Trump 45

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[WiseGirl]

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, WiseGirl said:

Why? What is the reasoning behind this? I really don't get it.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, fraurosena said:

Why? What is the reasoning behind this? I really don't get it.

When I was very little I'd pull my dress up over my face thinking if I couldn't see you, then you couldn't see me.

Is this Trump pulling his dress up over his face...if we don't mention it, it doesn't exist.  

I wish I was being sarcastic, but I have a feeling he hasn't outgrown magical thinking.

[Alisamer]

5 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Why? What is the reasoning behind this? I really don't get it.

I think it's a combo of magical thinking, and also manufacturing an excuse to further limit immigration. "Look! These immigrants are spreading Coronavirus!" *expands ban to include anyone not white and wealthy*

The last map I looked at (yesterday) showed Mexico with no confirmed cases yet. Trump must be seething that the virus was here, and not down there affecting the scary brown people.

I really wish the Republicans (as a whole) had grown some spine very early on (refusing to acknowledge his candidacy would have been a good start...). Trump is obviously unqualified, unteachable, unintelligent, uncaring, and downright dangerous. The senate and house combined could mitigate a large part of his damage by actually working as intended, but instead a significant amount of them are busy kissing his orange butt and catering to his whims.

[Destiny]

Does anyone have any idea what the hell he’s on about here? I’m confused.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Destiny said:

 

 

Does anyone have any idea what the hell he’s on about here? I’m confused.

 

Pure speculation, but I think Pelosi and the Dems were in talks with the administration on tax cuts to combat COVID-19 fall out, and she basically said: Nope, not going there right now. Let's focus on actually combatting the virus and saving lives first, instead of propping up the economy.

 

[Alisamer]

1 hour ago, Destiny said:

Does anyone have any idea what the hell he’s on about here? I’m confused.

 

I think you just summed up the entire world's response to Trump for the last few years, in two short sentences.

[fraurosena]

Ehhhh?

 

[Xan]

14 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Ehhhh?

 

He is trying so very hard to change the subject.  Honestly, at this point he should just start tweeting "Look over there!"

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump Organization’s donation to U.S. Treasury shows drop in foreign government profits"

Spoiler

President Trump’s company said it donated $105,465 to the U.S. Treasury last month, an amount that it said reflects its profits from foreign-government bookings at its hotels last year.

The number is down sharply from its 2019 donation of about $191,000, showing a drop in spending by foreign governments at Trump hotels. This is the third year that the company, which Trump still owns, has made such a donation, part of an effort to avoid violating the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bars a president from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments.

Trump’s son Eric Trump, who is running the company with his brother Donald Trump Jr., announced the donation last month on social media.

“While not legally required, for the third year in a row, we are honored to fulfill my father’s generous pledge to donate profits from foreign government patronage at our properties, back to the United States Government,” he wrote.

The Trump Organization does not disclose the foreign clients that booked business at the company’s hotels but says it does not seek that business and tries to avoid it because the company donates the profits. The company donated $191,538 last year, reflecting 2018 profits, and $151,470 the year prior, reflecting 2017 profits.

Eric Trump issued a statement Monday saying that income from foreign governments makes up a very small portion of the company’s hotel business, despite Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and other countries footing the bills for large events at Trump’s properties since he became president.

“Of our hotels that had foreign government patronage in 2019, this business represented less than half of one percent (<.0048%) of those properties aggregate revenue,” Trump said in the statement. “We work very hard to discourage this business and have done a phenomenal job doing so.”

Justice Department attorneys and Trump’s personal lawyers have argued that market-rate transactions do not qualify as gifts under the provision and that the president hasn’t violated the Constitution. In three lawsuits filed in federal court, plaintiffs argued that the president’s company violates the Constitution by doing business with government customers.

One of the cases, brought by 200 Democrats in Congress, was unanimously dismissed last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled that individual members of Congress cannot sue the president.

Another case, brought by the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland, centers solely on Trump’s D.C. hotel. The Trump Organization is trying to sell the lease to that hotel, which the plaintiffs say would end that case so long as the buyer isn’t a state or foreign government. The company set a Jan. 23 deadline for initial bids.

It is unclear how many companies are pursuing the lease, which Trump signed with the federal government before his election. One bidder is Virginia business executive Sheila Johnson, owner of luxury resorts and part-owner of the Washington Mystics WNBA team.

 

[LeftCoastLurker]

I would imagine that Trump is rooting Putin on in his quest to extend his rule, possibly for life! 'Cause if Vlad can do it, so can I!

 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, Xan said:

He is trying so very hard to change the subject.  Honestly, at this point he should just start tweeting "Look over there!"

Yeah, you’re right. He’s pretty desperate, isn’t he?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump is in trouble. Democrats must drive a hard bargain — now."

Spoiler

President Trump met with Republicans on Tuesday and employed his unmatched negotiating skills to work out a stimulus package to stave off an economic downturn triggered by the coronavirus. He came away with nothing.

Of course, with Democrats controlling the House, Trump needs them, too. Which puts them in the driver’s seat as the government tries to figure out what should be done in the face of the economic turmoil now looming.

If Trump were smart, he could join with Democrats to push a genuine, bipartisan stimulus bill that would boost the economy in the short and long term. But he may not be that smart, so we may be headed for a brutal political battle over what’s next.

This gives Democrats an opening to drive a hard bargain when it comes to the response to the crisis they’d like to see — and a way to turn this to their own political advantage, as well.

There is a sharp and genuine difference in visions here, both when it comes to crisis management and to addressing the looming risks of a serious economic downturn.

Trump’s initial impulse was for some kind of temporary cut in payroll taxes, the ones that fund Social Security and Medicare.

