President Donald J. Trump

[Metron2267]

What do you mean 'and'?  The rest of it is the 'and' part

I mean its just no big secret...he's very patterned in his apparent spontaneity.

[PB the Deplorable]

... You still haven't illustrated what other tools he has to get these nations back to the table.

Really? 

Look, the guy's an asshole.  His ego gets in the way of everything.  He's great at blustering instead of doing, attacking people he needs help from down the road, walking into traps and making himself look like an idiot.  He's a smart guy, but there are gaping holes in the skill set one usually associates with a president, and he's shown zero interest in developing those areas or listening to people who have them.

He's not a leader.  He just isn't.  And this whole NAFTA / tariff / trade war horseshit is just another pitiful example of it. 

That he is as successful in certain areas as he has been is more a reflection of how really horrible Obama's policies were.

[Metron2267]

The apparent answer is everyone is waiting for him to lead.  Isn't it his idea, and isn't he the president?

He has, that's what was in the articles I shared.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/16639/trump-begins-process-renegotiating-nafta-after-joshua-yasmeh
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/nafta-renegotiation-trump.html

How many legislative initiatives has he lead on with Congress to date?  Zero? 

It's kind of timely to have a brief civics lesson:

http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/the-presidency/section3/

Chief Legislator

The president does not have any formal legislative power but has acquired a great deal of informal power as relations between the president and Congress have evolved. People expect the president to have a legislative agenda, a series of laws he or she wishes to pass, which is presented each year during the State of the Union address to Congress and the American people. The president can also play a key role in getting legislation passed by persuading members of Congress to vote for certain bills. The president’s popularity and the partisan makeup of Congress influence how effective a president can be in getting legislation passed.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060073597

President Trump today proposed big changes to the National Environmental Policy Act as part of his program to overhaul the nation's infrastructure.

The plan, formally released this morning, includes $200 billion of new spending to be paid for by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. Much of the proposal focuses on reforming the permitting process with a "one agency, one decision" framework for environmental reviews.

It would direct the White House Council on Environmental Quality to rewrite its NEPA guidance for the first time since 1978, with the goal of streamlining approvals. The plan would also designate a lead agency that would produce a single combined review document for each project, with a two-year deadline.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-immigration-plan-white-house.html

WASHINGTON â€" President Trump proposed legislation on Thursday that would provide a path to citizenship for as many as 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants in exchange for an end to decades of family-based migration policies, a costly border wall and a vast crackdown on other immigrants living in the country illegally.

Describing the plan as “extremely generous” but a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, White House officials said they hoped it would be embraced by conservatives and centrists in Congress as the first step in an even broader effort to fix the nation’s immigration system.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/27/sean-spicer/trump-has-signed-more-bills-100-days-any-president/

Trump has signed 28 bills so far. Spicer’s correct that this is more than every president going back about 70 years.

He came from the private sector, a family business where the president/CEO dictates everything and fires anyone who doesn't immediately go along.  That's exactly what he's done on his own with executive orders, and to a certain extent in dealing with North Korea.  But only so much can be done with EOs.

Did you say that when Obama was soundly abusing the EO powers?

http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/obama-trump-abuse-executive-powers-presidency/

After 9/11, our nation had a taste of this approach, as President George W. Bush claimed he was not bound by statutes or treaties when acting to protect the nation. President Barack Obama rejected that view, maintaining that the president, like everyone else, must obey the law.

But there is another side to this admirable aspect of Obama’s legacy. With the notable exception of torture, in restoring the rule of law, he did not actually renounce Bush’s extraordinarily broad vision of executive power. Instead, Obama sought to put it on firmer legal footingâ€"sometimes with help from Congress or the courts, sometimes simply by articulating a legal justification for government actions.

