Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The President cannot make legally binding deals (aka Treaties)  w.o. the consent of the Senate.   If the President makes deals on the side which are not acceptable to Congress he opens himself up to impeachment and possible removal from office.  Given that President Trump is thoroughly disliked by the core of both major policies he may be the first president impeached AND  removed  in U.S. history.  President Trump cannot do as he damn well pleases.  Trump can be Trumped by Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

Oh, please. Like Trump wouldn't sweep up Congress into his deal-making when he needed to. And, oh please, treaties are the least of it. The Executive runs rings around Congress. And the Executive Branch, through its bureaucracy, runs rings around the whole country. Your second sentence, btw, may or may not be true. Your third sentence is so false it stinks. And who the hell ever said Trump as President could do "as he damn well pleases"? I wait to learn how the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS can "Trump" the President. The last time the Court had any balls that way was in the late 1930s and FDR struck back by trying to pack the Court turning it into the lapdog of the Executive Branch. Look at what a pussy John Roberts was when it came time to declare Obamacare unconstitutional four years ago.

Your idea of presidential power is what they teach in high school civics classes. How many wars have we had? How many times has Congress declared war? Guess who was responsible for the wars?

A President Trump may very well turn into America's "Big Man." That's what Argentina got with Juan Peron.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant the legal scholar?

Ba’al wrote: If the President makes deals on the side which are not acceptable to Congress he opens himself up to impeachment and possible removal from office.  Given that President Trump is thoroughly disliked by the core of both major policies he may be the first president impeached AND removed in U.S. history. end quote

If he tries something illegal . . . . that is possible. He is very unaware of how government works. They may not have had Gov 101 at Wharton OR he just was not interested enough to take the course, (or he was too interested in Sally Mae with the long blond hair, in the seat in front of him.) It is not farfetched to think he will be on the brink of impeachment but be pulled back from the edge by the opposition to his actions in Congress, and/or from the yelling in his ear by his trusted advisors.

I just read about a Clinton flunkie who was being interviewed by the DOJ and one FBI agent. The agent asked a tough question and she and her lawyer left the room to privately talk, then returned and answered the question. I bet there are a dozen or more of her fellow conspirators rethinking their preplanned lies. “Shit. If they know that we can’t lie about this. What if Amal told them about when I  . . .? Crap. I am not going to jail for that effing Hilldabeast.

Peter

From Wikipedia: Impeachment proceedings have been initiated against several presidents of the United States. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and both were later acquitted by the Senate. The impeachment process of Richard Nixon was technically unsuccessful, as Nixon resigned his office before the vote of the full House for impeachment. To date, no U.S. President has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature impeaches the official and the upper house conducts the trial. At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings. Impeachment can also occur at the state level: state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, in accordance with their respective state constitutions. At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal—impeachment—would be preferable.[1]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Oh, please. Like Trump wouldn't sweep up Congress into his deal-making when he needed to. And, oh please, treaties are the least of it. The Executive runs rings around Congress. And the Executive Branch, through its bureaucracy, runs rings around the whole country. Your second sentence, btw, may or may not be true. Your third sentence is so false it stinks. And who the hell ever said Trump as President could do "as he damn well pleases"? I wait to learn how the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS can "Trump" the President. The last time the Court had any balls that way was in the late 1930s and FDR struck back by trying to pack the Court turning it into the lapdog of the Executive Branch. Look at what a pussy John Roberts was when it came time to declare Obamacare unconstitutional four years ago.

Your idea of presidential power is what they teach in high school civics classes. How many wars have we had? How many times has Congress declared war? Guess who was responsible for the wars?

A President Trump may very well turn into America's "Big Man." That's what Argentina got with Juan Peron.

--Brant

The President got away with the war because Congress defaulted.  Suppose that Congress does not default.  In Trump's case it is not only possible but probable.  If he is elected he had best behave himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The President got away with the war because Congress defaulted.  Suppose that Congress does not default.  In Trump's case it is not only possible but probable.  If he is elected he had best behave himself. 

