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

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, but it seems that he WILL get another supreme court justice pick, making the majority of justices these far-right picks. This could persist for decades since they serve for life.
 
Xorkoth said:
Yeah, but it seems that he WILL get another supreme court justice pick, making the majority of justices these far-right picks. This could persist for decades since they serve for life.
Click to expand...

Kennedy was already a conservative. I don't know why everyone's freaking out so badly. The supreme court was already broken (I've raised the issue many times, i.e. the 8-1 decision against CA gun rights, for instance).

There's other ways to advocate and gain civil rights. We can't expect a bunch of old people in black gowns to do it for us.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Kennedy was already a conservative. I don't know why everyone's freaking out so badly. The supreme court was already broken (I've raised the issue many times, i.e. the 8-1 decision against CA gun rights, for instance).

There's other ways to advocate and gain civil rights. We can't expect a bunch of old people in black gowns to do it for us.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he consistently voted favorably in cases involved with civil rights (for example, the decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right). Of course he also voted for citizens united that gave unlimited limits on corporate campaign funding and in general gave more power to corporations. I always thought the name "citizens united" for that shit was laughably (tragically) named.

My fear is that if the supreme court is majority hard-line conservatives, any case that goes to the supreme court will be decided in ways that are destructive to human rights and the common man.
 
In rebuke to Trump, key Senate panel endorses finding that Russia attacked 2016 election

The Senate Intelligence Committee, rejecting doubts conveyed by President Trump as recently as last week, has become the latest body to officially conclude that the Russian government conducted a wide-ranging campaign — including cyberattacks — to influence the 2016 presidential election.

An unclassified seven-page report, released by the committee Tuesday with full bipartisan support, was based on an extensive, year-and-a-half-long investigation into the U.S. intelligence community’s January 2017 assessment that the Kremlin carried out its campaign in part for the purpose of promoting Trump’s candidacy and discrediting Hillary Clinton.

The committee’s conclusion: The assessment, which had been ordered by President Obama, is a “sound intelligence product” that was prepared by analysts who “were under no politically motivated pressure to reach any conclusions” and was based on a “range of all-source reporting,” albeit much of it still classified.

The panel’s findings are hardly a surprise. All of those who have reviewed the January 2017 intelligence community assessment — including the most senior officials of the Trump administration — have endorsed the conclusions that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and undertook a wide variety of other measures to interfere in the U.S. election.

The only outlier continues to be the president who, in a tweet written shortly after the announcement he will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin this month at a summit in Helsinki, once again cast doubt on the findings of his own government.

…. “Russia continues to say they had nothing to with meddling in our Election!” Trump tweeted on June 28.
Click to expand...

Sound logic, you fucking puppet. 8)

President Trump 'Asked Aides If He Could Invade Venezuela'

It must take a lot for people around President Trump to be shocked by what comes out of his mouth, but that bar was reportedly vaulted over when he asked if he could lead an invasion of Venezuela. The President is reported to have posed the question at a meeting last August while discussing sanctions against the country. According to the Associated Press, Trump turned to his aides and asked why couldn't U.S. just invade to deal with President Nicolas Maduro, rather than using sanctions. The suggestion is said to have "stunned" those present at the meeting, including then U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The officials explained to Trump that military action could backfire and risk a backlash from Latin American governments but Trump went on to raise the prospect of military action again with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to an unnamed U.S. official.
Click to expand...

As usual, my reaction to this clown is a mixture of facepalm and anxiety. :|
 
Xorkoth said:
As usual, my reaction to this clown is a mixture of facepalm and anxiety. :|
Click to expand...

I'm on Trump's side on this.

Maduro and his pyre of burning human sacrifices is unsightly. I can't stand knowing all those people are having real food shortages, little/no medications for serious conditions. It's socialism having squandered all the money and failed its people; and that kind of system is on its way out.

We can't just sit by and watch as people are suffering.

What happens is then they all come up here, to the US, and then Trump will just detain them, etc.

We need to make South America/Central America livable for the people who live there.

Maduro is trying to become president for life, election meddling, creating a strong dictatorship to avoid the "democracy" pulling away from his vision for Venezuela, etc. - this is totalitarian type bullshit you should want to see invaded and ended.