This choice may prove to have fateful consequences. By buttressing with legal authority some of the most breathtaking powers asserted under Bush, Obama paradoxically may have made it easier for Trump to abuse them.

https://www.mediaite.com/print/is-dictator-obama-abusing-his-executive-order-powers/

Fox host Gregg Jarrett opened his segment by criticizing the President’s actions. He said, “After the Sandy Hook shooting, the President took 23 executive actions against guns. None of them have prevented things like Oregon or Charleston.”

WHAT? 23 executive orders? That’s so insane that Obama should qualify for the very mental health treatment that the right wants to push over gun control.

I sat stunned at this revelation dramatically pushed by Jarrett. 23 seems like a lot; no wonder Sarah Palin once decried our President’s move on an executive order as “giving the middle finger” to voters.

Regarding a different Obama executive action, House Speaker John Boehner said, “President Obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness”; he once even threatened a law suit. Charles Krauthammer considered it an “impeachable offence.”

This year Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith told Fox’s Stuart Varney, “This is a President who has, in an unprecedented way, used executive orders, executive actions, to go around Congress.”

I did some digging, and found that our Fascist In Chief has issued a whopping 219 executive orders during his time as President. The right is right: this man is out of control.

He's shown zero skills in leadership when he needs others within the administration to operate as a team (hence all the firings and resignations), or to push an agenda (hence the awful budget, and the failures to repeal ObamaCare). 

Sorry but I'm not buying that canard.

As the head of his team he's granted full authority in personnel decisions.

Exercising said is, by definition, LEADERSHIP.

Why do you think it's any different with this, that he initiated dialogue and was rejected?  Answer:  he didn't

The facts speak otherwise, why continue to deny reality?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/16639/trump-begins-process-renegotiating-nafta-after-joshua-yasmeh

On Thursday, President Trump initiated the formal renegotiation process for the decades-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

By sending a letter signed by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Trump has triggered a 90-day mandatory grace period before the U.S. can begin negotiating with NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico.

[Metron2267]

Really? 

Look, the guy's an asshole.  His ego gets in the way of everything.

Please don't bother to mention Obummer was many times worse with his thin skin and holier than thou virtue signaling rhetoric.

He's great at blustering instead of doing, attacking people he needs help from down the road, walking into traps and making himself look like an idiot.  He's a smart guy, but there are gaping holes in the skill set one usually associates with a president, and he's shown zero interest in developing those areas or listening to people who have them.

He's not a leader.  He just isn't.  And this whole NAFTA / tariff / trade war horseshit is just another pitiful example of it. 

That he is as successful in certain areas as he has been is more a reflection of how really horrible Obama's policies were.

Wow.

Obviously you have your own anti-Trump agenda to service here as you continue to dodge my factual questions:

You still haven't illustrated what other tools he has to get these nations back to the table.

As for his successes, they're...wait for it...YUUGE!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/draft-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-his-first-100-days/
President Trump decreased the US Debt in his first 100 days by $100 Billion.  (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 100 days by more than $560 Billion.)

The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in this period which were the best numbers since 1983 under President Reagan.

President Trump added 298,000 jobs in his first month alone (after President Obama said jobs were not coming back!).

Housing sales are red-hot.  In 2011, houses for sale were on the market an average 84 days. This year, it’s just 45 days.

Illegal immigration is down 67% since President Trump’s Inauguration.

NATO announced Allied spending is up $10 Billion because of President Trump.

After being nominated by President Trump, Constitutionalist Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in as  Supreme Court Justice in early April.

The President has signed 66 executive orders, memoranda and proclamations as of April 19th, including:

* Notifying Congress of a strike on Syria after it was reported that the country used gas on its citizens.
* Dismantling Obama’s climate change initiatives.
* Travel bans for individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities.
* Enforcing regulatory reform.
* Protecting Law enforcement.
* Mandating for every new regulation to eliminate two.
* Defeating ISIS.
* Rebuilding the military.
* Building a border wall.
* Cutting funding for sanctuary cities.
* Approving pipelines.
* Reducing regulations on manufacturers.
* Placing a hiring freeze on federal employees.
* Exiting the US from the TPP.

