Trump vs. Freedom Caucus: President takes names, starting with Amash

[mystery-ak]

Trump vs. Freedom Caucus: President takes names, starting with Amash
Joseph Weber

By Joseph Weber Published April 01, 2017 FoxNews.com

The list of House Freedom Caucus members being targeted by President Trump for sinking Republicans’ ObamaCare overhaul plan grew Saturday when the White House singled out Michigan GOP Rep. Justin Amash for a primary defeat.

“Donald Trump is bringing auto plants & jobs back to Michigan,” tweeted White House social media Director Dan Scavino Jr. “@justinamash is a big liability. #TrumpTrain, defeat him in primary.”

Most of the ultra-conservative caucus’ roughly 35 members withheld their support for the Republican House leadership’s overhaul plan, which kept it from even getting a final vote in the GOP-led chamber, despite Trump’s rigorous dealmaking efforts.

more
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/01/trump-vs-freedom-caucus-president-takes-names-starting-with-amash.html

[Applewood]

Is there anything illegal about a sitting president or members of his administration attempting to persuade voters to vote against a politician the president doesn't like?  Seems to me this sort of stuff smacks of interference in an election.  Iif it isn't illegal, it's surely unethical. 

I don't like this president turning his office into a mob operation.  Trump's first name may be Donald, but he isn't The Don.

[Mesaclone]

I hope you are joking. Why would it be illegal or unethical for someone....anyone....to attempt to persuade voters about...anything? That IS democracy at work. I am not addressing the political wisdom of the issue...good arguments could be made either way. But why in the heck would you think "persuading" voters is problematic in our free Republic?

[r9etb]

I hope you are joking. Why would it be illegal or unethical for someone....anyone....to attempt to persuade voters about...anything? That IS democracy at work. I am not addressing the political wisdom of the issue...good arguments could be made either way. But why in the heck would you think "persuading" voters is problematic in our free Republic?

This isn't "persuasion," it's an attack, and it's important to make that distinction.

Is it Illegal? No.  Is it unethical ... yeah, for a president allegedly of the same party, it's unethical.  Vindictive?  Damned straight.  Silly?  Definitely.

And is it politically suicidal?  Yes, for two reasons.  First, it shows that the GOP cannot count on Trump's support, and that goes both ways.  Second, it's ridiculously stupid to split off a group that represents the difference between majority and minority for the GOP.

[Cripplecreek]

Is there anything illegal about a sitting president or members of his administration attempting to persuade voters to vote against a politician the president doesn't like?  Seems to me this sort of stuff smacks of interference in an election.  Iif it isn't illegal, it's surely unethical. 

I don't like this president turning his office into a mob operation.  Trump's first name may he Donald, but he isn't The Don.

Nothing illegal about it but there is also nothing smart about it.

The fact is that all the threats to primary non trump congressmen in the last election fell flat. In fact most GOP congressmen won their seats by much wider margins than Trump won the presidency. I don't think Amash is going to be losing any sleep over what Trump thinks.

[Chosen Daughter]

Nothing illegal about it but there is also nothing smart about it.

The fact is that all the threats to primary non trump congressmen in the last election fell flat. In fact most GOP congressmen won their seats by much wider margins than Trump won the presidency. I don't think Amash is going to be losing any sleep over what Trump thinks.

Doesn't look like it.  Amash looks like he is very popular.

[anubias]

Trump can't seem to stop shooting himself in the foot.  Isn't there anybody with half a brain with some cojones in the Whitehouse that can get through to him?  Doesn't appear to be. 

[jpsb]

From what I gather there are a lot of NeverTrumpers in the HFC, NeverTrumpers will never work with President Trump to Make America Great Again so Trump wants them gone. Makes prefect sense to me.

[Applewood]

From what I gather there are a lot of NeverTrumpers in the HFC, NeverTrumpers will never work with President Trump to Make America Great Again so Trump wants them gone. Makes prefect sense to me.

What you're gathering is horse manure.

[geronl]

Trump vs conservatives

[geronl]

From what I gather there are a lot of NeverTrumpers in the HFC, NeverTrumpers will never work with President Trump to Make America Great Again so Trump wants them gone. Makes prefect sense to me.

