The Trump thread: All things Donald

[joan1984]

  The way to address political grievance, is through voting for your advocate, who you believe will best lead the United States of America toward Liberty, Justice, and Prosperity.  Savaging yourself by getting wound around the axle over perceived slights, and lack of visible payback by the 'other side', on a daily basis, is counterproductive.

  I hope Democrats continue to feature the likes of those now featured, calling for Impeachment for whatever the cause of the day may be, making insane sounding statements, and proud of it... go for it... and pay the price next November, and the next November and beyond.

  Republicans need to get their act together as well, in my opinion, and would lose if conservative Democrats were to run against them in many cases, as too many Republicans are looking out only for themselves, as office holders, long having abandoned the reality of what they themselves campaigned for, and taking their constituents for granted.

  Mo Brooks would have been the best choice for Alabama, and lost any chance via Mitch McConnell's thumb on the scale with Millions in negative Ads there. I was sorry to see President Trump be dragged into support of Senator Luther Strange, but can see how he was pressured to help a sitting Senator, along with the pressure from McConnell to have his own lapdog as Senator from AL.

  The controversy and baggage of Judge Moore troubles me, but I don't need to live with him in Alabama... the seat is worth whatever I need to listen about on the leftist MSM about him, versus the alternative, liberal Democrat candidate, and what that may mean for our future.  A conservative Democrat might just take that seat, and that is just not in the cards at all... no shortage of Democrat Trump Voters in Alabama, but no interest in other than divisive campaigning for Democrat donors there.

[Athos_131]

U.S. says no need for Puerto Rico shipping waiver

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Fact-checking President Trump’s tax speech in Indianapolis

President Trump’s speech on the administration’s still-somewhat-vague tax plan, delivered in Indianapolis on Sept. 27, was filled with many of his favorite, inaccurate claims. For instance, he repeatedly says he is offering the “largest tax cut in our country’s history,” a dubious claim when properly measured as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product.  Here’s a sampling of other inaccurate claims — and one case in which he appears to have adjusted his language because of our previous fact checks.

“To protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer, we are finally ending the crushing, the horrible, the unfair estate tax, or as it is often referred to, the death tax.”

The president’s suggestion that “millions” of small businesses and farms are affected by the estate tax is absurd. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, only about 5,500 estates in 2017 — out of nearly 3 million estates — would have to pay any taxes. About half of estates subject to the tax would pay an average tax of about 9 percent. That’s because for a married couple, about $11 million is exempt from taxation.

Only 80 — that’s right, 80 — of taxable estates would be farms and small businesses.

That’s a big change from the past. In 1977, 139,000 estates had to pay the tax. In 2000, it was 52,000. But Congress has kept raising the exemption and lowering the tax rate. So for virtually all Americans, even farms and small businesses, the estate tax is just not a problem.

“Today, our total business tax rate is 60 percent higher than our average foreign competitor in the developed world.”

Trump exaggerates here. The United States certainly has one of the highest statutory corporate tax rates in the world, currently pegged as high as 39.1 percent when including state taxes. (The federal rate is 35 percent.) Trump says it is 60 percent higher than “our average competitor in the developed world,” comparing 39.1 percent to the average rate for the other members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is 25.5 percent when not weighted for GDP. (It is 31.4 percent when weighted for GDP.)

But the official rate does not necessarily tell the whole story. What also matters is the actual tax a company pays, after deductions and tax benefits. That is known as the effective tax rate, which can be calculated differently depending on the survey. According to the Congressional Research Service, the effective rate for the United States is 27.1 percent, compared with an effective GDP-weighted average of 27.7 percent for the OECD. “Although the U.S. statutory tax rate is higher, the average effective rate is about the same, and the marginal rate on new investment is only slightly higher,” the CRS says.

The Congressional Budget Office, when it examined the issue, said the U.S. effective tax rate was 18.6 percent, which it said was among the highest of the biggest economic powers, the Group of 20.

“Americans waste so much money, billions and billions of dollars and many hours each year to comply with our ridiculously complex tax code. More than 90 percent of Americans use assistance to prepare their taxes.”

Kudos to Trump for updating a formerly misleading phrase that “more than 90 percent of Americans need professional help to do their own taxes.” This 90 percent figure refers to people who file taxes by hiring professionals or using tax software, such as Turbo Tax, which helps people file their taxes on their own. According to the National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2016 report, 54 percent of individual taxpayers pay preparers and about 40 percent of individual taxpayers use software that costs about $50 or more.