If the moon is made of green cheese it's possible it has mice. Suppose, suppose, suppose. Trump is quite nice, engaging and intelligent in private. And what "war" are we talking about? Congress might stop a war the way it did in Vietnam by cutting off South Vietnam financially. It sure didn't stop the war from happening in the first place. Congress glories in war. Why? It's sanctioned by the American people. One Congresscritter voted against declaring war against Japan, name of Rankin. That was the end of her political career. (She also voted against declaring war on Germany in WWI.) FDR with the collusion of Congress baited and poked Japan into the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan deserved what Japan got. (I wonder if Japan's war plan would have worked if it had invaded and occupied Hawaii with its 400,000 American citizens held hostage? Japan wanted the US to sue for peace.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The President got away with the war because Congress defaulted.  Suppose that Congress does not default.  In Trump's case it is not only possible but probable.  If he is elected he had best behave himself. 

The best way he can "behave himself" is find a war to get us into. Iran is the likely target of that. But I don't think he thinks like that. Everybody not an idiot behaves themselves to the extent necessary. When's the last time a President walked to the Lincoln Memorial stark naked? "The President is naked!" Your "behave" is an empty word unless you can dress it out. The President is not a kid in school pulling the pigtails of the girl sitting in front of him getting whacked by the teacher's ruler.

--Brant

in any case he won't be impeached if his veep is Sara Palin or Dick Cheney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Peter said:

Brant the legal scholar?

Ba’al wrote: If the President makes deals on the side which are not acceptable to Congress he opens himself up to impeachment and possible removal from office.  Given that President Trump is thoroughly disliked by the core of both major policies he may be the first president impeached AND removed in U.S. history. end quote

If he tries something illegal . . . . that is possible. He is very unaware of how government works. They may not have had Gov 101 at Wharton OR he just was not interested enough to take the course, (or he was too interested in Sally Mae with the long blond hair, in the seat in front of him.) It is not farfetched to think he will be on the brink of impeachment but be pulled back from the edge by the opposition to his actions in Congress, and/or from the yelling in his ear by his trusted advisors.

I just read about a Clinton flunkie who was being interviewed by the DOJ and one FBI agent. The agent asked a tough question and she and her lawyer left the room to privately talk, then returned and answered the question. I bet there are a dozen or more of her fellow conspirators rethinking their preplanned lies. “Shit. If they know that we can’t lie about this. What if Amal told them about when I  . . .? Crap. I am not going to jail for that effing Hilldabeast.

Peter

From Wikipedia: Impeachment proceedings have been initiated against several presidents of the United States. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and both were later acquitted by the Senate. The impeachment process of Richard Nixon was technically unsuccessful, as Nixon resigned his office before the vote of the full House for impeachment. To date, no U.S. President has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings, while trial by the other house is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in regular courts. Typically, the lower house of the legislature impeaches the official and the upper house conducts the trial. At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings. Impeachment can also occur at the state level: state legislatures can impeach state officials, including governors, in accordance with their respective state constitutions. At the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin noted that, historically, the removal of "obnoxious" chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a proceduralized mechanism for removal—impeachment—would be preferable.[1]

My Grandfather's next to last book (1972) was Impeachment, Trials and Errors. (Irving Brant) You might enjoy it considering your depth of understanding. He wrote it to help defend his friend Justice William O. Douglas who was being threatened by impeachment, especially by Congressman Gerald Ford.

If you're being questioned by Federal law enforcement, you'd better have a lawyer right there with you and he better tell you to keep your lips zipped. The core principle is, "Do not talk to the police." Pull up a video on that on YouTube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't talk to the police? What idiocy. Who ran you over?

On advice of my attorney I refuse to answer on the grounds it might solve the case.

