The Official Former President Trump thread

[Granny Danger]

In fairness to Trump, it is worth remebering that Clinton only won the popular vote because she got 3 million fraud votes that should not have counted.  Or maybe it was 5 million, or 8 million.

[Buddist Monk]

11 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

In fairness to Trump, it is worth remebering that Clinton only won the popular vote because she got 3 million fraud votes that should not have counted.  Or maybe it was 5 million, or 8 million.

It's all the undocumented Muslims and Mexicans, if only there was a man who would dedicate himself to ridding America of such malign forces and return the country to the honest God fearing white nation it has always been!

[harry94]

9 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

The one thing I would say is that Trump has "won". No matter what happens from this point on, he has won because his personal fortune and the personal fortunes of all his family, have massively increased. His brand name is now worldwide when before it really wasn't despite his claims on this. He has used the office for his personal vandetta and his personal enrichment, and while you might argue all politicians do the same, not all politicians use such insidious language and policies to achieve that.

2

It could well go the complete opposite way tbh. He's not exactly the cleanest businessman of all time (which is a horrendous understatement) and there's plenty of ammunition there to be used by the people who he has pissed off.

People like him push the boundaries and seem capable of getting away with anything. With the presidency, there's a huge amount of legal protection offered and mechanisms that have just never been used before. Hypothetically he could phone up another world leader and offer them to buy a Trump hotel in exchange for declassifying information and it would still be a really difficult case to prosecute and even reach a conclusion on if it's illegal - even with all the evidence neatly presented. In reality, it's always going to be the case that the trail of evidence will be muddy and hard to make sense of.

My hunch though is that he has pushed things to a point where he'll eventually see his family fortunes decline. I don't really know how it'll come about but I just think that when his shite starts to become more of a hindrance to the party and they've maybe suffered an electoral loss, we'll maybe see the party apparatus turn against him and the level of protection he has declines. He's obviously got loads of shit on people and a percentage of support who would follow him anywhere (and not necessarily supporting Pence, Mattis etc) so it won't be a straightforward process but I think he's had things very perfect since he's being elected with both republican houses and inheriting an economy which is performing relatively well.

[Buddist Monk]

They say possession is nine tenths of the law (or up to 14 years in jail depending on what you happen to possess!). Trump has already made a huge fortune, not just from his branding but from things like the tax cuts. Even the most conservative efforts place a saving of roughly $10m from that alone, although many other postulate that is only in directly linked finances and that saving could increase to well over $100m. Still even keeping to the lower value that's still a decent wedge.

His family? Well that's been documented elsewhere.. http://fortune.com/2018/06/11/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-made-82-million-while-working-white-house/

That's from Fortune magazine, who lifted it from the Washington Post. The WP clearly isn't a supporter, but Fortune doesn't tend to play figures too loosely.

While I take your points about the negative feedback, Ivanka's clothing line being a perfect example, you will still have people visiting Trump Towers not because they are Trump fans but because of the infamy surrounding it and it's owner.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Buddist Monk

[dorlomin]

29 minutes ago, harry94 said:

Hypothetically he could phone up another world leader and offer them to buy a Trump hotel in exchange for declassifying information and it would still be a really difficult case to prosecute and even reach a conclusion on if it's illegal - even with all the evidence neatly presented. In reality, it's always going to be the case that the trail of evidence will be muddy and hard to make sense of.

 

Quote

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.[3]

It would be a violation of the emolument clause and be immediate grounds for impeachment by Congress, there are some places where his business dealings could violate this clause as it is, but not so clearly for the minute. 

It would also be a violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it would be a payment in kind.

And it would likely violate Securities and Exchange Commission rules as well as likely state rules. 

He be eating porridge on the back of that deal. 

 

Edited to add and as a payment in kind it would have to be done with great care to avoid the IRS coming down like a ton of bricks. Give the IRS a clear path into his business would likely be a battering ram to his whole empire, its the angle Mueller is going for. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by dorlomin

[Buddist Monk]

3 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

It would be a violation of the emolument clause and be immediate grounds for impeachment by Congress, there are some places where his business dealings could violate this clause as it is, but not so clearly for the minute. 

It would also be a violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it would be a payment in kind.

And it would likely violate Securities and Exchange Commission rules as well as likely state rules. 

He be eating porridge on the back of that deal. 

The WP covered Trump's emolument in a bit of detail a few months back..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/07/25/trump-loses-big-in-emoluments-case

[Savage Henry]

2 hours ago, Paco said:

 

I don’t see why millions who voted Trump will be regretting their decision. They knew he was an arsehole on a personal level, and they also knew his priorities were immigration, the economy and reinforcing American power globally. Whether you love him or loathe him he’s broadly delivering on those things - whether he can take credit, particularly with the economy, is another matter but do you really think that matters to voters in towns and cities where unemployment was awful and now it’s much better? Of course it doesn’t.

Where he ‘should’ be defeated is with a more inspiring candidate from the Democrats. Trump could of course theoretically get exactly the same amount of votes and lose, with his thin margins in several states, so it’s all about getting a few extra thousand out to vote. I don’t even think the bar needs to be especially high for the Democrats, someone who doesn’t call 30 million Americans ‘deplorable’ in the middle of an election campaign should probably just about manage it.

But ‘no doubt’? Sounds suspiciously like the people who said there was ‘no doubt’ he’d be nowhere near the Republican nomination. ‘No doubt’ he’d screw up the debates and lose handsomely in the election. ‘No doubt’ it was game over after Access Hollywood. ‘No doubt’ he’d be impeached after Flynn/Manafort/Charlottesville/Stormy Daniels/shithole countries/Trump Jr’s meeting/Cohen/Comey/whatever’s next. He’s here til 2020 and complacency might just keep him in longer.

 

Trump's failings as a person and his unsuitability for the position (ethically and mentally) have been magnified in the light of Mueller and the ongoing criminal investigations, and particularly Helsinki, where something clearly was not right.  Nobody who voted for Trump knew precisely how corrupt and nefarious his business dealings were.  Incompetent?  Possibly, but in the end irrelevant.  Illegal?  Well, that's only just coming to light.

While it's worthless arguing with anyone who is still attached to the cult of Trump, I'm fairly certain anyone "on the margins" of both candidates will have been persuaded not to fall for his snake-oil act again.  Trump loyalists want to martyr themselves, turn themselves into some kind of put-upon subaltern who have never been treated fairly.  Victimhood is perhaps the most dangerous factor at hand here.  Already Mueller's investigation has been framed as an attack on the little man by the Washington swamp elite, when it's almost the precise opposite.  Trump loyalists love being the victim; nothing would suit them better than impeachment - or indeed an electoral defeat.  Good luck in getting Trump's lackeys to accept the democratic will of the people if he loses.

As for the last paragraph, we've already seen from Mueller that there's every chance the last election wasn't on the level. I have no idea why Access Hollywood didn't finish him as a candidate, but there we go.  Trump did screw up the debates.  But somehow, he won the election.  Complacency, maybe.  Until 2020?  Possibly, but possibly not.  People also didn't realise quite how self-serving and cowardly the GOP upper ranks were.   I think there's been a lot revealed about Trumpy boy in the last year which will not only dissuade voters with the capacity for abstract thought,  but condemn the Republican "swamp-dwellers" like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan, who literally threw away everything they believed in, so as to facilitate Trump's money-making scam.

November is key.  If the numbers go the way they have been, the Democrats could obliterate the Republicans.  If that happens, I'd imagine impeachment is inevitable (partly because I don't think Democratic leadership is remotely competent, and they'll just jump down that rabbit hole).  If not, it then moves on to Mueller, as I don't see his investigation being wrapped up by November.  If, after that, Trump is still a candidate in 2020, then America deserves all it gets if they re-elect him.

[harry94]

10 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

It would be a violation of the emolument clause and be immediate grounds for impeachment by Congress, there are some places where his business dealings could violate this clause as it is, but not so clearly for the minute. 

It would also be a violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it would be a payment in kind.

And it would likely violate Securities and Exchange Commission rules as well as likely state rules. 

He be eating porridge on the back of that deal. 

 

Edited to add and as a payment in kind it would have to be done with great care to avoid the IRS coming down like a ton of bricks. Give the IRS a clear path into his business would likely be a battering ram to his whole empire, its the angle Mueller is going for. 

The legal murkiness is pointed out below but even if it wasn't, Congress are not actually obliged to do anything about it and simply won't as they are not going to impeach a Republican president, Trump's support will rally against them in the primaries and are the ones motivated to vote. Out of office, there's enough complexity to stall things into oblivion and there's over avenues out of danger for him.

I hope you are correct and Congress would impeach but I just don't see them getting the majorities needed. There's stuff they could impeach him for already.

[dorlomin]

3 minutes ago, harry94 said:

The legal murkiness is pointed out below but even if it wasn't, Congress are not actually obliged to do anything about it and simply won't as they are not going to impeach a Republican president, Trump's support will rally against them in the primaries

And the middle ground voters?

Quote

I hope you are correct and Congress would impeach but I just don't see them getting the majorities needed. There's stuff they could impeach him for already.

Declassifying secrets and trading a hotel while president. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=midterms-header

 

Currently the Dems have a 5 in 6 chance of the taking the House. Trump acting even more outrageously for personal enrichment is not going to swing things his way. 