Still, it’s worth pointing out that there are more options now for people to easily file their taxes, using these paid or free software. For the 2016 tax year, the Internal Revenue Service launched a Free File program, a public-private partnership that allows people with adjusted gross incomes of less than $64,000 to file their taxes using free software. Roughly 70 percent of American taxpayers are eligible for this free software, according to the Free File Alliance, which partners with the IRS for this program.

“A married couple won’t pay a dime in taxes on their first $24,000 of income. So a married couple, up to $24,000, can spend their money on their family, on their children, on what they have to do — so much better.”

It’s debatable that this would be much better for a middle-class couple with children — and it could be worse. The tax plan would nearly double the standard deduction, $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples, but also eliminate personal and dependent exemptions (currently $4,050 per family member).

So a couple with two children already “don’t pay a dime” on their first $28,800. That’s because they get $12,600 in a standard deduction and $16,200 in dependent and personal exemptions. It’s possible Trump’s expanded child tax credit might help make up some of the difference, but maybe not.

Lily Batchelder, a professor of public policy at New York University who was deputy director of the National Economic Council in 2014-2015, “conservatively” estimated in 2016 that “Trump’s plan would increase taxes for about 8.7 million families,” but the number could be as high as 11 million under “reasonable assumptions.” That analysis was based on Trump’s campaign plan, which envisioned a larger increase in the standard deduction ($30,000 for a married couple).

“The tax strategy that Ronald Reagan used to create an economic boom in the 1980s when our economy took off, the middle class thrived. And the family income of all families was increasing more and more, and it was a beautiful sight to behold.”

This is a flip-flop. He was always a fierce critic of the bill, Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986, which he now calls “a beautiful sight to behold.” The law simplified tax brackets and eliminated tax shelters, and also lowered the top individual tax rate to 28 percent but raised the capital gains rate to the same level, giving them parity.

In the years following the law, Trump repeatedly blamed it for the savings and loan crisis, a decline in real estate investing and the 1990-1991 recession.

“This tax act was just an absolute catastrophe for the country, for the real estate industry, and I really hope that something can be done,” Trump told Congress in 1991. In a television interview with Joan Rivers, he said: “What caused the savings and loan crisis was the 1986 tax law change. It was a disaster. It took all of the incentives away from investors.”

Trump also frequently attacked one of the Democratic sponsors of the bill, Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), including in a Wall Street Journal commentary in 1999. “Mr. Bradley’s last big idea to be enacted into legislation was also one of the worst ideas in recent history,” Trump wrote, saying Bradley was responsible for the elimination of a tax shelter for real estate investments. (He said the good parts of the bill could be attributed to Reagan.)

“Indiana is a tremendous example of the prosperity that is unleashed when we cut taxes and set free the dreams of our citizens. … All of this is possible because the people of this state have made a decision … [which] included electing a governor who you may have heard of, who signed the largest income tax cut in the state’s history, our very, very terrific person and terrific vice president, Mike Pence.”

This lacks context. As governor, Vice President Pence did make the largest income tax cut in Indiana’s history — but he didn’t have a very high bar to overcome, and it was a modest cut. Prior to Pence, there was only one time the income tax was cut without an offsetting increase, in the 1970s. Moreover, Indiana’s individual income-tax rate was already the second-lowest in the nation when Pence took office.

The individual income tax rate was 2 percent when it was established in 1964, then it was cut by 0.1 percent in 1979. It rose to 3 percent in 1984, in response to revenue losses from the 1979-1982 recession, according to Purdue University economist Larry DeBoer. Then the rate increased to 3.4 percent in 1988, and remained that way until Pence cut it by 0.2 percentage points, to 3.2 percent.

As governor, Pence established a record of cutting taxes. But according to the Indianapolis Star, state lawmakers raised taxes as soon as Pence left office. And compared to overall tax cuts in Indiana, Pence’s income tax cut is far from the largest tax cut in state history.

“I’m doing the right thing and it’s not good for me, believe me. … We are also repealing the alternative minimum tax, or AMT.”

Trump’s claim that he would not benefit from the tax plan is not credible. Of course, he’s not released his tax returns so it is difficult to know for sure. But he’s certainly subject to the AMT — and the one recent tax return that has been leaked, from 2005, shows that the AMT increased his tax bill from about $5.3 million to $36.5 million. So at least in that tax year, he potentially could have saved $31 million.