Most of them endorsed and supported Trump, some of them pretty early on.

[ConservativeGranny]

It may be illegal according the the Hatch Act. If not it certainly is unethical for the POTUS or member of his administration to do this. I believe it is an abuse of power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dan-scavino-justin-amash-liability-trump-freedom-caucus-236780

Congress is not there to do the president's bidding. They are there to do the bidding of the people of the US. Trump is not running his own little kingdom there in DC. Threatening and intimidating those who disagree with him will not win him support for his policies.

As I've said once before, running a government is not the same as running a business. The Congress doesn't work for the POTUS. They are employed by the people and are answerable to them not to Trump.

It's funny but before the election one of the criticisms that was oft repeated about Cruz was that he wasn't well liked and couldn't get along with anyone. I have never heard Cruz insult, intimidate or threaten those he didn't agree with but rather try to persuade others to his point of view.

[anubias]

From what I gather there are a lot of NeverTrumpers in the HFC, NeverTrumpers will never work with President Trump to Make America Great Again so Trump wants them gone. Makes prefect sense to me.

Complete BS.

[geronl]

@jpsb

HFC supported more of the Presidents proposals than any other group on Capitol Hill

[anubias]

It may be illegal according the the Hatch Act. If not it certainly is unethical for the POTUS or member of his administration to do this. I believe it is an abuse of power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dan-scavino-justin-amash-liability-trump-freedom-caucus-236780

Congress is not there to do the president's bidding. They are there to do the bidding of the people of the US. Trump is not running his own little kingdom there in DC. Threatening and intimidating those who disagree with him will not win him support for his policies.

As I've said once before, running a government is not the same as running a business. The Congress doesn't work for the POTUS. They are employed by the people and are answerable to them not to Trump.

It's funny but before the election one of the criticisms that was oft repeated about Cruz was that he wasn't well liked and couldn't get along with anyone. I have never heard Cruz insult, intimidate or threaten those he didn't agree with but rather try to persuade others to his point of view.

I've heard him insult a few, but nothing like Trump.  He seems to think he can scare them into doing his bidding with the bully pulpit.  Unfortunately, he's attempting to scare the wrong group.  The HFC knows they have the support of their constituents.  They're simply laughing at him as are the rest of us (Or cringing as the case may be.)

[musiclady]

Sigh......................... two Presidents in a row who think of ME as an enemy.   

[roamer_1]

Nothing illegal about it but there is also nothing smart about it.

The fact is that all the threats to primary non trump congressmen in the last election fell flat. In fact most GOP congressmen won their seats by much wider margins than Trump won the presidency. I don't think Amash is going to be losing any sleep over what Trump thinks.

Seems to me, if Amash's ditrict is anything like the other Conservative districts, this will fall on deaf ears. The quickest way for this Amash feller to lose is to sacrifice principle. He probably knows that.

[corbe]

It may be illegal according the the Hatch Act. If not it certainly is unethical for the POTUS or member of his administration to do this. I believe it is an abuse of power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dan-scavino-justin-amash-liability-trump-freedom-caucus-236780

Congress is not there to do the president's bidding. They are there to do the bidding of the people of the US. Trump is not running his own little kingdom there in DC. Threatening and intimidating those who disagree with him will not win him support for his policies.

As I've said once before, running a government is not the same as running a business. The Congress doesn't work for the POTUS. They are employed by the people and are answerable to them not to Trump.

It's funny but before the election one of the criticisms that was oft repeated about Cruz was that he wasn't well liked and couldn't get along with anyone. I have never heard Cruz insult, intimidate or threaten those he didn't agree with but rather try to persuade others to his point of view.

   Spot ON! @ConservativeGranny  other than calling McConnell a LIAR in the well of the Senate and Trump a "Sniveling Coward" for insulting his Wife, he's been pretty laid back, I agree.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This isn't "persuasion," it's an attack, and it's important to make that distinction. Is it Illegal? No.  Is it unethical ... yeah, for a president allegedly of the same party, it's unethical. 

Any group on the Hill standing to stop any POTUS' agenda should be smart enough to know the POTUS is going to fight back and move them politically out of the way.  It is the law of politics.

