Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[JBS]

Everyone was so focused on Trump not wearing a mask last week when he visited Ford Motors, this slipped under the radar.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/22/trump-criticized-praising-bloodlines-henry-ford-anti-semite/5242361002/

Henry Ford, having come up with the Model T and the assembly line, became a leading advocate of eugenics and America's most famous anti-Semite in the 1920s. (He published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his newspaper.)

[JBS]

Mueller's obstruction was irrelevant since there are no underlying crimes to obstruct. I don't think the Impoundment Control Act was even worth bothering about and impeaching Trump over it makes you sound desperate. If you based your opinion over quid pro quo by Schiff's exaggerated performance of the phone call you need to stop watching CNN or MSNBC and get real news without slant and bias.

Uh, you can obstruct justice even if there was no underlying crime.

And we don't know that there was "no underlying crime", thanks to Trump's actions.  Which is why we know Trump obstructed justice.

[BasilValentine]

Mueller's obstruction was irrelevant since there are no underlying crimes to obstruct. I don't think the Impoundment Control Act was even worth bothering about and impeaching Trump over it makes you sound desperate. If you based your opinion over quid pro quo by Schiff's exaggerated performance of the phone call you need to stop watching CNN or MSNBC and get real news without slant and bias.

So you didn't watch the impeachment hearings either? I'm shocked.

Do you think they got Nixon and Clinton for burglary and buggery respectively? No, it was obstruction and/or abuse of power. Just like with Trump. Abuse of power is the underlying crime (duh), a high crime, although the notion that one is necessary is untrue — just another little nugget of nonsense trumpists have learned to repeat.   

[JBS]

That makes no sense at all.   

It's quite simple.

If the police are trying to determine if a crime was committed, and you obstruct the investigation, you have committed obstruction of justice, whether or not the acts being investigated were actually crimes.

Believe what you want. Where no evidence exists, you'll always have conspiracy theories to comfort you.

The evidence shows Trump committed the crimes and abuse of office he was impeached for. The evidence shows that Trump kept investigators from determining if "collusion" took place in a manner that violated the laws of the US, thereby obstructing justice.  We know collusion took place. The Trump Tower meeting between Trump's children and the Russia lawyer and Manafort's sharing of information were acts of collusion.

. The Ukraine fiasco was a direct result of the failure from the Mueller investigation. Purely partisan politics but you'll disagree only proving my point. 

You mean Trump's attempt to extort Ukraine was a direct result of the Mueller probe?

[SimonNZ]

Does the conservative news site The Bulwark have a good reputation? By chance I just heard a long interview with its publisher Sarah Longwell which was smart and articulate wrt her experience running focus groups with potentially persuadable Trump voters.

[Karl Henning]

Trump's poor handling of the crisis may lose him the GOP's most reliable voters

One of the most durable political assets that Republicans have enjoyed throughout the 21st century is their edge among Americans 65 and older, who tend to turn out at the polls more reliably than any other group.

But with President Trump's inept and erratic handling of the novel coronavirus pandemic, he is rapidly losing support among the age group most vulnerable to its ravages — which is a big warning sign to Republicans as they look to the fall. Trump has also been showing slippage in support among the next-oldest cohort, those 55 and older.

The shift has been showing up in a string of recent polls, reportedly including those that have been conducted by Trump's own campaign. One of the most striking is a survey of 44 battleground House districts done by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin during the second week of May.

In those districts, voters over 65 said they had supported Trump in 2016 by a 22-point margin — 58 percent to 36 percent.

But this year, those same respondents are practically evenly divided, with 47 percent saying they are planning to vote for the president and 43 percent expressing an intention to cast their ballots for former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee. That is an enormous net swing of 18 percentage points.

"They're in real trouble if they can't count on a strong showing with seniors," said Garin, who did the survey for a client he declined to name. "Trump is blowing what had become an important Republican advantage."

Not since Al Gore in 2000 has a Democratic presidential candidate won the 65-and-over vote. And that was a different generation whose political loyalties were formed during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal era.