Eliminating the estate tax, meanwhile, is likely to benefit his heirs.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Tax reform is ‘not good for me, believe me,’ Trump said. Don’t.

President Trump unveiled his long-awaited tax plan Wednesday during a speech in Indiana. He asserted without qualification that the proposal — still only roughly outlined — would be good for middle-class Americans and not the wealthy.

“Our framework includes our explicit commitment that tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households,” Trump said. “Not the wealthy and well-connected. They can call me all they want; I’m doing the right thing.”

He then added: “And it’s not good for me, believe me.”

“Believe me” is a go-to Trump tic that he uses mostly to emphasize a point. He has repeatedly demonstrated that believing the things he says can be a fraught proposition, but he doesn’t generally say “believe me” because he’s explicitly asking Americans to believe him.

In this case, though, he was.

Americans have absolutely no way of knowing whether a revision to the tax code advocated by Trump would be good for him or not, for the simple reason that we have no idea what taxes Trump pays. You’ve heard this a million times by now, this complaint that Trump never released his tax returns, in a break with 40 years of precedent from presidential candidates. But now more than ever, it’s important to reiterate:

Trump never released his tax returns in a break with 40 years of precedent from presidential candidates.

Had he done so, we might not know every way in which the tax reform proposal that ultimately ends up being voted on in Congress affects Trump — his tax returns, like his business empire, are massively and intentionally complex. But we’d certainly have a much better sense of what the effects might be. (A truly transparent president would go out of his way to ensure that the effects of the legislation were known, but that’s certainly not a standard we’d expect from Trump at this point.)

There are certain components that will obviously benefit the Trump family (at least two of whom work directly for Trump). Repealing the estate tax, for example, would save the Trump estate half a billion dollars by Bloomberg’s estimate — money that would then go to his heirs.

What’s more, as Wonkblog reports, Trump’s vague articulation that he’s protecting the non-rich but not the rich is not borne out by the details. “The wealthy get a tax cut,” our Heather Long writes. “They will pay only 35 percent on their income taxes (down from 39.6 percent). At the moment, this rate applies to any income above about $418,000.” If you make $500,000, in other words, you’ll save about $25,000 a year in taxes. What’s more, business gets a significant cut, which obviously benefits Trump through the Trump Organization (which still puts money in his pocket).

(Incidentally, the people who are most likely to think big business needs a tax cut are rich Trump supporters.)

Trump asks us to take on faith that these public provisions will somehow work to his detriment without explaining why. We’d be foolish to do so.

There’s another reason that we should not believe what Trump says, by the way. On the campaign trail during the 2016 primaries, Trump made similar claims about how he was turning away the calls of the wealthy and well-connected.

“A lobbyist, a person, very good person, came to me, offered $5 million, ‘please, I want to give you $5 million for the campaign,'” Trump said during a news conference in August 2015. “I said I have no interest in taking that. In fact, it’s the first time I think he’s ever been turned down. . . . He’ll be coming to me and he’ll be saying in two years, in one year, in four years, he’ll be representing a country, maybe a company or maybe a person — I’m not doing anything for him.”

He told similar stories at other points. And then, once the general election rolled around, he backtracked, deciding that he was going to accept contributions from lobbyists and super PACs. For his inauguration, he accepted huge checks from rich people (including millions from NFL team owners).

In other words, Trump knows that it’s smart to say that he’s rejecting the rich and helping the poor. But he’s also shown that he’s willing to ignore that rhetoric when he wants to.

There’s simply no reason to trust Trump that his tax reform policy won’t be steered by the wealthy and won’t benefit him personally. About the only consistent elements of his proposals over time have been elimination of the estate tax and a drop in the business tax rate — both things that will benefit him or his family.

The entire point of releasing tax returns is so that the public can know if the president is acting in his own financial interest — self-dealing, if you will. But, then, we also already know that he is benefiting financially from the presidency to some extent, meaning that one should be cautious in even giving him the benefit of the doubt on that point.

Trump has to do a lot more than offer an empty assurance before we grant him the favor of assuming this legislation won’t be to his benefit. Believe me.

#Resist

[joan1984]

Carping about Trump, no matter the issue, is annoying to those who vote, and will vote in 2018. Get a life, Athos!

