Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 7th Nov 2018, 17:19
  #16421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,475
Originally Posted by SpringHeeledJack View Post
Would one of 'our cousins' be so kind to explain in simple terms what it means to the present US leader if he controls the Senate, but the opposition controls The House of Representatives ? If it were an arm-wrestle, who would be at an advantage ? Thanks!
The short answer is that, since the House of Representatives controls the money, Trump will have to fight, bicker, and actually make deals to get any legislation through. He may also be moved to use his Veto Power since stuff may get generated in the House that he doesn't like.

Senate: If another Supreme Court Justice vacancy opens up, he'll have less trouble getting the seat filled.

@PDR: I love it. As I said, in a democracy the people get the government they deserve. In that district of Nevada, they deserve a dead guy.

@Trump: by choosing the politics if vitriol and personal destruction, Trump has alienated no small number of swing voters. The Democrats making these gains in the house is those swing voters sending Trump a message. I wonder if he'll listen. Betting the under.

Speaker of the House: there have been some noise made in the Democratic party that if they get the House back, they don't need Granny Pelosi to be speaker again. So, let me offer up a recommended better choice.
Hakeem Jeffries. For once, I agree with the editorials in the Economist.
His pragmatism is as striking as his moderation. He praises Jared Kushner as a “tremendous partner” in his support for a bipartisan criminal-justice bill that Mr Jeffries co-sponsored. It was derided from the left as too weak, including by two Democratic senators with presidential ambitions, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. They probably also minded the fact that President Donald Trump praised the bill. Mr Jeffries gives them short shrift: Democrats should back useful legislation whoever is president, he says, and a stronger bill was impossible under Mr Trump. He also questions their political judgment. Allowing criminal justice to become a partisan issue has handed the Republicans an offensive weapon, he says. “If we can make this a non-partisan issue, that is to Democrats’ advantage.”
Taking a page from Bill Clinton's book on how to get something done. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I have a personal bias here: I think Stenny Hoyer from Maryland would be a good Speaker (my Dad knows him a little bit) and he's seasoned enough to know the in and outs of the DC labyrinth. Not sure if he'll try again.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 17:31
  #16422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
Turin:
Those who live in a Parliamentary system have a hard time understanding that the "leader" (i.e. President) has a completely separate election process from the Legislative branches (House and Senate). As often as not there is a division of power here, and a single party does not control all three institutions. That is by design.

Many of us actually think a divided government is better -- less chance for any of them to screw over the People. The price paid, of course, is incessant squabbling and "investigating", and that is surely what we will see now.

As far as Congress, and why the powers divide: A senator is elected by the entire state. A Congessman ois elected only in his or her district. In my state of Washington there are 10 districts. The state as a whole has a very different political allegiance than my particular district. Look at electoral maps by state or county and you will understand the massive difference we have between urban and rural citizens.
obgraham is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 17:45
  #16423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,717
However badly it has gone for Trump it is nothing compared with Obama in 2010 after his first two years as POTUS.

From Wiki.

Approximately 82.5 million people voted.[3] The Democratic Party suffered massive defeats in many national and state level elections, with many seats switching to Republican Party control. Although the President's party usually loses congressional, statewide and local seats in midterm elections, the 2010 midterm election season featured some of the biggest losses since the Great Depression.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 18:25
  #16424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post
However badly it has gone for Trump it is nothing compared with Obama in 2010 after his first two years as POTUS.

From Wiki.
So many things come into play, the historic mid term changes, the Democrats focusing on health care, the Republicans seeming inability to get their message across while the Democrats do, 44 Incumbent Republicans retiring this year, the list goes on and on.

Again, judging by the amount of dollars spent, we got the best that money can buy.

Musical chairs, most within 10 percent, even with the larger than normal turn outs and the Hollywood/musician/Obama efforts.

Folks here in la la land voted to keep paying higher fuel and registration fees for vehicles, yet still pour more into the high speed train to nowhere.

Oh well, it will keep the news folks primed and busy for 2020.
fltlt is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 18:34
  #16425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,712
Obgraham. Thank you, that makes sense now. Perhaps our parliamentary system in UK could learn a thing or two.
TURIN is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 20:25
  #16426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Oh waiter.

I’ll have what he’s drinking...
No, no spirits or ale present. Just a polite poke at those who were assuring us that since Trump prevailed in 2016 that this was assurance that he would retain control of the House in 2018. Didn't quite work like.

