• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure where he’a Getting that Assad has killed “millions” of his own citizens... The death toll, by my understanding is well under a million. Awful in its own right, it just irks me that on this he feels the need to lie again when the truth already serves nicely.

“Fluff job” indeed. He’s attempting to decently clothe naked pragmatism. He at least did flash his hand honestly when he spoke of the trade relationship. However dubious his business practices have been, Trump still is or at least fancies himself a money guy. He may not grasp international trade as well as we would like him too, but he does understand the political value of capital inflow with a lot of zeroes on the end. He is not wrong about the pragmatism of wanting the Kingdom to buy American arms in lieu of Russian or Chinese- and we of course don’t have a leg to stand on on that one either. But when he tries to wrap this as the Saudis being the ‘good guys’, as opposed to a flawed but useful regional ally, that’s when his statement becomes cringe-worthy.

It is ‘him’ though. I read that and can hear it in his voice at a MAGA rally. He is nothing if not consistent in how he addresses his base as the target audience. Much of what he says would not stand up to informed challenges, but he is adept at executing and remaining committed to the bypass when it comes to that.
 
The statement that Saudi Arabia is willing to invest $450 billion dollars in the US apparently comes from a statement Prince Mohammad bin Salaman made when visiting President Trump back in March 2018. This is above board which the Saudis already invest in the US and as this report shows, that a lot. However, there is a backlash arising from the murder of Jamal Khashoggi(e.g. Richard Branson has put on hold a $1 billion dollar investment the Saudis were going to make in his space exploration companies).

As for, the Saudis buying $110 billion dollars in US weapon systems, the reality is, depending on the source, its closer to $12-14 billion dollars. The $110 billion figure appears to be more of a wish list then anything.

As for, the Russians or Chinese stepping in, in the past both countries have sold, or tried to sell weapons to the Iranians. So, its unlikely the Saudis would allow either country into the Kingdom.  Finally, Russian/Chinese weapons would be incompatible with the weapon systems the Saudis already have which are mostly (all?) from Western countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada).
 
It's interesting how we gauge our disgust when it comes to death and murder and our "allies"

Tens of thousands of deaths in a few years of the Saudi - Yemen war.  Many more, including a hell of a lot of children, estimated to have died or will die from malnutrition. But it's the murder of one man, albeit in a pre-meditated and grotesque way, that grabs our attention.

Maybe it's the old adage about one death being a tragedy and a million just a statistic (or words to that effect).

Trump and friends should just be candid. We don't care who Saudi Arabia murders because we're making a LOT of money off them.

 
On a slightly different bent, Trump's war with the judiciary continues. Earlier this week he criticized the Federal 9th Circuit (California) for another loss his administration suffered there:

"It's a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit," Trump said as part of a lengthy criticism of the court. "That's not law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court like the travel ban and we won. Every case, no matter where it is, they file is practically, for all intents and purposes, they file it in what's called the 9th Circuit. This was an Obama judge. I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore."

In a very rare move the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court made this statement:

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement responding to comments Trump made earlier in the week criticizing the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Trump, not surprisingly doubled down:

"Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have 'Obama judges,' and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an 'independent judiciary,' but if it is why......" Trump tweeted.

Several minutes later, he continued, ".....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/21/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump/index.html

Even Fox News seems to be on Robert's side in this. See the video with James Trusty which can at this time be accessed from Fox's home page https://www.foxnews.com/

:cheers:

 
Or, you know, they go to the 9th because federal appeals from California or Arizona have to, as that’s the appellate court for those federal districts.  ::)

A president should at least be vaguely more conversant in the functioning of the courts system before he goes head to head with a Supreme Court justice. His ignorance on this matter is painful.
 
I guess the hue and cry about Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation was a wasted effort. The public protests and politicians hand wringing was just bluster. The suit against the new border policy was not filed by a state government, it was from the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights. They are not based in northern California but specifically chose to file the suit there. They know where to go to get the results they want.
 
A quick take from Forbes about GM closing plants, steel tariffs and what it might it might mean for Donald Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkiley5/2018/11/26/gm-cuts-jobs-and-plants-to-deal-with-changing-tastes-and-trump-tariffs/#12887f276057
 
Remius said:
A quick take from Forbes about GM closing plants, steel tariffs and what it might it might mean for Donald Trump.
Most reporting is missing this linkage.  Good call.
 
