Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

I see zero jeopardy and a second term. Not being argumentative, just his party wont impeach and his supporters dont care.

I understand that position however I did read an interesting point that Nixon was a lot more popular than Trump is when his party turned on him. It still needs a bigger smoking gun but I don’t think he is immune from all repercussions and impeachment is a real possibility. 

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

I understand that position however I did read an interesting point that Nixon was a lot more popular than Trump is when his party turned on him. It still needs a bigger smoking gun but I don’t think he is immune from all repercussions and impeachment is a real possibility. 

I hope this is the case, but I am still smarting from listening to a lot of american friends saying he wouldnt be elected in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I see zero jeopardy and a second term. Not being argumentative, just his party wont impeach and his supporters dont care.

Agree on the impeachment but its pretty rare that a Second Term President increases their vote on the run for the second term and as much as he has his core, he lost the popular vote the first time and there was some complacency on the left thinking Clinton would win. It depends on the candidate the Democrats choose. If it's Biden, Trump may win, if it's Warren he may lose (I'm discounting Sanders for now, candidates with heart problems, nah). The rest aren't really in the game that much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Agree on the impeachment but its pretty rare that a Second Term President increases their vote on the run for the second term and as much as he has his core, he lost the popular vote the first time and there was some complacency on the left thinking Clinton would win. It depends on the candidate the Democrats choose. If it's Biden, Trump may win, if it's Warren he may lose (I'm discounting Sanders for now, candidates with heart problems, nah). The rest aren't really in the game that much.

I didnt know that, that means theres a chance. I guess as well the non MAGA types, if they havent seen the promised change, more jobs, then potentially they could be the swing voters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LondonLax said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/04/us-diplomats-told-zelenskiy-ukraine-trump-visit-was-dependent-on-biden-statement-text-investigation

There is direct evidence now of the White House telling Ukraine they will get something from the US if they investigate Trump’s political opponent. 

He must be in some real jeopardy with this and I’d say there is a lot more to come out.   

His decision yesterday to commit the crime he is accused of secretly commiting again, but this time on camera to the world's media, has meant we are entering a new stage in this situation. Of course he always 'doubles down', but the effect this time is to move all the pressure on to Congressional Republicans. He has effectively said, 'I'm bored of being investigated, and it's all going to come out in the end, so rather than waiting, I'm just going to commit the crime again, in public, and what are you gonna do about it?' Now Republicans in Congress have to decide their answer to that question, and already they are diverging in their answers. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The transcript and the almost certain defence of "but as we said, it's no quid pro quo" is hilarious.

Quote

 

“The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario,” Taylor said, adding: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” he told Taylor.

 

The article misses out the next line:

 

Quote

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

[9/9/19, 5:19:35 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.

 

"I know you're saying you organised the quid pro quo, and you think we shouldn't have a quid quo pro, but there is no quid pro quo. Now stop writing down your concerns in a place that investigators can read, and communicate your problems in a way that can't be traced".

 

Your honour, how could it be a quid pro quo? I said right there in the text that it wasn't.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one

Quote

 

On September 1, Ambassador Taylor sought clarification of the requirements for a White House visit:

[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?

[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s one thing for the US President to think it would be good if another nation investigated his political rivals. That was the essence of his press conference admission.

You can argue back and forth as to whether this is acceptable, inappropriate or a crime depending on your view of the role of the president. 

It is next level if the White House is pulling levers, such as the offer of a State visit, to try and influence the upcoming election. The evidence above appears to confirm this has happened. It is more of a risk for the President and the requests by aids to not have any written record demonstrates that risk. However, even this could potentially be argued away if you are one eyed enough in your support of Trump. 

The real hammer blow will be if evidence comes out that the president withheld military aid to the Ukraine in order to force their investigation into his political rival. Even dye in the wool Republicans would struggle to stay with him if evidence of that emerged. Messing with national security objectives for your personal objectives is another level again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, sne said:

One almost feel it's gonna take a war, or something of that magnitude to get him re-elected.

And yet I still think he will get re-elected.

Maybe the threat if a war will do it. Some tough talking might keep his seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Straggler said:

Trump is worried he might not get re-elected too, it is why he is prepared to raw dog the constitution to ensure that the election is neither free nor fair. 

Yep, if he loses the election, he loses immunity on the election offences from the first time and the statute of limitations won't have kicked in etc

He loses, he's going to jail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yep, if he loses the election, he loses immunity on the election offences from the first time and the statute of limitations won't have kicked in etc

He loses, he's going to jail

I'm not sure he will ever go to jail.  He deserves to, if there is any justice he will do, but I just can't see the USA jailing an ex President, even one as awful and criminal as Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More potential bad news. (For Donald)

Quote

Trump Ordered to Hand Over Tax Returns by Federal Judge in New York

President Trump was ordered to hand over his tax returns after a federal judge rejected the argument from Trump’s lawyers that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office will be allowed to subpoena eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns, according to The New York Times. Lawyers for Trump have already issued an appeal. In his ruling, Judge Victor Marrero was scathing of the president’s argument, calling it “repugnant to the nation’s governmental structure and constitutional values.” He ultimately ruled that presidents and their businesses are not above the law. The ruling came after Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, last month. Trump pledged to make his tax returns public during the 2016 campaign, but has so far refused to disclose them.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-tax-returns-federal-judge-orders-president-to-hand-over-eight-years-of-filings

Edited by sne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

Nuttier than squirrel poop. (In my great and unmatched wisdom.)

 

 

I thought that had to be a parody account...nope, it's the leader of the free world just threatening to "obliterate" the economy of a NATO ally.

Just another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â