dissent even from some GOP senators to the proposed rule change, on the basis that open the crack wider and sooner or later the dam will break completely: the filibuster will go for everything and everything will require just a 51 vote majority at the first pass to get by.
So today, in the face of not being able to ram though his budget deal, Trump tweets that the only reason a compromise has been needed is because the GOP doesn't have 60 senators. His solution: either elect more or change the rules so that the majority only ever needs 51% for everything.
That's a pretty rapid slide to the very bottom of the slippery slope. Interesting to see him having a tantrum and demanding the rules be changed when he doesn't get his way. Can't imagine he was a nice kid, or teenager, or person to do business with.
It will be interesting to see whether the GOP and its senators are will to hold out against him on this, not least because once the filibuster is gone for the Dems, it will also be gone for the GOP should they ever return to being in the minority in the Senate.
Background: As I understand it, in the upper legislative house (the Senate), in principle legislation goes through on a 51v 49 vote (or 51 v 50 if it is tied and the VP casts his deciding vote). Except that in those precise circumstances the minority will filibuster the legislation to kill it. And a filibuster can only be defeated by a 60/40 vote. All of which was supposedly set up to encourage the upper house to be a bipartisan and consensual chamber for finalising legislation.
Some time ago the Dems put a crack in that. When they had control of the Senate, they were being filibustered by the GOP over Federal Appeal court judge appointments. So they said for those, a filibuster can be broken with 51 votes.
This came back to bite them hard on the ass with Neil Gorsuch, because last month the GOP senate leader used that rule change to the GOP advantage to neutralise the Dems' attempt to filibuster Gorsuch. Gorsuch was duly appointed to the SCOTUS.
At the time I recall reading rumblings of dissent even from some GOP senators to the proposed rule change, on the basis that open the crack wider and sooner or later the dam will break completely: the filibuster will go for everything and everything will require just a 51 vote majority at the first pass to get by.
So today, in the face of not being able to ram though his budget deal, Trump tweets that the only reason a compromise has been needed is because the GOP doesn't have 60 senators. His solution: either elect more or change the rules so that the majority only ever needs 51% for everything.
That's a pretty rapid slide to the very bottom of the slippery slope. Interesting to see him having a tantrum and demanding the rules be changed when he doesn't get his way. Can't imagine he was a nice kid, or teenager, or person to do business with.
It will be interesting to see whether the GOP and its senators are will to hold out against him on this, not least because once the filibuster is gone for the Dems, it will also be gone for the GOP should they ever return to being in the minority in the Senate.
The filibuster is a daft waste of time. If they don't want 51-49, why not just change the rules so that 60-40 is needed (or whatever margin they want). Current makeup of the senate is 54-46 to the GOP, so if the Dems are resorting to filibustering it is because Trump has not convinced all of his own party to back his proposals.
p1stonhead said:
Countdown said:
Bill said:
Presumably Trump is the GOP candidate by default at the next election? (Impeachment notwithstanding...) If the Dems can find a non-toxic candidate then surely they're a shoe in.
Why would the Dem candidate be a shoe-in? That is just wishful thinking I'm afraid.Trump has tried to do pretty much what he said he would do during his election campaign. It was pointed out by sane people that many of these things were either not possible or not desirable. His core supporters didn't care.
After 4 years Trump will either portray his failures as a success (NATO, China, Syria, North Korea, NAFTA) or blame the corrupt failing fake swamp (Judges, senate, Congress).
He is a snake oil salesman par excellence. And the US has enough stupid people who are entitled to vote.
)Everyone who wasn't really fussed with politics and who didnt realise he could actually win will be out in force. I can't honestly see how he could have gained any supporters since he took office.
I predict record voting numbers too.
The Dems lost it because of Hillary, if turn out had been normal she have sailed through. Trump's fans might go for the bulls
t but most republicans and swing voters won't fall for it again. If (and it's a big if...) the Dems can find someone without quite so much baggage.Is there a selection for the GOP candidate or does Trump have a clear run?
RobDickinson said:
Jesus wept. How easy is it for TV programs to demonstrate what a moron he is, just by quoting what he says?
Countdown said:
RobDickinson said:
Jesus wept. How easy is it for TV programs to demonstrate what a moron he is, just by quoting what he says?
Im waiting for the day Saturday Night Live simply repeat something he/Spicer says word for word without actually changing it as a sketch
Worth a listen.
A talk to the Oxford Union given by Tony Schwartz who ghost wrote Trump's book "The Art of the Deal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI
A talk to the Oxford Union given by Tony Schwartz who ghost wrote Trump's book "The Art of the Deal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI
Eric Mc said:
Worth a listen.
A talk to the Oxford Union given by Tony Schwartz who ghost wrote Trump's book "The Art of the Deal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI
Enjoyed that, a lot. Although it was tinged with a degree of depression that I was listening to something from before he was elected. A talk to the Oxford Union given by Tony Schwartz who ghost wrote Trump's book "The Art of the Deal".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI
One thing from the Q&A at the end was especially interesting: the response to the question "how will Trump react if he loses?". It amounted to he will resort to anger and not accept the result. That seems to me to be consistent with his behaviour before the election in which he claimed it would be fixed - ie delegitimising the process and the outcome if unfavourable.
It led me to wonder what will happen in 2020. I am not convinced that he will walk away. I think he will stand. And for that matter I would not be surprised if he were to be re-elected, not least because GW Bush won comfortably at the second attempt whereas it seemed incredible that someone so ostensibly limited had won at the first attempt.
But what if he runs again and loses? I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that he would refuse to accept the result. What happens then?
I always think that this Police song must be Trump's personal anthem -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH0vjLwMyc4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH0vjLwMyc4
coyft said:
Major victory for Trump as House Republicans pass bill to repeal Obamacare.
In what form is the bill from the original and what were the numbers?Edit.
Heck, one hell of a win.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/331937-house-...
Edited by jmorgan on Thursday 4th May 19:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff