So as much as he ever has anything one might call a "strategy", here is what I think it is:

-declare a national emergency and say he is building his wall without Congressional approval

-various organizations go to court and are granted a stay on the building of the wall

-after a few weeks or months the Supreme Court renders a decision, probably in his favour since he does seem to have the power to do I

Meanwhile, his base is sated, the Republicans in Congress are divided even more, and the Democrats are united even more.  Trump's odds of being re-elected, and the Republicans' odds of holding the Senate and taking back the House get longer, thanks to the above-mentioned divisions but more due to a steady flow of reporting on how silly and wasteful the whole thing is, and how other parts of government, the military in particular, are short of funds that have been diverted to building the wall.

bman posted:

So as much as he ever has anything one might call a "strategy", here is what I think it is:

-declare a national emergency and say he is building his wall without Congressional approval

-various organizations go to court and are granted a stay on the building of the wall

-after a few weeks or months the Supreme Court renders a decision, probably in his favour since he does seem to have the power to do I

Meanwhile, his base is sated, the Republicans in Congress are divided even more, and the Democrats are united even more.  Trump's odds of being re-elected, and the Republicans' odds of holding the Senate and taking back the House get longer, thanks to the above-mentioned divisions but more due to a steady flow of reporting on how silly and wasteful the whole thing is, and how other parts of government, the military in particular, are short of funds that have been diverted to building the wall.

I am thinking something similar:

1.  Go on TV tonight and declare a National Emergency and say that he is going to build the Wall based on this declaration and using discretionary "National Emergency Funds" (whatever that means).

2.  At the same time, excoriate the Democrats for the government shutdown and declare that he is willing to sign a bill from the House/Senate that re-opens the government without the need for appropriating money for the wall, since that will come from his "National Emergency Funds".    

3.  Take credit for re-opening the government when the House and Senate send him a bill tomorrow.

4.  Various organizations go to court to fight on the Wall being built based on a National Emergency declaration.  Court fight drags on and everyone forgets about it as we move on to the next crisis.  In the meantime, continue to campaign about the need for the Wall.

5.  It doesn't matter what happens.  If he wins in court, great, he gets to build the Wall with National Emergency Funds.  If he loses in court, then excoriate the courts, the media, the Democrats, etc...

It's the only way I can see him getting out of this mess that he created, and still declare himself the Victor.

 

doubled posted:

It's because the state overwhelmingly voted for Hillary.  He doesn't realize that the fires occur in areas that are mostly pro-Trump if I understand the demographics correctly.

That can't be it.  No US President would rant and rave about something as serious and deadly as forest fires just to punish a perceived political opponent.  Who would do such a thing? 

So now CNN is finally giving serious thought to yesterday's revelation that Manafort's attorneys failed to properly redact information.  This was in a recently submitted response to Mueller's team stating Manfort breached their plea agreement.  I guess the buildup to the Oval Office address from Putin's Bitch last night had something to do with the delayed analysis, but whoo boy is the info that came to light pretty serious.  It completely knocks down any contention by Trump and his minions that Manafort was only doing illegal stuff before he became the campaign manager/chairman.  And the likelihood is slim to none that Manafort was acting solely of his own volition when he shared polling data with a Russian-Ukrainian political operative who ran Manafort's consulting office in Kiev for 10 years and has ties to Russian intelligence, and slim left the building a long time ago.

An interesting question is whether this was truly incompetence on the part of Manafort's legal team (wouldn't be the first time we had clear evidence of that), or if this was deliberately done to let Putin's Bitch and his remaining minions know that Mueller and his team know of these shenanigans.  Call me 50/50 on which it actually is.......

The mayor of the Texas town Trump is visiting tomorrow made an very interesting and largely overlooked point today:  if Trump builds a wall along the Rio Grande where it forms the border and doesn't put it in the middle of the river, then that wall serves no purpose.  As soon as anyone on the other side sets foot on land, including on the other side of the wall, they are legally in the US and so if they claim refugee status, they must be processed.  Which would not necessarily keep them out of the US if Trump succeeds in keeping them in Mexico while their claims are processed, but I think that remains to be seen, and of course it would just add to the backlog of claims and administrative chaos.