Will the Democrats have any serious possibility of chivving out Trump's tax returns? It would be fun to see a forensic accountant dig through it but it seems that this is just talk and idle threats. How in the world would they ever go about it?
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 22:16
  #16427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
In other election news, California chickens won their freedom from their cages.

(I kid you not, this was on the ballot)

I expect the Dems will seek a way to grant those liberated hens voting rights.
obgraham is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 22:31
  #16428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Lonewolf,
[/QUOTE]I have already dealt with one such, and I hope I won't have to deal with two.[QUOTE]

Not so fast. Delusions much?
Below is a cartoon along the lines of my firstt post.

I hope this will finally make you understand. I have a bit of doubt about that. And, please please, don't go into another lecture telling me the Army is not there to prevent mice to 'invade' the USA, that the Army would not only put one soldier and one mortar there and, anyway, there is more modern equipment available in 2018. Noow go on, insult me (or the artist or both of us) with your favourite expression.
Brakes on is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 03:57
  #16429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,517
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
In other election news, California chickens won their freedom from their cages.

(I kid you not, this was on the ballot)

I expect the Dems will seek a way to grant those liberated hens voting rights.
I so look forward to leaving this loony state. I wonder if I'll feel like I'm violating the chicken's civil rights when I toss it on the bbq?
West Coast is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 03:58
  #16430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,517
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
No, no spirits or ale present. Just a polite poke at those who were assuring us that since Trump prevailed in 2016 that this was assurance that he would retain control of the House in 2018. Didn't quite work like.

Will the Democrats have any serious possibility of chivving out Trump's tax returns? It would be fun to see a forensic accountant dig through it but it seems that this is just talk and idle threats. How in the world would they ever go about it?
who among the usual posters on JB predicted that?
West Coast is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 04:29
  #16431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
The rationale behind the US system is that it is one of "checks and balances."

The Senate, for instance, is expected to give "advice and consent" to what the President proposes, but as in the case of the nomination of Merrick Garland for Justice of the Supreme Court this role is not always fulfilled.

A more recent example is the way that a Republican Congressman, Representative Devin Nunes, had acted as head of the House Intelligence Committee; he seemed to have acted in an overly partisan way to protect the interests of Trump, meaning that he did not fulfill his appointed task of acting as a possible check on Trump's actions. He's now going to be replaced by a Democrat who will take a much harder line towards looking into Trump and his Russians. (Well, we can really make that "the Russians and their Trump.")

One of the things that makes Trump unsuitable for his role is the way that he can not handle questions about what he gets up to, when he's now going to face a barrage of questions from the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. I think we can expect to see Trump get all tangled up in clumsy lies that will only bring further pointed questions. On the personal level, he can look forward to Representative Maxine Waters, whom he has subjected to continuous abuse, some of it arguably racist, probably being selected to chair the House Finance Committee, when she probably will have a few questions for him to answer that he really will not be able to answer.

Trump's somewhat unhinged latest press conference should answer any doubts about whether Trump is going to change his style after this election defeat. He thinks this way of dealing out abuse and lies works, plus he really only has a distant and troubled relationship with the truth, so that we can expect more fireworks in D.C.

One area where Trump still has somewhat unchecked power is that of foreign relations, so that we can expect to see him jetting off to do more weird embraces of dictators various: Putin, Xi, and even Kim Jong Un.

Then there should be more of these campaign rallies, something else that puts childish Donald into his Happy Space.

This mid-term should make Trump even more Trumpish. I am looking forward to hearing why it is that the tax returns he was once so eager to hand over have to be kept secret, what the problem is there. Trump himself along with whoever replaces Sarah the Hutt and fork-tongued Kellyanne Conway will all have some spinning to do. Trump's been on 10 lies per day lately, when we might see him top that, although it is hard to imagine how he will be able to do that.

Alert Jet Blaster Uncle Fred asks how the House can demand to see Trump's tax returns. Well, Fred, thanks to a rule change done by Republicans, a Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee can subpoena those returns without needing Republican approval for that. Unless Trump can appeal successfully against that, probably going all the way to the Supreme Court, then he will simply have to hand them over. (Trump should not count on Brett Kavanaugh voting against that subpoena, if it comes to that. Kavanaugh got his appointment, so that he does not need Donald Trump any more, while it does not take much to act as a better man than Donald Trump.)

