• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember Herman Cain? He's back.

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump said Thursday that he's recommending Herman Cain, a former pizza executive who dropped his bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination amid sexual harassment allegations, for a seat on the Federal Reserve Board.
"I've recommended Herman Cain. A terrific man, a terrific person. He's a friend of mine," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "I've recommended him highly for the Fed. I've told my folks that that's the man and he's doing some pre-checking now and I would imagine he'd be in great shape."
The announcement comes weeks after Trump floated another nominee to fill an open seat on the Fed board: Stephen Moore, a former campaign adviser and distinguished fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
There are currently two vacancies on the seven-member Fed Board.

That includes Chairman Jerome Powell, a former investment banker, who the President has repeatedlyaccused of trying to undercut him politically by raising interest rates, which Trump believes will slow down the economy.
Cain's nomination, however, could thrust the institution yet again into the spotlight. The role requires Senate confirmation and any vetting process is likely to resurface allegations Cain faced over sexual harassment and infidelity that ended his bid for the Republican nomination.
At the time, Cain said the allegations were incorrect but acknowledged "he had made mistakes in my life," according to Bloomberg.
Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza Inc., has some prior experience at the Fed. From 1992 to 1996, he served as a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Each of the 12 regional Fed banks has a nine-person board that includes local executives.
"I find Herman to be an outstanding person, a truly outstanding individual. I would think he would do very well there," Trump said during an Oval Office availability with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He.
With two seats open, the President could seize the opportunity to appoint nominees who disagree with how Powell has steered the central bank's interest rate policy. So far, Powell has been able to build consensus with his existing board, with not a single dissenting vote on any policy decision since he took the helm in February 2018.
The President has blasted the central bank for going "loco" for raising rates four times last year. Those verbal public attacks have slowed as the Fed has signaled it will pause raising rates this year -- a fact that Powell says has had no influence on how the central bank's interest rate setting decisions.
Trump recently complained about Powell during at least three meeting this week, reported by The Wall Street Journal, despite his Fed chairman taking steps to indefinitely pause raising interest rates this year and halting plans to shrink its balance sheet, two things Trump has repeatedly pressed for as recently as last week in a tweet.
The President reportedly blamed Powell during meetings with Republican senators and staffers that if it hadn't been for a string of rate increases by the Fed last year's stocks would have risen higher and the budget deficit would not have widened as much, according to the Journal.
One person, who heard the comments made by the President about Powell, described it as "pretty rough," according to the Journal.
In a recent telephone conversation, Trump told Powell, "I guess I'm stuck with you," the person recalled, according to the Journal. A Fed spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that Powell had a brief conversation with Trump on March 8, but declined to elaborate any further.
On Wednesday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow shrugged off the President's reported remarks, suggesting they may have been intended "lovingly."
"I wasn't in the conversation," Kudlow told reporters during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I'm just opening up the possibility. Loving affection, hugging on the phone."
 
He's off the rails

The real question about the 32-year-old Chinese woman who was caught trying to enter Mar-a-Lago with four cellphones and a malware-loaded thumb drive isn’t how she almost succeeded. Rather, it’s how many others like her have made it through.
It is a fair bet that undercover foreign spies have long been making it their business to secure a membership at President Donald Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida, resort. Though the $200,000 fee is steep, intelligence agencies might consider it a bargain. Where else could their spies mingle with the American president and his family, overhear his conversations, maybe strike up chats with his associates—or at least boast to their superiors back home that they’ve been doing so? On the night of April 6, 2017, when Trump dined there with Chinese President Xi Jinping and, at one point, ordered a cruise missile strike on Syria, the entire spectacle unspooled within sight and earshot of club members and guests at nearby tables.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/mar-a-lago-intruder-spy-trump-security-lax.html

key House Democrat revealed Friday evening that staffers of the Financial Services Committee were coordinating with attorneys at Deutsche Bank in order to obtain President Donald Trump’s past financial dealings with the institution and investigate any potential wrongdoing, including money laundering.
The Trump Organization has long done business with the foreign bank and reportedly owes hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding loans, due to be repaid over the next few years. The bank has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars by state and federal regulators over a $10 billion Russian money laundering scheme, and Democrats have suggested the president could be compromised by Russian money laundering.
“We have people that are going up to New York to sit with people and to go over our documents request,” Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes. “We’re going to find out a lot about Deutsche Bank and that bank’s relationship to the president. We are very concerned about money laundering.”
Waters and others on the committee first sent letters requesting documents from the bank about their dealings with Trump last year, but “they were not responsive because they did not feel we had the authority to demand anything from them.” The congressional probe is one of a laundry list of issues House Democrats are investigating with their newfound majority powers.