Columbia's military is well funded, well ran. They chased out a lot of drug narcos and where did they go? To the weaker state of Venezuela. Columbia would be more than happy to help out. The Venezuelan people will be happy with food and medicine again.
 
Yeah if there's anywhere that's ever needed an invasion it's that place. The US does not have an honest track record in regards to alleged "humanitarian interventions" though.

And wow, that Russian hacking report was so useful. A year and a half investigation which was basically an excuse to explain why Trump won except there has been zero conclusive evidence that any Russian interference influenced the results of the election. If it didn't change the outcome then it is a waste of time bringing it up, and it's really just marginalizing the Russian people. It's also hypocritical, the US has directly replaced governments in 50+ countries. Apart from being an excuse it is also a way to prevent Trump and Putin from getting along as they could potentially do some serious damage to the globalists if they were able to actually collude.

Also the only Russian meddling they found was roughly $100K worth of FB ads, which weren't even all pro-Trump, the same group also organized an anti-Trump rally which Michael Moore attended. These Russians also had a kitty appreciation group (not joking). There's no evidence Russia hacked the DNC or even attempted to mess with voter machines. So this makes the whole charade seem even more ridiculous. Gowdy recently told bad boy Rosenstein to present evidence to the American people or wrap up the damn investigation.
 
Xorkoth said:
Yes, but he consistently voted favorably in cases involved with civil rights (for example, the decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right). Of course he also voted for citizens united that gave unlimited limits on corporate campaign funding and in general gave more power to corporations. I always thought the name "citizens united" for that shit was laughably (tragically) named.

My fear is that if the supreme court is majority hard-line conservatives, any case that goes to the supreme court will be decided in ways that are destructive to human rights and the common man.
Click to expand...
right.

in my experience, most people have little issue with judicial activism when the court sides with their opinion. trump goes on and on and on about activist judges but he's not going to have a problem when they start legislating from the bench on issues with which he agrees...

alasdair
 
Trump tensions peak ahead of NATO summit

Strains in the U.S.-European relationship are peaking just as President Trump prepares to face allies at this month?s critical NATO summit.

Trump has repeatedly complained that members aren?t meeting the alliance?s defense spending goal. But the meeting comes at a difficult time, with the broader U.S.-European relationship already under stress from Trump?s tariffs, his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and his overtures to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Those looming issues have raised fears of a replay of last month's contentious Group of Seven summit. The mood of the tense summit was embodied in a photo released by German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office, which showed her staring down a cross-armed Trump.

?We?ll have a repeat of the G-7 with Trump going to the summit and likely complaining once again about allies not spending enough money on defense," said James Goldgeier, a professor of international relations at American University. "And doing it in a public way designed to basically heighten the notion that he seems to have that NATO is just another bad deal for the U.S.?

Since his presidential campaign, Trump has railed against NATO allies for what he sees as an unfair reliance on the United States to foot the bill for their defense.

Just eight of NATO's 29 members currently meet or are expected this year to meet the alliance?s goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense: the United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Lithuania.

That goal was set at the 2014 Wales summit, where allies agreed to meet the target by 2024. NATO?s secretary-general has said at least 15 allies will make the 2024 deadline.

Trump, though, wants allies to speed up their spending plans. He upped the ante recently in pointed letters to Merkel, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and leaders in Belgium and Norway, according to excerpts published Monday by The New York Times.

In the June letters, Trump hinted he may be considering a shift in U.S. military posture should the leaders not increase their defense spending.

?It will, however, become increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO?s collective security burden while American soldiers continue to sacrifice their lives overseas or come home gravely wounded,? Trump wrote to Merkel, according to the Times.

The Pentagon is conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the 35,000 troops deployed to Germany, as first reported Friday by The Washington Post. A Pentagon spokesman insisted to reporters Monday the review is routine and not in anticipation of a White House demand to withdraw troops.

The personal acrimony between Trump and Merkel, in particular, has appeared to grow in recent months, with the president tweeting recently that ?the people of Germany are turning against their leadership.?


