The US Presidency 2019

[Journeyman]

WARNING:  I'm about to say something positive about Trump.   (It's a stretch, but it's the best I can do)

Are we taking bets....

The only gambling I'm concerned about with the US Presidency is the hand-wringing (either gleefully or dismayed) surrounding the growing theme of "inevitable" impeachment. 

Personally, I see Pence's Presidency as a horrific COA -- the erratic worldview we already see coming from the White House would have a newfound underpinning of competence.  Unfortunately for Americans, the focus would shift from destabilizing the international system to a more domestic agenda, with his extremist evangelical beliefs openly targeting religious and sexual freedoms.  If in doubt, look at his writings during his time hosting talk shows, or his legislation (often overturned as unconstitutional) as Indiana governor.  A Pence Presidency could not help but widen the chasm in an increasingly fractured, dysfunctional America.

So while there is varying degrees of evidence that Trump is: misogynistic; racist; sociopathic; likely illiterate; emotionally insecure; and frankly, not the brightest crayon in the box..... he's not the worst option.



Correction.... because I do dumb things on occasion. 

 

[mariomike]

Sorry for the nitpick, Journeyman,

I believe Mike Pence was governor of a neighbouring state: Indiana.

If in doubt, look at his writings during his time hosting talk shows, or his legislation (often overturned as unconstitutional) as Illinois governor. 

So while there is varying degrees of evidence that Trump is: misogynistic; racist; sociopathic; likely illiterate; emotionally insecure; and frankly, not the brightest crayon in the box..... he's not the worst option.

I can't see Pence able to get the base riled up at MAGA rallies the way Trump does.

 

[Journeyman]

Sorry for the nitpick, Journeyman,

I believe Mike Pence was governor of a neighbouring state: Indiana.

:bowdown:    The nitpick is completely justified! 


I was thinking of his abysmal response to the 2009 East  Chicago toxic lead/arsenic contamination disaster...conflating 'Chicago' and "Illinois.'  ~d'oh~ :facepalm: 

 

[kkwd]

Regardless of anyone’s political leanings, The POTUS is about to have a rougher ride starting tomorrow.

Of course. Soon after the swearing in and control of committees is complete the process of obtaining Trump's tax returns will begin. When they get them expect them to be dumped on the desk of the Washington Post soon after. But getting the tax returns could be a good thing, everybody knows you put all your illegal activities on schedule "666".

 

[mariomike]

Soon after the swearing in and control of committees is complete the process of obtaining Trump's tax returns will begin.

Promises made,

11 May 2016

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/730500562022760448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E730500562022760448&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2017%2F04%2F17%2Fnews%2Fdonald-trump-tax-returns%2Findex.html

 

[kkwd]

Promises made,

11 May 2016

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/730500562022760448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E730500562022760448&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2017%2F04%2F17%2Fnews%2Fdonald-trump-tax-returns%2Findex.html

Do you have direct knowledge that the audit is complete?

 

[mariomike]

Do you have direct knowledge that the audit is complete?

I just know what I read in the papers,

QUOTE

There is no law that stops a person from releasing tax returns while under audit.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

END QUOTE

 

[Remius]

Of course. Soon after the swearing in and control of committees is complete the process of obtaining Trump's tax returns will begin. When they get them expect them to be dumped on the desk of the Washington Post soon after. But getting the tax returns could be a good thing, everybody knows you put all your illegal activities on schedule "666".

My guess and it is only that, is that he has not paid a dime in income tax.  But it will all be legal.  It may also reveal a lot of offshore holdings.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

My guess and it is only that, is that he has not paid a dime in income tax.  But it will all be legal.  It may also reveal a lot of offshore holdings.

Considering what the a New York Times investigation found that is not a stretch:

Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I just know what I read in the papers,

QUOTE

There is no law that stops a person from releasing tax returns while under audit.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1421/release-his-tax-returns-after-audit-completed/

END QUOTE

There is federal law saying he 'shall' turn them over if they ask. He can refuse, go to court and if he loses, a small group of scrutineers will then get to look at them. A small group. If he just turns them over, the democrats will have them broadcast around the world in minutes. Even if the court decides in the dems favour, the IRS is under no obligation to drop everything and do a search and deliver. Heck, there might even be an election before they get around to it.

They say they are looking for conflicts of interest, although they have failed to state exactly what they are looking for. I'm guessing it's just a nosey fishing expedition and it tweaks Trump's nose.

