Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[zenkai]

Another Trumphater in action....https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-m...victim-reports

A Florida man was arrested after he allegedly spit on a fellow bar patron wearing a MAGA hat Friday and later told police he didn't care because he has “more time on this earth" than the man he attacked, according to reports.

Matthias Ajple, 43, allegedly approached Robert Youngblood, 67, at a bar in Vero Beach, slapped the bill of his hat, told him to “go back to Russia, you f--- communist," spit on him and then left the bar, The Smoking Gun, citing the police, reported.

Really brave too, attacking a elderly man.

I couldn't imagine being so triggered that I verbally or physically harass someone because they support someone I don't. I guess it's hard to imagine because I am an educated adult.

[Daelak]

I couldn't imagine being so triggered that I verbally or physically harass someone because they support someone I don't. I guess it's hard to imagine because I am an educated adult.

They support a person who has directly increase the suffering and anguish of other human beings at our southern border, as a means to dehumanize and rally his ignorant base. If you still support a regime that does that to human beings, when would they stop supporting them?

[Dontrike]

I couldn't imagine being so triggered that I verbally or physically harass someone because they support someone I don't. I guess it's hard to imagine because I am an educated adult.

I couldn't imagine being so triggered that you send bombs to people Trump hates personally. I guess it's hard to imagine because I'm not a Trumplestiltskin.

[omerome]

Didn't see this posted, but somehow I doubt not much will be said from the republicans about this:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...iwM0lbmNDngQ_w

Just quoting myself here to say that I was right.

Why isn't this being talked about more?

[solinari6]

Just quoting myself here to say that I was right.

Why isn't this being talked about more?

I don't know, seems like if I were Biden, I'd bring it up any time someone mentions his son.

[Belize]

Just quoting myself here to say that I was right.

Why isn't this being talked about more?

At this point casual corruption is the least of our worries, considering the President of the U.S. is literally inviting foreign countries to meddle in our elections.

[Breccia]

Just quoting myself here to say that I was right.

How much did Hunter Biden get? $50,000 a month from 2014 to 2019 would be...three million. Hmm.

[Rozz]

Only link articles and reports about things Trump has done, said, encouraged, or supported. This mega-thread is about Trump, so do not spam links about other topics that can be discussed in a separate thread.

This warning has been applied to the OP and users will be expected to be aware of it after this point.

[Breccia]

NBC News reads something into this that I do not, but, here's what we have:

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney first learned about the U.S. military raid against ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi after the operation was already underway, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

Mulvaney was at home in South Carolina when President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday night that “Something very big has just happened!” He was briefed on the raid that night, officials said.

Now NBC News goes on to say that leaving out the Chief of Staff would be highly unusual, but here's where I disagree: he doesn't exist. Mulvaney is the acting Chief of Staff. There isn't a lot of precedent to leaving the acting Chief of Staff out of the loop.

But let's hear them out:

Andrew Card, former President George W. Bush’s longtime chief of staff, said the exclusion of Mulvaney from a moment of such magnitude in the presidency is difficult to grasp because the chief of staff typically would be in national security meetings leading up to it and tasked with coordinating with other top officials on everything from a communications strategy to a plan in case the raid failed.

“I’m baffled by it,” Card said. “It’s hard for me to imagine."

The news that the White House chief of staff learned of the al-Baghdadi raid around the same time as the rest of the world is the strongest indication that Mulvaney is perhaps a chief of staff in name only, officials said.

“It’s really unprecedented, and to me it’s just a symptom of a total breakdown in the White House functions,” said Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency.”

“Only in a completely dysfunctional White House would the White House chief of staff be out of the loop on something so significant,” he added.

For reference:



Look who is in literally the center of it all. I said it before, but, if you knew nobody in this picture and were asked "point to the President of the United States" wouldn't this guy be your first or second pick (since you know it's not the guy with all the medals)?

Regardless, NBC News says that Mulvaney was home at the time. Not sure if that's better or worse than "at the golf course" but at least Mulvaney has an excuse.

Is Mulvaney being sidelined? I gotta break with NBC News on this one. Simply put, Trump is running out of allies, and worse, he's running out of replacements. Mulvaney is 100% tied into Trump's most pressing issue. Trump can't afford to cut him loose like Bolton and hope Mulvaney won't turn on him.