At the G-7, Trump reportedly tossed two pieces of Starburst candy to Merkel and said, ?Here, Angela. Don?t say I never give you anything.?

Trump also rattled allies at the G-7 by saying Russia should be allowed back into the group. Russia was kicked out after annexing Crimea in 2014 in a move Western nations maintain was illegal.

Trump also reportedly disparaged NATO during the G-7 summit saying the alliance is “as bad as NAFTA,” the North American trade agreement he wants to renegotiate or rip up.

The increased tensions come after Trump went ahead with 25 percent tariffs on steel and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum from the European Union, Canada and Mexico. All have announced retaliatory tariffs.

Trump also bucked European allies when he decided to withdraw from the Iran deal, causing them to scramble to find ways to protect their businesses from U.S. sanctions in an effort to save the agreement.

The divisions prompted NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to warn in a recent op-ed in The Guardian that ?nowhere is it written in stone that the transatlantic bond will always thrive.?

?That doesn?t, however, mean that its breakdown is inevitable,? he continued. ?We can maintain it, and all the mutual benefits we derive from it.?

Trump?s first meeting with NATO leaders last summer was rocky. He declined to endorse the mutual defense provision known as Article 5, though he ended up doing so a month later under questions from the press. A video clip of Trump pushing aside the leader of NATO?s newest member, Montenegro, also went viral.

Expectations for this year?s summit are not high.

?I?m expecting it to be tense, but it?s in everyone?s interest that we get through this without any major incidents,? said Luke Coffey, director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

But despite the public and animosity between Trump and European leaders, several experts said the day-to-day operation of the alliance has gone on smoothly.

U.S. troops continue to rotate through Eastern Europe and conduct exercises with their counterparts from Poland, the Baltic states and other NATO countries.

Congress is also on track to increase spending for the European Deterrence Initiative to $6.5 billion next year, in line with the Trump administration?s request. The fund was created in 2015 to reassure allies nervous about a resurgent Russia.

?Certainly at the head of the state level, it?s fraught with tension, but with an undercurrent of pragmatism, I would say, behind the scenes,? Coffey said of U.S.-European relations. ?The relationship is healthier at the institutional level, so between foreign ministry and State Department, or ministry of defense and Department of Defense, or military-to-military.?

Still, some worry change is coming during next week?s trip to Europe.

During Trump?s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, he agreed to cancel joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, calling them provocative and a waste of money.

NATO supporters are fearful of Trump doing the same to European military exercises at his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which is scheduled days after the NATO summit.

?If he does something similar to what he did in Singapore, then that would be a market change,? Goldgeier said, referring to the Korea summit.

With the NATO and Putin summits scheduled back-to-back, a group of leading Senate Democrats wrote to Trump urging him to remember who is a U.S. ally and who is an adversary.

The Monday letter was penned by Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

?In addition to urging NATO allies to meet their commitments to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, working to boost NATO rapid mobility and readiness capacities, and addressing cyber threats and other evolving forms of hybrid warfare,? the senators wrote, ?it is imperative that you make a strong statement of support for the democratic nations that make up the alliance and make clear that the United States stands with?not in opposition to?our oldest and closest allies.?

The letter highlighted the apprehension ahead of Trump's next summit.

Coffey, though, struck one hopeful note.

?I think expectations at this point are so low that we?ll probably come out the other end of the summit and say, ?Oh, it wasn?t so bad after all,? ? he said.
Click to expand...

^ At that from someone at the v conservative Heritage Foundation.

tl;dr Trump vs NATO II

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Trump is already talking about another tax bill


He might want to take a look at the polling on the first one.

K6fciDa_d.jpg



The Republican tax cuts aren’t even a year old, nor are they particularly popular with voters. And already, President Donald Trump is talking about more of them.


In an interview with Fox News aired on Sunday, Trump promised a second tax cut plan would be on the way by October. He said the proposal would be aimed at the middle class — then offered an example of reducing the corporate tax rate further.


Here’s what Trump said in the interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo:


"We’re doing a phase two. We’ll be doing it probably in October, maybe a little sooner than that. And it will be more of a middle class — we did a lot for the middle class, but this will be more aimed at the middle class.