[Athos_131]

Carping about Trump, no matter the issue, is annoying to those who vote, and will vote in 2018. Get a life, Athos!

Is my life here posting the truth annoying you Mr. Racist? 


MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

#Resist

[MissBarbara]

I guess my point -- other than the fact that Democrats, for whatever reason, insist on keeping their eye off the ball -- is that there's so much to criticize, condemn, and impugn Trump for. Why fixate on trivialities, rather than potentially indictable offenses?

I take your point, MissBarbara. I think the answer, however, rests with the fact that those of us who oppose Trump are so frustrated that he breaks every rule of decency, of honorable behavior, of honesty and accuracy. His behavior is borderline criminal, and most likely actually criminal at times in the past. And yet he coasts through it all without either taking responsibility or paying a significant price for his offenses.

By way of comparison, Obama was pestered with trivialities and endlessly criticized for things he never did, while Trump steals the silverware, feels up the nieces, farts on the host and gets away with it.

The range and extent of the double standards is beyond anything which I could even have dreamed someone could get away with. It's very hard to put up with this endless diet of crap without getting discouraged to the core.

I don't disagree with what you say. And you're right: "He [Trump] breaks every rule of decency, of honorable behavior, of honesty and accuracy."

But, to my point, that's neither unconstitutional, illegal, indictable, or impeachable.

You're right: "It's very hard to put up with this endless diet of crap without getting discouraged to the core." And yet, at the risk of agreeing with Joan for the second time in 24 hours, which is more effective: Whining, carping, criticizing, etc., or advocating for change, starting with the steadily looming mid-terms? At the risk of harping on this point, these mid-terms are more vital than perhaps any in recent memory. Denying Trump a rubber-stamp Congress (and he doesn't even have that right now, as the serial failures to overthrow the ACA manifest), will render him utterly ineffective. He can rant and rave and Tweet all he wants, but the Democrats can take back or at least gain more effective control of Congress, AND begin paving the way for taking back the White House in 2020.

[MissBarbara]

Trump is a public official.  He has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. He then behaves in a manner which attacks the principles of the first amendment.  I wonder if such behavior would be tolerated in our service men and women who also swear this oath?

Tell me, what would have happened if one of our earlier Presidents, say John Adams, swore this oath and then started advocating for the institution of a Monarchy? (Yeah, some people thought he did with all his going on about how the President should be addressed during Washington's terms as President, but he was not really a Monarchist he just wanted to vest the office with a very high respectability).  I doubt it would have been tolerated.

This is indeed a test of our government.  There has simply been no precedent for dealing with the likes of Trump.

For the record, John Adams never advocated for a monarch, and he never even came close to advocating for a monarch. This was a charge invented by his political opponents (chiefly Jefferson) as a campaign tactic in the 1800 election. Adams was an unswerving supporter of the newly minted U.S. Constitution, and believed that the president should be exactly as described in its text.

As for it being tolerated, the accusation, albeit false and made up, was very widely asserted by his opponents, and strongly contributed his losing the election to Jefferson (in fact, Adams came in third, after Jefferson and Burr).

Again, how has Trump violated the First Amendment? If, as I mentioned above, he had threatened NFL players with arrest and prosecution, that would be a clear violation. Or if he threatened NFL owners with legal consequences for letting their players protest, then that, too, would be a clear violation. Trump did neither of those things. What he said -- including the way he said it -- was stupid, dead wrong, and borderline insane.

And here's a point that's been lost in the shuffle and screaming headlines after the last weekend's NFL games: Trump won. In a very real way, he has shifted the focus from its original intent, thereby losing the entire point of the protests. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a milder or less objectionable form of protest than simply kneeling down. And yet, at least in the beginning, it was extremely effective, simply and clearly making a very vital point. And a clear majority of Americans, including those who disagreed with the content of the protest, supported, or at least did not object to, the protests. Trump successfully -- intentionally or not (and probably the latter) -- shifted the focus in a way that rallied more supporters to himself and his message. It's now seen as an anti-patriotic stance, an egregious affront to the nation, it's flag, and it's brave men and women, blah, blah, blah. And, of course, Trump also rekindled the semi-latent fears of many white Americans of uppity Black men.