The article does not mention Mexico at all, GM operates 4 plants there, two built in 2008 according to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_General_Motors_factories
 
GM has been folding it's Canadian operation for years. When they closed the transmission and trim plant, we lost over 7,000 jobs in Windsor. We absorbed those losses and it hurt for awhile. However, the population, here, has moved on and GM is now just a faded memory. The impact from loss of employment has not been as devastating as the union predicted. In fact, you'd almost never know GM was even here. Things change, people adapt and move on. I look at it as one less corporate welfare client to service. Any employment losses, will be picked up in other sectors. People are resilient.
 
Updated,

mariomike said:
Regarding the 2018 United States House of Representatives election,

Democrat votes:  58,590,379   60,085,483

Republican votes: 50,101,060  50,673,163

Source: The Cook Political Report
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0
 
An interesting opinion piece published on Fox News of all places.  :o

Judith Miller: The latest Trump outrages (and why I'm upset)
By Judith Miller | Fox News

Americans should be appalled. In one 24-hour period this week, President Trump has set a new standard for outrageous, if not surprising, behavior.

First of all, we should be outraged, if not shocked, by the president’s muted response to Russia’s armed seizure of three Ukrainian ships in the disputed Sea of Azov days before Trump and his “best friend” – Russian President Vladimir Putin – were scheduled to meet Saturday on the sidelines of the G-20 summit meeting in Argentina.

It took a Russian act of war to pressure President Trump into canceling the latest planned assignation in his ongoing bromance with the Russian leader. For days after the seizure, Trump had been virtually silent about Putin’s obvious provocation.

Only shortly before leaving for Argentina on Thursday did Trump announce – by tweet – that the meeting with Putin was off. Before that, his strongest response to Moscow’s aggression was to say he was “not happy” with Russia’s conduct.

There was no condemnation of Russia’s belligerence, no demand that Putin immediately release the ships and sailors and permit free transit in a sea vital to Ukrainian trade, no call for more sanctions on Russia or on Putin’s oligarch pals, no rallying of America’s European allies for an urgent NATO meeting to defuse the crisis.

Even President Trump’s cancellation was hedged. “Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia,” he tweeted, “I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned” not to meet with Putin in Argentina.

But consistent with his habit of kowtowing to Putin, Trump could not stop himself from adding that he would “look forward to a meaningful Summit again as soon as this situation is resolved!”

Closer to home, Americans should be outraged by the White House’s indifference to the decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs not to repay veterans who got smaller GI Bill benefit payments than what they were owed due to computer glitches and other accounting problems.

According to a report in The Hill newspaper, VA officials told congressional staffers Wednesday they could not reimburse veterans without auditing past claims, which would delay future claims. This latest outrage has occurred weeks after the department reported that unspecified computer problems would delay GI Bill housing payments to hundreds of thousands of veterans.

Remember how Republicans mocked the computer glitches that accompanied ObamaCare’s roll-out? Where is their outrage now?

President Trump never tires of telling us how much he supports our men and women in uniform, even when he began the deployment of 5,900 active-duty U.S. troops and 2,100 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border shortly before the Nov. 6 midterm elections. The troops spent Thanksgiving away from their families, and news reports say the deployment is expected to continue past the Christmas and New Year holidays into January.

The military forces were ostensibly sent to the border to protect the U.S. against caravans of unarmed Central Americans – including thousands of women and children – seeking asylum or other entry into America.

But apparently, the president’s concern about the fate of veterans of our armed forces does not extend to ensuring that his own Department of Veterans Affairs will pay veterans what they are owned for housing and health care. The gap between “promises made and promises kept” when it comes to veterans is as broad and deep as the Mississippi. But where are President Trump’s tweeted howls of outrage on their behalf?

The president has reserved his angry outbursts for his almost daily assaults on Twitter and in comments to reporters against Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

And President Trump has dangled the possibility of a pardon before his corrupt, hapless and imprisoned former presidential campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Manafort pleaded guilty in September to two federal conspiracy charges and agreed to cooperate with Mueller. However, on Monday Mueller accused Manafort of violating his plea by lying to federal investigators.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., prevented legislation to protect the Mueller inquiry from even coming to the Senate floor this week by saying that such a measure was unnecessary because President Trump would never fire Mueller.