The move to obtain such documents comes on the heels of testimony from Trump’s former attorney and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, before the House Oversight Committee. He revealed several financial documents and accused Trump of inflating "his total assets when it served his purposes," including to Deutsche Bank in hopes of obtaining a loan and bidding on the Buffalo Bills. Copies of some of Trump's financial records provided by Cohen showed that in a 2013 financial statement, Trump listed his "brand value" at $4 billion, a category absent from his 2011 and 2012 statements.
Such revelations prompted Democrats to say they now want to hear from Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and the president’s eldest son Donald Trump, Jr., both of whom Cohen said have knowledge of the alleged financial wrongdoing.
A recent Bloomberg report also said that Deutsche Bank executives were so concerned Trump’s organization would default on $340 million worth of loans while president, they chose to cease doing business with him until he is out of office. Executives were reportedly concerned not with the creditworthiness of Trump or his company, but rather the public relations crisis that would ensue, should they be forced to seize assets of a sitting president.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-deutsche-bank-money-laundering-1349943
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump's week of utter chaos sends a message

Many political observers are struggling to figure out what the President's game plan is for 2020, and no wonder: This week was hard to believe. The President announced that he would support new health care legislation to replace Obamacare, but then backed away when congressional Republicans said no.

Although Trump initially supported the full release of the Mueller report, the President shifted gears, suggesting he would be open to its remaining private. He shows no interest in stepping back from his fights with the Democratic House. He continues to accuse them of "presidential harassment" as they seek the Mueller report, his tax returns, testimony about the decisions behind the granting of White House security clearances and more.

He told the NATO secretary general that his father was born in Germany, which he was not. After threatening to close the southern border, which would cause economic havoc, he said he will instead hold off for a year.

Then there was the speech to the National Republican Congressional Committee, when President Trump baselessly suggested that noise from wind turbines causes cancer and went on to predict that his remarks -- which were being broadcast on C-SPAN -- would be leaked.

His rallies, as an article in the Atlantic explains, have been a smorgasbord of one-liners and disconnected rambling. "Recent appearances seem untethered to any sort of strategy to drive a policy agenda ahead of the 2020 presidential election," writes Peter Nicholas.

With all this chaos, what is the President's strategy for winning re-election?

In fact, chaos is the strategy. Using it, President Trump hopes to defeat Democrats in a massive game of prevent defense.

Trump has always perceived the news media to be the central arena through which he fights his battles. An avid consumer of cable news and now a social media fanatic, the President has been less interested in old-fashioned grassroots electoral work than in dominating the national agenda. His rallies are more about putting on a show for the cameras than in making sure his support on the ground is solid.

The President intends to use his mastery of the media cycle to totally control the agenda throughout the next two years, making it difficult -- if not impossible -- for Democrats to discuss their own ideas.

Even the ongoing controversy over seeing the Mueller report continues to push away opportunities for Democratic candidates to debate policy issues.

At some level there is a logic to such a plan. After all, Democrats are on strong ground when it comes to a large number of policies -- health care, climate change, gun control -- and more. Given the President's low national approval ratings, there is also a good chance that the Democratic candidate will be seen in a more favorable light than the President. But if they get drowned out by coverage of Trump, that's better for the President.

Trump will do everything possible to keep Democrats out of the media other than in the light he wants to paint them. As he has done since day one in the Oval Office, Trump will continually blitz the nation with controversy, inanity, outrage and fierce polemical attacks so that in each minute of the day reporters, producers, editors, bloggers and tweeters can't resist offering some kind of response.

And Trump has one major advantage over most of his competitors. He is willing to say almost anything -- true, twisted or totally false -- to gain attention. He lacks the restraints that still keep many other politicians in check.

Trump's chaos will make the media playing field rough for Democrats. They will need to figure out a way to cut through the President's noise and to steal attention away from the shiny object that is the President of the United States.

Democrats will have the extraordinarily challenging task of restraining themselves from always being the position of reacting to what the President has to say or they will risk drowning their own campaign strategy and message. Democrats might have more popular policy stances and a candidate with higher favorability ratings -- but the impact will be diminished if they get lost in the Trumpian frenzy.

It is far from clear that the President's chaos strategy is a path to easy re-election. After all, he is playing prevent defense even though he is not ahead in the score. Yes, he is the President of the United States and that counts for a lot politically. But his national standing is extremely weak, his legislative record remains thin, and Democrats showed in the midterms the kind of electoral gains they can secure if they handle the challenge the right way. He is riding a very strong economy, although there has been growing evidence of underlying weaknesses such as slowing job growth in the manufacturing sector.