P.S. Lois and Northwest: Want more grist for your anti-Trump mill? Ponder the fact that a sitting U.S. president, in public and clearly and unequivocally, referred to a group of U.S. citizens as "sons of bitches." That, to my mind, might be the most egregious thing Trump's done in relation to this issue. Leaving the profanity aside (which I do only for the sake of argument), to my mind that is more aggressively offensive -- and, my lay status notwithstanding -- and more indicative of Trump's suffering from a mental disease, than anything else he's said or done.

[Northwest]

I don't disagree with what you say. And you're right: "He [Trump] breaks every rule of decency, of honorable behavior, of honesty and accuracy."

But, to my point, that's neither unconstitutional, illegal, indictable, or impeachable.

You're right: "It's very hard to put up with this endless diet of crap without getting discouraged to the core." And yet, at the risk of agreeing with Joan for the second time in 24 hours, which is more effective: Whining, carping, criticizing, etc., or advocating for change, starting with the steadily looming mid-terms? At the risk of harping on this point, these mid-terms are more vital than perhaps any in recent memory. Denying Trump a rubber-stamp Congress (and he doesn't even have that right now, as the serial failures to overthrow the ACA manifest), will render him utterly ineffective. He can rant and rave and Tweet all he wants, but the Democrats can take back or at least gain more effective control of Congress, AND begin paving the way for taking back the White House in 2020.[/b]

The only thing I disagree with is you using me as a foil to position yourself against here. I was not supporting a counter argument to your position. I was simply making an observation.

I will say, however, that I suspect Trump HAS committed impeachable offenses, although that's a hunch on my part, and there isn't evidence to prove that yet so far as I know. But I believe that there's a reasonable chance it will emerge from Mueller's probe. As to whether Trump will actually find himself facing impeachment, that's a political question, primarily, rather than a legal one, and I can't say at this point. It depends on what emerges.

I also think Matt Taibbi had it right when he said Trump stands a good chance of finishing out his first term. I even think he could possibly get reelected.

[Athos_131]

P.S. Lois and Northwest: Want more grist for your anti-Trump mill? Ponder fact that a sitting U.S. president, in public and clearly and unequivocally, referred to a group of U.S. citizens as "sons of bitches." That, to my mind, might be the most egregious thing Trump's done in relation to this issue. Leaving the profanity aside (which I do only for the sake of argument), to my mind that is more aggressively offensive -- and, my lay status notwithstanding -- and more indicative of Trump's suffering from a mental disease, than anything else he's said or done.

And as offensive as that was, to me him complaining about Wall Street debt in Puerto Rico and basically denying US citizens hurricane relief is worse.

To me it's outright malicious.

#Resist

[joan1984]

  7,000 Containers of relief supply....
7,000 Containers of relief supply!

7,000 containers of goods, sitting on dry land, awaiting the local government efforts to "open", and "distribute", have been there for days now.

Multiple United States Military ships, thousands of U.S. Marines who will be needed there to maintain order as well as assist the local government, have been there since the storm left the shore (were headed there during the storm, at great risk to U.S. service people).

FEMA has been there, has offices there, more support has arrived since the storm ended.

FEMA is not a sole responder, it is there to add support to local government efforts in the case of emergency.

Leftists simply don't do so well at assisting, and distributing, when there is not anything in it for them except the survival of their own people, it seems.

[Northwest]

Playing off of people's deep seated prejudices, their essentially tribal nature, and the tendency of people to define others as either "one of us" or "one of them" is not a clever strategy, and Trump should get no credit for it. It's akin to posting lewd pictures, and then crediting the poster for being able to get people's attention. Of course the strategy works. That's why overt calls to Fascism and racist impulses are outright illegal in many countries of the world; because they are incredibly damaging and incredibly effective.

Trump's political strategy is pornographic, crude, and it would land him in jail in many parts of the world. The fact that Trump has been as successful as he has been is vivid proof of the limitations in the American character (so much for your American Exceptionalism) and an indictment of the American educational system. We're being duped, and we're being ruled by the smallest, weakest and dumbest segment of our population.

If being vehemently opposed to Trump means that I'm producing "...grist for your anti-Trump mill" (a comment which I categorically reject, BTW) then I'll take that criticism. It's certainly a far gentler indictment than being charged with taking a posture of neutrality towards the most dangerous politician the world has seen since Mao, Stalin or Hitler.

Trump represents the exact same forces, and uses the same tactics as the regimes which brought the world down under the weight of WWII. If you aren't both opposed to Trump, and concerned about the forces he is unleashing, then there is something wrong with you.