Spin time. Some excerpts. Peter

Trump Isn't Just Conservative, He's the Most Conservative Presidential Candidate Since Reagan, by Wayne Allyn Root Posted: May 11, 2016 12:01 AM:

If liberals despise Trump so much they are threatening to leave for Canada, shouldn’t we all thank God for Trump and offer to pay for their plane tickets? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” You may think Trump is not a conservative, but liberals are certain he’s their enemy. They're sure certain he’s a conservative. They’re certain he’s the worst thing since Reagan. That makes Trump one of my favorite conservative candidates of all time!

Secondly, I agree Trump is not a pure or traditional conservative. That’s why he can win this election vs Hillary Clinton. Or haven't you heard that as of today, he is already tied in battleground states with Hillary? Romney was down by 10 points at this exact same time four years ago. Yes, Trump is a different kind of GOP candidate. He's a WINNER!

Again, this is where Trump intersects with Reagan. Conservatives are confused. Reagan didn't win elections because he espoused conservative views. He won elections because he was an entertainer, showman and communicator. Trump is the perfect mix to win this election- entertainer, showman, businessman, celebrity, reality TV star and our very own “American Idol.” . . . . . On these seven issues, Trump is as conservative as any candidate in modern history!

. . . . #1) Taxes- Trump’s flat tax plan lowers tax rates even lower than Reagan. 

#2) Regulations- as a businessman I think regulations are even worse than taxes. Our entire economy and middle class jobs have been decimated by Obama’s regulations. Trump is a businessman. He hates regulations. He’ll dramatically reduce and cut regulations and regulatory agencies (like the EPA) in order to get the economy moving again.

#3) Obamacare. Trump wants to repeal and replace Obamacare and give Americans more health freedom. 

#4) Build the wall, secure the border and end sanctuary cities. Need I say more- this is Trump’s signature issue. His views on illegal immigration define perfection. If he does nothing as president but stop the flow of illegal immigration, he’ll be remembered as an American hero. Just this one point can save the American economy from bankruptcy, ruin and crippling debt crisis. 

#5) Stop the insanity of allowing in thousands of Syrian refugees and Muslim migrants. Why is this so important? So that we don’t become the EU- bankrupt, suffering crime and rape epidemics, and experiencing nonstop terrorist attacks. This view isn’t just conservative- it’s commonsense and self-preservation. 

#6) Always “America First.” Every single policy- domestic, foreign, trade and immigration- should be based on what’s best for America, American citizens, American taxpayers, and American jobs. I’ve waited my entire life to hear these words come out of a potential president’s mouth. The only job of an American president is to take care of America and Americans first, second, third and forever. How can you get more patriotic or conservative than that? 

#7) Investigate and prosecute politicians who commit crimes against the American people. What if the only thing Trump accomplishes is clean up the D.C. cesspool, hold politicians accountable and bring criminals to justice? What if he sends Hillary to prison for her crimes? What if he prosecutes top IRS officials who targeted and persecuted conservatives? What if he prosecutes Obama’s bundler Jon Corzine? What if he prosecutes everyone involved with the fraud of Obamacare? You mean that alone isn’t worth the price of admission? 

. . . . Yes, folks, Donald Trump is a conservative. No, not a pure or perfect conservative. But on the issues that count most, he’ll be the most conservative president since Reagan. How can I be so sure? Just mention Trump’s name to any liberal and watch their reaction. Then pass the popcorn. We have one last shot to save America and capitalism. Or do you really want to tell your children and grandchildren you allowed America to die because Trump wasn't perfect on abortion, or transgender bathrooms, or eminent domain, or free trade? Really?  It's time for conservatives to stop fighting and start uniting. Think long and hard, then give 110% to Trump. Because he's all we've got!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PDS said:

I'm curious what has led to your dim view of Ryan.  He seems like a standard-issue politician to me-- with a dash of lip service to Rand thrown in.  

But I'm not aware anything he's specifically done that Trump (at least when he's impersonating a conservative) would claim not to generally agree with.  

Ryan used to appear to be presenting a little more than just lip service to Rand's and libertarian ideas.

