All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

Special council, when appointed, was placed under AG control because of Ken Star
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/13/opinio ... cnn.com%2F

[Forty Two]

Yeah, you don't trust the source, but how are you with the principle of a president making it clear to an official that they'll get a pardon if prosecuted for carrying out an illegal policy?

If it happened, I don't like it. But, the President does have unlimited Pardon authority for federal crimes.

It's not that I don't trust the source, as much as the article itself presents no credible case that the President actually said that. It's a very badly written article, and cites "senior administration officials.' How many senior administration officials were there at Calexico with the President and could have heard it? Answer - zero.

Then they paraphrase one of these senior administration officials and insert in in the article as quote - and then they say "it wasn't clear if the president was joking..." rather pregnant fact, that.

So, somebody who doesn't speak for the administration, and isn't really "senior" says they heard the president say something that might have been a joke. Nobody confirms it. Sarah Sanders and the President both deny it.

I do find it ironic that people get all "law and order" about this, but have no problem disregarding immigration laws as applied to people crossing the US border illegally.

You see, I asked you that question because IF a president acted in such a way it would be something worthy of condemnation, perhaps even a little OUTRAGE!?!! Seabass clearly seems a little OUTRAGED!?!! by the thought of it, while you seem a little OUTRAGED!?!! by the thought that anyone might be OUTRAGED!?!! by the thought of it. To be honest, it doesn't sound out of character for Mr Trump does it - or without precident even?

a lot of ifs - if it was actually said - if it was actually said exactly as reported - and, if it wasn't a joke (the article says "it wasn't clear that it was [or wasn't] a joke."

Is it really such a big deal, also, if the President said he would pardon someone for trying to enforce the immigration laws, but committing a violation in the process? I mean, other Presidents have pardoned unapologetic violent criminals - yet we don't normally hear much "outrage" over that. well, sometimes from political opponents. Bush pardoned so-and-so! Outrage! Obama pardoned so and so! Outrage! always by political opposition.

I am not at all outraged by the thought of it.

I am mainly concerned with the shoddy reporting, which was precisely in character, and in accordance with precedent. The article tells us, the readers, exactly nothing. Someone who we don't know said something against Trump that his opponents would find believable, but which we really have no evidence actually happened, and even if happened wasn't said in jest.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you actually have a principle here, on whether its a good thing for a president to tell someone who, ultimately, reports to that office that they can act outside of the law with impunity when implementing a policy, or is your idea of a principle something which is conditional on factors like who else did a bad thing once and got away with it?

[Tero]

The Trump support by Republicans is a no brainer. They are only concerned with budgets and taxes and their own re-election. Budgets they have no control over other than "shutting down" govt as a protest. But they do not even care about that now, last 2-3 years.

If Trump gets 43% he wins in 2020, if he gets 40% he loses. In either case the Republicans running get the same number of votes in their states. Better chance to win than without Trump.

[Forty Two]

Do you actually have a principle here, on whether its a good thing for a president to tell someone who, ultimately, reports to that office that they can act outside of the law with impunity when implementing a policy, or is your idea of a principle something which is conditional on factors like who else did a bad thing once and got away with it?

Sure, my principle is that the President's unlimited pardon authority is unwise to begin with.

I also said that if it's true, advance notice to someone that they are free to commit a crime and will be pardoned for it is inappropriate and wrong. You do recall I said that, right? If not - I'm saying it again now.

Do you actually have a principle here, on whether you believe an article based on unnamed, anonymous sources described only as "senior officials" reporting via "paraphrase" a (maybe or maybe not a joke) statement from President Trump actually was said? Or do you just believe whatever because, heck, it's "consistent" with what you already think of him?

At bottom, we don't know if he said "it." Also, we don't know what "it" was or what the context was. We have a second or perhaps third hand report that came from someone identified as "senior administration official." Have you asked yourself what "senior official" would report such a thing in the first place? Senior officials in the Trump administration want to disclose this kind of thing to a CNN reporter? Does that strike you as reasonable? Whoever reported this does not have Trump's best interest at heart.

Reporters can use "senior administration official" any way they want - it's potentially a bullshit term of obfuscation. However, generally it's supposed to mean an Assistant to the President, Deputy Assistant to the President, and Special Assistant to the President (all of these people are members of the Executive Office of the President), Vice President and Cabinet secretaries. So, I wonder how "senior" the official was? He didn't travel with a great entourage of "senior officials" with him. Fuck, the CNN article doesn't even make clear that the person who talked to the reporter directly was the "senior official" who actually heard the president say it - as far as can be gleaned from the article, it could be hearsay within hearsay, two or three people down the line. Shit reporting. Meaningless bullshit.

[Forty Two]

The Trump support by Republicans is a no brainer.

except by the never Trumpers. They'd prefer to vote for Democrats.

They are only concerned with budgets and taxes

No! just concerned with budgets and taxes??? Those irresponsible bastids!

and their own re-election.

A politician concerned with reelection? Only Repubicans. Democrats are self-less, hard-toiling servants of the people always.

Budgets they have no control over other than "shutting down" govt as a protest.

When you can't get the 60 votes in the Senate, you can't pass the budget. So, it has a little something to do with the Senate Minority shutting things down. But, of course, Democrats only do that when appropriate, and in order to serve the public interest, never for the base political reasons that are the Republicans' sole motivation.

But they do not even care about that now, last 2-3 years.

Yeah, because we know the Democrats would get right on board with a federal budget that cuts spending. Had the GOP proposed that, we'd have had unanimous consent among Democrats, who loathe wasteful spending. Fuck, the Democrats didn't think the wasteful spending you're complaining about was ENOUGH. LOL.

If Trump gets 43% he wins in 2020, if he gets 40% he loses. In either case the Republicans running get the same number of votes in their states. Better chance to win than without Trump.

The bookies favor Trump's chances at reelection - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... -2020-race and https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-us ... ds-futures

50% of likely voters approve of Trump's performance. http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_co ... rack_apr15

How Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide
Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020. But a faltering economy or giant scandal could change everything.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... on-1230495

7 Signs Trump Will Landslide 2020 https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmc ... 0-n2542498

The issue comes down to this:

With the President holding 90% of his base, and with his best approval ratings occurring in the 30 states he already won...

With Democrats holding Congress and the 13% approval rating that comes with it...

With Democrats watching 4-7 additional states beginning to slip through their fingers because of an improved economy, higher wages, better border security, and a long list of presidential promises kept...

With Democrats proposing ill-conceived non-solutions that show (according to analysts) only marginal climate alteration after they warn us that we will die in 12 years and a $93 trillion dollar price tag...

It appears (pretty convincingly) that President Trump will earn a second term.

[Tero]

Vote for Trump! Because he said Believe Me! Guaranteed land slide!

[Svartalf]

I trusted him to make a big mess, and I was not disappointed up to now.

[Forty Two]

Vote for Trump! Because he said Believe Me! Guaranteed land slide!

Vote for Trump because he's keeping his promises, and doing a great job. The economy is humming, and he is doing what he said he would do.

[Tero]

Trump Voter Thinks Government Should Tweet To Her
https://karireport.blogspot.com/2019/04 ... hould.html

[Cunt]

Still your President, eh Tero?

Soon...right around 2024 you can be rid of him. Then President Omar will take over.

[Tero]

He is toxic enough to 2020.

[Tero]

Trump is spending tens of millions. And he is tweeting. The 2020 election could be won by any Democrat IF they started a tweeting NOW.

[Cunt]

with twitter outing themselves as hilariously biased in one political direction, they might not be as successful at turning public opinion this go-round.

[tattuchu]