[omerome]

I don't know, seems like if I were Biden, I'd bring it up any time someone mentions his son.

That's exactly what I wanted to highlight. This situation came into play, the basis of this Ukraine involvement, was because the resident's plan of getting dirt on Biden and his son and yet the resident should answer for the situation going on with his own brother.

But apparently, this can be interpreted as off topic I guess, so I'll just leave it alone here. Sigh.

[Breccia]

Democrats should help by capitalizing on their other weapon: the budget and the ticking clock

The budget and impeachment are, indeed, linked, which is why it's tough to decide which thread this belongs in. I'm posting here, you'll see why shortly.

You know I hate quoting the whole thing, but
a) this is a big deal, @Skroe is 100% right, and
b) the NYTimes has a paywall and I don't want y'all to miss anything.

When virtually all legislative activity ground to a halt during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999, senators had already resolved the most pressing item on their agenda: fully funding the government.

But now, as the Senate reckons with the growing possibility of an impeachment trial of President Trump, lawmakers have yet to address 12 must-pass spending bills. None have reached the Senate floor, let alone the president’s desk.

And the uncertainty of impeachment could further complicate the already fraught process of preventing another government shutdown, less than a year after the start of the last one, which devolved into the government’s longest lapse in funding.

“It used to be that we frequently finished up the appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year,” Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and one of the jurors during the 1999 trial, said in an interview. “That was the case that year.”

“A potential impeachment trial gives added urgency to our making as much progress as possible on the appropriations bills,” Ms. Collins added, “before we could be presented with the articles of impeachment.”

With just a handful of legislative days before the current short-term spending bill expires, lawmakers have begun to discuss extending that funding into early 2020 to avoid running out of money later this year if senators are mired in an impeachment trial with little time for legislative work.

The uncertainty about impeachment has aggravated the existing disarray in the annual spending process. As they did last year, lawmakers have struggled to agree on how to fund the Trump administration’s efforts to build a wall at the southwestern border. While they set overall funding levels in a budget deal earlier this year, lawmakers have yet to agree on how to divide that money among domestic programs.

“I would hope the senators accept the responsibility that they have to complete their work,” said Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York and the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee. (The House passed 10 of the 12 bills earlier this year.)

Buoyed by their majority in the House, Democrats have resisted appropriating additional money for fencing at the border or allowing Mr. Trump the authority to transfer money to wall construction. They have also objected to replacing some of the military construction funds that were already diverted to the wall under the president’s national emergency declaration. Republicans, for their part, have rejected such provisions in the spending bills as violations of the bipartisan budget agreement struck over the summer.

One Democrat, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, introduced separate legislation that would restrict the president from reallocating congressionally approved funds, though it is unlikely to reach the floor.

Most of the spending bills containing those provisions came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on strictly partisan lines, and the White House has held firm that Mr. Trump is unwilling to accept anything less than the $5 billion he has requested for wall construction. (Democrats have said that such a demand is a nonstarter.)

The Senate is expected to vote in the coming days on bipartisan spending bills that would fund some domestic programs, considered to be a promising start by several lawmakers.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, on Monday urged his colleagues to move forward with procedural votes on defense funding, once some of the domestic bills had passed. But his Democratic counterpart, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, has previously objected to legislation that was not bipartisan, warning that “that’s what the history of this chamber shows.”

But even if the Senate approves the legislation, for any federal programs to be permanently funded, senators must reconcile their legislation with the House’s version of the bills — and secure Mr. Trump’s signature.

“Barring a miracle of the first order up here, I don’t see any way,” Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said of the possibility that any of the spending legislation becomes law before Nov. 21. “Based on my experience here, I could see it going into late January, February. Might not. I hope it won’t.”

Standing in the Capitol late last week, he waved his hand in the direction of the House chamber. “We have things coming from the House, looming on the horizon. That’s going to take time in the Senate.”

There is little doubt that the process of funding the government will require another temporary salve when the current stopgap spending bill expires on Nov. 21. Lawmakers widely agree that they must avoid another gap in spending after enduring 35 days of a partial shutdown earlier this year. What remains unknown is what, if any, bills can become law before the Nov. 21 deadline.