In addition to all this, the President has met with many foreign leaders from across the globe including Xi from China, Abe from Japan, etc.

[Gd5150]

Look, the guy's an asshole.  His ego gets in the way of everything.  He's great at blustering instead of doing, attacking people he needs help from down the road, walking into traps and making himself look like an idiot.

Yet everyone who meets him face to face likes the guy. Even Kanye. Your mistake and repeated ignorance comes from believing these so-called “traps” set by the demokkkrat media were set before Trump walked into them.

What you continuously fail to understand about the demokkkrat media “traps” is they’re created after Trump/Republican party actions. It doesn’t matter what Republicans say or do, the demokkkrat media will go after them. Losers like your favorites Cruz and Rubio would have been annihilated by the demokkkrat media and lost by double digits to Clinton. And then you can kiss off this booming economy thanks to Trumps pro business, pro American policy.

The difference with Trump is he doesn’t apologize. He doesn’t play by their rules. He doesnt fall for the fake outrage of the demokkkrat left. He throws it back in their face. And they don’t know how to respond to it because theyve never had to. That’s how you handle the worthless left. They’re not interested in working together, making things better, helping the country. They have no ideas, no solutions, no platform. They’re only interested in acquiring political power and they need to be defeated.

You should get away from the Bay Area bubble of obsessive Trump/Republican hate and rage. They’re not objective. They’re not interested in standing together. They hate this country. They hate everyone who doesn’t tow their hate filled demokkkrat party line. Just lemmings who believe anything and everything the demokkkrat media spoon feeds them. Their idea of open-mindedness is watching “Vice News” by mr fake libertarian Bill Maher and John Oliver.

The establishment Republicans and Demokkkrat party/media hate Trump. He’s an outsider and a direct threat to their power. They don’t want to work with him and they’re not going to work with him. They can’t risk he or any outsider getting credit for real progress. It would threaten the system that empowers them. But it’s Trumps fault. Right.

[Metron2267]

Think about the experience the Rs have had running "nice" candidates.

Romney was as well-spoken, mannerly, and as centrist as an R could be - the result...they personally annihilated him for his dog crate incident and smeared him endlessly, even after he performed a mid campaign public water rescue.

Sarah Palin, a very nice soccer mom type, was subjected to utter ridicule and derision for her reading list, decision to have a downs child, choice of husband, any and every thing.

McCain for all his "we're all God's children" tolerance for illegals and willingness to go in and cut deals was vilified as some kind of war monger who'd start WW3!

And Bush, whose worst public persona trait was a bit of a smirk, was character asassinated the entire time he was in office as a "dummy".

Well now they've got someone with a spine who takes the media's dirty tricks and solid bias and calls them out on it.

I have no issue with his strategy thus far - he really has no other way to get his message past their reality distortion field than to Tweet them into insanity.

So far....it's...working....

[Jackstar]

Coward.

[PB the Deplorable]

Think about the experience the Rs have had running "nice" candidates...

All I said was 1) Trump didn't really follow through with NAFTA talks before going straight to tariffs, and that 2) he'd get more done if he used different approaches to different issues.

Since you finally agreed with me on both, we're in agreement.  I'm not anti-Trump - overall he's done well - but he's far from perfect, he could clearly be better on a lot of issues, and on the way he handles them, and I'm going to point that out as well. 

I still have concerns he'll destroy the one party that stands in the way of the Marxist fascist ''progressive'' party, just as ''Arnold'' did here in CA. 

[Dr. MD MD]

All I said was 1) Trump didn't really follow through with NAFTA talks before going straight to tariffs, and that 2) he'd get more done if he used different approaches to different issues.

Since you finally agreed with me on both, we're in agreement.  I'm not anti-Trump - overall he's done well - but he's far from perfect, he could clearly be better on a lot of issues, and on the way he handles them, and I'm going to point that out as well. 

I still have concerns he'll destroy the one party that stands in the way of the Marxist fascist ''progressive'' party, just as ''Arnold'' did here in CA.