As far as "tactics to defeat Trump, and the forces he has unleashed", rather than point out how inadequate the response of those on the Left has been (a very frequent criticism I'm hearing from many directions these days) I'd like to see someone actually lay out a strategy which they think will be effective at stopping Trump. Until someone is able to articulate that, I think they keep their criticism of others somewhat muted.

On my darker days, I'm not at all sure that the genie CAN be put back in the bottle, and it looks like we're in a slow motion breakdown of the American political system. Here we are in 2017 -- thirty seven years after Reagan took office, and just yesterday Trump unveiled his new plan to fix "what ails America". Here's the shocker; it involves cutting taxes on the wealthy, and virtually nothing else. Would it surprise you if I said I was not surprised?

Does anyone seriously think this government or ours is either representative, or functional? I mean, seriously, did you hear everyone screaming prior to the election about how what we needed was less taxation on the wealthy, for even higher deficits,  and for having everyone else to pay even more taxes as their incomes continue to decline?

[MissBarbara]

7,000 Containers of relief supply!

...arrive eight days after Hurricane Maria struck the island...

[Lois]

Trump is a public official.  He has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. He then behaves in a manner which attacks the principles of the first amendment.  I wonder if such behavior would be tolerated in our service men and women who also swear this oath?

Tell me, what would have happened if one of our earlier Presidents, say John Adams, swore this oath and then started advocating for the institution of a Monarchy? (Yeah, some people thought he did with all his going on about how the President should be addressed during Washington's terms as President, but he was not really a Monarchist he just wanted to vest the office with a very high respectability).  I doubt it would have been tolerated.

This is indeed a test of our government.  There has simply been no precedent for dealing with the likes of Trump.

For the record, John Adams never advocated for a monarch, and he never even came close to advocating for a monarch. This was a charge invented by his political opponents (chiefly Jefferson) as a campaign tactic in the 1800 election. Adams was an unswerving supporter of the newly minted U.S. Constitution, and believed that the president should be exactly as described in its text.

As for it being tolerated, the accusation, albeit false and made up, was very widely asserted by his opponents, and strongly contributed his losing the election to Jefferson (in fact, Adams came in third, after Jefferson and Burr).

Again, how has Trump violated the First Amendment? If, as I mentioned above, he had threatened NFL players with arrest and prosecution, that would be a clear violation. Or if he threatened NFL owners with legal consequences for letting their players protest, then that, too, would be a clear violation. Trump did neither of those things. What he said -- including the way he said it -- was stupid, dead wrong, and borderline insane.

And here's a point that's been lost in the shuffle and screaming headlines after the last weekend's NFL games: Trump won. In a very real way, he has shifted the focus from its original intent, thereby losing the entire point of the protests. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a milder or less objectionable form of protest than simply kneeling down. And yet, at least in the beginning, it was extremely effective, simply and clearly making a very vital point. And a clear majority of Americans, including those who disagreed with the content of the protest, supported, or at least did not object to, the protests. Trump successfully -- intentionally or not (and probably the latter) -- shifted the focus in a way that rallied more supporters to himself and his message. It's now seen as an anti-patriotic stance, an egregious affront to the nation, it's flag, and it's brave men and women, blah, blah, blah. And, of course, Trump also rekindled the semi-latent fears of many white Americans of uppity Black men.

P.S. Lois and Northwest: Want more grist for your anti-Trump mill? Ponder the fact that a sitting U.S. president, in public and clearly and unequivocally, referred to a group of U.S. citizens as "sons of bitches." That, to my mind, might be the most egregious thing Trump's done in relation to this issue. Leaving the profanity aside (which I do only for the sake of argument), to my mind that is more aggressively offensive -- and, my lay status notwithstanding -- and more indicative of Trump's suffering from a mental disease, than anything else he's said or done.

Yep, I agree that Adams was not a Monarchist and said as much.  He simply wanted to vest the office of President with the same respect he saw given to the King of England, as he witnessed when appointed ambassador there.

And I never said Trump violated the First Amendment, I said his comments violated the spirit of the First Amendment. 

Trump said that people should be fired for expressing their First Amendment Rights by taking the knee.  An actual violation would be if he penalized the owners for not firing the players expressing their first Amendment rights.

[joan1984]

and go untouched by the supposed government there... where were the local supplies, planning and safeguards... in someones pockets, perhaps.