“Fundamentally, it’s a political problem,” said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “You have Congress’s perpetual difficulty in completing the appropriations process on time and this year, it has run headlong into this confrontation involving impeachment.”

While lawmakers’ reliance on short-term spending bills has become more routine in recent years to help them avoid lapses in federal funding, some have objected to such bills that extend funding for months at a time, as opposed to a couple of weeks. While such legislation avoids the most destructive outcome — a lapse in funding, with thousands of federal workers going without pay — it in effect negates increases in spending that lawmakers negotiated earlier this year and makes it difficult for federal agencies to invest in long-term planning.

“There’s not a company that could operate where you say, O.K., we’re gonna operate for awhile, then just think about it and take a rest, then work some more,” Representative Kay Granger of Texas, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters earlier this month during a discussion about defense funding. “Congress gets in the habit of doing something like that, and it’s incredibly harmful.”

Ms. Granger, like other lawmakers on the appropriations committees, acknowledged that a short-term bill would be preferable to a shutdown, and lawmakers have said they remain focused on converting as many of the dozen must-pass bills into law as possible before Thanksgiving, in an effort to pre-empt any impeachment trial.

But a stopgap spending bill that expires after an impeachment trial would also test the negotiating power of a divided government after what is likely to be a bitter partisan feud over the allegations that Mr. Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to open investigations that could benefit him politically.

“To the extent that the appropriations committee has remained and continues to remain a bastion of bipartisanship," Ms. Reynolds of the Brookings Institution said, “the question of whether the appropriators themselves could come to an agreement is less of an issue than it is for the broader chamber, or even the White House."

The bolded above, yes it's a lot, the NYTimes doesn't fuck around, detail the issue Skroe pointed out. There's a deadline, it's soon, and Trump's now multiple-times confirmed quid-pro-quo to attract foreign interference in his 2020 election also is pointing the way instead towards his own impeachment. That's going to not only eat valuable time, but also make Democrats far less forgiving, because they don't have to be.

But the orange and bolded is why this thread wins. The issue is Trump's signature. And, yes, the Wall is part of that. The GOP has chosen to put themselves in this position, and as such, might need months to try to fix something when they have three weeks...or lose Trump's signature, causing two Trump Shutdowns in one year.

As always, I have the perfect solution, because of my great and unmatched wisdom: Make that Trump's problem.

The GOP needs to start looking for the lifeboats. When those who haven't decided to spend more time with their families face their voters in 2020, they need to be able to say "Hey, I did my job. I paid for those programs you like, including massive military spending and the tax cut for the rich. Then I worked with Democrats to create a budget we both agreed served the America people. Then I put it on Trump's desk. It's not my fault he couldn't find a Sharpie to sign it with."

Do senior, lifelong members of the House and Senate really think that Trump won't sign whatever budget he's handed? Is Trump really swimming in options right now? At what point do they just say "Okay you obese orange fatass, you drag your fat bloated butt off the golf course and do your job. We're done taking bullets for you when you're so fucking fat that being shot probably wouldn't hurt you."

- - - Updated - - -

How many bills have Democrats passed at this point?

As quoted above, the House has passed 10 of the 12 required spending bills.

The Senate has passed zero. As in, ten less than ten.

[Skulltaker]

What vacation?
How many bills have Democrats passed at this point?
Does the US military really need yet more cash?

Did't he just cut into their funding to build a fence or something? I thought Mexico would pay for that...

[omerome]

Man, if anyone is basically on vacation, it's McConnell. He's the guy who comes to work, does nothing and complains that others aren't doing anything.

How many bills are still waiting for him to allow to vote?
How many times has he gone silent when his voice needed to be heard?
Why is he constantly defending the resident when he should be defending the constitution?

And why does everything in the resident's mind have to be looked at as WINS? Didn't he WIN while the House was under republican control and they could hardly agree on anything - except giving tax breaks to the rich. That doesn't sound like a win to me. All I've seen since he's taken office is a divide and conquer tactic and pitting the country against each other based on their political alignment. He's the lost cause because I haven't seen anything at all to say, we should have four more years of this. Four more years of this foolishness is a disaster of epic proportions.

