Republicans lost control of the House in the mid term elections.
but what does it really mean?
Does it hurt Trump much?
will it noticeably change the garbage coming for the white house?
The House of Representatives, now controlled by Democrats, will probably want to see Trump's tax returns. Some of that could be at least embarrassing, if not illegal. Zero to charity. Money laundering for Russians. Shockingly little taxes paid due to tax havens and possibly illegal methods.
Trump will be hassled like never before. It is a huge kick in the pants for the guy who always wants to ''win.''
If enough comes to light, he will be impeached. Not removed from office, but embarrassed once again. The Republican-controlled Senate (the other part of the U.S. Congress along with the House of Representatives), would still protect him.
Trump's abilty to change laws is curtailed. His ability to take military actions is curtailed. Money for ''the Wall'' will be curtailed. Robert Mueller and his probe have the support that the House can provide.
There are potentially many oversight committees, led by the House, to look into any of Trump's actions.
With Jeff Sessions fired as Attorney General, and Matthew Whitaker taking over, there will be some concern about what happens to the Mueller probe. I do not think they can put the genie back in the bottle. The research, documents and interviews will be protected by the House of Representatives to an extent. They will not be destroyed, although there might be efforts to keep them from the light of day. Funds for the Mueller probe could be reduced, but I think the majority of the work might be done already anyway. And it is just possible Mueller might not have found enough to allow the House of Representatives to impeach anyway. With the new Congress, with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, this observer is not overly worried about the vulnerability of the Mueller probe. Prior to this election my concern was much greater.
What this Canadian is happy about is the separation of powers and the oversight that goes with it. The House of Representatives has real power. Trump is in for a rough ride ahead, no matter what happens with the Mueller probe.
IMO the results of the mid-term election hurt Trump a great deal. But I expect he will seem like the same disagreeable guy as before, with perhaps some attempts to make deals with the Democrats, who now control the House of Representatives. He has tried to make nice with Democrat Nancy Pelosi, as she is a possible leader of the House. I kind of think it will feel like more of the same to us, a divided government and a divided country as our neighbour. Less worry, but still with concerns, for this Canadian.
Republicans lost control of the House in the mid term elections. Wonder who Trump is going to blame for the loss.
but what does it really mean?
Does it hurt Trump much?
will it noticeably change the garbage coming for the white house?
I think that most of us are probably thinking (or perhaps more accurately hoping) that the Democrats' taking of the House of Representatives will put some major guardrails on Trump's actions in the next two years. However, I think that the reining in of Trump will be somewhat less than anticipated and will come with considerable push-back from the White House, many obstacles thrown in the path of any hoped-for changes, and the resulting legislative gridlock. So to answer your question, KnowItAll, the control of the House by the Democrats will hurt Trump some, but not as much as we might wish. And I think it would be naive to expect much if any reduction in the lies and nonsense emanating from the White House.
The LionKing, for the loss of the House, Trump has blamed the media (of course) and a number of Republican candidates who did not "embrace" him. His take on the midterm elections is that he won--basing this on the small increase in Republican Senate seats and the wins by a few high-profile candidates for Governor (as in Florida, Georgia, and Ohio).
The most significant issue now (Nov. 7), with the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his replacement by a Trump lackey, is the future of the critically-important Robert Mueller investigation. The replacement, Matthew Whitaker, has gone on the record with criticisms of the Mueller probe and sentiments completely in line with Trump's, and it is Whitaker to whom Robert Mueller will now report. It is clear that Trump has now removed any semblance of impartiality personified by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and has now put his own man in charge of the investigation into himself. The term "constitutional crisis" has been bandied about in the American media for some time, but the U.S. now appears to be staring at precisely this ominous state of affairs. I think the next several weeks will reveal whether all the painstaking and important work Mueller's team has done over the past year and a half will be halted and buried, with carefully-obtained and compelling evidence of conspiracy (usually termed "collusion") and obstruction of justice by Trump and his enablers kept permanently from view.
Troubling times ahead, particularly in the "lame duck" session (November and December) before the new Congress takes over in early January....