Lately I've seen him even sneer at people who hold those ideas that he used to claim to hold. See, he has grown up now, and realized how childish he was to not have recognized the good that government can and must do.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been watching closely but Speaker Paul Rayon is still one of the good guys. He addressed the issue of not being a Randite when he ran for VP. So, your honor, we the jury are hung.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is that Trump is moving closer to my (our?) beliefs, where Ryan is moving farther from them. I'd like to see Ryan, and others who are already way more compromised than he, bring just a fraction of the enthusiasm to criticizing and fighting Obama and company that they bring to criticizing and fighting Trump and his supporters. I don't think it's going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan wrote: . . . bring just a fraction of the enthusiasm to criticizing and fighting Obama and company that they bring to criticizing and fighting Trump and his supporters. I don't think it's going to happen. end quote

The support hasn’t happened yet. But huge criticism has not happened either. The criticism has come and gone. By that I mean what else can the National Review, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and others say that will affect the election? They don’t seem able to affect the polls. Unless Trump gets Zika of the brain he will from this day forth, be a step closer to “my precious, my precious.”  He said he might sell a building to pay for his campaign. Nice try Trump. Well . . . I might give him a few bucks so he won’t look so sad.  

On the eastern front, “Elizabeth Warren does not rule out a VP run.” She is a goofus. Laugh yourself silly. She would only be considered for VP if Bernie gives her a passing glance.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

My view is that Trump is moving closer to my (our?) beliefs, where Ryan is moving farther from them

Jonathan,

I have held this belief from the beginning with one nuance. I think Trump has been far closer to our beliefs since the beginning than many who proclaim to be.

Especially Paul Ryan, who, in political practice, is a pragmatist, not a man of principled vision. He says he is, but his acts don't align to his words. He works as a decent copywriter for his principles, I suppose, but he sure as hell doesn't live them.

Trump, on the contrary, has left a physical trail of his productive vision all over the world. If he had a slightly different personality (on a lower fundamental level, i.e. less bragging, less bickering and more polite, essentially), I have no doubt many people in our subcommunity would say Ayn Rand anticipated him in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump is considering Newt Gingrich for vice presidential role

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-is-considering-newt-gingrich-for-vice-presidential-role/ar-BBsX0mg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBsWT9Z.img?h=487&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1098&y=572

Quote

WASHINGTON - Donald Trump has discussed in recent days the possibility of selecting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as his vice presidential running mate, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been asking confidants for input on Gingrich as a potential pick, including during conversations Wednesday at Trump Tower in New York, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
[...]

There’s a strong rationale for Gingrich, said Rick Tyler, who was an aide to the lawmaker for 12 years in Congress and during Gingrich’s 2012 presidential bid. He has substantive policy-driven views and knows the world, Tyler said.

Tyler said he's "confident" Gingrich is being considered, and could see him acting as a senior adviser in a manner similar to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Gingrich didn't respond to two calls for comment.
[...]
    
Gingrich has been a behind-the-scenes cheerleader for Trump in recent weeks and has sought to serve as a liaison between Trump and Washington Republicans.
[...]

------

Newtzilla for VP?  Yes, absolutely!  I liked Newt back when he was speaker, and I liked him for his presidential bid (well, until his space race gaffe, but I still liked him (not the gaffe)).  Newt has gushed a bit in interviews when he's been asked about VP.  This might happen, get ready.

Newtzilla!

:evil:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Donald Trump is considering Newt Gingrich for vice presidential role

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-is-considering-newt-gingrich-for-vice-presidential-role/ar-BBsX0mg?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBsWT9Z.img?h=487&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1098&y=572

------

Newtzilla for VP?  Yes, absolutely!  I liked Newt back when he was speaker, and I liked him for his presidential bid (well, until his space race gaffe, but I still liked him (not the gaffe)).  Newt has gushed a bit in interviews when he's been asked about VP.  This might happen, get ready.

Newtzilla!