[Salvager23]

The Republican loyalty to Trump is really something to see. I saw former congressman Sean Duffy on CNN earlier questioning whether or not Vindman puts American first simply because he's an immigrant. Vindman is a veteran and a purple heart recipient. He was fighting in the Middle East while Duffy was doing Real World spinoffs for MTV.

[Belize]

Did't he just cut into their funding to build a fence or something? I thought Mexico would pay for that...

No no, New Mexico is paying for it.

[Breccia]

So, we're still going with the projection, then, huh?

Well, that and more.

1) Trump is still hip-deep in his swamp "Only I Can Fix It". It's possible he legit forgets the House has a lot of people in it, none of whom are acting.

2) Trump is a known unitasker. Someone who can't be bothered to read a full page of information is unable to work on two jobs at once. Remember Infrastructure Week? The first one? The one that was ruined by his Nazi followers? Most administrations could probably have just keep doing Infrastructure Week while, for example, Pence and the Press Secretary handled the fallout. Trump didn't do that, and based on the rest of his tenure, I don't think Trump could have done that. Seriously, name one time Trump said "I just did XXX, and now I'm moving on to do YYY." He announces A Bigly Thing Is Coming, he promotes The Bigly Thing, he fails at The Bigly Thing, he abandons the Bigly Thing, and he moves on to the next Bigly Thing. Seriously, count his wives. This is not new for him.

3) Team Trump is desperate to avoid painting the GOP Senate as not doing their job, despite the pileup that McConnell is causing next to his kale bowl under the infrared basking light. The very last thing Team Trump needs right now is the GOP Senate to have yet another reason to vote their conscience. @Skroe is also right about McConnell and that Cucinella guy. What was once the Senate willing to die for Trump, is now a suicide pact.

4) And, of course, let's not forget the ISIS issue. First, Trump said he crushed ISIS and made a big deal about their leader. You might have seen something about that. So, Trump saying "oh no ISIS will come back!" is somewhere between fearmongering and disingenuous with a smattering of admission of incompetence. But secondly...what, specifically, do the House and Senate do to stop ISIS? They don't have the military at their disposal, there is no SEAL Team Pelosi strike force they can send behind enemy lines, and it's not like they can sanction or tariff ISIS because ISIS isn't a country.

"But they can fund the military."

And see massive post above. The House has done exactly that. Trump, by contrast, has not. True, he needs a bill to his his desk first, but as orange bolded above, he is the holdup. Or, more accurately, he's the reason for the holdup. If Trump were to walk out to the podium right now and say "fuck it, put the Wall off another year, we have more important things to worry about" the budget would be signed tomorrow. All it would take is Trump abandoning a campaign promise that he made, but no GOP Rep or Senator did, and the military would get that bigly funding in a matter of days, maybe hours.

[Skulltaker]

No no, New Mexico is paying for it.

Oh god, don't give him any ideas.

[Breccia]

How many bills are still waiting for him to allow to vote?

I don't have the time to get a good answer, so I apologize in advance. But this June article has some info that's probably about right.

So far this year, more than 100 bills have passed the House but have not made it through the Senate or onto the president’s desk, including a voters’ rights bill, a climate bill, and the Equality Act, sweeping legislation that protects LGBTQ people from discrimination in the workplace, housing, service and public accommodations.

Approximately 20 bills have passed in the Senate and have not yet made it through the House, including the recently passed bill to stop robocalls.

Incidentally while I won't give him the satisfaction of a link, Trump was tweeting about the do-nothing Democrats in May of that year, maybe earlier, and this was of course long before the impeachment proceedings began.

So, yes, Trump is lying. Again. Big fat obese fatass shock, I know.

[Santti]

Oh god, don't give him any ideas.

Well, Trump was the one who mentioned wall in Colorado. I also doubt he realizes New Mexico is part of US.

[Edge-]

How many bills have Democrats passed at this point?

That's a good question. AND WHY THE FUCK AREN'T THEY MAKING A BIGGER POINT OF ALL THE GREAT LEGISLATION THEY'VE PASSED IN THE HOUSE THAT'S SITTING ON THE DOORSTEP OF THE SENATE?!

Seriously, Trump's best ally is the incompetence of the Democratic party and their inability to figure out how to god-damn campaign and control a media narrative.