Trump's latest explanation is that a person of average intelligence will be unable to understand one of his tax returns, since they run to about 100 pages each. Additionally he claimed that no President has ever released returns that were under audit. That really begs some questions: "Mr. President, you seem to be of average or slightly below-average intelligence. Do you understand your own tax returns? If so, why can't an average citizen understand them? If not, why did you sign them?

"Also, contrary to what you just said, Richard Nixon released his returns even though he was under tax audit. Would you like to correct what you just said?"

Come on, Jim Acosta, we are waiting to hear you ask these questions, and then to see what color Trump's face changes to. (The wife, normally somewhat Sphinx-like when it comes to all things Donald, had to ask me the other night why Trump's face was that odd shade of orange. He seemed to have laid on an extra layer of bronzer for this latest press conference, was my explanation.)

Doesn't Trump see how odd it looks to have his face rendered in orange with pale circles around his eyes?

Last edited by chuks; 8th Nov 2018 at 05:13.
chuks is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 07:03
  #16432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
who among the usual posters on JB predicted that?
I can go back and troll through previous posts to find the exact quotes, but I well remember at least two posters being rather insistent that the polls would again prove to be in error. I think you know that this line was trotted out here and quite widely in the right leaning press. Thus it is no surprise that I made note of something so obvious.

What is of question now however, is if Mr. Trump's new lapdog attorney general is going to, within the next few days, fire Mr. Mueller. Interesting play isn't it? Should he (Mueller) deliver an interm report this week so as to "get some of it out there" or does he wait. That of course is said knowing that the report is not for him to make public--he only submits it to the proper authorities.

Thank you Chuks for clarifying the subpoena power that the Dems will have re. the tax returns. I am sure that there are hundreds of forensic accountants within a stone's throw from the Capitol who could decipher what Trump is claiming to be so hard to understand.

Frankly I look forward to the Democratic House making Hades hot for Mr. Trump. It will be amusing to see the Orange One flopping around like a fish on the deck of a ship. Sadly his base loves the lies and dissembling so I am not sure what will happen over the next two years.

Edit: Sitting here reading that a number of Republican Senators and orher officials are calling for the new AG to let the Mueller investigation proceed unhindered. Is this boilerplate response or are thesse men and women actually showing some spine?

Also...watching a brief clip of Trump's news conference. He seemed to be patriculary churlish, peeved, and petulant even by his low standards. Something must really be getting under his skin. Perhaps he has to interrupt his telly watching to gen up a pre emptive pardon (yes, yes, I know there is no such thing) for Don Jr and Roger Stone.

Last edited by Uncle Fred; 8th Nov 2018 at 07:31.
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 07:27
  #16433 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,276
What is of question now however, is if Mr. Trump's new lapdog attorney general is going to, within the next few days, fire Mr. Mueller. Interesting play isn't it?
POLITICO:

Progression Sessions: By far the most important news from last night was Trump’s decision to sack his beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who oversaw the justice department. Sessions will be replaced — at least on an interim basis — by his own chief of staff Matt Whitaker, who is now expected to oversee the Mueller inquiry into Trump’s links to Russia. And guess what? There’s TV footage of Whitaker from last year — before he was hired — suggesting ways that a new attorney general might stymie the whole investigation. “I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment,” Whitaker said, “and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt.” The Washington Post has the clip.
ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 07:54
  #16434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post


POLITICO:

Progression Sessions: By far the most important news from last night was Trump’s decision to sack his beleaguered attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who oversaw the justice department. Sessions will be replaced — at least on an interim basis — by his own chief of staff Matt Whitaker, who is now expected to oversee the Mueller inquiry into Trump’s links to Russia. And guess what? There’s TV footage of Whitaker from last year — before he was hired — suggesting ways that a new attorney general might stymie the whole investigation. “I could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment,” Whitaker said, “and that attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt.” The Washington Post has the clip.
Bravo young Mr. Whitaker. That's telling em!! I know that stymie and obstruction of justice are not the same but it seems that they are within hailing dustance of each other no?

Last edited by Uncle Fred; 8th Nov 2018 at 15:41.
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 08:54
  #16435 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,276
The wheels of justice turn slow, as the saying goes. why, in the UK some reports have taken decades to reach print.