So the effort to impede a fair and thorough investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to get candidate Trump elected now includes the most senior elected officials.

Trump’s relentless attacks on the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” are outrageous enough. But obstructing justice by hinting that he might pardon Manafort if his former campaign chairman’s behavior pleases the president should infuriate anyone who cares about the rule of law. It was recently revealed that Manafort’s lawyers have been feeding the president’s lawyers information about Manafort’s dealings with Mueller’s team, in violation of his own agreement with the special counsel.

But shouts of outrage from Republicans, or from the president’s stalwart base, are rarely heard. Thanks to Trump’s steady drumroll of tweeted threats, his repeated lies, misstatements, and exaggerated claims, many Americans have lost their capacity for outrage. That, too, should frighten us all.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-latest-trump-outrages-and-why-im-upset

:subbies:
 
That would be this Judith Miller?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reporters-defense-of-her-flawed-reporting/2015/04/09/5bf93f14-de15-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e9d28a8b7339
 
Mod edit.

The milpoint whining has been deleted as it isn't adding anything to the thread.  If you want to complain to each other about your -87 points, do it over PM.

Quite frankly, this is petty and irritating to moderate, and we're now reviewing milpoints because of stuff like this.  We all know the saying "this is why we can't have nice things...."

The Staff.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
That would be this Judith Miller?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reporters-defense-of-her-flawed-reporting/2015/04/09/5bf93f14-de15-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e9d28a8b7339

This definitely shows that Ms. Miller has a somewhat of a credibility issue but I'd be curious to know about more of her op eds since then to see if it is consistent.

She makes some good points though.  And I will echo FJAG's thoughts on it is that FOX News editorial and opinion types seem to be very entrenched in their views and support for the president so this is indeed interesting coming from that side of the debate spectrum.   

 
Remius said:
This definitely shows that Ms. Miller has a somewhat of a credibility issue but I'd be curious to know about more of her op eds since then to see if it is consistent.

She makes some good points though.  And I will echo FJAG's thoughts on it is that FOX News editorial and opinion types seem to be very entrenched in their views and support for the president so this is indeed interesting coming from that side of the debate spectrum. 

Yup, it’s totally fair to scrutinize someone’s published work if they have evidenced a credibility problem. However the post FJAG shared is neither long nor complicated, and the three issues she raises in it as the three latest ‘outrages’ are all valid on their face. So dismissing the post based purely on the author of the editorial is, as I said, merely as hominem.

FJAG aid correct to note the additional interesting element that it is Fox of all outlets that published this particular piece. They are, shall we say... exceptionally lenient in their treatment of the Trump presidency thus far. To see an opinion piece as strongly worded as that on that outlet is interesting. All the more so in that she’s speaking to three issues that typically carry some significance with conservatives; the Russians as a competing foreign power; veterans,; and political corruption.
 
kkwd said:
I thought the historic outcome of a midterm election was for the party holding the White House to lose at least the House Of Representatives. Is it different now?

For historic perspective, the prior record held by Republicans in 2010 was slightly above 44.5 million, according to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2018, the Democrats surpassed 60 million House votes.



 
mariomike said:
For historic perspective, the prior record held by Republicans in 2010 was slightly above 44.5 million, according to the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2018, the Democrats surpassed 60 million House votes.

Did you take into account the increase in population?
 
kkwd said:
Did you take into account the increase in population?

309 million in 2010, 325m in 2017, FWIW. Rounded down to the nearest million.
 
Brihard said:
309 million in 2010, 325m in 2017, FWIW. Rounded down to the nearest million.

I won't be commenting on this particular subject from now on. It is neither interesting nor relevant.

2010 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
217,551,109

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xH_qRlVmK5JMZWxOJS_PPp0_6w6vMcTaZcjfSfIXJ-4/edit#gid=1424011440

2018 Voting-Eligible Population (VEP)
235,714,420

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tal3fAaKnEj_7Yy_7ftrNg4dJy4UxGk3oKSd3uPb13Y/edit#gid=2030096602

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top