Practically from the outset of the pandemic, Republicans have been sending a message to older Americans, with varying degrees of subtlety, that their health is not as important as that of the economy. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick actually said it out loud: "Those of us who are 70-plus, we'll take care of ourselves. But don't sacrifice the country."

Patrick's comment was reminiscent of an infamous statement back in the mid-1980s by then-Colorado Gov. Richard D. Lamm, a Democrat, who said that terminally ill older Americans have "a duty to die and get out of the way." Instead of relying on expensive, life-prolonging machines, Lamm said, they should "let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life." Lamm became known as "Governor Gloom."

Insensitive comments aside, a bigger problem for Trump and the Republicans may be that older Americans have been paying close attention to the president's handling of the crisis.

They are the group most attuned to television news, which means they are more likely than younger voters to have seen with their own eyes some of the more bizarre things Trump has done, such as entertaining the possibility that ingesting bleach could cure covid-19. They know, though Trump denies it now, that he was initially dismissive of the dangers posed by the coronavirus. On a daily basis, they have seen his petulance and his blame-shifting, and heard his flat-out lies.

As for turnout, the contrast between seniors and younger voters is striking. In 2016, nearly 71 percent of those 65 and older voted; by comparison, only about 46 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds did.

Older voters also have outsize political clout in some of the states that will be most critical this fall. Florida, where Biden is leading Trump in recent polls, is the most obvious example. But Arizona, where Trump suddenly finds himself struggling, is also home to a lot of retirees. Nearly 20 percent of the population of Pennsylvania, a key swing state, is 65 or older, which is the eighth-highest percentage in the country.

State polling is still scant at this point, however, and much could change in the coming months. It would still be a stretch for Biden to carry a majority of older voters overall. But if he could make a significant dent in Trump's margin with them, it might give the former vice president a cushion against the very real possibility that younger voters will not show up in the numbers that Democrats hope.

Much is riding, of course, on what happens as Trump and the Republicans push to reopen the country. If they move too quickly and trigger a second wave of infections, it could arrive just in time for the election. But at least one thing is certain: The age group most likely to suffer is also the one most likely to vote.

[Karl Henning]

Highlighting, of course, his vanity: Trump, who spent Memorial Day without a face mask, shares tweet criticizing Biden for wearing one

[Karl Henning]

Highlighting, of course, his vanity: Trump, who spent Memorial Day without a face mask, shares tweet criticizing Biden for wearing one

Trump's narcissism drives every decision, even in the midst of a pandemic. Americans can see for themselves the cost paid in human lives and economic pain. A president whose sole concern is feeding his insatiable ego will never level with them, will never sacrifice political advantage for the public good and will consistently embarrass rather than inspire us.

[BasilValentine]

Mueller somehow found obstruction but not any actual evidence for the reasons he was called to investigate. Sounds like a stretch to me. Actually, more like a witch-hunt. Bob has to find some way to put a positive spin on a failed investigation. 
Sounds like a lot of conjecture on your part. Are you wearing a tin foil cap?
Lol, no. Rather, the Ukraine investigation was an attempt to make up for the disappointment of Bob's 30 million
boondoggle to nowhere. Trump has to be impeached, for something, anything.

You demonstrate no knowledge of the Mueller investigation and its findings or the impeachment proceedings. The investigation resulted in thirty odd indictments, a detailed account of the ways and means by which Russia exerted influence on the election, an outline of ten pretty clear felonies on Trump's part, and it was nearly paid for in full by the recovery of ill-gotten gains from Trump cronies. Oh, and it even provided some intriguing info on the alleged "pee tapes!" It accomplished much of its intended purpose and provide a fair bit of entertainment in the process. 

[drogulus]

Suffice to say, you just want Trump impeached, for something, anything.

     I don't see why it matters who wants Trump to be impeached, like if it's the wrong people it's game over, the case itself doesn't matter, Angry Dems make it invalid.

     Repubs wanted Clinton impeached. Is that a good argument that he should not have been? Or could it be that in that case it was OK to argue the merits of the case itself and not who wants it to go forward?