[Buddist Monk]

 

9 minutes ago, harry94 said:

I hope you are correct and Congress would impeach but I just don't see them getting the majorities needed. There's stuff they could impeach him for already.

I posted this earlier although I fully understand why people would miss it amongst what, in hindsight, have been some seriously overly verbose posts I've made...

16 hours ago, Buddist Monk said:

I also don't think he will be impeached. It's a very long drawn out process and needs a lot of support in both House and Senate and even a big win for the Democrats in the midterms won't offer that option. Sure they can put forward legislation but it won't come to fruition.

No, the best course of action is to wait until he is papped out of office, and as soon as he is a civilian Mueller lands all the punches he has, brings him to court and while he won't go to jail his legacy will be utterly tarnished (not to his base but nothing will stop their intentional lotus eating upon his dethroning) and he will not be able to use the presidential pardon in order to get himself or his cronies out of the mess he's made.

[harry94]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

Trump's failings as a person and his unsuitability for the position (ethically and mentally) have been magnified in the light of Mueller and the ongoing criminal investigations, and particularly Helsinki, where something clearly was not right.  Nobody who voted for Trump knew precisely how corrupt and nefarious his business dealings were.  Incompetent?  Possibly, but in the end irrelevant.  Illegal?  Well, that's only just coming to light.

While it's worthless arguing with anyone who is still attached to the cult of Trump, I'm fairly certain anyone "on the margins" of both candidates will have been persuaded not to fall for his snake-oil act again.  Trump loyalists want to martyr themselves, turn themselves into some kind of put-upon subaltern who have never been treated fairly.  Victimhood is perhaps the most dangerous factor at hand here.  Already Mueller's investigation has been framed as an attack on the little man by the Washington swamp elite, when it's almost the precise opposite.  Trump loyalists love being the victim; nothing would suit them better than impeachment - or indeed an electoral defeat.  Good luck in getting Trump's lackeys to accept the democratic will of the people if he loses.

As for the last paragraph, we've already seen from Mueller that there's every chance the last election wasn't on the level. I have no idea why Access Hollywood didn't finish him as a candidate, but there we go.  Trump did screw up the debates.  But somehow, he won the election.  Complacency, maybe.  Until 2020?  Possibly, but possibly not.  People also didn't realise quite how self-serving and cowardly the GOP upper ranks were.   I think there's been a lot revealed about Trumpy boy in the last year which will not only dissuade voters with the capacity for abstract thought,  but condemn the Republican "swamp-dwellers" like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan, who literally threw away everything they believed in, so as to facilitate Trump's money-making scam.

November is key.  If the numbers go the way they have been, the Democrats could obliterate the Republicans.  If that happens, I'd imagine impeachment is inevitable (partly because I don't think Democratic leadership is remotely competent, and they'll just jump down that rabbit hole).  If not, it then moves on to Mueller, as I don't see his investigation being wrapped up by November.  If, after that, Trump is still a candidate in 2020, then America deserves all it gets if they re-elect him.

I remember watching the debates and despite mostly being incoherent, he did have some very good sound bites about the economy that while stupid, were much more compelling to an uneducated voter than Hillary's half hearted responses.

It's pretty easy to boil things down to complacency etc but I just think there was a fundamental misunderstanding of the US electorate. The racist stuff and immorality did have an impact in some states where the demographics were headed that way - Arizona and Texas being the examples of areas where it tightened dramatically. The problem is though, this stuff mostly raked up votes in places where the Democrats were going to win anyway.

It was rumoured that Bill Clinton was seething because the points he was making on talking about the economy were completely ignored and it got to the point where Hillary was ditching events with economic forums (I can't quite recall but I think there was quite a major one where political candidates are invited to a poverty discussion with the Catholic Church) to focus on this 'against hate' rhetoric. At the time, the perspective made sense in obviously thinking that you can mobilise the minority groups Obama had to sweep to victory but in hindsight, this was a misunderstanding and it wasn't appreciated just how exceptional Obama was as a candidate - middle aged white voters are the one set of people who are guaranteed to come out an vote.

There was obviously a bit of 'Hillary is the Devil' etc thrown in there but I think there was a discussion on poverty which, at the end of play, Trump was passionately engaging in. It's very easy to win a debate when the other person isn't playing. Even until the last day, he was touring in the midwest talking about NAFTA etc and promising the universe to these disenfranchised communities.

If anything good comes out of this, it's a massive wake up call that these issues do exist and need to be confronted.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, harry94 said:

Even until the last day, he was touring in the midwest talking about NAFTA etc and promising the universe to these disenfranchised communities.