One of the things we’re thinking about bringing the 21 percent [tax rate for corporations] down to 20. And then, for the most part, the rest of it would go to the middle class. It is a great stimulus."


Beyond the promise to reduce the corporate rate — which December’s tax bill already cut to 21 percent from 35 percent — Trump didn’t offer specifics on what this new potential legislation might do. Damian Paletta at the Washington Post pointed out that Republicans have floated the idea of making the tax cuts passed last year for families and individuals permanent. Right now, they expire in 2025.


The GOP bill cut taxes for most Americans, including the middle class, but it heavily benefits the wealthy and corporations. According to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the top fifth of earners get 70 percent of the bill’s benefits, and the top 1 percent get 34 percent. The new tax treatment for “pass-through” entities — companies organized as sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, or S corporations — will mean an estimated $17 billion in tax savings for millionaires in 2018. American corporations are showering their shareholders with stock buybacks this year, thanks in part to their tax savings.


If Trump thinks another tax cut will be a winning issue in the midterms, he might want to take a look at the polls.


Trump is holding out the prospect of another tax bill as the 2018 midterm elections approach, perhaps believing the issue will help Republicans win. But voters haven’t been particularly impressed with 2017’s $1.5 trillion cuts.


In February, a Politico-Morning Consult poll found that most Americans weren’t noticing a tax cut in their paychecks. A Monmouth University poll from June found that the GOP’s tax bill is actually becoming less popular, with 34 percent of Americans saying they approve of it while 41 percent disapprove. That’s down from the same poll in January, when 44 percent of Americans said they approved of the bill and 44 percent did not.


Republicans have struggled to sell the tax cuts to voters now that they’ve passed. (Remember Paul Ryan’s tweet bragging about the public school employee seeing another $1.50 in her paycheck?) They appear to be turning to other messages — particularly, immigration — to motivate voters.


But it looks like Trump doesn’t need to be sold on the tax cuts, or a second round of them. Corporations probably wouldn’t need much convincing either: The Post estimates that an additional 1 percent decrease to the corporate tax rate would result in an additional $100 billion in tax cuts over the next decade.


If Trump thinks another tax cut will be a winning issue in the midterms, he might want to take a look at the polls.


Trump is holding out the prospect of another tax bill as the 2018 midterm elections approach, perhaps believing the issue will help Republicans win. But voters haven’t been particularly impressed with 2017’s $1.5 trillion cuts.


In February, a Politico-Morning Consult poll found that most Americans weren’t noticing a tax cut in their paychecks. A Monmouth University poll from June found that the GOP’s tax bill is actually becoming less popular, with 34 percent of Americans saying they approve of it while 41 percent disapprove. That’s down from the same poll in January, when 44 percent of Americans said they approved of the bill and 44 percent did not.


Republicans have struggled to sell the tax cuts to voters now that they’ve passed. (Remember Paul Ryan’s tweet bragging about the public school employee seeing another $1.50 in her paycheck?) They appear to be turning to other messages — particularly, immigration — to motivate voters.


But it looks like Trump doesn’t need to be sold on the tax cuts, or a second round of them. Corporations probably wouldn’t need much convincing either: The Post estimates that an additional 1 percent decrease to the corporate tax rate would result in an additional $100 billion in tax cuts over the next decade.
Click to expand...
 
Democrat Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, who's trying to repeal Trump's tax cuts, paid no income taxes at all from 2001 to 2005. (Washington Free Beacon) lol

Black approval of Trump is now at 16%, the highest for a Republican since 1972.
This should continue to rise.
 
JGrimez said:
Democrat Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, who's trying to repeal Trump's tax cuts, paid no income taxes at all from 2001 to 2005. (Washington Free Beacon) lol

Black approval of Trump is now at 16%, the highest for a Republican since 1972.
This should continue to rise.
Click to expand...

OK, first I'd be curious to see a source for that, both that it's 16% and that that's the highest for a Republican president. I'll look on my own regardless but I was wondering where it came from.

But second, wow, 16% seems pretty bad even if it is true. Maybe I'm wrong but it sure doesn't sound great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top