:evil:

 

I have always loved Newt's intellect, but I think this would be a disaster--not unlike the Cruz selection of CF.

Trump and Newt are too much alike.    I am not saying Trump should add a VP choice in some conventional fashion, but there are better unconventional options out there. 

I am partly kidding: what about somebody like Mark Cuban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I have held this belief from the beginning with one nuance. I think Trump has been far closer to our beliefs since the beginning than many who proclaim to be.

Especially Paul Ryan, who, in political practice, is a pragmatist, not a man of principled vision. He says he is, but his acts don't align to his words. He works as a decent copywriter for his principles, I suppose, but he sure as hell doesn't live them.

Trump, on the contrary, has left a physical trail of his productive vision all over the world. If he had a slightly different personality (on a lower fundamental level, i.e. less bragging, less bickering and more polite, essentially), I have no doubt many people in our subcommunity would say Ayn Rand anticipated him in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Michael

Is there anything that Ryan has specifically done that leads you to say that he is not a man of principled vision?   Can you be specific with an example or two?   Implicit in your statement is the idea that being a person of "principled vision" is important to a politician.    Is Trump a principled politician?

It is indeed true that Trump has a physical trail of buildings around the world, but he is not running for the position of chief real estate developer.      As I have said before, I have a client just like Trump:  life-long developer, billionaire, excellent employer of thousands of employees, and great visionary.  He is also humble, not prone to exaggeration, can take a punch without acting like a bully, and gives a great deal to charity.    None of this means my client would be a good president.  

Assuming the same standards apply to judgments about the "principled vision(s)" of both Ryan and Trump, I would say Trump's actions do no quite align with his words either.    Just as one example, do Trump's actions regarding non-Americans that he employs at his hotels align with his words about immigrants?    I don't think so.    Trump also claims to have a principled objection to the Clintions, but his actions (which unfortunately his nose will be rubbed in mercilessly in the coming months) are belied by this.   He not only gave money to Hillary and endorsed her, but claimed that her vote for one of the Endless Wars was justified by the "lies" told to her.  Trump also (now) claims that the government should initiate force and require employers to pay a higher minimum wage.    Does Trump voluntarily pay his lowest paid employees higher than minimum wage, like he expects others to do?

I have no desire to rehash the particulars, but am interested in the underlying principle:  why are actions that don't align with his stated  principles okay when it involvies Trump, but different when involving Ryan?

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PDS said:

Is there anything that Ryan has specifically done that leads you to say that he is not a man of principled vision?

David,

You mean like his efforts to pass last year's budget?

:) 

Yeah, he rationalized it (something to the effect that we had to get that nastiness and further budget bloating out of the way by capitulating to be able to concentrate on the glorious small government future), but rationalizing his principles when the going gets tough seems to be his standard MO.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some edited cuts for brevity from the Georgetown University Townhall.

Paul Ryan discusses conservative principles at town hall 0By Margaret Gach . . . The America we want is the America you want,” said Ryan. “It’s what I call a confident America.” Ryan continued to explain that this “confident America” includes a more limited and transparent government, and necessitates the overhaul of the Affordable Care Act, the tax code, and the immigration system. The Speaker directed his comments at an audience mainly made up of millennials. He referred to the effects of growing up during the Great Recession and the idea that millennials may be the first generation worse off than their parents.

“ if life threw you a curveball, you were able to get the support you needed,” said Ryan. “You grew up in the Great Recession. You saw how opportunity can disappear in a moment. So the question is how do we open up the opportunity to everybody in this country? As you might have heard, this is a matter of dispute.” Ryan added that, despite this situation, it was up to millennials to decide the direction of the country, noting his belief that the government currently solves problems from the top-down instead of from the bottom-up.

As the Speaker transitioned into the Q&A period, he was joined by S.E. Cupp, conservative CNN contributor and Mo Elleithee, the executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service. Both helped to moderate pre-screened questions from students on the stage behind the Speaker as well as questions from the audience and Twitter.