Before he came along were they really standing in the way of that though?! It didn't seem that way to me but what do I know?! I'm just the dumbest Bellgabber, apparently.

[Metron2267]

All I said was 1) Trump didn't really follow through with NAFTA talks before going straight to tariffs, and that 2) he'd get more done if he used different approaches to different issues.

Half credit there.

1.) He did his part to get the ball rolling, but the other nations just played possum.
2.) Partial agreement based upon the monster string of accomplishments he already has to his name. Could he have had even more? Maybe...but unlikely with a hostile media and deep state hijinks.

Since you finally agreed with me on both, we're in agreement.

No, but why do you need that agreement so much?

I'm not anti-Trump - overall he's done well - but he's far from perfect, he could clearly be better on a lot of issues, and on the way he handles them, and I'm going to point that out as well.

How about 'anti-Trump's style'?

That one we can truly agree on, it's abrasive, childish at times, then weirdly concilliatory. Just a total grab bag of disparate elements. It reminds me of the comical faces he made in the debates - clownishly inappropriate, but seemed not to damage him.

I still have concerns he'll destroy the one party that stands in the way of the Marxist fascist ''progressive'' party, just as ''Arnold'' did here in CA.

That's a nuance you're entitled to explore given the traction your Dems have gained. I shall think on the parallels and if they really apply.

Personally I think the deep staters like Ryan, McConnell, McCaine, Schumer and Pelosi are the true destructors. I was worried initially when Trump cozied up to "Chuck and Nancy" - hate to see that action come back to bite us in the ass.

[Metron2267]

Before he came along were they really standing in the way of that though?! It didn't seem that way to me but what do I know?! I'm just the dumbest Bellgabber, apparently.

I agree, they were doing a fine job of making the whole party look ineffectual. The way they tried to dump all the Tea Party candidates looked not quite as bad as what the DNC did to Bernie, but close enough.

And Romney's final debate disappearance against Obama was a coup de grace.

He had all the ammo he needed to waste the guy on Syria and let it all slide away.

[PB the Deplorable]

... why do you need that agreement so much...

So you can stop nagging me on this. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... 2.) Partial agreement based upon the monster string of accomplishments he already has to his name. Could he have had even more? Maybe...but unlikely with a hostile media and deep state hijinks...

When a bunch of people make a prediction, and that's exactly how things end up turning out, it's a little disingenuous for people who never agreed with it in the first place to insist that no, it's because of something else.

Sure the media and deep state are hostile.  Even with them against him there are ways to handle them and be successful.  Reagan did.  From the primaries onward, Trump stupidly attacked people in the most disrespectful, unnecessary, unfair, dishonest, and childlike ways - people who would normally be expected to be on his side and follow his lead were he to become president.  All the other Rs in the primaries - many of whom were and are Senators in a Senate with a razor thin majority, other Senators, Cabinet members, judges who are going to rule on his cases, you name it.

It's not as if he's had a string of legislative successes, and some are wondering if he could have had more - I don't see any legislative successes at all.  He had almost no input on the new tax law, and other than a horribly bloated budget, that was the only major piece of legislation we've had in 16 months of holding the House, Senate, and presidency.  That's pathetic and unacceptable.  And his fault.  I don't see him leading on a single issue where he needs cooperation - only on issues that the president can make decisions on without the input of anyone else.  And I sure don't see any of those he stupidly attacked - or their colleagues - defending him on anything.

In other words, there are entire areas of his job that demand the support from others that he doesn't have, simply because he isn't a leader.  Not only is he not a leader, he sabotages his own success.  If he gets impeached or worse, he really only has himself to blame. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Before he came along were they really standing in the way of that though?! It didn't seem that way to me but what do I know?! I'm just the dumbest Bellgabber, apparently.

Were you not paying attention to the difference in what Obama was able to get through Congress before and after the Ds in the Senate lost their filibuster-proof majority?  Just one difference - How did that phony judge Obama appointed to the Supreme Court, Garland Merrick, do?