The inability of people to help themselves, to elect and demand performance from politicians who claim to have their best interests in mind, is amazing.

If this island people intend to be simply beggars, have no responsibility to plan and prevent chaos from weather events, then how can hey complain when the others assistance requires adequate time and extraordinary effort, to supply a area who will never repay, let alone assist in their own recovery.

Trumpeting and politicalizing anything and everything... seems the reaction of Haiti, Cuba, and other beret and jackboot wearing governments, far from an American response, and willing to suck down the resources of anyone foolish enough to provide them. Proudly.

Many in this island community are self sufficient and many are suffering from their own government's failure to provide adequately, or make arrangements for their own people adequately. If there is a problem, there is where it lies.

They should thank God for President Trump and the quick response of the United States Federal Government, including FEMA and U.S. Navy/Marines, all acting at the direction of the President and his Administration.

Democrats could not get racism to stick in Houston, so why not throw it against the wall here... it is what they do.

7,000 Containers of relief supply!

...arrive eight days after Hurricane Maria struck the island...

[Katiebee]

I guess my point -- other than the fact that Democrats, for whatever reason, insist on keeping their eye off the ball -- is that there's so much to criticize, condemn, and impugn Trump for. Why fixate on trivialities, rather than potentially indictable offenses?

I take your point, MissBarbara. I think the answer, however, rests with the fact that those of us who oppose Trump are so frustrated that he breaks every rule of decency, of honorable behavior, of honesty and accuracy. His behavior is borderline criminal, and most likely actually criminal at times in the past. And yet he coasts through it all without either taking responsibility or paying a significant price for his offenses.

By way of comparison, Obama was pestered with trivialities and endlessly criticized for things he never did, while Trump steals the silverware, feels up the nieces, farts on the host and gets away with it.

The range and extent of the double standards is beyond anything which I could even have dreamed someone could get away with. It's very hard to put up with this endless diet of crap without getting discouraged to the core.

I don't disagree with what you say. And you're right: "He [Trump] breaks every rule of decency, of honorable behavior, of honesty and accuracy."

But, to my point, that's neither unconstitutional, illegal, indictable, or impeachable.

You're right: "It's very hard to put up with this endless diet of crap without getting discouraged to the core." And yet, at the risk of agreeing with Joan for the second time in 24 hours, which is more effective: Whining, carping, criticizing, etc., or advocating for change, starting with the steadily looming mid-terms? At the risk of harping on this point, these mid-terms are more vital than perhaps any in recent memory. Denying Trump a rubber-stamp Congress (and he doesn't even have that right now, as the serial failures to overthrow the ACA manifest), will render him utterly ineffective. He can rant and rave and Tweet all he wants, but the Democrats can take back or at least gain more effective control of Congress, AND begin paving the way for taking back the White House in 2020.

Though the emolument clause speaks to ethical behavior, Trump and his lawyers are weaseling around it. By itself that may be cause for impeachment should the proof of significant enrichment be found. Which it appears may be there.

[Northwest]

Though the emolument clause speaks to ethical behavior, Trump and his lawyers are weaseling around it. By itself that may be cause for impeachment should the proof of significant enrichment be found. Which it appears may be there.

Correct.

There's no proof yet, but I suspect it will emerge given time. I believe that Trump is fundamentally corrupt, and that this will in fact be proven.

[Katiebee]

It may be proven when it it too late to do the country any good.

[Athos_131]

#Resist

[joan1984]

  First, before any bizarre clauses are employed, or schemes developed, or Maxine elected to some House Leadership nonsense, Win The House.

  Meanwhile, no further nonsense posts are necessary. Win the House, and then do your dance on C Span, then have the Republican Senate vote it down.
Sound familiar?  Did you think it was nonsense last time this was tried? Thought a total waste of time, waste of political capital? Think about it, before you answer that question.

  Meanwhile, do nothing, and wait until the next Budget period, when only 50 votes are needed, and perhaps a few RINOs are replaced with fresh folks who tend to follow the Constitution, and do as they Campaigned on, and weep more.

  Enjoy your Thursday Night Demonstration, fly in the face of patriotism anew and wish/hope for some oddball thing to happen.

  By the way, with all your wishes come true, Hillary will not be President, nor her grandfather Bernie, nor the fake indian schoolmarm from Mass...

  Vice President Pence, who you all love, and agree with on everything, right, will be your savior (or Savior?)... careful what you wish for, snowflakes.