Most of the questions asked Ryan to defend or explain Republican policies, decisions, and the GOP itself. The Speaker kept to his theme of limiting government and cautioned against deep political divisions. One student asked Ryan his opinion of the decision to take down Confederate flags at the Capitol Building in D.C. The audience gave the Speaker a round of applause for his support towards the choice.

“This [Confederate] symbol does more to divide this country than to unify this country,” said Ryan. “As a states’ rights person, it’s up to the states to decide these things, but in the Capitol if we’re going to have a symbol, we’re going to have symbols that unify people and don’t divide people.”

A question from Twitter asked him why he had decided to reconsider his past statements that described poor people as “takers.” Ryan admitted that he had wrongly painted a broad swath of people with one brush and advised students to own up to mistakes. Other questions were further skeptical of Ryan’s policies and focused on divisive issues between liberals and conservatives. A question about health care came from a student whose family had been insured by the Affordable Care Act. Ryan reiterated his belief that the system is too costly and ineffective and laid out his own ideas for insuring people with preexisting conditions. A question about climate change was met with Ryan’s response that scientific research into new technologies like clean coal was a better way to protect American productivity than federal carbon taxes or emissions limits.

One student asked how he could support Republican ideas, such as lower taxes and more limited government on the federal level when they are failing in states like Kansas and his home state of Arizona. After the student received applause, Ryan first emphasized that he believed those states were thriving, then pivoted back onto the topic of tax reform and the importance of individuals, not the government, making decisions for themselves. “Just because [Republicans] believe in limited government doesn’t mean we believe in no government,” said Ryan.

Ryan, the chair of the Republican National Convention in July, was also asked for advice by a Republican student who said he does not support either of the likely Republican presidential nominees. Ryan affirmed his neutrality in the race, but told the student to look beyond the personalities of candidates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

You mean like his efforts to pass last year's budget?

:) 

Yeah, he rationalized it (something to the effect that we had to get that nastiness and further budget bloating out of the way by capitulating to be able to concentrate on the glorious small government future), but rationalizing his principles when the going gets tough seems to be his standard MO.

Michael

Okay.    Can you name something specific you object to about last year's budget?   

I am going to assume your objection--like mine--is that the budget increased federal spending.   Yet again.  

Do you plan to hold Trump to this same standard when he signs a new budget bill in 2017?    Or any year thereafter?

Because I will bet you a serious sum of real money that Trump will not sign a budget bill that actually reduces federal spending in any year he is President.    

Are you willing to make that bet with me?   We can negotiate the terms of the bet privately if you are interested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also found on DT's website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/a-joint-statement-from-house-speaker-paul-ryan-and-donald-j.-trump

So the big questions going into the meeting were can there be unity between Trump and Ryan?  Can they work together?  "Yes":

Quote

While we were honest about our few differences, we recognize that there are also many important areas of common ground. We will be having additional discussions, but remain confident there’s a great opportunity to unify our party and win this fall, and we are totally committed to working together to achieve that goal.

Here is a press conference with Ryan after the meeting.  Listen for the line, "I was very encouraged with what I heard from Donald Trump today."  Also, at the end Ryan does a grammatical elliptical, the sentence is, "That is why, like I said, we had a very good start to a process on how we unify <the rest of the party>."  Ryan is very much on board here, and I am excited to see it:

About Ryan and last year's budget, I think he did what he had to do--Obama wouldn't have passed a Republican budget anyway, and why start a fight that would only end up with the Republicans painted as a party that can't be worked with, especially with the Presidential election looming?  By going forward with the budget, Ryan negated this accusation.  Priebus hinted at this on Hannity recently as well.  I like Ryan and think he was thinking long range here...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, PDS said:

Okay.    Can you name something specific you object to about last year's budget?

David,

Come on. That's the way you want to argue this?

 A: Tell me something about X that proves your point, I dare you. You can't can you? See? You can't...

B: Blah blah blah...

A: Oh... OK, well tell me another. You can't can you?