     For any and all impeachments there is a coven of "out to getters", right? They usually don't decide things in the end.

[Karl Henning]

Suffice to say, you just want Trump impeached, for something, anything.

Suffice to say, you are wilfully blind to any and all Trump wrongdoing; which is to say, among other things, that you have nil credibility as an arbiter of right and wrong.

[Karl Henning]

Any chump can be President

Presidential customs worth restoring

By Jennifer Rubin Opinion writer

May 26, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. EDT
We long for a presidency in which the sanity, good intentions and decency of the chief executive are not in question. We can imagine a time in which the burning question is something other than: "Is he lying or gob-smackingly ignorant?" Restoration of certain presidential courtesies, norms and customs — things we have almost forgotten during almost four years of a crass, mean narcissist's administration — may do wonders for the political culture and public tenor in the post-Trump era.

First, presidential utterances, news releases and even tweets are official presidential statements. They are proofread and fact-checked. They exhibit the decorum and high-mindedness we expect of the leader of the free world. They contain no personal insults, no conspiracy theories and no whining.

Second, executive branch nominees and appointees are vetted first, announced second. The White House staff knows in advance of the announcement who is being hired. The White House staff and Cabinet are not populated with relatives, military officials (a civilian leads departments, the National Security Council, etc.) and political hacks who are antagonistic toward the mission of the agency, department or function they head. "Acting" secretaries are few and far between, and they follow the chain of command (e.g., deputies fill in for secretaries).

Third, judicial nominees are rated "well qualified" or, at worst, "qualified" by the American Bar Association. They do not have a trail of highly partisan, ideological statements. If lacking previous judicial experience for a circuit court appointment, they have held a prominent role in the legal community (e.g., esteemed appellate litigator, law school dean, high-ranking Justice Department official).

Fourth, there are no financial conflicts of interest for the president, vice president, Cabinet and senior White House officials. Stocks are placed in blind trusts with no exceptions. Businesses are divested or liquidated. The tax returns of all of these individuals are posted on an easily accessible website.

Fifth, note-takers listen to every presidential call with a foreign leader. There is a public readout of every call, barring acute national security concerns. Presidential visits and summits have a purpose. The president is prepared. Aides arrange agreements in advance that the principals can sign. A White House visit is a precious commodity not to be extended to two-bit dictators or war criminals.

Sixth, the president considers himself a role model for children and adults alike when it comes to public health concerns (e.g., regular physicals, mask-wearing), bullying (he's against it) and nondiscrimination. He does not comment on others' appearance nor smear entire countries or continents. He does not hold himself out to be the most knowledgeable on every topic (e.g., he doesn't claim to be a better scientist than the scientists or know more about "ISIS than the generals"). However, he does possess a working knowledge of policy, science and the world. He knows windmills do not cause cancer, Colorado is not on the border (hence needs no wall) and North Korean dictators are not interested in condo developments. He admits error and apologizes for missteps.

Seventh, he understands that Article II does not say he can do whatever he wants. While all presidents seek to exert robust executive powers, a constitutionally respectful president does not claim absolute immunity, snatch the appropriations power away from Congress nor make frivolous emergency announcements.

The list could go on, but you get the drift. Virtually nothing about this president's behavior is "normal." We do not need to continue this failed experiment in the "anyone can be president" sweepstakes.

[Herman]

I think the motives do matter when there isn't any direct evidence, rather endless speculation and accusations based on flimsy circumstantial evidence.

Yeah, like saying on national tv, "Russia, if you're listening etc".

Flimsy.

[JBS]

I think the motives do matter when there isn't any direct evidence, rather endless speculation and accusations based on flimsy circumstantial evidence.

There was considerable, solid evidence.  That all but one GOP senator chose political expediency over their oath of office does not make it otherwise.

[Ratliff]

As I think I recall reading as the headline of a NYTimes Opinion piece, You can be a whistle blower just watching television. In front of TV cameras in the oval office Trump told the Russian ambassador "I fired Comey because of the Russia thing. It took a lot of pressure off me." That is the definition of obstruction of justice. How can you "investigate" someone for obstruction of justice when they confessed to it on television?

