We’re going to need it.
Credit to this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=810449
“Let the corruption begin”
There is massive potential for self-dealing in his administration. And we know Trump is involved in numerous lawsuits.
Giuliani thinks Trump is allowed to do anything.
My contribution to the linked thread - A poster on another board claiming to insider knowledge, says this:
and
We’re in for a bumpy ride.
Maybe no “big, beautiful wall”, maybe just a fence.
Maybe no massive deportations.
BigAppleBucky summarizes Guliani’s comment as Guliani thinking “Trump can do anything.”
Guliani’s actual comment was that the ethics and conflict of interest laws do not apply to the President.
Is Guliani’s statement true?
Is BigAppleBucky’s summary précis of Guliani’s comment a fair one?
Is there a cabinet position for Nitpicker General? Got just the man.
According to what I’ve been reading, a President is exempt from “conflict of interest” laws and regs, for actions he takes as President. If he committed crimes or did things that can get him sued before he takes office, he is not shielded from that.
My theory: Melania is a mole who reports directly to Vladimir Putin.
Dude, could you stop being an asshole for a few minutes and just point out that conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS and Veep?
Your constant need to show people up is really tiresome and serves no purpose other than gratifying your own ego.
It sucks, because when you’re not being a shitty person, you’re a knowledgable and interesting guy.
I get the impression that Bricker saw the movie The Paper Chase and really, really wants to be Professor Kingsfield.
And by the way, it’s irrelevant whether ethics and conflict of interest laws apply to the President, because we hold the President to a higher standard. At least we seem to when it’s a Democrat in the White House.
I saw on CNN that Guliani may be appointed Attorney General and that he is going to go after Clinton.
What a massive f*ck up both of those will be.
Agree. And as far as the Trump administration: What a dump!
A chicken wire fence.
That exact point was made by Giuliani in the tweet that the OP quoted.
The OP took those words and characterized them as “Giuliani thinks Trump is allowed to do anything.”
I point out that there are two errors there: the bad summary, and the implicit suggestion that Giuliani is wrong about the laws.
And then you excoriate me, for my supposed need to “show people up,” and say little about the OP who authored the bad summary, and the implicit suggestion that Giuliani is wrong about the laws.
And of course, the crowd follows. Bricker is a nitpicker! Never mind the factual errors, let’s all get the guy who points out the errors!
But the SDMB is not an echo chamber. We like all sorts of different liberal views here!
A few more likely walk-backs
Obamacare repeal: Trump said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday that he would like to keep some parts of the law intact and may seek to amend the statute rather than repeal it.
**Lock her up: **“It’s not something I’ve given a lot of thought." [Seriously, you spoke about it at every speech from before the July convention, but didn’t actually think about it? Oh, right…you’re Trump.]
**The Mexican-paid wall: **“He’ll spend a lot of time controlling the border. He may not spend very much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it, but it was a great campaign device.” So sayeth Newt Gingrich, Foreign Minister in waiting.
Banning Muslims from entering the US: “Will you ask Congress to ban all Muslims from entering the country?” a reporter asked. Trump appeared to hear the question before thanking everybody and walking away.
**Protecting Medicare and Social Security: **Ryan has proposed turning Medicare into a “premium support” model, which would involve doling out federal subsidies for private insurance rather than the current single-payer model. [Basically, turning Medicare into a welfare program.]
**45 percent tariff on Chinese goods: **"What he actually said was if it turns out that the Chinese yuan is 45 percent overvalued, or as much as 45, and if they won’t negotiate with us, then it may become necessary as a negotiating measure to threaten them with as much as a 45 percent tariff.” This from Senior Policy Advisor Wilbur Ross.
Ripping up the Iran nuclear deal: “‘Ripping up’ is maybe a too strong of word. He’s gonna take that agreement, it’s been done before in international context, and then review it." Trump adviser Walid Phares.
Moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem: Only “through consensus.” Phares, again. Palestinian leaders would not support such a plan, ergo no consensus–which is the current policy, btw.
Most of that is just crazy stuff he said during the campaign and didn’t mean. Walking them back is actually sane. He promised to protect Medicare, but that one might very well be a good promise broken. That one won’t sit well.
When I created the OP about Clinton’s e-mail server, by the way, and pointed out that NARA regulations were not law, and did not apply to her term, and a host of other reasons that the entire e-mail mess was a manufactured outrage… shockingly, not one liberal here objected to those observations as “nitpicking.”
To the contrary, those observations seemed very welcome.
Why was that?
For what it’s worth more generally…
…Trump was a nightmare as a candidate, offering up a raft of what I regarded as crazy and sometimes self-contradictory promises.
Now that he’s the Pesident-Elect, he’s backpedaling faster than Ryan Lochte in Brazil.
I regard THAT as generally a good thing.
Trump promised to build a wall, and if, in his first week, his administration releases an RFP for bids for construction companies to provide 1,989 miles of wall, I regard that as a worse outcome than if he says, “Well, we are looking at some sort of barrier, even if it’s more of a social barrier created by education and increased patrolling.”
In other words, in my view, in most cases, I believe Trump tap-dancing back from a campaign promise will be a good thing.
The problem with the way Trump ran though, is that he can either be a total fool as President and fulfill his promises or he can be a good President and breed more cynicism in this country.
I’m sure it’s been pointed out earlier, but what annoys people is not that you’re pointing out errors, but your manner in doing so.
Bricker summarize’s Snowboarder Bo’s comments as, “Bricker is a nitpicker.”
Snowboarder Bo’s actual comment was that Bricker could correct the OP without being an asshole about it.
Is Snowboarder Bo’s post true?
Is Bricker’s summary of the post a fair one?
That’s not my summary. As I clearly said:
(emphasis added)
I neither said not implied that Snowboarder Bo called me a nitpicker. I said that he excoriated me, for my supposed need to “show people up.”
That’s what he said, and is thus a fair summary of what he said.
But somehow that exact manner, when it was applied to defending Clinton in the e-mail thread, or applied to Ted Kennedy in the “Kennedy is a murderer,” thread, didn’t seem to rankle at all?
I say this to suggest it’s not the manner. It’s the manner combined with the fact that I’m defending a position the board population favors. The board population is not hostile to the manner at all when it helps the rhetorical position the board population wishes to advance.