BTW ... do  we really need another thread on this topic?  Seriously?   

[bilo]

Seems to me, if Amash's ditrict is anything like the other Conservative districts, this will fall on deaf ears. The quickest way for this Amash feller to lose is to sacrifice principle. He probably knows that.

What's so frustrating about Pres. Trump and his people attacking the HFC members is they both claim to represent the same people. It's clear that Pres. Trump has moved away from representing the "forgotten man" and begun to embrace the DC careerists. It is the HFC members who were elected to stop DC from governing against the will of the people (obamacare). The HFC held true to their mandate of repealing obamacare. It's Pres. Trump and the DC careerists who reneged on their promise.

[Cripplecreek]

It may be illegal according the the Hatch Act. If not it certainly is unethical for the POTUS or member of his administration to do this. I believe it is an abuse of power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dan-scavino-justin-amash-liability-trump-freedom-caucus-236780

Congress is not there to do the president's bidding. They are there to do the bidding of the people of the US. Trump is not running his own little kingdom there in DC. Threatening and intimidating those who disagree with him will not win him support for his policies.

As I've said once before, running a government is not the same as running a business. The Congress doesn't work for the POTUS. They are employed by the people and are answerable to them not to Trump.

It's funny but before the election one of the criticisms that was oft repeated about Cruz was that he wasn't well liked and couldn't get along with anyone. I have never heard Cruz insult, intimidate or threaten those he didn't agree with but rather try to persuade others to his point of view.

I've never been a fan of the canard that government is like a business. There are too many fundamental differences for them to be at all alike. Business provides services and goods with the intent of earning a profit and government should never seek to earn a profit or provide much in the way of goods or services. Also people pay businesses by choice, that's not so with government. I've never seen a business where people in individual departments elected foremen to represent them further up the line. In business, foremen and middle management personnel are chosen from above and follow orders from above.

Agreed about Ted Cruz being able to tame the savage beast. I've never seen a politician so willing to engage an opponent and talk them down from a ledge. Medea Benjamin from code pink was left speechless when Ted Cruz invited her to come up ans speak to him face to face. She ended up calling him a patriot and told people that Ted Cruz had shown more respect for her than democrats have. It was the same with the farmer angry that Ted Cruz said he would end ethanol subsidies. The only ones Cruz couldn't talk down were irrational fools who supported another candidate and were screaming about him being "Ineligible" to be president or how he was "Owned by Goldman Sachs".

[Applewood]

It may be illegal according the the Hatch Act. If not it certainly is unethical for the POTUS or member of his administration to do this. I believe it is an abuse of power.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/dan-scavino-justin-amash-liability-trump-freedom-caucus-236780

Congress is not there to do the president's bidding. They are there to do the bidding of the people of the US. Trump is not running his own little kingdom there in DC. Threatening and intimidating those who disagree with him will not win him support for his policies.

As I've said once before, running a government is not the same as running a business. The Congress doesn't work for the POTUS. They are employed by the people and are answerable to them not to Trump.

It's funny but before the election one of the criticisms that was oft repeated about Cruz was that he wasn't well liked and couldn't get along with anyone. I have never heard Cruz insult, intimidate or threaten those he didn't agree with but rather try to persuade others to his point of view.

I keep hearing Trump being compared to President Reagan.  But I don't recall President Reagan adopting such a hostile posture toward those who disagreed with him.   When President Reagan wanted to get things done, he applied the soft sell first -- a White House reception, a round of golf -- and by the time he got done charming even his adversaries, much of the time they would agree to go along with them.  If the soft sell didn't work, then he might try to use force.  But unlike Trump, if he was rebuffed, President Reagan didn't throw a 2-year-old's temper tantrum and make threats.  President Reagan was far more professional.

[corbe]

   @Cripplecreek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCZwhIgCtD0

[Right_in_Virginia]

Sigh......................... two Presidents in a row who think of ME as an enemy.   

Well, someone sure has a high opinion of herself. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

Things on the health care front are moving along nicely... the President and Rand Paul are out at the Trump Int'l Resort in Virginia today and this subject is on the agenda.