Dicken’s Jarndyce vs Jarndyce comes to mind.....

ORAC is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 10:09
  #16436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Jarndyce v. Jarndyce was a civil case, a fight over an inheritance, when the joke was that the prolonged case with its high legal costs ate up the entire sum the Jarndyces were fighting over.

What Trump is faced with now is a political and or criminal case (his having done "high crimes and misdemeanors," going on from whatever Mueller presents, and then what Congress takes that term to mean). Nixon and Watergate applies much more than Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, I think.

The original quote is ""The mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small," but I think it can apply to the way justice works as well. Again, Nixon comes to mind; he was riding high after his big re-election win, only to be brought low by what he had done in the Watergate affair. Nobody, not even the Nixon-haters, saw that one coming, Nixon being ground into dust.

Here with Trump it is much easier to see multiple ways that his misdeeds might catch up with him, especially since he has done so many of them right out in the open, or else failed completely at hiding them. Donald, Jr. told us himself about that infamous meeting in Trump tower, when the only question left there is "When did Donald, Sr. know about that meeting, probably meaning how far in advance of it?"
chuks is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 10:12
  #16437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
b

Bravo young Mr. Whitaker. That's telling em!! I know that stymie and obstruction of justice are not the same but it seems that they are within hailing dustance of each other no?
It’s becoming obvious that Trump is simply incapable of hiring anyone who is not under the shadow of some sort of impropriety. Birds of a feather etc.

Trump's acting attorney general partner in firm guilty of vast scam
Hempy is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 13:43
  #16438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Odds on Trump getting another Supreme Court pick look to be getting shorter. Now he has extended his control of the Senate the confirmation process should be a lot easier for him this time after the Kavanaugh circus. I was watching an interview with RBG during the confirmation hearings and she didnt look at all well then - I'd be surprised if she stays on the Court much longer.

The supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been hospitalized after fracturing three ribs in fall at court.

The court says the 85-year-old justice went to George Washington University Hospital in Washington early on Thursday after experiencing discomfort overnight. The court says the fall occurred in her office at the court on Wednesday evening.

Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital for treatment and observation after tests showed she fractured three ribs.

Ginsburg broke two ribs in a fall in 2012. She has had two prior bouts with cancer and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 15:35
  #16439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
Chuks, old bean, Trump has successfully played the Dems for his first two years, and I have no doubt he will continue for the next two.
After we watch Senile San Fran Nan, Maxine Waterbrain, and that old cone head codger who’s name escapes me, appear in front of the cameras for the next two years frothing at the mouth and fussing on about impeachment, Trump will float into his second term easier than Ali over Frazier.

I do agree eith you on one thing...Trump’s orange face and white eyes looks really wierd. But then again, your side is always about the appearance, and never about the policies.
obgraham is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2018, 16:23
  #16440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reading
Age: 37
Posts: 100
So the Whitehouse is now inventing accusations of improper sexual conduct to ban reporters it doesn't like?

Is there a precedent for this? Or do republicans genuinely see something offensive there? And they call us snowflakes! This has to be the most snowflakiest thing since Mr and Mrs Snow spent Christmas in Lapland in an especially cold year and wrote an article on gender identity in reindeer.

It's also a little bit fascist. But hey, people with little knowledge of history are often confused by how a mostly decent people are seduced by fascism and enable it. The US, and this forum, are a live enacton for us all in how it's really quite easy if you play to people's basest instincts and fears, you can. Because it's easy. No critical thinking required about a complicated world. Just blame the others. Liberals, foreigners, immigrants. Blame them and the people won't question why their government allows such poverty, such lack of opportunity, such concentration of wealth, and that places in the richest country in the world have the same life expectancy as Rwanda. No, no, no they are poor because of a few thousand destitute Honduras, not because the American system requires it to be so. Meanwhile, while the people are happily distracted, the the government can keep running the country against the interests of its people, and the turkeys will keep voting for Christmas.

Whatever he does, however against American values, freedom, and etc his supporters will defend him and enable him. Weak, lily livered cowards. Because they are scared. Everything Trump says is about making people scared of something. Bless them, being so afraid of the world. History will remember the patriots as those who stood up to this 'regime'. (that's his word from yesterday, little slip of the tongue there.) There's parallels in history, I'll leave you folk to ponder them.
neila83 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.