Other than Continuing Resolutions (because the Republican Congress and Obama couldn't agree on annual budgets) what legislation did they pass for him?  Had the Ds continued to hold both houses, do you think they wouldn't have passed a bunch of ''progressive'' legislation?

Yes, the Rs should have opposed him more strongly, taken more of a stand and made a bigger stink when he went beyond his Constitutional role, etc.  That's not the same as going along with his agenda.  I think they should have done a lot more, but with the media always on his side no matter the issue, no matter how he conducted himself, would constantly doing that have been a winning hand? 

Look what happened when a few people didn't go along with his spending for a few days and the government was ''shut down''.  Did the country rally to their side?  No.  Heck, they weren't even supported by the party voters in the primaries - they were simply lumped in with all the other Rs. 

[Metron2267]

So you can stop nagging me on this.

I'm not "nagging you", I'm facting you.

[Metron2267]

When a bunch of people make a prediction, and that's exactly how things end up turning out, it's a little disingenuous for people who never agreed with it in the first place to insist that no, it's because of something else.

Sure the media and deep state are hostile.  Even with them against him there are ways to handle them and be successful.  Reagan did.  From the primaries onward, Trump stupidly attacked people in the most disrespectful, unnecessary, unfair, dishonest, and childlike ways - people who would normally be expected to be on his side and follow his lead were he to become president.  All the other Rs in the primaries - many of whom were and are Senators in a Senate with a razor thin majority, other Senators, Cabinet members, judges who are going to rule on his cases, you name it.

Shameless he was!

And it....worked!

It's not as if he's had a string of legislative successes, and some are wondering if he could have had more - I don't see any legislative successes at all. 

Yes I know.

I post the actuals and you deny they exist, that's why we're still at this.

And it's getting OLD....

http://www.speroforum.com/a/VLVNSDFKFH46/82489-A-list-of-Trumps-2017-legislative-accomplishments

President Donald Trump signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut bill on December 22, and cited then the number of bill he had signed into law this year as 88. Actually, he has signed more bills than that so far during his tenure in office. The actual number of law Trump signed this year is 96.

All 96 laws signed by President Trump, categorized:

He had almost no input on the new tax law, and other than a horribly bloated budget, that was the only major piece of legislation we've had in 16 months of holding the House, Senate, and presidency.  That's pathetic and unacceptable.  And his fault.

That is another LIE from you!

H.R. 244: "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017"
H.R. 2810: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018"

Implements new policy (3)

S. 1094: "Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017"

H.R.3364: "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act"

H.R. 1: "An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018" (This is the Republican tax reform bill.)

Temporarily funds government, and provides one-time disaster relief (7)

H.J.Res. 99: "Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes"

H.R. 601: "Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017"

H.R. 3732: "Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Hurricanes Irma and Jose Overseas Act"

H.R. 3823: "Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2017"

H.R. 2266: "Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017"

H.J.Res. 123: "Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes"

H.R. 1370: Continuing Appropriations Act, Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, CHIP and Public Health Funding Extension Act, 2018

Repealing rules and regulations (16)

These require only a simple majority for passage in the Senate. Because they cannot be filibustered in the Senate, the Republicans were able to reverse, with a narrow majority in the Senate, Obama-era regulations that had not yet taken effect.

H.J.Res. 67: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees"

H.J.Res. 43: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients"

H.J.Res. 69: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to 'Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska' "

H.J.Res. 83: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 'Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness'"

S.J.Res. 34: "A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 'Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services' "

H.J.Res. 42: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants"

H.J.Res. 57: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965"

H.J.Res. 58: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation issues"

H.J.Res. 37: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation"

Etc...

I don't see him leading on a single issue where he needs cooperation - only on issues that the president can make decisions on without the input of anyone else.  And I sure don't see any of those he stupidly attacked - or their colleagues - defending him on anything.