As someone who lived and worked many years in Central America interviewing hundreds of people applying for refugee and other kinds of humanitarian status, my view is that Trump would make America much safer by spending a lot more money supporting the economies and especially law enforcement in the source countries so that people there had less reason to try to come to the US.  While that would not solve the problem - nothing will "solve" it of course - a little money would go a long way to making it better.

bman posted:

The mayor of the Texas town Trump is visiting tomorrow made an very interesting and largely overlooked point today:  if Trump builds a wall along the Rio Grande where it forms the border and doesn't put it in the middle of the river, then that wall serves no purpose.  As soon as anyone on the other side sets foot on land, including on the other side of the wall, they are legally in the US and so if they claim refugee status, they must be processed. 

He said during the campaign that not only would Mexico pay, the wall would also be on its side of the river, since they don't want to cede the river to Mexico.  I'm sure Mr. Tangerine Man is hoping people forget about that promise, but that's what he said. 

bman posted:

Does anyone know where Trump's sudden fascination and anger about California forest fires comes from, never mind his false "facts"?  I presume it's from someone who was on Fox or some right-wing whackadoodle source?

It might be because of this.

<excerpt>
At the event, Governor Newsom also announced that he has joined with Governors Kate Brown of Oregon and Jay Inslee of Washington in requesting President Donald Trump double the federal government’s financial investment in managing federal forestlands in California, Washington, and Oregon.
</excerpt>

g-man posted:

Words don't describe Steve King

I can think of a few that come close. 

He has been an out White Supremacist in all but self-attributed name for a while now. It is nice to see public Conservatives denouncing him, but this is not really news to anyone who has been paying attention even remotely. We’ll see how Kevin McCarthy plays it, but whatever he does it will be for political reasons.

bman posted:
mimik posted:

Happy to see her as a candidate, but she's not going anywhere.  Not that anyone should trust Russia Today, the Russian government's main international propaganda tool, as a credible news source on any subject key to Russian foreign policy.

She is a waste of time as are a few others that just came on the scene.  We need a person with experience and integrity

flwino posted:
bman posted:
mimik posted:

Happy to see her as a candidate, but she's not going anywhere.  Not that anyone should trust Russia Today, the Russian government's main international propaganda tool, as a credible news source on any subject key to Russian foreign policy.

She is a waste of time as are a few others that just came on the scene.  We need a person with experience and integrity

Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobacher would both be fine selections. As would Beto; but, while his inexperience might actually be a benefit in 2020, it would be a hindrance in 2021. I like Biden, too. But I think he is too old for a hopefully-8-year gig. 

Come the General Election, I’d support a rabid porcupine over the current occupant of the WH (or Pence or any of their enablers). But regarding the Primary, there are several people running for the job whom I have serious reservations about. (Or worse.) 

winetarelli posted:
flwino posted:
bman posted:
mimik posted:

Happy to see her as a candidate, but she's not going anywhere.  Not that anyone should trust Russia Today, the Russian government's main international propaganda tool, as a credible news source on any subject key to Russian foreign policy.

She is a waste of time as are a few others that just came on the scene.  We need a person with experience and integrity

Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobacher would both be fine selections. As would Beto; but, while his inexperience might actually be a benefit in 2020, it would be a hindrance in 2021. I like Biden, too. But I think he is too old for a hopefully-8-year gig. 

Come the General Election, I’d support a rabid porcupine over the current occupant of the WH (or Pence or any of their enablers). But regarding the Primary, there are several people running for the job whom I have serious reservations about. (Or worse.) 

Washington Post comment today on Russia Today and Gabbard:

"RT, the Russia-funded news network, has run a series of glowing pieces about Gabbard, content that dredges up painful liberal memories of Russian propaganda boosting the 2016 Trump campaign.

“Establishment figures on both Right and Left are scrambling to smear the antiwar congresswoman with impeccable identity-politics bona fides,” read a typical RT dispatch this weekend."

As much as I hate to say it, I think that the White House was in a bit of a conundrum about what to serve at the Clemson event.  If you serve caviar, foie gras and filet mignon, you will get criticized for feasting in luxury as 800,000 federal employees are being forced to go to food banks.  If you serve McDonalds, pizza, etc., you come off as being a cheapskate and diminishing the grandeur of the White House.

I don't know why they couldn't have tried something in-between.  Maybe some gourmet sandwiches, salads, hors d'ouevres, etc.   Are the White House chefs part of the shutdown?

Still, given the choices, they elected to go low.  Cold fast food served on silver plates...  

I'm sure those top athletes appreciated the opportunity to dine on filet-o-fish sandwiches and other fine fare.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×