US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

bostjan

MicroMetal
Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
19,934
Reaction score
11,090
Location
St. Johnsbury, VT USA
The Supreme Court already ruled that the Executive branch cannot ignore a congressional subpoena during Nixon's investigation, so it IS bullshit that this is happening again.
 

ImNotAhab

ChronicUnderachiever
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
846
Reaction score
610
Location
Vancouver BC (ex-Limerick, Ireland)
5de32a57fd9db2384f6f2792


When they find a set of pyjamas with matching slippers made from the hides of missing camp counselors in that guy's closet I will not be super surprised.
 

Ralyks

The One Who Knocks
Contributor
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
5,901
Reaction score
2,656
Location
Dutchess County, NY
So Trumps refusing to partake in the impeachment to defend himself, and just put tariffs on Brazil and Argentina for steel and aluminum.

And it's only Monday.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,014
Reaction score
8,723
Location
Somerville, MA
So Trumps refusing to partake in the impeachment to defend himself, and just put tariffs on Brazil and Argentina for steel and aluminum.

And it's only Monday.
Technically he reinstated tariffs that had been waived to allow time to negotiate. There's some method to his madness here, in that both countries have been significant beneficiaries of the escalating trade war between the US and China in that China has redirected soybean and other agricultural purchases to these two countries that had previously gone to the US, so presumably Trump is looking to hit them for that. That said... It's still kind of a stupid idea, and there's no causal mechanism that should make China start buying agri products from us instead, just because they now have steel tariffs. I'm not sure what Trump's end game is, maybe that he's hoping they'll agree to not sell to China if we roll back the tariffs...? That seems awfully hard to accomplish.

Trump is refusing to participate in the House Judiciary Committee proceedings, on the grounds that the proceedings are so biased it's a waste of his time. That argument is going to be a lot harder to make in the Republican-controlled Senate, so I'll be curious what he chooses to do there. Or, rather, what excuse he gives for not agreeing to provide sworn testimony.
 

dreamspace

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
23
Reaction score
41
Let's be real here, putting Trump on any stand or hearing would be a total disaster for him and the GOP.

The undeniable truth is that Trump is a shitty liar, and that he instinctively lies about anything he's unsure of, or things he sees as a weakness. This is not political - it's just who he is . And he's been like that forever.

Even hardcore Trump followers see that he's frequently embellishing stories, or just making shit up as he goes.

And hell, even if he doesn't manage to incriminate himself, he's surely going to throw someone under the bus - which just creates more stress and division in his own camp.

There are no good outcomes for Trump in a situation where he's under heavy scrutiny. Either he manages to screw himself over, or someone else.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,319
Reaction score
13,783
Location
The Electric City, NY
Let's be real here, putting Trump on any stand or hearing would be a total disaster for him and the GOP.

The undeniable truth is that Trump is a shitty liar, and that he instinctively lies about anything he's unsure of, or things he sees as a weakness. This is not political - it's just who he is . And he's been like that forever.

Even hardcore Trump followers see that he's frequently embellishing stories, or just making shit up as he goes.

And hell, even if he doesn't manage to incriminate himself, he's surely going to throw someone under the bus - which just creates more stress and division in his own camp.

There are no good outcomes for Trump in a situation where he's under heavy scrutiny. Either he manages to screw himself over, or someone else.

I think it was McGahn that appealed to Mueller, saying that Trump couldn't testify because it was 100% certain he would perjure himself because he can't string together a sentence without lying.

That's absolutely indicative of a guy that's been coddled his whole life. I've said it before in here, the whole Mueller report is story after story of Trump standing on the ledge, about to commit some egregious crime and someone jumping infront of him the last second. Over and over. The Ukraine thing is a good example because everyone was speaking in vague terms and coded language to offer some plausible deniability on what they were asking for, but King Pudding Brain blurts it out in plain English.
 

Ralyks

The One Who Knocks
Contributor
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
5,901
Reaction score
2,656
Location
Dutchess County, NY
And now he's saying he'd prefer to hold off trade talks with China until after 2020. And the DOW dropped 100 points thusly.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,014
Reaction score
8,723
Location
Somerville, MA
And now he's saying he'd prefer to hold off trade talks with China until after 2020. And the DOW dropped 100 points thusly.
Dropped way more than 100 points (also, points are kind of irrelevant because it depends on the base - a 1,000 point drop would be nearly unprecedented in a day, but would only be about a 3.6% drop. Still big, but a thousand point drop isn't what it used to be.

IMO, that's also a capitulation to political reality on his part.

1) Trump wants a deal where he's the "winner." He's said he won't accept a fair or "even" deal.
2) China wants a rollback of existing tariffs as part of any Phase 1 deal. Their growth is slowing, but their back isn't to the wall exactly here, so they have no incentive to sign a deal that hurts them.
3) Unless they've been burying their head in the sand, they have no reason to expect a Democrat would be any easier on them than Trump in trade talks.
4) They DO have reason to believe that an unnamed Democratic president would be more likely to honor terms of any Phase 1 deal than Trump, however, who has shown he's quick to tear up his own deals when it's politically expedient - see the USMCA and the Mexican border fiasco. In other words, they have an incentive NOT to make concessions to Trump if at all possible, because there's no guarantee those concessions will get them anywhere.
5) Trump is also presumably well aware that any deal other than a clear "win" will open him to criticism from the left that his trade war was massively disruptive to American manufaturers and farmers, and he didn't even get anything in return for it. Signing even an "even" deal in the run-up to the 2020 election is going to open him to attack. It's in his best interest politically to stall, and instead talk about the "huge" deal he'll sign once re-elected.

The incentives - IMO of course - on both sides are to hold off on any serious deal until after November 2020. The Chinese want to hold out for a negotiator they can actually trust, while Trump doesn't want to accept anything other than total capitulation from the Chinese for fear of looking like a "loser."

The problem, of course, is that the incentives - again, IMO - are for Trump to keep upping the pressure on the Chinese in the interim in the hopes he DOES get them to capitulate, in that a clear "win" would be invaluable in 2020, and because he evidently legitimately believes tariffs don't hurt America and any economic slowdown is the Fed's fault, not his.

That makes the most likely outcome of all of this no deal and a recession or market crash before the election. IMO, of course.
 

tedtan

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
2,017
Location
Never Neverland
In the Republican-majority Senate, yes.

Yeah, so he claims.

But I think that either 1) he would all out refuse to participate given the opportunity as Drew mentioned, or 2) end up perjuring himself under oath (which, incidentally, is the only thing they got Clinton on).

Knowing Trump, he'll probably find a way to do both and then try to blame the democrats for his own incompetency.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,014
Reaction score
8,723
Location
Somerville, MA
Only thing I'll say for Trump in this context is, he HAS had to testify under oath on a number of occasions, and in the past he's been uncharacteristically tight lipped and limited in his responses. I'm sure he was coached, and a very real factor to consider is in the courtroom he likely believed he couldn't get away with just making shit up whereas as President he does seem to think there's a plausible argument to be made he's above the law.

But, if forced to testify under oath in a Senate trial, he might be more restrained than we're accustomed. How that plays with his base, though...
 

Ralyks

The One Who Knocks
Contributor
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
5,901
Reaction score
2,656
Location
Dutchess County, NY
Kamala Harris dropped out. About damn time.
Even worse, Bloomberg already passed her in the polls and sits in 5th place. Damn.
 


Top