In other words, there are entire areas of his job that demand the support from others that he doesn't have, simply because he isn't a leader.  Not only is he not a leader, he sabotages his own success.  If he gets impeached or worse, he really only has himself to blame.

Your strong personal bias is confirmed, not much more need be said here.

Toodles.

[Jackstar]

[PB the Deplorable]

Shameless he was!

And it....worked!...

It worked, as long as he doesn't expect any or them or their colleagues to have his back (such as, say, during the Muller investigation; or against the media).  Or to support his legislative agenda items when that might cost them politically.

... http://www.speroforum.com/a/VLVNSDFKFH46/82489-A-list-of-Trumps-2017-legislative-accomplishments

President Donald Trump signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut bill on December 22, and cited then the number of bill he had signed into law this year as 88. Actually, he has signed more bills than that so far during his tenure in office. The actual number of law Trump signed this year is 96.

All 96 laws signed by President Trump, categorized...

I said he isn't a leader and hasn't been leading on legislation - I didn't say nothing has been passed and signed into law.  He didn't lead on these items.  It's still a Republican Congress, and they've had eight years of pent up legislation they knew Obama wouldn't sign.

... Your strong personal bias is confirmed, not much more need be said here.

Toodles.

Oh I'm sorry.  Did I give you the impression I thought he was something other than a blustering jerk?  This is a person who has been on the scene for decades.  I thought we all knew what we were getting, as far as a self-absorbed boor. 

Doesn't mean I'm not going to support him on issues when he agrees with me, and it doesn't mean I'm not going to support him when he's being attacked by the fake news media, the fascist ''progressives'', or the Cultural Marxists - I am, I just wish he were easier to defend sometimes. 

In fact, much to my surprise, he' done a lot of very positive things.  But this nation has gotten way off track and needs much more done - things that he should have been able to get done, or at least get started on, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.  There has been much in the way of missed opportunities because of the way he operates.

[Dr. MD MD]

It worked, as long as he doesn't expect any or them or their colleagues to have his back (such as, say, during the Muller investigation).  Or to support his legislative agenda items when it comes to a show of solidarity with him, or as a show of party strength - like, say, when it came to overturning ObamaCare.



I said he isn't a leader and hasn't been leading on legislation - I didn't say nothing has been passed and signed into law.  He didn't lead on these items.  It's still a Republican Congress, and they've had eight years of pent up legislation they knew Obama wouldn't sign.



Oh I'm sorry.  Did I give you the impression I thought he was something other than a blustering jerk?  This is a person who has been on the scene for decades.  I thought we all knew what we were getting, as far as a self-absorbed boor. 

Doesn't mean I'm not going to support him on issues when he agrees with me, and it doesn't mean I'm not going to support him when he's being attacked by the fake news media, the fascist ''progressives'', or the Cultural Marxists - I am, I just wish he were easier to defend sometimes.

He would have to be embraced by the mainstream media, CIA, kiss the pope's ring for that to happen. I know you get the logic. 

[21st Century Man]

That whole ridiculous nonsense about whether a president can pardon himself turned me off bigly.  I blame Rudy as much as Donald on that one but their statements reeked of inappropriate ethics.  I actually like Rudy a lot and am dumbfounded that he even bothered responding to the bait that Stephanopoulos tripped him up with. 

[PB the Deplorable]

He would have to be embraced by the mainstream media, CIA, kiss the pope's ring for that to happen. I know you get the logic. 

I see.  So the choice is drive away people who would normally be on his side, or become an Establishment Republican? 

I offer Ronald Reagan as an example of how to lead and be successful in the face of a left-wing media, hostile Democrats, Cultural Marxists, various enemy nations, etc.

Go listen to some of his old speeches on YouTube, and note how different his approach was from Trump's, then understand why he was so much more respected, successful, and popular. 

[PB the Deplorable]

That whole ridiculous nonsense about whether a president can pardon himself turned me off bigly.  I blame Rudy as much as Donald on that one but their statements reeked of inappropriate ethics.  I actually like Rudy a lot and am dumbfounded that he even bothered responding to the bait that Stephanopoulos tripped him up with.