:) 

I'm not biting.

Also, I'm going to seriously regret this, but I will not wager on what Trump will do. This would be the easiest money I ever made in my life, but I don't gamble on the principle of keeping myself alive as long as my natural days allow. (I've been a serious drug and alcohol addict, remember? :) )

Let's just say Trump is being hired to do a job (several, actually, but let's lump them all under the singular). If he doesn't do that job, or if he doesn't get reasonably close to getting it done with some serious-ass reasons why he didn't complete it, I am going to be pissed as hell at him--like millions and millions of others. And, if he fails at his job, at such time I will take whatever means I can to help remove him and get someone else who can do that job.

So I'm not going to waste my time--after doing this thread of over 6,000 posts and a lot of writing at other places, trying to convince anyone that I really believe Trump will do what he says. I believe it.

Besides, I'm extremely time-constrained at the moment (good things are happening to me in other areas of my life, but they are time-consuming to get right) and I have not yet answered Robert Campbell and some friendly passive/aggressive gossip shit William is trying to stir up backstage. :) 

Life is short, but this stuff can get awfully long...

And then there's this:

Trump is winning...

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Also found on DT's website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/a-joint-statement-from-house-speaker-paul-ryan-and-donald-j.-trump

So the big questions going into the meeting were can there be unity between Trump and Ryan?  Can they work together?  "Yes":

Here is a press conference with Ryan after the meeting.  Listen for the line, "I was very encouraged with what I heard from Donald Trump today."  Also, at the end Ryan does a grammatical elliptical, the sentence is, "That is why, like I said, we had a very good start to a process on how we unify <the rest of the party>."  Ryan is very much on board here, and I am excited to see it.

About Ryan and last year's budget, I think he did what he had to do--Obama wouldn't have passed a Republican budget anyway, and why start a fight that would only end up with the Republicans painted as a party that can't be worked with, especially with the Presidential election looming?  By going forward with the budget, Ryan negated this accusation.  Priebus hinted at this on Hannity recently as well.  I like Ryan and think he was thinking long range here...

 

Korban: I agree re your last paragraph about Ryan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David,

Come on. That's the way you want to argue this?

 A: Tell me something about X that proves your point, I dare you. You can't can you? See? You can't...

B: Blah blah blah...

A: Oh... OK, well tell me another. You can't can you?

:) 

I'm not biting.

Also, I'm going to seriously regret this, but I will not wager on what Trump will do. This would be the easiest money I ever made in my life, but I don't gamble on the principle of keeping myself alive as long as my natural days allow. (I've been a serious drug and alcohol addict, remember? :) )

Let's just say Trump is being hired to do a job (several, actually, but let's lump them all under the singular). If he doesn't do that job, or if he doesn't get reasonably close to getting it done with some serious-ass reasons why he didn't complete it, I am going to be pissed as hell at him--like millions and millions of others. And, if he fails at his job, at such time I will take whatever means I can to help remove him and get someone else who can do that job.

So I'm not going to waste my time--after doing this thread of over 6,000 posts and a lot of writing at other places, trying to convince anyone that I really believe Trump will do what he says. I believe it.

Besides, I'm extremely time-constrained at the moment (good things are happening to me in other areas of my life, but they are time-consuming to get right) and I have not yet answered Robert Campbell and some friendly passive/aggressive gossip shit William is trying to stir up backstage. :) 

Life is short, but this stuff can get awfully long...

And then there's this:

Trump is winning...

:) 

Michael

MIchael:  that's fine--I respect your point about wagering, and I also respect your statements about being pissed if Trump doesn't do what he says he will do.    

That's really all I was driving at.    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, with a little crow thrown on top.  :lol:

Now let me put my money where my mouth is:.  If Trump signs a budget bill that reduces federal spending, I will send $500 to OL and I will personally send you a taxidermed crow.    I will be happy to do so, and happy to be wrong on this point.    And you are welcome to remind me should I forget this in this future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now