[SimonNZ]

Twitter labels Trump's false claims with warning for first time
President rails against decision after his tweets on mail-in voting are marked with message: 'Get the facts'

"Twitter for the first time took action against a series of tweets by Donald Trump, labeling them with a warning sign and providing a link to further information.

Since ascending to the US presidency, Trump has used his Twitter account to threaten a world leader with war, amplify racist misinformation by British hate figures and, as recently as Tuesday morning, spread a lie about the 2001 death of a congressional aide in order to smear a cable news pundit. Throughout it all, Twitter has remained steadfast in its refusal to censor the head of state, even going so far as to write a new policy to allow itself to leave up tweets by "world leaders" that violate its rules.

The company's decision on Tuesday afternoon to affix labels to a series of Trump tweets about California's election planning is the result of a new policy debuted on 11 May. They were applied – hours after the tweets initially went out – because Trump's tweets violated Twitter's "civic integrity policy", a company spokeswoman confirmed, which bars users from "manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes", such as by posting misleading information that could dissuade people from participating in an election.

Trump responded on Tuesday evening with a pair of tweets that repeated his false claims about voting and accused Twitter of "interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election". "Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!" he wrote. Federal law protects the rights of internet platforms to moderate the third-party speech they publish."[...]







[...]"Trump's claims about California on Tuesday were blatantly wrong. The state is not sending a ballot to anyone who lives in the state but rather those registered there. Sam Mahood, a spokesman for the secretary of state, Alex Padilla, said in an email only active voters in the state would be mailed ballots.

As states prepare for an unprecedented surge in mail-in voting because of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump has repeatedly made baseless claims that this will lead to fraud. Voter fraud is extremely rare and one analysis found just 143 convictions involving mail-in ballot fraud since 2000, representing 0.00006% of the ballots cast during that time period.

Trump, who voted by mail in Florida in March, has made it clear that he opposes any effort to make it easier to vote by mail for all eligible voters, including sending an absentee ballot application to all voters, a measure the Republican National Committee does not oppose. In March, he said Democratic efforts in Congress to expand mail-in voting would make it so "you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again". Studies have shown neither Democrats nor Republicans benefit from a switch to a vote-by-mail system.

Trump also attacked efforts to increase mail-in voting in Michigan and Nevada last week. He falsely said Michigan was sending absentee ballots to all registered voters; in fact the state was only sending an absentee ballot application. Trump later deleted his tweet and reposted a new one accusing the secretary of state of unlawfully sending the applications, something the secretary of state says is well within her authority.

Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, lambasted Twitter's decision in a statement, framing it as an attempt by "Silicon Valley" to "obstruct and interfere with President Trump getting his message through to voters". Parscale also asserted that Twitter's "clear political bias" was a reason that the Trump campaign pulled its advertising from Twitter "months ago".

Twitter banned all political advertising in November 2019, more than six months ago. At the time, Parscale decried the global policy change as "another attempt by the left to silence Trump and conservatives".

[JBS]

Here's something Twitter is letting Trump get away with, and which in one way at least is worse
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/twitter-deeply-sorry-about-trump-tweets-suggesting-joe-scarborough-murdered-intern-but-wont-delete-them/

[Karl Henning]

Poor Trumpty, without Twitter, it's impossible for him to speak (Is that the sorry idea?)

[Ratliff]

False, it was leaked:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.amp.html

You are correct, my memory changed one fact, Russian press was invited to the meeting, but not U.S. press.

[Karl Henning]

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the China pivot "is fascinating to me because I count at least 37 different statements by President Trump in January, February, March and April praising the Chinese government and defending the performance of General Xi."

Therein lies the trouble with Trump's, and Republicans', plans to make attacks on China the focus of the election. Probably no U.S. leader has praised China's government as effusively and as often as Trump. There's no way to campaign against that same government without acknowledging Trump was played for a fool.