But as Democrats quickly pointed out, for people most in financial need — those likely to be victimized most directly by a downturn — such a cut would be a trivial amount of extra money in their pockets.

What’s more, Trump is already treating this part of the process with the nakedly political motives he’s displayed all throughout this crisis. Trump reportedly told Republicans he wants the payroll tax cut to last through the election, because he doesn’t want taxes to rise again before he faces voters — saying the quiet part out loud.

It’s funny that Trump might try to dictate such an outcome — on a solution Democrats don’t even want — when he’s the one most vulnerable politically, both to coronavirus’s spread and to potential economic chaos along with it.

In contrast to all this, Democrats have already released a list of measures to address the economic effects of coronavirus, most targeted at the people most directly affected. They’d pay for coronavirus testing for everyone who needs it; make sure people are fully reimbursed for treatment of the virus; and expand unemployment insurance.

Liberal economist Jared Bernstein suggested several other ideas to us. One would be simply sending checks to moderate- and low-income households. Another would be targeting assistance to low-income workers who are sent home but don’t enjoy paid sick leave.

A third would be to expand fiscal aid to the states, perhaps via a tweak to Medicaid formulas — which would likely gain support from Republican governors.

“Democrats should push for anything that’s truly stimulative,” Bernstein told us, adding that the underlying principle should be: “What’s the best way to help the most economically vulnerable people?”

Still another idea might be to seize on low interests rates right now — which mean the government can borrow money essentially for free — to insist on the infrastructure investments Democrats have advocated for years.

Trump has long claimed to want infrastructure spending, but he’s tossed that aside while fully embracing Republican economics. On infrastructure, there’s a basic philosophical difference between the parties: Democrats favor spending real public money, while Republicans favor offering private companies tax incentives.

So now might be a time to prod Trump to finally make good on his promise — albeit on Democratic terms, with a bill that actually funds upgrading roads, bridges, sewer and water systems, broadband, and so on.

All this comes as Trump is in some fundamental sense just not part of the conversation about what to do about the looming economic crisis. Trump is actually talking about helping industries such as cruise ships and airlines, and even shale companies, while (naturally) claiming everything is totally under control

It’s also beyond galling that Trump is begging for congressional help after spending weeks attacking Democrats for supposedly hyping the crisis, solely to hurt him, when in fact their criticism has pushed the administration in a constructive direction, such as by insisting on a far better funded response.

Incredibly, Trump is simultaneously demanding help from Democrats while telling the country that they are the ones solely to blame (along with the news media) for erroneous public impressions of the crisis.

Many observers have also rightly pointed out that when Democrats control the White House, congressional Republicans are all too willing to withhold stimulative help, since they stand to politically benefit from economic turmoil.

And so, it might be justifiable for Democrats to play serious hardball to extract other concessions from Trump, should things really go south, such as submitting to real oversight of his administration’s coronavirus response and other governing depredations.

Indeed, one could even see Democrats simply demanding that Trump stop treating House Democrats as a fundamentally illegitimate arm of government, since he’s desperate for a bailout from them. If Trump wants the opposition’s help, it’s time to can the tinpot wannabe act and start acting like a president who understands that the opposition plays a legitimate and crucial role.

On the politics, it’s true that Trump stands to benefit politically if Democrats assist in an effective response. But, given that Democrats won’t deny that assistance, they can also use this moment to contrast their response to the crisis with, well, Trump’s lack of one.

“The way to hit Trump is not by denying fiscal stimulus, it’s by elevating the essential issue of competent governance,” Bernstein told us. “He and his team are massively vulnerable on that front.”

Indeed, if Democrats are able to make it clear that their solutions to the economic crisis prevailed over Trump’s haphazard, cynically motivated ones — and that their approach successfully protected the country — it might effectively land that blow.

 

[Dandruff]

11 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Why? What is the reasoning behind this? I really don't get it.

Only reason I can think of (and it's truly demented, so maybe) is that Trump wants COVID-19 to spread as quickly as possible, so it can end as quickly as possible, so he can dismiss it as quickly as possible.  November is only 8 months away.

[Audrey2]

4 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Only reason I can think of (and it's truly demented, so maybe) is that Trump wants COVID-19 to spread as quickly as possible, so it can end as quickly as possible, so he can dismiss it as quickly as possible.  November is only 8 months away.

II get a much more sinister vibe from this. It's no secret about Trump's dislike of immigration. I can see him getting rid of the posters that inform people how to stay safe so in his mind they're more likely to get sick and he can either ban them from the country or to improve their chances of getting Covid-19 and reduce their chances of surviving it. I look at the ways that Trump has responded to immigration and his responses have been evil in many cases.

[fraurosena]

4 hours ago, Audrey2 said:

II get a much more sinister vibe from this. It's no secret about Trump's dislike of immigration. I can see him getting rid of the posters that inform people how to stay safe so in his mind they're more likely to get sick and he can either ban them from the country or to improve their chances of getting Covid-19 and reduce their chances of surviving it. I look at the ways that Trump has responded to immigration and his responses have been evil in many cases.

If true, then I wouldn't put it past Stephen Miller to be behind this tactic. That man is evil.

[smittykins]

15 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Ehhhh?

 

Similar to what certain people said about AOC.  “She rides in cars and flies in airplanes!  Some Green New Deal!”

[GreyhoundFan]

No surprise:

 

[47of74]

Is it just me or does he look even more orange than usual?

What the fuck?  Did he spend too much time under the tanning bed after guzzling embalming fluid?

[GreyhoundFan]

I couldn't agree more:

 

[WiseGirl]

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[JMarie]

To all non-American FJers, how is your country's press covering the U. S.'s response to the Coronavirus? Favorable? Unfavorable? Sticking to your own country's woes? I ask because I assume Trump is frequently featured in foreign news, not because we're so special, but because he's such a doofus.