If his trade wars f**k up these communities even more, and his rural fans are hit hard, and the voters see the connection, he's finished. A few ifs, but I'd bet a fair bit on the GDP growth and and maybe employment figures dropping considerably next quarter, hopefully just in time for the midterms. Could take a bit longer for the damage to be felt though.

[Buddist Monk]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

If his trade wars f**k up these communities even more, and his rural fans are hit hard, and the voters see the connection, he's finished. A few ifs, but I'd bet a fair bit on the GDP growth and and maybe employment figures dropping considerably next quarter, hopefully just in time for the midterms. Could take a bit longer for the damage to be felt though.

Problem is that already has but he has tweaked subsidies in order for it not to be immediately noticeable. The damage he has done will not be reflected until the next president or the one after that. At which point it's the classic, look what he's done he's brought our economy to it's knees time to go back to Trump's policies.

In introducing tax cuts and hiking tariffs what he has done is supercharge the domestic economy. An economy that was already on it's way back to stability, in a sustainable and manageable way. He inherited an economy that if he had just left it would be returning increased GDP, reduced unemployment and reduced inequity. However his ego wouldn't allow him to do that because it would be seen as Obama's legacy - he is of course happy for the crash to be seen as Obama's legacy, just not the success in turning it around.

Many on the right have lambasted Obama for supporting the banks with a bailout. Now actually I think most people accept that the banks effectively had a gun at our metaphorical heads because of the way the capitalist/consumerist economy works, however if he (and other countries) didn't then these same people railing on Obama are the same people who would have been chucked out on the street if the banks folded. Myopia at it's finest.

 

[welshbairn]

15 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

Problem is that already has but he has tweaked subsidies in order for it not to be immediately noticeable. The damage he has done will not be reflected until the next president or the one after that. At which point it's the classic, look what he's done he's brought our economy to it's knees time to go back to Trump's policies.

In introducing tax cuts and hiking tariffs what he has done is supercharge the domestic economy. An economy that was already on it's way back to stability, in a sustainable and manageable way. He inherited an economy that if he had just left it would be returning increased GDP, reduced unemployment and reduced inequity. However his ego wouldn't allow him to do that because it would be seen as Obama's legacy - he is of course happy for the crash to be seen as Obama's legacy, just not the success in turning it around.

Many on the right have lambasted Obama for supporting the banks with a bailout. Now actually I think most people accept that the banks effectively had a gun at our metaphorical heads because of the way the capitalist/consumerist economy works, however if he (and other countries) didn't then these same people railing on Obama are the same people who would have been chucked out on the street if the banks folded. Myopia at it's finest.

 

Most of the jump in GDP was said to be companies buying early before the tariffs hit, so a drop next quarter is almost inevitable. Customers will now be looking elsewhere for things like soya bean contracts and will be resistant to switching back to US suppliers when things calm down. He can maybe buy the farmers off with handouts in the short term, but not for long. The steel and aluminium hikes will affect manufacturing immediately, and the damage will massively outweigh any job gains in US metal production. Consumers will see higher prices in the shops. He takes his economic advice from a Fox pundit who was still saying the banking crisis was a hoax and nothing to worry about in 2009.

Edited September 13, 2018 by welshbairn

[Detournement]

Obama 2008 - 43% of white voters.

Obama 2012 - 39% of white voters.

Clinton 2016 - 37% of white voters.

If the Democrats can't arrest the decline in their share of white voters in Presidential elections they are fucked. The majority are beginning to act like a minority.

[killiefan27]

"By the way... I'd have voted for Obama a third time, if I could"

[DA Baracus]

Can someone not just shot this arsehole? He's a genuinely horrendous waste of life. Just do it quietly then never speak of him again. Chuck his (bloated) corpse in to the fucking sea.

[Detournement]

Voters that voted for Obama but not HRC decided the election.

[Buddist Monk]

27 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Obama 2008 - 43% of white voters.

Obama 2012 - 39% of white voters.

Clinton 2016 - 37% of white voters.

If the Democrats can't arrest the decline in their share of white voters in Presidential elections they are fucked. The majority are beginning to act like a minority.

While your point has some merit you are guilty of using far too broad brush an approach.

White working class males certainly flipped to Trump, it's not true though that all whites who did not vote democrat in 2016 therefore voted for Trump.

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Voters that voted for Obama but not HRC decided the election.

Again, way too broad brush an approach. For example there was a massive uptake in shy voters for Trump, it wasn't just a case that those who voted for Obama and didn't vote for Clinton are the sole reason Trump won. There is far far more granularity to it.

[Detournement]

Not voting for Clinton was enough. Everything i've seen suggests it was just a regular election and the decisive factor was people who voted for Obama (whites and blacks) but didn't vote for HRC.