I'm not so sure. 

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

“The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process.  With the president as head of the Executive Branch, The Framer's didn't anticipate a Justice Department going after him on legal grounds.  They didn't anticipate a special council with unlimited resources investigating him.  They certainly wouldn't have seen a president distracted by legal issues while serving as being in the best interests of the country.

The proper course of action in removing a corrupt president is investigation and Impeachment by the House, and Conviction in the senate.  Or being voted out the next election.  That's it.  Not an indictment, not an endless investigation by an unelected untouchable investigator.  If a president has committed a crime, and the Congress fails to remove him, then it has to wait until he is otherwise out of office.


Would a self pardon, or a pardon of associates be unethical?  It would depend on the circumstances.  But just as ''it's better that 10 guilty men go free than for an innocent man be imprisoned'', or however the saying goes, it's better that a president to be unencumbered by the legal maneuverings of his enemies, than he be distracted from focusing on his duties in a dangerous world

[Taaroa]

Article is splitting hairs a bit I think, and I've heard Canadians lay claim to the burning of the White House. Personally I thought it was a funny remark by Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/war-of-1812-history-facts.html




Also it seems like Rudy Giuliani has a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth rivaling that of Tony Abbott.

[Dr. MD MD]

Article is splitting hairs a bit I think, and I've heard Canadians lay claim to the burning of the White House. Personally I thought it was a funny remark by Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/war-of-1812-history-facts.html




Also it seems like Rudy Giuliani has a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth rivaling that of Tony Abbott.

I love it! Once again, it's what's needed. Start with the necessary then move on to the possible and pretty soon you're doing the impossible. 

[Metron2267]

It worked, as long as he doesn't expect any or them or their colleagues to have his back (such as, say, during the Muller investigation; or against the media).  Or to support his legislative agenda items when that might cost them politically.

So you think by being something he is not that he'd have marshaled support from the Deep State lackeys for his policies which run counter to their statist agenda?

Wow.

That is delusional thinking.

Sort of like Trey Gowdy telling Americans they WANT to see the FBI spying on political campaigns...

I said he isn't a leader and hasn't been leading on legislation - I didn't say nothing has been passed and signed into law.  He didn't lead on these items.  It's still a Republican Congress, and they've had eight years of pent up legislation they knew Obama wouldn't sign.

Oh he "didn't lead" and yet all this happened with what has been a largely do-nothing Congress...

Wow, the delusions never end with you...

Oh I'm sorry.  Did I give you the impression I thought he was something other than a blustering jerk? 

Did anything I have said here lead you to that false conclusion?

Your bias was confirmed from the get go.

Anything else you'd like to accuse me of thinking that bears no touch with reality?

And why are you exhibiting this most liberal of deceitful debate strategies?

This is a person who has been on the scene for decades.  I thought we all knew what we were getting, as far as a self-absorbed boor. 

Are you going to service this straw man endlessly?

If anything it's YOU who seem at odds with his style despite positing our collective familiarity with it.

Sorry, I wasn't a viewer of his reality shows so if anything I'm less experienced in the nuances of his bluster.

Doesn't mean I'm not going to support him on issues when he agrees with me, and it doesn't mean I'm not going to support him when he's being attacked by the fake news media, the fascist ''progressives'', or the Cultural Marxists - I am, I just wish he were easier to defend sometimes.

As do I.

As I have numerous times stated.

Yet for whatever reason I can never state that enough to put out the fire of your Trump spite.

You really need to quit flaming those who won't agree with your beliefs at a 100% threshold.

In fact, much to my surprise, he' done a lot of very positive things.  But this nation has gotten way off track and needs much more done - things that he should have been able to get done, or at least get started on, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.  There has been much in the way of missed opportunities because of the way he operates.

Yet you generally can't illustrate which opportunities have been "missed". It's all nebulous and breathless assertions with you, gripes on style, but nary a concrete example of any of your fears being confirmed.