Democrats might decide to double down on old-fashioned organizing and grassroots work if they determine that there will simply be a limited opportunity to inject their candidates into the national media conversation. Or the primaries and caucuses might produce a winning candidate who has a vision of how to be heard over the President's rhetorical bombs. But one thing is clear, the chaos strategy can be extremely effective, and Democrats ignore it at their peril.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, although I tend to think Trump is just in way over his head.
 
alasdairm said:
^ hey, at least he's a real straight-shooter and you always know where he stands on any issue :)

alasdair
Click to expand...

I would have thought I'd have been sick of people referencing him being a straight shooter by now from sheer repetition.

But nope, I still find it hilarious every time. :D
 
maybe it is annoying but i heard - a lot - in the election aftermath, from trump supporters that they don't care about his insults and abuse, or his shambolic administration, or his childish tweet rampages etc. they voted for him because he gives it to you straight and that's all they care about. well, there are examples every single day of why that's not the case. if that was the main thing they voted for, are they at least starting to think that maybe they made a mistake voting for him?

:confused:

alasdair
 
The only thing I think that is worth reacting to is the danger Trump is creating for Representative Omar:

Pelosi asks Capitol Police to 'safeguard' Omar following Trump tweet
Ilhan Omar.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that after President Trump tweeted an inflammatory video against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Friday, she ordered Capitol Police to conduct "a security assessment to safeguard" Omar, her family, and staff.

In the edited video, Omar is superimposed over scenes of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; Trump added the caption, "We will never forget." In a speech last month, Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, said the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was founded "because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." Omar misspoke, as CAIR was founded in 1994, and conservatives jumped on the remarks, accusing Omar of trivializing the attacks.

One of Omar's aides told Politico that since Trump's tweet, "there has been an increase in threats" against Omar, and they have all been reported to Capitol Police and the FBI. Catherine Garcia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Honestly....no concern that Omar presents this view and isn't held accountable for it?

I'll agree, a real President shouldn't be engaging in petty noise like this. However, his words are not inciting violence - there has never been any wording to state she should be physically threatened or attacked for her statements. His words point out a truthful fact - we won't forget what happened, or who did it.

I'm honestly a bit surprised the Pelosi is working so hard to defend Omar's words and what she continues to put forth. I get that the Dems have to either stick together or start cutting their young stars, but I don't think this is a smart move in the long run. There's been no apology or attempt to reframe the statements (now, or what she's said at other times), so it is clear she will continue to make such anti-American statements. This is a hole she will return to dig deeper, and Pelosi isn't doing anything to protect her party. Pelosi is only trying to make Trump look bad for holding Omar accountable for her own words, rather than addressing the words spoken in the first place.

I'm sorry to hear such things (and no, I don't mean just this clip....which nobody is claiming is out of context) from a member of Congress. I hope it bites her in the ass, though the district she represents is heavily populated in such a way that even if Omar didn't get re-elected, any replacement will speak the same way in the future. I get speaking the voice of your constituency, but she has to recognize how that puts her at odds with American values, our lingering injury over the terrorist attacks - that IS what they were. Any attempt to view it otherwise will not bode well for her future, and that's not a threat, it is a fact. Dems need to decide if they will stand with Omar on this, and take the lumps that come with it, or break from this view to one that will pull more American support in future elections.
 
Who committed the act of terror? Was it ALL muslims? No. It was a specific group who claimed credit for it.
Should they be brushed aside as not a threat, and shrugged off as 'some people'?
Should those who did commit the act NOT be treated suspiciously?
 
There is no point acting suspiciously of guilty terrorists as ...well....knowing who they are removes said suspicion.


Why do people who clearly hate the guy follow and dissect his Twitter page? I don't use Twitter and there's nothing but stupid shit on there from him.

Any reason why still there is horror at this some years later?

Many heads of State and political idiots all over the world have tried that angle, yet the last massacre in NZ was a white guy and white people are appearing in same manner.

Keep on treating him as a celebrity and entertainment and he will stay that way.


Get off Twitter, it's a shithole.
 
you don't think that, by deliberately intercutting footage of rep. omar with the twin towers exploding and falling, he's trying to tar her with that brush?

TheLoveBandit said:
Should those who did commit the act NOT be treated suspiciously?
Click to expand...
of course they should. i'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion based on what i wrote :(

alasdair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top