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:20 pm
by WestCoastJoe
When I would hear Jeff Sessions talk, his way of speaking reminded me of someone. I finally figured out that it was a favourite of mine, character actor Strother Martin.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
Jeff Sessions
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 9:14 pm
by TheLionKing
I don't recall and remember
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:08 pm
by Robbie
President Trump announced his intention late Saturday to quickly withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement, a move intended to force House Democrats to enact a revised version of the pact despite concerns that it fails to protect American workers.
“I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One en route from the Group of 20 conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a day after appearing at a ceremonial signing of the new deal with Canada and Mexico.
------------------------------------------
Speaking of NAFTA, it was under the administration of the late George H.W. Bush that it was originally signed.
With the recent passing of George H.W. Bush, what are your thoughts about him? He was certainly actively involved in foreign affairs, most notably the invasion of Panama in late 1989 to dispose Military leader Manuel Noriega and of course, the Gulf War to protect Kuwait from Saddam Hussein and Iraq. But he couldn't keep his promise of no new taxes, and his country fell into a recession in the early 1990's and as such, he was not re-elected in November 1992. And it certainly didn't help either than he chose an intellectual lightweight Dan Quayle as his VP.
President Trump announced his intention late Saturday to quickly withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement, a move intended to force House Democrats to enact a revised version of the pact despite concerns that it fails to protect American workers.
“I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One en route from the Group of 20 conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a day after appearing at a ceremonial signing of the new deal with Canada and Mexico.
Isn't it just a case of NAFTA being replaced by the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement -- the USMCA--Robbie? My impression of the new agreement is that it really isn't meaningfully different from NAFTA, and not really disadvantageous to Canada. Trump has made a big deal about tearing up trade and other agreements, and NAFTA is just one of these--one that Trump, in his bombastic and ignorant style, called something like "the worst deal the US has ever been involved in" (the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Change Agreement are two other important agreements he has scuttled). He wanted to be seen by his base as taking a strong stand for the US (and against his allies), but cooler heads prevailed, I suspect, and almost the entire substance of NAFTA has been retained in the new USMCA. This allowed Trump to bloviate about how he is standing up for the US, but not suffer from the effects of blowing up a trade agreement that had definite benefits for the US. (Others on this board who follow Canadian financial and trade issues can chime in here if there are elements of the new pact that will have large negative effects in this country.) I think Trump has signed the new agreement, but it remains for Congress to ratify it, an outcome that appears to be pretty much a formality unless I'm missing something here.
As for George H. W. Bush, I wasn't a fan of his when he was president, but now in hindsight--in light of what the country now has in the White House--he looks positively fabulous! His breaking his promise regarding tax increases was something he saw as necessary at the time for the US economy (and something he knew would be personally damaging to him regarding re-election in 1992), and many give him credit for helping to set the country up for the economic good times enjoyed by (and attributed to) Bill Clinton. Bush the elder was a true conservative--possibly the last of that breed as President in the US--in the Reagan mold, and, despite what one thought of his politics, he was a good and decent man. He risked his life when he was 20, as a carrier-based navy pilot, flying torpedo bombers in the South Pacific in WW II, and experienced being shot down. He flew 58 missions through 1944 and was awarded several combat medals. For many decades, he served his country well in a number of different capacities: Director of the CIA, member of Congress (House of Representatives), Ambassador to the U.N. and other posts, and, of course, as President. Although he was born into New England privilege, he volunteered for the Navy during WW II at age 18 and served until 1945, after which he attended Yale. He will be remembered as someone who wore his social status and accomplishments lightly and related well to others from all walks of life; he appeared to others to be free of egotism. I didn't agree with much of his politics (particularly the conservative supply-side "trickle-down economics" argument), but I admired him as a man and leader. What a colossal contrast he represents to the current occupant of the White House; two Republican presidents could hardly be more different.
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:51 am
by Sir Purrcival
Trump is famous for his threats. I can't ever recall a time when a President has received as much derision either domestically or internationally. I could see a new Democratic congress rejecting it because it might seem like a win for Trump. Hence the removal of NAFTA to try and force their hand. I like you basically think that the new deal CUSMA as I call it protected for the most part that which Canada needed to protect. There was some give in supply management but not enough to be truly worrying.