For example, considering his "style" of negotiating:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kim-jong-un-begged-for-summit-on-his-hands-and-knees-giuliani-says-1528293476

TEL AVIVâ€"President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un got “on his hands and knees and begged” for their summit to be held after Mr. Trump canceled it in May.

Mr. Giuliani counseled a similar approach to Trump administration negotiations with Palestinian officials in a future Middle East peace process.

Speaking at an investment conference in Israel hosted by the Globes newspaper, Mr. Giuliani said Mr. Trump canceled the summit because senior North Korean officials insulted top Trump administration officials..
“They also said they were going to go to nuclear war with us, they were going to defeat us in a nuclear war,” Mr. Giuliani said. “We said we’re not going to have a summit under those circumstances.”

After Mr. Trump canceled the meeting, Mr. Giuliani said: “Well, Kim Jong Un got back on his hands and knees and begged for it, which is exactly the position you want to put him in.”

[Metron2267]

That whole ridiculous nonsense about whether a president can pardon himself turned me off bigly.  I blame Rudy as much as Donald on that one but their statements reeked of inappropriate ethics.  I actually like Rudy a lot and am dumbfounded that he even bothered responding to the bait that Stephanopoulos tripped him up with.

High stakes poker isn't always a pretty game to watch.

[Metron2267]

I see.  So the choice is drive away people who would normally be on his side, or become an Establishment Republican?

How do you believe an anti-deep state President can reconcile with...wait for it...the DEEP STATE???

I offer Ronald Reagan as an example of how to lead and be successful in the face of a left-wing media, hostile Democrats, Cultural Marxists, various enemy nations, etc.

I maintain a different man (totally) a different era, and different players.

Go listen to some of his old speeches on YouTube, and note how different his approach was from Trump's, then understand why he was so much more respected, successful, and popular.

Yes I think we all love Ronny and respect him for who and what he was.

Now he's not here and we have a different man for different and more polarized times.

You do realize that Reagan's era was largely unsullied by the polarization that Rush and other nascent conservative media would be blamed for. No Fox News either.

And it was the emergence of those two that led to the insanity of the left and the subsequent and ongoing destruction of balanced reportage.

Think your analogies through and try and correct for social context, please.

[Metron2267]

Article is splitting hairs a bit I think, and I've heard Canadians lay claim to the burning of the White House. Personally I thought it was a funny remark by Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/us/politics/war-of-1812-history-facts.html

Yes, the British forces were operating FROM what would in later years become the nation of Canada, so...

Bit of an early Afghanistan terrorist state they were...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/today-we-celebrate-the-time-canada-burned-down-the-white-house-127844144/

The British and American armies, supplemented by militia and First Nations warriors, pushed back and forth for nearly three years, temporarily trading territory along the Niagara river, and hitting each other at their cores.

York, now Toronto, was captured and looted. And Newark, now Niagara-on-the-Lake, was burned. British forces attacked Washington and torched the White House.

Such a violent history is surprising to many, given that Canada and the US now act more like siblings than neighbors. Turns out this cheerful outlook may be due more to forgetfulness than reconciliation.

The Wall Street Journal’s Alistair MacDonald writes,

Many Canadian children grow up learning their forebears triumphed after American aggressors tried and failed to invade what was then a British colony. For Americans, a fledging nation forced Britain to respect U.S. sovereignty, allowing it to focus on its expansion westward.

[Taaroa]

Such a violent history is surprising to many, given that Canada and the US now act more like siblings than neighbors. Turns out this cheerful outlook may be due more to forgetfulness than reconciliation.

At least up to the 1920s/30s there were war plans in both countries for going to war with each other (War Plan Red, Defence Scheme No. 1).

[Kidnostad3]

I have always thought highly of Rudy but I’m beginning to think he’s lost it.  Could he possibly say a more bone headed thing at a worse time?   Time will tell.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/world/asia/giuliani-kim-jong-un-north-korea.html