Trump never said the audit prevented him from turning them over, but he did say his lawyers recommended not doing it during an audit. That makes perfect sense to me. If trained, professional IRS auditors, possibly have trouble navigating it, or need clarification on something. imagine if a bunch of bumbling, no nothing politicians get there hands on it. Better to have the professionals finish the job and remove all the false flags the dems are going to try read into it.

I see they also want to audit the Trump Foundation. I'd say sure, why not? Right after they are done investigating the Clinton and Obama Foundatioms.

 

[Remius]

An audit was essentially done.  The Trump foundation was forced to dissolve and pay back some money.  Happened just before Christmas.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/nyregion/ny-ag-underwood-trump-foundation.html


The Clinton foundation is also under the microscope and being investigated by the FBI.  was reported last year around this time but I do not know where it stands at this point.

 

[mariomike]

From a historical - not a legal - perspective.  President Nixon released his tax returns in December 1973, while under audit.

QUOTE

At the time, the 37th president was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, and questions were being raised about whether something also was amiss with his tax filings.

Reports had surfaced that Nixon had been paying a small amount of federal tax for several years, Joseph J. Thorndike, a historian at Tax Analysts told us in August. To quell lingering concerns, Nixon released tax returns to the public as well as to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Nixon was under an IRS audit at the time, Thorndike told us.

In an April 2016 blog post, Thorndike wrote that the IRS audit found Nixon owed almost $500,000 in unpaid taxes and interest.

"Nixon released his returns even though he was under audit. Ultimately, the audit didn’t go well for him-- it was unpleasant, embarrassing, and ultimately very expensive," Thorndike wrote. "But it was also necessary, given the persistent questions about Nixon’s returns."

Thorndike says Nixon’s disclosure started a tradition where presidents and candidates seeking the highest office release their returns to the public. His successor, President Gerald Ford, didn’t make his returns public, although he did release a summary of his returns. Every president since Jimmy Carter has made their tax forms public.
https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/oct/05/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-correctly-notes-richard-nixon-released-t/

END QUOTE

 

[Remius]

The Democrats are not holding back lol.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-move-to-eliminate-electoral-college-limit-presidential-pardon-power-and-more-in-first-days-back

Not sure what the likelihood of those things are of getting any further than the floor of the congress...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I suspect the likelihood is not very high.

However, you have to love the fact that in the US, the legislative branch knows it is independent from the executive and, regardless of party's position, the elected legislators take their role and personal independence  seriously and do try to move things the way either they promised to do to get elected or that they are asked by their constituency.

I would like to see our own Canadian duly elected officials act on their own actual role as "check and balance" of the executive power (the Queen and her government - which, BTW does NOT include the "backbenchers" of the same affiliation as the PM) and accordingly, exercise their freedom to speak or introduce legislation in Parliament regardless of the views/thoughts/inclination of HM's Government, instead of simply kowtowing to the PMO's wishes all the time.

 

[FJAG]

I suspect the likelihood is not very high.

However, you have to love the fact that in the US, the legislative branch knows it is independent from the executive and, regardless of party's position, the elected legislators take their role and personal independence  seriously and do try to move things the way either they promised to do to get elected or that they are asked by their constituency.

I would like to see our own Canadian duly elected officials act on their own actual role as "check and balance" of the executive power (the Queen and her government - which, BTW does NOT include the "backbenchers" of the same affiliation as the PM) and accordingly, exercise their freedom to speak or introduce legislation in Parliament regardless of the views/thoughts/inclination of HM's Government, instead of simply kowtowing to the PMO's wishes all the time.

The US legislature's independence from the executive does not equal being independent of their respective parties. Theoretically if the house and senate majorities are of the same party as the executive it works effectively the same as here when you have a majority government. The PMO's and cabinet's control here is a bit more apparent than the pull that a president and his cabinet have over their own party's legislators and is effected more through the house and senate leaders behind closed doors. It takes a very strong legislator who's prepared to lose the next election in order to buck his party's line even down there. Just see what's happening in the GOP right now.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

House Dems move to eliminate Electoral College
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-democrats-move-to-eliminate-electoral-college-limit-presidential-pardon-power-and-more-in-first-days-back

I don't see any advantage for Republicans having presidential elections decided by the Popular Vote.

Republicans won the presidential popular vote in 1988 and 2004.