As for Bush, I'm not sure how I feel about him. He was in the White House for 12 years. I'm not sure he would have got a second term as the Repubs had basically worn out their welcome. He was a decent man to be sure and wasn't the fecal show that is current administration (then again, has anyone ever been?). If I had a criticism about him, it was that he waffled wrongly on the first Iraq War. He should have finished off Hussein at the time. They had the troops and the machinery there. Could have saved a lot of trouble later on and probably done so at a much lower cost of lives and money. Instead, they pulled up I guess not wanting to offend some of their Arab partners. It was a bad choice and sent a bad message.
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:00 am
by South Pender
After looking at this new USMCA a little more, I should probably change my statement above that ratification in the US would likely be pretty much a formality. It appears that getting a sign-off in both the House and Senate may take some arm-twisting, difficult negotiations, and drawn-out wrangling. It will be easier in the Senate where the Republicans still have a majority, but the House, with its Democratic majority in 2019, might be a different story. The consensus among most experts, however, seems to be that, although the process may be drawn-out and rocky, the agreement will eventually be ratified.
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:03 am
by WestCoastJoe
George Bush the 1st. Decent man for sure. War hero. Head of the CIA. A life of service to his country. No fool for sure, unlike his #1 son, who, imo, is also a decent man.
I almost miss the both of them in the Oval Office, now that we have what is in there now. DJT is a spoiled, privileged, mean-spirited brat, who admittedly operates emotionally at the level of a 6 year old. He knows how to spot a weakness, and how to exploit it with a few words. In my opinion the biggest mistake of his life was running for President and accepting the results. His privacy is gone forever. His reputation is gone forever, such as it has been, but previously he was able to hide much of his misdoings. Every step he takes now is scrutinized in excruciating detail. In my opinion his name around the world is in the mud forever. No jail time (although he is running close to impeachment), but that will be little compensation for foolishly ruining the good life he had.
USA. Leader of the free world? Not so much anymore. Let us hope the child in the office does not break more than can be fixed. "People get the government they deserve." Unfortunately the rest of the world cannot vote in the Amercan elections.
If I had a criticism about him, it was that he waffled wrongly on the first Iraq War. He should have finished off Hussein at the time. They had the troops and the machinery there. Could have saved a lot of trouble later on and probably done so at a much lower cost of lives and money. Instead, they pulled up I guess not wanting to offend some of their Arab partners. It was a bad choice and sent a bad message.
Or maybe it's because of lessons learned from the recent past with regards to America's involvement in foreign conflicts - specifically the Korean and Vietnam Wars in which America suffered tens of thousands of casualties and all for nothing as North Korea still exists and North Vietnam took over South Korea in addition to all the huge backlash America received at home. As such, to avoid such a huge mistake Bush wanted to limit casualties. After Hussein retreated, Bush decided to end it there instead of risking another huge backlash and casualties like what happened in Vietnam.
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:15 pm
by Sir Purrcival
I'm quite sure they had their reasons rightly or wrongly but in the end, it took more lives and more resources to accomplish the same end and the moral ambiguity was much greater the second time around. When you factor in the WMD fiasco that was supposedly the whole reason they went back, it was a much less legitimate operation that what Hussein gift wrapped when he invaded a peaceful neighbour during the Gulf War. Given the thrashing that the Iraqi Army took in the first conflict, it would have been likely a much simpler operation to remove Hussein. The backlash came anyway and it was his son that ended up holding the bag for that misjudgment. Unfortunately, the Americans have had a pretty dismal track record in the last century of picking battles. They were late to both the first two WWars. Got involved in a war in Korea that they didn't have the will to really fight. Went all in for Vietnam and got their arse kicked. They you have such exploits as Cuba, El Salvador, Iran, Panama, Afghanistan etc. etc. In short, US Foreign Policy has sucked as much as it has been good with some spectacularly negative outcomes. They do not seem very nuanced when it comes to involvement in conflicts. At least that is my feeling and the HW Bush dealings with the Gulf War are just another chapter where their actions sowed the seeds for a later much more costly chain of events. Maybe a well intentioned mistake but a mistake nonetheless.
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Thread
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:48 pm
by Robbie
Extreme harsh words from former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell who called U.S. President Donald Trump a motherf**ker!
In the end, the United States did not withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and a new NAFTA deal was agreed upon. But this still has to be ratified and might be a topic of debate for both the Canadian and American elections next year.