Democrats won the presidential popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>At the same time Edward speaks to the types of jobs that are out there to keep unemployment low are "less stable" than jobs we traditionally equate with the working class, providing less benefits and stability

Based on my own family history, I suppose that "jobs we traditionally equate with the working class" have traditionally been unstable and provided little to no benefits.  What we observed for about 60 years in the past century was an exception.  I doubt Trump actually has a solution to re-setting those conditions.  But, as noted above, he at least promised to try; and, if he despises or merely has no regard for the working class, he at least manages to hide it better than many prominent Democrats.

I also suppose that the "changing world order" is not driven by the negative forces often cited (racism, nativism, etc).  Those are effects and parasites, not causes.  The problem might simply be that the establishments nearly everywhere have failed to do more than protect themselves and their privileges.  For example: Terry Glavin in Macleans, on Bolsonaro in Brazil.  Although Trump is privileged and the establishment has worked well for him, he found a path to power by at least seeming to be not another condescending smug member of the we-know-whats-best-and-we-deserve-to-rule (-and-to-live-well-while-doing-it) clique.  If the newly-"independent" legislative branch (always seems to coincide with a president of the other party) spends two years muck-raking and improving nothing except reassuring the 25% that they are righteous, I expect Trump to be re-elected and Democrats to lose the House.

 

[FJAG]

Sigh

Trump defends Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan

By Zachary Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN)During his freewheeling, 90-minute cabinet meeting Wednesday, President Donald Trump briefly argued that the Soviet Union "was right" to invade Afghanistan in 1979 because "terrorists were going into Russia," a head-scratching aside that was widely criticized as historically inaccurate.

"Russia used to be the Soviet Union. Afghanistan made it Russia because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia. So you take a look at other countries. Pakistan is there. They should be fighting," Trump said.

"But Russia should be fighting. The reason Russia was in, in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem is it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt. They went into being called Russia again as opposed to the Soviet Union," he added.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board reacted strongly to Trump's comments in an op-ed Friday: "Right to be there? We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with three divisions in December 1979 to prop up a fellow communist government."

The Soviet Union, which was comprised of Russia and several now independent Eastern European and Asian nations, did in fact invade Afghanistan amid Cold War tensions with the US.

But Trump's assertion that Russia was "right to be there" conflicts with the fact that the US strongly opposed the invasion and supported the guerilla insurgency that ultimately forced the Soviets to leave in 1988.

His claim that the incursion was a response to "terrorists going into Russia" also diverges with what the US believed, that it was part of the Soviet effort to spread communism.

The Kremlin's bloody nine-year campaign to support the Marxist government in Kabul cost the lives of more than 14,000 troops and hit the Soviet economy before its 100,000-strong army was forced into a humiliating withdrawal.

While the Soviet economy did ultimately collapse, it did not go bankrupt, contrary to Trump's claim. Additionally, that collapse was not solely caused by the invasion into Afghanistan but rather a myriad of factors, including systemic issues within the Soviet Union's communist economy.

. . .

See rest of article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/trump-cabinet-meeting-afghanistan-soviet-union/index.html

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

>At the same time Edward speaks to the types of jobs that are out there to keep unemployment low are "less stable" than jobs we traditionally equate with the working class, providing less benefits and stability

Based on my own family history, I suppose that "jobs we traditionally equate with the working class" have traditionally been unstable and provided little to no benefits.  What we observed for about 60 years in the past century was an exception.  I doubt Trump actually has a solution to re-setting those conditions.  But, as noted above, he at least promised to try; and, if he despises or merely has no regard for the working class, he at least manages to hide it better than many prominent Democrats.

I also suppose that the "changing world order" is not driven by the negative forces often cited (racism, nativism, etc).  Those are effects and parasites, not causes.  The problem might simply be that the establishments nearly everywhere have failed to do more than protect themselves and their privileges.  For example: Terry Glavin in Macleans, on Bolsonaro in Brazil.  Although Trump is privileged and the establishment has worked well for him, he found a path to power by at least seeming to be not another condescending smug member of the we-know-whats-best-and-we-deserve-to-rule (-and-to-live-well-while-doing-it) clique.  If the newly-"independent" legislative branch (always seems to coincide with a president of the other party) spends two years muck-raking and improving nothing except reassuring the 25% that they are righteous, I expect Trump to be re-elected and Democrats to lose the House.

There's a bottle of your favourite in your future if your soothsaying powers are true.

 

[dapaterson]

A treatise on the transformation of work in America over the past half century is online at Quartz: https://qz.com/1510405/gms-layoffs-can-be-traced-to-its-quest-to-turn-people-into-machines/